Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Rickster61]

Scott,

Have you considered something like the following:

In a block of "barbarian" foot, the first two ranks of troops are costed at normal, but the third & forth ranks are half normal cost. A restriction to this formation would be that the unit has to stay in the deep formation that you paid for the troops.

This would allow the Saxon (to continue the Norman v Saxon example), to field a larger army to stand off those nasty mounted guys. The restriction would be in force to make sure you didn't buy a deep block at "discount prices" and then bring them out wide to make a "larger" unit.

Rick

[MarkBall]

[scott holder]

Does anybody else have any suggestions that actually pertain to the specific issue at hand and not the meta issues of list rules and game dynamic?

That's what this thread is about. Frank sums it up better than I did.

And yes, obviously when we've looked at Hastings, one of the things we look at are the "up roll" possibilities and how impacts not only on our perception of the battle but our analysis on how Warrior should model the battle.

Rick: I honestly don't know about this. My knee jerk reaction is that it goes off in a very different direction whose impact would be very hard to judge. As an idea, it sorta orbits into why creating a viable, new, point system for this game is so friggin hard. I've still got hand written notes on this from the last time I sat down to attempt this. The "easy" part is assigning a partial point value to any given figure. The hard part is assigning a point value for the "fighting value" of said figure which is impacted not only by weapon type but location in the formation.

scott

[scott holder]

[Todd Kaeser]

Scott,

Would the shieldwall be prohibited in woods? What about other terrain?

It appears that this formation would have been impossible in certain rough terrains - do you see any restrictions on using the formation?

Todd K

[scott holder]

Couldn't be formed in Difficult or Impassible (6.71).

[Siward]

[wargame692000]

[Siward]

[wargame692000]

[Mark Stone]

[wargame692000]

[Rich Pichnarczyk]

Scott,
To add to shieldwall suggestions, since most if not all of these formations are irregular they take 2X fatigue pts from hand to hand fighting. Reducing combat fatigue to 1X fatigue pts (like regulars) would add to their offensive strength by not being tired (in the later combat rounds) and naturally add to their overall staying power.

Being in a "formation", shieldwall, is somewhat akin to fighting in a more organized way simulating to a certain extent regulars in combat.

I have found that in the Saxon-Viking matchups I do, the infantry blocks are nearly always tired after the first round of combat (especially with "barbarian" rules added).

I also believe that reducing missile damage to units in shieldwall makes sense. This is much less relevant in any game sense since any damage is minimal because these units are generally very large.

[Rich Pichnarczyk]

Scott,
Another thought regarding shieldwall is temporarily attaching adjacent units in a continuous battle line while in shieldwall to form larger units for combat and CPF purposes.

This would also mitigate (to a certain extent) the "gamey-IMO" tactic of one element wide units attacking the "end" element of a large unit in the middle of a battleline. Adjacent units would be able to participate in more than support shooting on later bounds.

[Mark Stone]