[The Editor wrote: A couple of rules changes for AW have been suggested. One is to have an "After Combat" disorder penalty. This would only be assessed to a unit that does not already possess a disorder marker. It would therefore not adversely affect an already disordered unit, only one in good shape. The thought behind this rule change is that units that have just fought and /or pursued an enemy should have to recover from the combat/pursuit and not be perfectly fine. I resisted this change in MW as I like to award winning units and not penalize them for being successful, but I have been giving it a lot of thought lately.]
Rich Knapton writes back:
I was reading Maurice's Strategikon when I came across this:
Book II: The Cavalry Battle Formation: "We believe that, as far as human reasoning goes, there are many exceptionally compelling reasons which lead to the conclusion that there should be two lines, one of them a support, according to the diagram given below. First, the troops in the front line will fight more eagerly knowing that their rear is protected by the second line, and their flanks by the flank guards. Second, a man in the first line is not likely to run away when he knows that many other soldiers are stationed to his rear, that is in the second line, and will see anyone deserting his post. In combat this can be extremely important.
Supposing that the first line retreats or is pushed back, then the second line is there as a support and a place of refuge. This makes it possible to rally the troops and get them to turn back their attackers. Also when we are pursuing the enemy, we can make our attack safely, for if some of the enemy turn back on us or if there is a sudden attack from another quarter, then the second line can hold its ground, join battle, and protect the first. In addition, if the first line is actually routed, so that it cannot be brought back into action against the enemy, the second line, still in good order, will easily join battle with the enemy, even though, as mentioned they have routed the first line. For the enemy's formation will necessarily be broken up and disordered by the fighting when it meets a force still in good order, such as the second line. The most compelling reason of all is that not only is the double line of battle, as said, appropriate against an enemy force equal in numbers, but also against superior forces, which is clear from reason and from a study of the diagram below." (Not included here)
Maurice [or his brother-in-law the general Philippicus] understood that in beating an enemy a successful unit would become disordered and susceptible to being over thrown by a smaller but organized foe.
I think he would agree with a disordered penalty for the victors.
From: Alex Aimette
I think that the wheel questions is irrelevent to any but highly trained troops of a later period. All irregular troops were not in formations, they were blobs of guys, or long stringy linear blobs of guys, and you should just be able to move them without having to worry about 'formations', which don't really exist in this period. This isn't Napoleonics.
Actual movement rates have nothing to do with armor, mounts, etc. They are about command control. And in most medieval armies this was garbage by modern standards. Most generals looked at war as a fatalistic throw of the dice, and couldn't predict the outcome any more successfully than they could predict crops, childbirth, the weather, or the rise/fall in the value of products. These are people that we would now consider rude, brutal and uncouth (not to mention the fact that they stank - real bad). So guys, let's just forget about the 'reality' arguments. It's just a game, and if you keep confusing it with reality, you'll become as annoying as PK players, and they're famous for being annoying.
So what would a battle with a 'realistic' set of rules look like? First you would roll dice against your opponants to see who had the 'omens' on their side (substitute god(s), fate luck portents, etc depending on the primitive superstition of these people whose culture and life we can barely understand, and whose languages we don't speak and all we know about them is in translation from very dodgy and questionable sources). Then set up the armies. Then make a plan with the other guys on your side, and not talk for the rest of the game unless your stands were touching. Then begin the battle, and lose most of your control over everything.
Most movements and reactions would be automatic. You would have to introduce fatigue (probably the single most important part of a soldier's fighting ability, and it's not represented directly in these rules) as I don't care how much armor and skills you have, if you're dead tired then my 9 year old niece can come and kick your ass.
Then after you started fighting all you would control were troops that you could inspire by example or lead by voice command, or convince to follow a standard. Eventually, the troops would get tired and break off, stare at each other, spit, hurl insults, wonder where the water was, etc. When they had the energy and felt like doing it, they might follow you back into actual fighting. The archers might shoot if they still had some arrows left and weren't tired, and eventually people would get tired, or panic. A few would get killed, then a whole bunch would start running, and instead of the 900 casualties they had to that point, they'd get another 5,000 as they got cut down when they ran.
When we fought in military, police and other classes I've attended, we found that the average person can fight all out for about, oh, 1-2 minutes. That means everything else in the 'combat phase' is yelling, intimidation, resting, insulting each other, jeering, etc. Oh, and did I forget spitting? IF your mouth isn't too dry. And by the way, large numbers of troops would be drunk, since water wasn't always good or cultural reasons encouraged it.
I like to think of medieval warfare as a large rugby game in a muddy field with cricket bats. But more primitive, drunk and stupid.
But do you really want to play that game, or would you prefer Terry's game? So my point is, let's forget how fast troops can wheel and the mathematical relations of bodies of men. It has no bearing on this period. None. In MW, these are ALL irregular troops, and the "trained" troops were merely capable of what we would call "Advanced Primitive Maneuvers" that a modern marching band would laugh at. Give them a 2-4" movement bonus to reflect their better training resulting in more time spent in motion.
Bottom Line: the movement system should be as simple as possible. About all you really need to say is: "if you're moving forward towards the enemy or straight ahead, you can move full. Any other move in any other direction is allowed if led by a leader with a standard or a command stand, and can be made at half the movement allowance. I bet if you figure out the most complicated set of "legal" wheels, maneuvers, etc, on the tabletop, in the end you'll come up with just about that result. Except that it takes about twice as long to figure out as using the above rule. All of which I plan to do when I introduce the game to my gaming club. I'll let you know the result when it happens. All, as usual, IMHO.
