From: Jim Lydon
I read through the latest rules revision last night and I have a few remaining questions.
1)What is considered cover for missile fire? Hedges, Walls, Buildings, Woods? [All of the above]
2)When do you role for the General's abilities, before or after you set troops on the table? [Before terrain picks and placement]
3)Warbands in Ambush: Do they get the +1 modifier for being fanatic when they roll for attrition since warbands are considered fanatic up to and including the first round of combat? [Yes]
4)If a warband unit wins the first round of combat, pushes back the unit and follows up, is he still considered fanatic for the 2nd round? [No, he is only fanatic through the initial round of close combat. He will still count as frenzied, of course.]
5)In the terrain section, caltrops are mentioned as an obstacle. Can you place caltrops as an obstacle during terrain setup if caltrops are not specifically mentioned in the army lists? [No]
From: R Coryell
Thanks for the answers. We played again last night. We have been playing this battle over several nights, you know how modern day life can mess up schedules!! Last night the Normans finally broke through on the wings of the Saxon shieldwall forcing several other Saxon units to take morale tests. The result of which saw a fresh Saxon unit break and run when they saw their friends rout. The whole Saxon line was comprised of Huscarls in the front rank with Poor quality fyrd in the back ranks. Anyway, the situation raised some other questions, I hope you don't mind....
1) What is a Pursuit move in terms of distance? Let's say I am starting a charge with a unit of Norman knights at 6 inches (within a tactical move) from a Saxon unit and roll a 6 for added charge bonus. After resulting morale rolls etc. I impact the unit after moving 6 inches (with 6 inches remainder) and fight a round of melee resulting in the Saxon unit routing and losing a stand. The Saxon unit rolls a 4 and added to the 2 inches allowed moves 6 inches back. Is the pursuit the remainder of the movement the Normans had after impact?? If so I would then pursue the final 6 inches allowed and destroy them correct? [Make a Pursuit roll (the same as a charge roll). You get to roll for a full pursuit move just as the enemy gets to roll for a full rout move! In this case, your mounted Normans roll a d6 and add 9" to it.]
2) What happens to a unit that routs? Do you have to give a recover order and attempt to rally right away? [Next turn.]
What if you don't give a recover order to a routing unit, does the unit rout move again? If so when in the orders phase does this occur (ie. the unit routs again)? Does the unit automatically attempt to rally without and order?? [No. It takes one more rout move if without a Recover marker, then is removed from the game.]
3) This one is related to 1 above. If after a subsequent round of combat a unit retreats or routs what constitutes a pursuit move by the victorious unit? Is it counted as a charge move? [Yes.]
4) I noticed on the new Reference charts that you are allowed a free 180 degree turn before issuing orders. That would have solved the problem of Normans breaking through but staring at empty landscape. Is this interpretation correct? [Yes.]
5) For a general to issue orders to a unit whether in or out of engagement range does that unit need to be in Line of Sight? Any worries over enemy units influencing this line of sight? [No. The general is assumed to have a banner as well as various signals with which to signal his units with.]
6) Can generals/C in C's etc. issue orders if they are engaged in close combat?? [The only orders they can issue are to themselves and the unit they are with. The only orders allowed are Retreat or Deploy (to turn to face an enemy flank or rear attack).]
7) If a unit is issued a Recover Order but is being charged does the unit get to recover? [No. Remove the Recover order unless the unit is doing nothing but sitting there...no fighting, no shooting, no nothing]. The turn sequence indicates yes due to Recovery occurring before charge declaration is that correct? [See the Recovery Phase has been moved to the end of the turn sequence on the new QRS].
8) Just how do you form a wedge? If I have 4 stands of 3 Norman Milites do I place one stand up front with 2 behind followed by the final stand behind that? Could I have placed 2 stands up front and then the last two behind them with a gap between the stands ( 2nd rank stands) so as to make a wedge like shape?? [I use split stands. 0 00 000 Otherwise, simply make some wedge markers ^ and place them behind the units in wedge].
9) I tried to weaken the Saxon shieldwall with skirmishers however since they were only 2 figures strong and with the Saxons being uphill etc., they couldn't hurt anything! Within 3 inches ( large stand close range fire) they have a chance. [Move them up to Effective range and give them Defend orders if you want to shoot it out with the Saxons (not a good idea, but it might weaken the enemy enough to be useful at times). Otherwise you'll get shot to pieces as his men will be in Shieldwall and have Defend orders.] They were able to screen the approach of my infantry but that was about all. Is this what is intended? Seemed realistic to me but just checking. [That is their use, keeping your own troops from getting killed].
