Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

Okay, I'm opening this up for some brainstorming. If you had a crack at Dark Age Warrior in terms of list rules, what would you propose?

I'll read and consider everything tossed out although I most likely won't respond to each and every post.

If you do a search in here on Vikings, you'll see that some ideas have already been put forth. And yes, some of those ideas are under consideration or are being further developed.

If you have a list tweak or two, I'll consider that but keep in mind that unless there's some good historical backing for it, it won't pass the smell test so please, no SHK Normans in 1066 AD.

Thanks,

scott

[AntiokosIII]

Scott- Since you invite brainstorming, I have never been happy with the way the Anglo-Danish shieldwall works. The troops work best in Warrior if permitted an impetuous charge (which they rarely get to do). In history, this was not a winning tactic for them and often resulted in disaster when attempted.

I suggest that Anglo-Danish Fyrd and Huscarls troops be permitted a "shieldwall" formation. Once in shieldwall, the troops would count as LTS and fight two full ranks. They would not be permitted to charge or countercharge or follow up. If HTH opponents broke or broke off the unit could avoid pursuing by passing a waver test. Failing the waver would require the unit to pursue disordered.

This rule would allow behavior to match performance at Stamford Bridge and Hastings. I'm not sure it would make the army more competitive, but it would allow them to act more historically, I think.

[scott holder]

Ah, a shield wall idea. This is something we tossed around waaay back when.

I agree with your points. Currently we have something similar to this in the Roman fulcum. With modifications, it might have application in this period and in more than one army.

The biggest issue, iirc, is the fact that in many instances, some of these troops are given a close/loose order option. Now, modifying the basic concepts of fulcum and applying them here to close order troops is definitely worth pursuing. However, giving loose order troops that option isn't something I'd be inclined to do. We looked at this specifically with the Vikings and our attitude was close order Vikings better represented a field army whereas the loose order types would be more of a large scale raiding force.

Thus, as we look at this, it'll probably be confined to close order troops only.

Thanks,

scott

[Frank Gilson]

Confining a shield wall idea to close order troops is absolutely correct...

And such an idea for them is really needed. The large blobs of close order javelin armed 'fyrd', etc., currently serve little productive purpose on the field in Warrior, even in historical matchups.

If I adapt the fulcum rules for shield wall I get something like:
SHIELD WALL: X, Y, Z troop on lists m,n, etc., can adopt a new formation called "shield wall". It is a formation for close order foot designed to resist enemy attack. Details of this formation are:
1) Shield Wall has the same characteristics as block and must be marked or made obvious to the opponent in some way. Shield Wall must be entered using a maneuver (Warrior Change of Formation, 6.12). Shield Wall must be left using a maneuver except in the following circumstances:
- When a unit breaks.
- When a unit rallies.
When any of these circumstances occurs, the unit involuntarily leaves shield wall and reverts to a block of the same dimensions as it was when in shield wall and then breaks or rallies depending on the circumstances. A unit can change its frontage by up to two (2) elements when entering but not leaving shield wall. Units in shield wall do not otherwise move unless they first leave the formation by making a maneuver, or if they break or rally.
2) Troops in shield wall inflict a Hand-To-Hand tactical factor (9.42) of Deduct 1 on enemy they are in contact with.

Note that they don't lose shield wall upon recoiling, they can't follow up or pursue or charge or counter charge, and while retaining shield wall always in all combat rounds inflict the Deduct 1.

As far as Norman style HC L,Sh, what about giving them two of the Macedonian Companion rules (but not the other two)?
a) Rallied at the end of the Approach Phase, even if unsteady, as an exception to Warrior 5.44;
b) May breakthrough if they inflict more H-T-H casualties and at least 1 CPF without their opponents breaking

It's also possible to, if Normans had good control over their impetuous charges, to allow:
c) May perform a recall when charging without contact even if impetuous, as an exceptino to Warrior 6.36

I could also see these sorts of rules being extended to some foot troops (Viking Huscarls as an example.)