Mitchell Abrams
Havoc went wonderfully. The game was fully participated in and preregistration filled up the game. It was the first time I had run a game that was not line troops up on each side and let them fight each other. The Roman had virtually no chance and was told that at the beginning.
The Germans each divided the forces and were able to hit him from ambush on three sides. The Roman held out for 9 turns (about 3 turns more than I had ever held out) and felt terrific about it yet the Germans also felt wonderful as they overwhelmed the Roman contingent. In case the game was very short I had additional Romans to throw into the fray but they were not needed. By the 5th or 6th turn the players were doing the combat tables and because the amount of figures were not so high it was not headache time by the end of the game.
We did play the entire 9-12 timeframe and all players told me at the end that they really enjoyed the game. I am sure if I had had the rules each of them would have purchased them. Bottom line is next year that is the type of format that I would much rather do. Smaller, more intimate social interaction and each German fielded 3 units. Roman fielded 6 (smaller) units. Moreover, all had a great time.
Jeff Ball writes:
One of Mitch's email posts included an idea which sparked a few thoughts on easy ways to incorporate the POSSIBILITY of being able to shoot at other than the nearest unit. Depending on how you feel units/generals would influence this you could have a unit (through the initiative of its own officers) shoot at other than the nearest unit if they pass an unmodified morale roll (same mechanism as seeing at what range you shoot at chargers...).
Perhaps you choose to be more restrictive and only allow that roll if the unit has a Defend order. An alternative, if you feel that the principal thrust or initiative to implement the target selection came from higher up, is to roll a d6 versus the rating of the general under who's command the missile unit currently is. Again, you could limit this to units already possessing a Defend order.
If the current rules didn't give such a potentially large and influential (in terms of determining game outcome) loophole I wouldn't worry too much about it (majority of the time you will shoot at who is closest whether you have a choice or not). But I have seen where the current rules can be used to seriously change the outcome from how I believe it is intended to be resolved.
My inclination is to see the effort to select a non-closest missile target as principally using command and control resources, which in game terms means using orders, so I still think that this should be a minimum requirement. Whether additional conditions need to be met I leave to Terry and others. I have chosen to use the simplest implementation in RW, but there are enough differences in Renaissance and Ancient warfare that I don't think direct comparisons should be considered decisive or necessarily even instructive. (Its just my opinion anyway.)
[Ed. I still feel the easiest and quickest (i.e. no looking up anything) way to do this is to require a double Defend order as suggested by Jevon for a unit wishing to select the target of choice. I've been looking over several responses, including Rich's which favors targeting the nearest threat, but this is still subjective...how does the unit decide in seconds what is the greatest threat?
say you have a skirmisher archer unit in front of you screening a HC unit. The archers are shooting at you and scoring hits. The cavalry mayor not be waiting for the skirmishers to shoot up enough of your unit to cause a morale check. If you fail (the SI have inflicted enough casualties) the HC will find an easy target. So...do you shoot at the SI, trying to kill them before they hurt you or take shots at the HC. See what I mean? Therefore, I elected to stay with the closest target as the desired target. The double Defend order allows a little latitude in this, but is expensive].
From: Robert W. Eldridge
1)Please explain what's meant by the statement 'may make a free 180 degree turn before orders are placed', in the Orders Phase description on the QR Sheet. Is this ALL troops, or only those who were Recovering or Retreating last turn? The description of the orders seems to limit it to just those two, but the bullet on the QR sheet doesn't say that.
[Anyone you CHOSE may make the 180 degree turn except for routers or frenzied pursuers.]
2) Is missile fire done by the base or the unit? Do you measure center to center or closest point to closest point between firer and target?
[By the base. Closest point on the stand to the closest point on the enemy stand.]
3) How do you measure for charges - Center of unit to Center of unit or closest point to closest point?
[Closest point, for if you measure from the center, wheels are too effective.]
4) If a unit qualifies for a breakthrough and the defeated opponent also routs, does the victorious unit breakthrough or pursue? In essence the question is the does the opponent's morale check come before the breakthrough move?
[First of all, the defeated unit will make its morale check. If it routs, make the rout move. Now the winner makes his pursuit move, as there is no one there now to break through...they're attempting to run away already.]
5) Does a unit have to breakthrough if there is no target behind the unit it just defeated?
[No. breaking through is an option, not a requirement.]
6) Can a unit make a wheel at the start of it's breakthrough move like it could in an ordinary charge, or must it go straight ahead?
[No. A breakthrough move has to be straight through the enemy unit.]
7) If a unit is subject to disorder for falling out Conrois or Wedge, and it's subject to some other cause of disorder at the same time, for instance being pushed back for losing a combat, does it suffer both disorders and become Fragmented, or is it only Disordered?
[Fragmented. Another disadvantage of wedge/conrois. Better to fight with, but if you lose, you are in real trouble.]
8) If a Fanatic unit with no orders is behind another unit which has charge orders at the start of the turn, and BOTH units are within normal move distance of an enemy unit and therefore eligible to charge, does the Fanatic unit charge through the other friendly unit (thus disordering both units)? If so how do you decide which unit actually engages the enemy?
[If you have not given the the Fanatics a Recover order to stop them from charging through their own men, too bad. Welcome to the world of the Scots at Northallerton! ALWAYS keep fanatics in front, not as supports...they are useless at this, running off at the drop of a hat. Remember, Fanatics and Frenzied troops MUST move toward and charge the nearest eligible enemy target.]
Back to Saga #75 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