10) If the Normans are outside of engagement range and are behind the Saxon line and a general is not attached (basically isolated in terms of receiving commands) can the unit act autonomously?? According to the rules they have to stand and do nothing, what happens?? [Use the Uncontrolled Mounted Charge rule. The cavalry will move up to Engagement Range and then will attempt to close with the nearest eligible enemy unit.]
11) Can an individual stand be targeted for missile fire? For example the general's stand when not attached to a unit? Is the general the last to go on the stand still?? [Missile fire must be directed at the nearest eligible target. If a general is standing alone and is the closest target for a missile stand, shoot him!]
12) Archers given defend orders can fire barrage which allows one extra die per 2 stands of archers, what if you have only one stand? {Then you can't fire Arrow Barrage. You need at least two stands.]
13) How are casualties allocated from missile fire and melee if a unit consists of say 9 stands, with the front 3 stands being Huscarls (Veterans) and the 2 back ranks consisting of Fyrd (Poor Quality)? We have been taking casualties from the Carls until a stand is gone and replaced with a stand of Fyrd, then assigning casualties by ratio is that correct? {Always take casualties from the rear ranks.]
Terry, so far the battle has had a very historical feel to the results, again I commend you on your achievement. My second battle with the Normans and Saxons is so far pretty amazing. The deployment was the same as the last battle, we just understood the rules better. The Normans spent several turns attacking the flanks of the Saxon Shieldwall and finally broke through the left flank of the Shieldwall.
From Perry Gray
Jean and I played a game of MW yesterday; he used Normans and I used Nikephorians. There were a few inevitable quandaries with the rules. Jean screened some HC knights with SI. I declared a charge on the SI and he declared a charge against my unit, AC kilbanophoroi. He gave the SI an Advance order at the same time. My question is what happens to the HC and SI in terms of movement and interpenetration?
[The SI must take a morale test first as they are first in line of the charges. Their Advance order is cancelled...it is not a good idea to have them doing anything other than sitting still if a friendly unit is charging through them as they will now be disordered because they are both moving and they are being interpenetrated. They will now make a Retreat move as they are again first in line of the attacks. The HC now must make a morale test for being charged by heavier armor class, the AC. If they pass, the AC and HC now roll for charge distances and meet half way. The SI will be disordered because they are moving and being interpenetrated by their HC. the HC are not disordered by charging through SI, even if they are moving.]
If the SI had no order, what would their reaction be to the charge, or would they remain stationary as the HC charged?
[The same as above, no difference.]
Does a general count as a unit, if only a single stand for morale, and if so, does the general provide support when within 1/3 of engagement range?
[No, the general is not a "unit" if only a single command stand, but he does provide support as he is certainly capable of charging the enemy.]
Sites for those interested in archery:
- http://snt.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/ (articles and questions)
http://www.armouries.com/links2.htm
Here is some information on slings. This was all gleaned from the Internet and is very sparse. I included the last piece because of the writer's criticism of estimating ranges. It may be a truism given the feats recorded in many books and articles.
Korfmann, Manfred. "The sling as a weapon." _Scientific American_ 229, no.4 (October 1973), pp34-42. THE SLING For Sport & Survival by Cliff Savage 1984 Loompanics, Port Townsend WA 98368 ISBN: 0-915179-19-9 Can also be obtained from Paladin Press
The sling is an interesting weapon. Very cheap to make, easy to carry, no metal or moving parts. Can hurl a 1 lb. (450g) rock 50 meters with ease. I taught myself to use it well enough to hit something the size of a bus at that range in only a few days of practice. Nice compliment to the throwing knife! This message is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/rialto/rialto.html
Just a comment on the maximum effective range of a sling. It takes considerable effort to sling a golf ball size stone a measured 100 yards. I would consider a throw of 150 yards an outstanding achievement and one of 200 yards almost impossible. I would like some one to prove me wrong. The more I use the sling the more I believe some of the stories concerning the skill of ancient slingers to be romantic nonsense; the same applies to the long bow. I don't doubt that certain bowmen and slingers excelled over others, but I believe that, at long distances, both the sling and the bow were effective primarily as barrage weapons, with massive flights of missiles and arrows doing indiscriminate damage to the enemy.
I just finished reading Robert Hardy's book "Long Bow" which gives some absurd accounts of the long distance accuracy of the English bowmen. One comment by Prince Louis Napoleon referenced in the book states: "Prince Louis Napoleon considered that a first rate English archer who, in a single minute, was unable to draw and discharge his bow 12 times with a range of 240 yards and who in these 12 shots once missed his man, was very lightly esteemed." Mr. Hardy did not question the validity of the statement, lending credence to it; however, Louis Napoleon lived during the 1800's so he had no first hand knowledge of the capability of an English archer. Consistently hitting a man size target at 240 yards with an arrow from a bow is wishful thinking.
