Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

scott holder · Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: SHIELDWALL AND DISORDER

I've spent a lot of time going over the idea of shieldwall being some type of "anti-disorder" formation and have come to the conclusion that it was not. Lemme walk you thru my thought process.

In Warrior as published, there is no formation that does this. The formations that orbit around shieldwall in terms of how we're looking at it are testudo, orb, fulcum. In addition to these formations, and actually closer to shieldwall in terms of description we have the hoplite phalanx and pike phalanx.

If in testudo or orb, you recoil. No mention of any anti-disorder feature. Same when looking at fulcum (which is heavily derived from testudo and orb). If somebody "shocks" your formation enough, it disorders using criteria established as the "norm" for most unit disorder.

The pike phalanx, arguably the most dense and massive formation in the game, also has no anti-disorder feature. Instead, it has a "harder to recoil" feature as shown in it's post-combat movement in the first bound of HTH.

The hoplite phalanx, because of its general less depth than the pike phalanx, doesn't get that "d/o first, then recoil" option. Thus, it's more related to testudo, orb and fulcum in that regard.

And shieldwall is much more akin to the hoplite phalanx than anything else I've found. The primary descriptions and secondary sourcing descriptions are eerily similar to hoplites in terms of how the lines were dressed, the slow plod toward contact, the re-dressing of the lines as the unit moved forward, the psychology of having that shield protect your "open" right side, etc. There's one description of a Viking shieldwall in 1161 that states if was five ranks deep. Okay, not hoplite phalanx depth but possibly close enough for what we're talking about. And certainly not pike phalanx depth. No one doubts the density of the formation but "dense formations" have not in Warrior provided an "anti-disorder" capability.

In fact, the only time we've given anybody some type of anti-disorder antidote has been manipular or cohortal Romans and one argument there is the looser nature of the unit formation provided the resiliency needed to absorb some shock and not lose unit cohesion in the near term. Clearly we had good reasons for doing that in those few lists that use that tactical system.

No matter how enticing it might be from a game mechanic standpoint, I just can't see any way that shieldwall helps prevent disorder.

Now, you can certainly debate the fine points of how it should be treated in post-HTH in terms of pike phalanx (stand and d/o) or hoplite phalanx (recoil, which is no different than testudo, orb or fulcum) and apply standard causes of d/o to the unit.

Does shieldwall provide a certain protective robustness vs shooting? Yeah. Does it also provide some advantages in HTH? Yeah. Was it a slow formation that moved to contact but did not contact with the "oomph" that reaches Warrior's definition of impetuous? Yeah.

How we go about modeling that is still very uncertain. I bring all this up not to simply dismiss and idea out of hand (the anti-d/o suggestion) but to acknowledge that we're looking at these suggestions very carefully and trying to work thru the ramifications of each one and balance that with the historical record, such that it is in this case.

Again, we're finding the ideas put forth and the discussion *very* useful. And if it looks like I've ignored some of the specific suggestions, I haven't. They just don't need the level of back and forth like this idea.

scott

Tibor · Recruit Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 10

Marshall’s work seems at best only slightly related to Warrior – 20th cent firing rates have little bearing on hand to hand combat and firing bows and arrows with 12 or 20 arrows in your quiver.

http://warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallproblem.htm

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03autumn/chambers.pdf

The above links establish even Marshall’s method’ is at best unscientific and even anecdotal.

Tibor

scott holder · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject:

I'm aware of the criticisms of Marshall's work.

Please don't turn this thread into an exercise in source debate. I'll delete those posts.

scott

Todd Kaeser · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject:

Scott,

How is the "new" shieldwall ideas holding up to the charge by lancers like the Norman?

Todd K

scott holder · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject:

Um, plug and chug some numbers.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way shieldwall works in a cav sense is if there's a -2 penalty.

Again, do some number crunching exercises. There are numerous variables involved in this and how we handle some of those could impact on this.

scott

Martin Williams · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: shield wall

if a shield wall gives a -2 and has a front rank armed with 2hcw it should see off normans (HC) bya fine margin (normans 20 vs foot 21). A jls armed shield wall is still in trouble. Againts heavier cav (particularly shk) the shield wall will lose, but at least there would have to be a couple of units of knights to get a cpf and force the shield wall back (or disoredr it at the halt as the case may be). This is changed slightly if the shield wall has a second rank of archers.

Another question that comes to mind is should the minus for fighting shield wall apply to all foot? What about HTW that is often exempted from these penalties?

Martin

Mark Stone · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:31 am Post subject: Re: shield wall

scott holder · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject:

I have run all of the above, HTW, JLS vs Normans, Hastings analysis, etc.

No firm conclusions as yet but we're getting there.

scott

MarkBall · Recruit Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 2

I am often amused about "Historical" matchups when people talk about actual battle and comparing the history to Warrior. I think sometimes people need to remember that we do throw dice in this game.

Does anyone know what dice the saxons throw at Hastings, was it evens +1 +2 +3 or the very rare +4?

Let the arms race continue.........

scott holder · Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject:

Thank you for that helpful first comment.

Please do not hijack this thread with grousing about how you don't like the way FHE's treating Warrior.

scott

Todd Kaeser · Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:22 pm Post subject:

Siward · Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject:

wargame692000 · Recruit Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 34

Frank Gilson · Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: posts, messaging

Messaging is very difficult in print, especially online when the nature of our posts is often casual, and they are quickly made.

'Emotional' content is hard to convey or interpret.

Mark makes a comment 'let the arms race continue' as if to say that he is pouring derision over the issue of list rules. That's what Scott would be reacting strongly to.

NO basic set of rules can account for a wide set of simulations. Warrior definitely does require list rules. The only debatable point is really the point system, which the Four Horsemen have said they would entertain replacements for, yet which none of us properly have the time for.

As Scott and Jon have had to deal with a whole set of 'antagonistic' online postings, their responses are most often justified.

The above post in question has no content of value for this discussion, that is clear.