Frank

[scott holder]

Thanks Frank. The adaption of the Companion rules for the Normans is already under consideration.

scott

[Todd Kaeser]

How about a list rule for Vikings that lets them use a boat flank march on a MWF much like the mongols use their flank march?

Todd K

Or/And they do not have to pay for boats or only 1/2 point per figure. Reward the little pillagers for what they did best.

[Tibor]

THe idea of list rules for Normans is interesting and warranted however, I am a bit wary of the Companion rules such as recovering disorder at the end of the bound. This reflected the tiny unit organisations (256 men) which were fully independent and commanded by an officer at each point which gave great manouvrability.

Normans seem to reflect great motivation but I do not see in the sources the great manouvrability and reorganisation ability of the Companions. Rather, they seem like they might warrant being impetuous even when tired.

There seems a weak case for the reorganisation ability but impertuoosity , while also tried or disordered, might be more intriguing.

Anyway - I put this up for comment!

Regards

Tibor

[Mark Stone]

Viking berserkers should retain the +2 for impetuous as long as they:
(a) charged impetuously originally, and
(b) in each subsequent bound have been either charging, pursuing, or following up.

Just a thought.


-Mark Stone

[scott holder]

Great posts! Tibor, "questioning" posts are also great and serve as a great devil's advocate for all or portions of some of the ideas presented. So if you see something and think "gee, that doesn't strike me as appropriate", please post something to that effect.

scott

[Bill Chriss]

I don't play any of these armies, but from a historical perspective, I find the discussion stimulating. I think appropriate list rules complexify the game and make it more fun, while also making more armies available for open or theme tournament play.

[Terry Dix]

[Ian Poade]

Hello Scott.

A couple of things Dark Age related come to mind.

Firstly Byzantine Scutatoi/Kontaratoi. Admittedly the Byzantine lists are probably some of the better Dark Age/Holy Warrior lists available, so are in less need of help.

While I appreciate that the quality/training of these troops would have varied greatly over the 1000 year period, at least the better ones would have been a lot more professional than most of their hoplite ancestors. Also their primary weapon was, from descriptions, substantially longer than the average hoplite spear (12 foot v about 8 foot).

I also recall reading accounts that suggest that whilst they used the spear in that roll against cavalry, against foot they on at least some occasions hurled their spears into the enemy ranks like an improvised HTW and followed up with hand weapons. (Mind you, that would be a pretty good trick with a 12-foot lump of timber!)
Irrespective of the efficacy of the spears as an HTW, this seems to indicate a preference for the use of side arms in an infantry melee.

Admittedly my reading is from secondary sources and I am quite prepared to be proven wrong.

My suggested list rule for at least some Scutatoi/Kontaratoi would be:

1. Steady Scutatoi/Kontaratoi using LTS count two full ranks in hand to hand combat at all times.

And / or

2. Against enemy foot Scutatoi/Kontaratoi may elect to use LTS as HTW (cannot revert to LTS during current combat).

Whether they should then be allowed 1HCW like legionaries to represent the hand axes many carried is probably being a bit generous though!

The other issue is JLS armed loose order cavalry.

I know this is an issue that has been brought up before.
Whilst it affects many armies, compulsory JLS armed HC/MC are a feature of many Dark Age armies.
I think everyone would agree that they are definitely at a disadvantage compared to lance armed troops (let alone Lance/Bow combination).
I don’t have an easy fix, except to suggest allowing all JLS armed loose order cavalry to fight rank and half may go some way to redressing the balance.
Perhaps allow them the option to evade (and/or respond to prep shooting) like light troops? Perhaps have them count as say 2 scouting points each? This then gives them a more effective role as somewhere between the skirmishing light cavalry and shock effect focussed lancers. Especially valid as in some armies they are the majority cavalry type and must fill many roles (E.g. Merovingians, Bretons, Slavs).
Alternatively give them some sort of points discount, or allow X elements free when you take certain armies, though I know this is anathema to the basic ethos of the game system.
Perhaps some combination of all these things?

Just some off the cuff thoughts.

