Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

[quote="Tim Grimmett"]Scott--

I know nothing about the history surrounding this topic.

But if you want to somehow balance the cost of LMI/LHI going into this formations and getting the benefits you've outlined, you may want to require the formation to be 3 ranks deep. The formation is then roughly commiting 9 figures into this enterprise, which is the same as 2 ranks of close formation foot.

Tim[/quote]

well, I still do not really buy into that... with the barbarian rules (or even not - I seem to recall a game against you where you ran 10E units 5 deep even before the barbarian rules existed yet) the irreg units are likely to be that deep anyhow and this rule seems to be giving them a quick square reaction as a counter that I do not think is 'realistic', especially for loose order.

but... said my 2c worth, will really live with whatever anyhow

[John Murphy]

[quote="scott holder"]Thanks for the explanation. That helps. And I'm looking forward to whatever else you want to impart. :wink:

scott[/quote]

ouch, not sure when/how I got to be one of the :wink: crowd

well, here is what I think worth every cent you paid for it and likely no more

more finger-pointing than suggestions... as one not renowned for over the board tactical brilliance I am not sure I could really say what the best way is to address these (for that matter, I admit to possibly being incorrect in my assesment of the relative merit of in-period armies)

1. Early Byzantine (Belisarius and Narses) _should_ be a very very good army based on historical record.
I actually think it is in-period already with the Huns and special dismounts, which is actually a historical strength anyhow. probably to be improved by whatever is done with Byz cavalry tactics.

so, looking at it I withdraw the concern I had over that one, might even be a good army to play in a tourney.

Have you considered a Byz list rule re ambushes or something?

2. Two armies I consider as weak relative to their historical battlefield power in-book:
a) Carolingian
b) Norman (good, just should be even better in-period in my opinion)

both these, in my opinion, are already hurt by enemies using barbarian foot rules and now are going to be very much hurt by shieldwall rules used by in-period opposition, in many cases opposition which they historically had a very significant success against.

witholding judgement on Arab Conquest - too complicated for me and admitedly not sure wether the record really merits being a good _battlefield_ army relative to some others

Thematic Byzantines are an army I would personally _like_ to see a lot done with but okay I admit the record is not impressive before the middle years of the list (but actually very good after that relative to what is reflected in the list... _in my opinion_)

I think right now the best lists in-book are perhaps the Vikings etc (Russ, Norse-Irish, Anglo-Danish), largely because I think they have the best foot troops in-period, which seem to be the very ones folks are trying to strngthen and I think the shieldwall and barbarian rules in combination are only going to increase this. And it is my belief one could argue with making them that powerful in-period _on the battlefield_ relative to some others.

[scott holder]

There will be some Norman list rules as was discussed in the original thread. How those play out remains to be seen but easier breakthru and an ability to recall in more circumstances are the leading contenders.

Ah, Byzantines. Thematic will be getting a big boost with a list rule that will also have wider applications outside of DAW.

Again John, I do appreciate the input and candid comments.

scott

[John Murphy]

I don't want to make everyone sick of reading my posts so this is the last note I will make on this subject

I learned this the hard way but when crunching numbers people routinely fail to realize the full potential of deep cheap foot formations against teeny mounted formations, even under the plain vanilla rules

the following is all something anyone can do, no mystery revealed here...

Norman/whomever IrrB HC L,Sh are 27 pts
Viking/whomever a very unspectactular IrrC LMI 2HCW,Sh with rear ranks JLS,Sh are 9 pts... Irr C LMI JLS,Sh being everyone's least fav troop type

so say you have a 2E Norman 1E wide impetuously charge a 6E Viking 3 ranks deep in shieldwall frontally in the open on the flat

heck, ask TG or ET or one of the 'trash foot' experts... would you even run this even better as a 1E wide 6 deep column?

keeping in mind the Vikings can be in block threatening an impetuous charge then go to shieldwall in a counter

and keeping in mind this is even worse with the Vikings being MI instead of LMI (albeit slightly throwing off the points comparison)

this is on the flat in the open, otherwise put the Vikings on a hill or in the rough and I do not think it is even close

no Viking waver test (this is huge given the dreary outcome for the Normans)...

Normans are 5@+6 (+7 -1 for shieldwall)
Vikings are 3@+5 and 2@+3

Vikings take 25/15 = 1 cpf = 2 fp
Normans take 12+5/6 = 2cpf plus charge fatigue

Normans need either a second unit or a +3 roll to break the Vikings, don't see much else could make a difference for them...

second bound Normans are now tired, Vikings are now disordered (but still in shieldwall)
but so what...

say the Normans expand following up

Normans are 6@+4 (+6, don't get no-Sh, -1 tired, -1 for shieldwall)
Vikings are 6@+4 and 3@+2 (+5/+3 disordered loose)

Vikings take 18/15 = 1 cpf = 2 fp
Normans take 18+6/6 = 4 cpf

now both sides are disordered and tired, but now Vikings have turned the tables and are following up the Normans who are gonna go down if they do not bail out
in fact... Normans are probably breaking off after taking that shelacking

probably both sides are rallying while scrambling for another (counter-)punch at this point, but keep in mind this was with even-points units

not expanding is not going to help the Normans do any damage here either

I dunno Vikings might even do better with the barbarian foot rules instead of shieldwall... might even break the Normans if they get an impetuous charge off

one can conclude that adopting mounted combat when they settled in Normandy was the worse thing that happened to the Normans! <g>

you could almost get the same thing if you used all everyone's favorite JLS foot instead of a rank of 2HCW, couldn't you?
my point here is cheap foot just does not need much help in the rules in my opinion even in this period, especially compared to shock mounted with typical period matchups of arms and armor on both sides

