Don't Play Medieval Warfare with WRG7th Tactics

After playing in two MW tournaments, I still find that my tactical sense is affected by my years of playing WRG7th. The predominant style of play in WRG7th is to use a front line of troops (though these are often not the army's best) to absorb the shock of the initial combat, and deliver the coup-de-grace with your best lead-killing shock troops in a second wave attack delivered through gaps in the line. This works equally well on offense or defense. MW doesn't (necessarily) work this way in a tournament setting.

What one must do to rack up points in MW is to aggressively take the battle to the enemy, leading with your best units and committing generals to the attack. Certainly, armies differ significantly list by list, so no one formula fits all, but the guiding principle is the same for offensive styles of play. In future, my Ayyubids will deploy one or two extra generals for the express purpose of leading units into combat. Armies that must play on the defensive are still better off marshalling their best troops for decisive counterattacks and using terrain ploys to survive. The three hour time limit for a tournament battle mandates that at least one player carry the burden of attack.

What I am still puzzling out is how to apply an aggressive formula in cases where the mix of terrain and troop types seriously limit the ability of the contending armies to successfully project power into each others' respective domains. How can an Ayyubid army, for example, which needs a lot of clear (perhaps spotted with brush), project an offensive onto a half of the table that is wooded by a devious Scot? Why would a Scot, bare-assed and shieldless, deeply ensconced in his forest, attack into the clear against multiple units of Mamluks and Ghulams? One cannot squeeze enough bad terrain troops out of the Ayubbid list to field a serious threat to the Scots in their house. This has always been a (interesting) problem in tournament play, regardless the rules and my affection for MW notwithstanding.

Ambushes

Alex's use of ambushes to deploy his army forward of the normal deployment zone will be addressed below in a "Proposal for Avanced Deployment". In our game, there were some questions raised about the mechanics of ambush. By the letter of the rule (Optional Advanced Rule), ambushers are placed on the table immediately if they shoot or move, or if an opposing unit moves into contact with them. What Alex was doing during our game was springing the ambushes as soon as my units were (roughly) within engagement range but not yet in contact. This was being done during my movement phase.

This now strikes me as being wrong. The owning player may spring the ambush anytime during his own movement phase, or during any fire phase, but unless my units move into contact with them during my movement, they must be kept hidden. [This is correct. Ed.]

The effect of springing the ambushes at will during my movement was to manipulate my movement, especially my strategic movement. It seems to me that the price one pays for putting units into ambush is to completely negate their influence on the game until they emerge, and that emergence is not under the owning player's control if he is not phasing. Indeed, non-phasing units don't move out of phase, and the emergence from ambush is theoretically a move as warriors are stepping out of cover, even if their unit remains in place.

A Proposal for Advanced Deployment

One of the features of WRG7th that is missing from MW is the forced march. Terry Gore has proposed a relatively modest expansion of the deployment zone to 9" (for 25mm), and there is a variable deployment zone optional rule, a.k.a. "Fog of War" (6" + 1d6" for 25mm). These I haven't tried, but I look forward to so doing.

What I would like to propose is an optional advanced deployment rule that is symmetrical to the optional ambush rule. As discussed above, Alex used the ambush rule as a forced march rule in our match, and a clever ploy it was (I'll certainly make use of it in the future). It occurred to me that one could gin up a generalized advanced deployment rule not unlike the forced march of WRG7th, by making use of Terry's clever attrition mechanics. So here goes… <>[Note: Paul's rules proposals have been edited and changed as a result of a series of discussions on the onelist. These are what we currently have developed.]

Advanced Deployment (Optional Tournament Rule) When players initially set up their armies, they may opt to deploy units forward of their normal set-ons.

Units not hidden in Ambush may be force-marched up to two of their Strategic Movment Allowances before the game begins.

This Advanced Deployment may not result in the unit ending up in delaying terrain or closer than 1/2 of Engagement Range of the center of their side of the table.

Any units taking part in this movement will take Attrition losses immediately upon removing the screen from the table. It is tiring to force march. The unit will have one additional -1 applied to their Attrition loss die rolls.

In addition, and non-skirmisher unit making more than ONE Strategic move allowance will be disordered. These troops were not only tired, they had lost unit cohesion due to their rapid advance.

Units using Advanced Deployment must be in either Line or Mass formation. They may not be in any other special formation.

If a unit loses a stand as a result of Attrition losses, it must take an immediate morale test before orders are placed.

A Proposal for Tactical March

The artifical "seam" (at engagement range) between tactical and strategic movement could be removed by using another variant of attrition. This variant may help significantly to get close order infantry into combat quickly in a tournament game.

Tactical March (Strategic Movement within Engagement Range)
(Optional Tournament Rule)

A unit may use strategic movement within the engagement range of an enemy unit.

A unit may attempt to make a Tactical March during it's normal Tactical Movement phase instead of using the normal movement allowance if it has Advance orders.

Any unit attempting to make a Tactical March must take an immediate Attrition die roll to simulate the exhausting nature of the march.

No unit making a Tactical march may intentiaonally move into contact with an enemy unit.

Attrition losses may cause an immediate morale check.

Regular tactical and strategic movement are conducted as per the current MW rules.

More Saladin at Historicon

Introduction
Late Crusaders: Crossbows and Knights
Mongols: Long Spears(!) and Artillery
Feudal English: Knights and Longbows
Post Mortem