P.S. The Dark Age is perhaps my favourite era, and it would be great to see some of these armies have more of a chance in open comp.

Ian.

[Tibor]

I can see this thread easily picking many fine points with lots of opinion either way on many points. The shield wall idea I think is very engaging although what the list rule should be is still arguable.

My university specialty in historical terms was the classical and hellentistic period and I find it difficult to resist discussions on their military technique. The discussion of the skutatoi (or anyone else's!) spear for instance gave rise in my mind of the many academic researches into the operation of the phalanx. The formation was more important than the weapon length in battle and so adjudication of their efficacy based on weapon length is missing the mark. The weapon was to give extra reach but after the initial impact, the heave of the phalanx was key to the battle. The longer spear also gave them a critically useful weapon to keep out cavalry and was used with the butt end in the ground allowing enemey cavalry to impale themselves - they did not, in other words, hold the spear in the same fashion that they used against infantry - which was over their right shoulder striking downward over the enemy shield.

Even Phillip (and Alexander) with highly drilled pikemen had trouble defeating hoplite phalanxes. Chaeronea was the classic example - Phillip was holding the allied Greek hoplites well but not making a real impression until he sent Alex and the Companions into the Theban Sacred Band's flank. And this was his plan - in other words, he KNEW the phalanx was a tough match for his pikemen.

Even in Roman times, a well ordered phalanx was near impregnable from the front. It would be rough terrain and ambushes and weak morale and poor generalling that lost them battles.

The press of the phalanx was again the real danger to an enemy - even the pike phalanx reprised this key tactic. The hoplite phalanx (or anyother phalanx as well) was famous in battle for the lack of casualties (when it won!) but the opponent lost many times more as the successful phalanx rolled over the top of a defeated enemy - not killed by weaponry so much as trampled to death.

After all that, my point is that many 'organised' armies (and that means some irregular ones eg Saxons) had developed the tactic of the press of troops which would resist much better regardless of what exact weapon they used.

So .. what is my post about?

If I could offer a simplistic effect of a shield wall list rule it would be to NOT recoil, resist shooting ala Greek infantry rules, could not be broken through. But it could not follow up a recoiling/routing enemy nor move while in shield wall - although it could exchange ranks if required.

This simulates Harold's Saxons moving to Senlac Hill yet being ready to take a mounted charge without trouble. Their charging after repulsing the Norman charges is a separate issue - they were breaking out of the shield wall and incurred the risk and they suffered for it.

How exactly wuld it fight?

Am not sure about that but the advantages of not recoiling nor being broken through might be a start. Perhaps, as many such troops might be Jls armed, they could resist disorder from combat unless they received 3 CPF from combat alone? Shield walls seemed to be ordered until they collapsed entirely so you would need to ROUT them in a round from sheer combat not attrition per se - no slow grinding.

Then it would be important for an enemy to carefully consider whether to fight them at all - as against being frightened of increased combat effects such as special weapon factors etc.

Again, for whatever it's worth

Tibor

[Mark Stone]

[scott holder]

This is all great stuff. Keep it coming.

Tibor nails it when he indicates we're not so much interested in weapons but in the interaction of *systems*. Read the list stickies!

My research on shield wall is that it did move albeit slowly, thus, should we move forward with that, it'll be factored into any final list rule we concoct. A question is how widespread should its use be. Sure, we can point to Fyrd troops (and their relatives) in what we typically see as "dark age trash" lists as getting this. But what about others? I know of one other rule system that uses shield wall as a formation and allows it's use in practically every army list contained in DAW, HW and FW. I'm not so sure about that but again, haven't looked at it that hard in terms of widespread applicability.

I'm all over the map on the Normans. Yeah, "easier" breakthru capability seems obvious as does the ability to "recall back". Rallying faster ie Companions, seems much less likely given my redelving into them over the last couple of weeks. We'll see.

Scutatoi with some temp HTW? Highly unlikely. However, we will take a close look at them in other areas ala hoplites. Again, dunno at this stage but the suggestions definitely give us something to think about.

scott