Kevin Boylan

Some recent playings of FPMW (Fast Play Medieval Warfare) have yielded the following questions:

1) Does a general who is not set up as part of a larger unit counted as a separate unit for purposes of determining an army's breakpoint (also applies to MW, AW, etc.)?

[No.]

2) We have been interpreting the post-Cold War directive to resolve multi-unit melees as a single close combat to mean that the SIDE that inflicts more hits wins, pushing back all opponents. Is this how it was intended, or does each unit calculate hits and determine who is pushed-back individually? The specific case we had in mind was a situationwhere one unit that was fighting 2 units inflicted as many hits OVERALL as it took, although one enemy unit inflicted more than it took, and the other inflicted less than it took.

[Each unit calculates hits and determines who is pushed back. A unit fighting in a multi-unit melee always suffers the worst result of any of the combats. This is one big disadvantage of fighting a number of enemy units with just one of your own.]

3) If a unit that is fighting two enemy units "locks" with one, and pushes back the other, does it A)pursue the unit it pushed back, and B) does it count as following up against that unit?

[Neither. It stays in place, locked with the enemy unit. It may not follow up and does not count as such against the unit it locked with. It will get overlaps next turn though in compensation.]

4) What happens if a (non-skirmish) unit is pushed back, but cannot go the full distance because a friendly skirmish infantry unit is in the way? Is the pushed back unit unable to fall back, and thus must take an extra level of disorder? Or, does the SI unit Retreat?

[The SI unit will fall back enough to allow the pushed back to fall back it's 1". No disorders. The SI would simply fall back to stay out of trouble, an easy enough thing for them to do.]

5) Finally, the proposal. Several recent MWFP games in a row have been decided by insanely lucky missile fire wherein 4-stand firing units inflicted 3 hits in cases where a '10' was needed to hit. This began a lively discussion on why missile fire resolution is so much less deterministic than close combat, even though the latter is by nature far more unpredictable (principally due to the predominance of 'human' factors). Missile fire, on the other hand, is far less a matter of chance, since it's principally a question of density of fire versus density of targets. Accordingly, we have been experimenting with a more deterministic method of resolving missile fire that seems to work. The procedure is as follows.

1) The base Missile Factor at effective range is 4 (that is, a 40% chance of a hit, which corresponds to the existing 7+ To Hit # in MWFP), and 2 at long range (following the same logic re the current (9+ To Hit #).

2) Both players roll 1/2 D6. If the firing player rolled higher, the differential is added to the base MIssile Factor; if the target player rolled higher, the differential is subtracted.

3) All other existing modifiers are applied to the Missile Factor just as they would be to the To Hit number, except that values are reversed (that is, positive (+) modifiers become negative, and vice versa).

4) The resulting modified Missile Factor is multiplied by the number of firing stands to determine the number of casualties inflicted.

5) The total casualty value is divided by 10. If the result is not a whole number, 1D10 is rolled to determine if an additional hit is inflicted. However, the total number of casualties can never exceed the number of firing stands.

1D10 is rolled even if the casualty value is a whole number. If the result is a '10' the unit goes low on missiles (or out if it's already low). Furthermore, another 1d10 is rolled. IF this second roll is also '10', the unit goes Out of Missiles.

For example, a 6-stand unit of bowmen with 4 figures per stand which moved is firing at a shielded HI unit at effective range. The base Missile Factor is 4.

The firing player rolls a 5 (which halved, becomes 3), while the target player rolls a 2 (which halved, becomes 1). So the base Missile Factor is modified to 6 (4 plus the differential of +2).

The Missile Factor is modified by an additional +1 for 4 figures per stand, -1 for shielded target, and another -2 for a firing foot unit that moved. Thus, the final, modified Missile Factor is 5.

Multiplying the Missile Factor by 6 firing stands yields a casualty value of 30. Dividing this by 10 reveals that 3 hits are inflicted.

[This is fine if you want to use it as an option. Personally, I enjoy rolling handfuls of dice to adjudicate missile fire, hence the rules as written.]

From Jim Bleed

In the rules a unit directly behind another unit can fire if allowed by circumstance ie, # of ranks, type of weapon etc. If for example a unit of close order archers is directly behind a double rank unit of say, huscarls, do both units need to be given defend orders for the archer to fire?

[No. You do not need Defend orders to fire from a third rank with bow or longbow. This is a holdover from MW that has since been changed for both rules sets. In the latest edition of AW, any close order troops with bow or longbow may fire up to three ranks deep. Those of you with MW rules, please turn to page 38 and under 4) Ranks Eligible to Fire, Close Order Infantry, at the end of the first bullet: "Up to three ranks deep of bow or longbow" cross out "...with Defend orders." Thanks for reminding me of this, Jim. I meant to put this change in, but somehow it got by me.

Another bit that managed to be left out of the most recent editions of both MW and AW is under Morale Tests. No unit has to test for seeing routing skirmish infantry. They do have to test for seeing routing skirmish cavalry, however.]

Jim continues:

I have read your articles in SAGA and on the egroup, but after some quick math it seems that Norman cavalry have a big advantage over Saxon Huscarls. Perhaps not enough to break them in the first round, but even after the initial round they can hold their own. Am I just being biased in thinking the Saxons were better? I understand that the combination of mail, lance and stirrups changed warfare, perhaps I am not add correct.

[If you have your huscarls uphill, in shieldwall formation and under Defend orders, the Norman knights will do about as well as they did at Hastings. If your huscarls are in the open, in line, with advance orders, they will be run down exactly as the Varangian Guard were at Durazzo fifteen years later. In order to defeat the Saxons in a Hastings situation, the Normans would have to disorder the shieldwall with missile fire before charging in. Remember, even though the Norman wedges are brutal at first contact, if they do not break their opponent, they will revert to a disordered line, with a weapon factor of +1 in the next round. The Saxons, even if disordered by being pushed back, will now have the advantages of weapon (axe +2), greater strength (4 figures per stand vrs. 3 for another +1) and probably overlaps. The Normans will probably have to retreat, picking up another disorder in the process.]

My second question is a bit more difficult, in most rule sets including yours, the heavy knight is at the top of the food chain as far as combat ability. But for much of the period knights often dismounted to fight, and by the 100 years war it seems like most did that. Why? Am I way off in assuming that the economics of replacing horse and barding deterred their use. Just a question? Thanks again.

[The psychology of the times had the cavalry dismount to 'bolster the foot' and give them a morale boost. It also prevented long spearmen from impaling the knights as they charged headlong into schiltrons, as at Bannockburn. As missile fire increased in lethality, the slow-moving knights were shot to pieces by longbows. Because of this, they opted to dismount, as a Poitiers, and moved even more slowly to their deaths. I don't believe that economics was much of a factor, as at least with a horse, you could ride away from battle if losing, while if on foot, you would be caught. Ransom was the same whether a mounted knight or one without your horse. And death came very swiftly to a dismounted knight when ransom was not a factor.]