As you read further into Mr. Hardy's book, he documents the massive number of arrows fired during the battles of Crecy and Angincourt by the English. Even with the slaughter that entailed, the arrow count and the body count indicates that there was a extremely high percentage of misses.I have been an avid rifle shooter for the last 25 years, expending thousands of rounds of ammo every year. Once thing I have learned, is the average shooter cannot judge distance; most estimate the range to be double what it actually is. I imagine those who observed and recorded the feats of bowmen and slingers suffered from the malady.
From: Peter Morrison
Let me add the knowledge of slings from a practical test some years ago. A staff sling is much more difficult to use and will give more (not a lot) range. What it does do is allow more force to the cast and bigger objects can be cast over a larger range. For our tests we used trees as a target at about 100 - 150yds range. We found the reach of the staff sling to have been better overall, but the increased force was noticeable. An ordinary sling stone would hit the tree with a loud crack, but the staff sling shot would shake the whole tree, even dislodging leaves. Conclusion. If I had to make a choice I would much rather be hit by ordinary sling fire - even in full armour. Range not much different (although this could be lack of experience). Loading. Not much difference. Impact for staff sling, MUCH higher. Obviously, this was not a scientific experiment, but it might help.
Slings are not easy to master. Most people have trouble making the stone go in the right direction (it was an interesting afternoon) much less hit the copse of trees we aimed at, but a couple of hours improved SOME of us.
The staff sling was harder and the obvious lethality of the missiles only served to keep us alert and attentive (definitely a weapon for skirmishers). The things younger men do for entertainment............
Moulded shot (ball bearings) increased both accuracy and range significently.
P.S. Nobody was hit. Although one shooter managed to launch a large ball bearing straight up in the air. Now that was interesting!
We also found that all the usual whirling the sling around the head was downright dangerous and while making the sling less accurate and much more dangerous to the "unit" was not much better than a single 360 degree under arm release.
A Note on Wedges from Terry Gore
The wedge definition allows a unit to fight with two stands on a one stand frontage. The second stand counts as fighting when normally it could not. A wedge hits a target on a narrow front, pushing the point of the wedge into the enemy formation with the rear rank putting the force of the charge behind it and protecting the flanks.
There is no reason you cannot use a 3-stand, 5-stand or 7-stand wedge under the rules except that it is not very effective. Why would you want to fight with 5 stands on a three stand frontage? This would look something like this: 0 0 0 (with split stands) 000 000 000 (without split stands) 00 00 00 000 000 000000 Not much advantage there. The other, more sensible alternative would be to have it look like this: 0 0 (with split stands) 000 000 (without split stands) 00 00 000 000 000000 000 000
Now you are fighting on a 2-stand frontage with four stands counting in the combat and the fifth can be used to 'expand' if you push back your opponent.
From: JD McNeil
Terry initial feed back from our group
Overall: MW strikes as being based on a simpler version of 7th Edition with the good bits of other rules (Johnny Reb, DBM and probably 6th edition) thrown in.
Compatibility: All base sizes are catered for. Since units are made up of elements the DBM army lists could be used without too much difficulty to supplement the current selection.
Readability: The rules are well written and are straight forward. Compared to DBM they also have the added advantage of being written in English.
Playability: Not yet fully tested on the table-top but it looks simpler than DBM. The only minor problem foreseen is that shooting and especially close combat involves going through a couple of tables and mental arithmetic. Still, since the number of combats are going to be fewer than in DBM and any table-top wargaming involves some effort from the player I don't really see it as a drawback. This was not the view of some readers who thought it a step backwards.
Realism: Will require further play-testing. On first impressions It appears that it could be a little predictable in terms of combat.Compared to DBM, skirmishers lose a lot of their invulnerability which will probably make players use them in an appropriate fashion. These rules also seem to encourage historical tactics which can't be bad.
Fun factor: Unlike DBM's element based game which leads to an almost chess-like game, MW is about units. Combat between units therefore involves a greater proportion of an army and thus much more is at stake. Much more fun!
Tournaments: Time should not be an issue as the orders system is pretty easy, but may put some off. In terms of umpiring a backward step. time limit for giving orders probably needed,....messy. The options at the end of the rules could also make tournaments more or less fun to suit the taste of the organisers. Overall, these rules will make it harder for players to waste time or play for a draw.
Club games: No problem envisaged. Final verdict: It's theoretically a promising set of rules, potentially a replacement for DBM for the medieval period, but needs careful consideration of tournament issues e.g. order writing. [Thanks, JD]
Back to Saga #74 Table of Contents
Back to Saga List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Terry Gore
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com