[Todd Kaeser]

John Murphy writes:

[John Murphy]

well if it uses two shock cav units to break a 6E unit half the points value, and the shock cav are basically blowing their only impetuous charge...

and put on a hill or not in the open I dunno if even that will break them

furthermore, Todd, if you are going to add the expense of a second cav unit then add a 4th or even 5th rank of cheap LMI then - DONT LAUGH I HAVE BEEN FACED WITH EXACTLY THIS BEFORE (alternatively just take two foot units in 1E wide column to face the two cav units)

I think my statement about cheap foot still stands up

but even so if you think dark age foot should/could stand up to twice their point value of shock cav in the flat and open even in shieldwall then I guess you see things at least slightly differently than I do

and despite all that the real crime to for me is that shieldwall and impetuous charging barbarian rules can be adopted switching back and forth as a counter

but I don't really want to go down this road any further, said my piece and wiser folks than I are going to do whatever they do and I will just live with it, and heck, still enjoy playing it

[John Murphy]

[quote="Todd Kaeser"]Plus the second round of combat w/ the Normans pushing the Vikings back in your example, the Vikings would get pushed out of shieldwall and therefore wouldn't give the minus 1 to the Normans again pushing back the Vikings and causing a waiver test. [/quote]

I do not believe the rule as currently stated says you exit shieldwall when pushed back, only a couple of circumstances and I did not think that was one of them

and I do not envision that it would make sense in broader terms actually for shieldwall to be dropped on a pushback would it?

[Siward]

[Mark Stone]

Bodies containing some Irregular A troops should probably be exempt from forming shieldwall. Otherwise shieldwall becomes something of a gimmick to limit situations in which Irr As charge unprompted when you don't want them to.

I know we don't put this restriction on orb, but (a) maybe we should, and (b) this still seems somehow different.

-Mark Stone

[scott holder]

Geoff: I've run a boatload of numbers on this to get to what the draft sez. That being said, if you have some examples that reveal problems, I'm all eyes.

Mark: Interesting. Gonna have to dwell on that one for a while.

scott

[Siward]

[John Murphy]

Just thoughts about Byzantine things I'd like to see...
1. (Reg or Irr) Varangians in Byzantine lists can upgrade to LEHI, and keep the 1.5-rank 2HCW-only list rule doing so.
2. Byzantne Kavallarioi archers can get Lances up to the same number of elements of Kavallarioi lancers that get Bows.
3. Byzantne EHC with bows can skirmish.

[Adrian Williams]

John I don't understand your second proposal with respect to the Lances with Kavallaroi Archers. What do you mean exactly

ANW

[John Murphy]

totally OT, sorry to have raised it here, wont continue further down this road, but to answer...

Many Early-Maurikian-Thematic-Nikephorian-Komnenan lists currently allow the kavallarioi lancers, or perhaps some number of those which are upgraded, to be dual-armed with bows. This proposal simply says for N lancer elements which add (or have) bows permit if the player wishes up to N elements of archers to add lances. And if (?) anywhere there are seperate troop types of lancers (ie Tagmatic versus Thematic), the number N applies for each type separately.

This proposal is prety straght-forward, so I presume what you are really looking for is justification.

One valid long-standing interpretation of Byzantine kavallarioi specializing as lancers or archers (kursores and defensores) is that they were both dual-armed but emphasized one or the other in their training and general tactical usage.

Currently Warrior handles this for the earlier Byzantine lists by allowing them as dual-armed HC instead of splitting them. This is (okay, in my opinion) just as valid in the Maurikian and Thematic/Nkephorian period. But I find making them HC/LC with L,B,Sh preserves the 3:2 ratio which is kind of cool and also preserves the detachable skirmish-emphasizing nature of the archer elements instead of making them essentially identical (after all they _did_ have a different emphasis training or tactical usage even under this interp). Plus it makes the LC detachment have _some_ sub-optimal use in a rear rank behind the HC parent, again more a cool thing than a killer tourney-competitive army thing.

If you further allow EHC to skirmish you can make them EHC by making one figure of the HC base with front horse armor and have a very historic-looking part-unit with a half-armored file leader, two unarmored defensores and two kursores. Hey, stupid maybe, but personally I kind of like the way it keeps to that without breaking the game or anything. If I were running a convention demo game that is how I make it work regardless of the rules and lists as written.

And, importantly, it does not give the Byzantine LC Mongol-like killer close combat ability as L is much inferior to JLS in a LC battle (in fact I am not sure that 1-rank JLS is not better than 1.5-rank L). Just makes them a pinch better than straight B, Sh LC.

So it has plusses on 'flavor' in my book without breaking any historical balance.

And, if you do not like to build the army that way or do not see it as the way it worked, well, you do not have to do it, as suggested it is entirely up to the player building the list.

[Frank Gilson]

I think, dragging things back to shield wall, that loose order foot adopting the formation is basically fine.

Some have concerns that this would permit them too easy an option against mounted using a counter...but note that most such troops are Irregular, and generally C morale or worse. I would NEVER rely on a counter for these guys to adopt a critical formation...as such a counter would only happen 50% of the time.

I'm most concerned about removing the morale check for being charged by mounted in the open (if steady and frontal) for loose order. Given that troops we represent as loose order did use what we want to represent with Shield Wall formation, did they in fact historically 'avoid a waver test' using this formation? ...or is it impossible to tell...

Frank