An issue has often been raised on the GoreAMwar discussion group concerning the relative strengths of MW armies in a fair and open battle on clear ground. Although the points system established in the rules and given life in the army lists provides the basic elements of fairness, i.e. players “pays their money and takes their choice”, and everyone starts with the same number of points. Some choices are better than others, given the vagaries of terrain generation on the tournament battleboard are. The essential fact of the medieval warfare modeled in MW has it that the heavily armored knight, wielding a lance and riding with comrades in wedge formation, holds the winning edge against all comers less well accoutered. Armies lacking knights altogether, or lacking significant numbers of knights, or lacking late period knights, etc., are disadvantaged facing armies well provided with the same. That situation may be mitigated if not reversed by the latter meeting the former on ground of their own choosing is the essence of the handicapping proposals offered on GoreAMwar.

The weight of arms concept addresses two essential points often ignored by those schemes:

(i) relative advantage is, well, relative, clearly implying that an army fighting at a disadvantage against one opponent may turn the tables against another; and

(ii) many MW armies morph fairly easily from one extreme to the other according to players choices from the lists and the total points allowed in a given tournament. The larger the number of army points allowed, the more fixed is the character of a MW army.

Neither the designers nor the players of MW desire the OoB stylizations of (e.g.) DBA or Armati, thus it would seem that the best approach to balancing tabletop confrontations would be driven by the choices players make for given tournaments.

Handicapping the weaker sisters presumes there exists a consensus regarding their identities. What is required is a means of measuring the relative strengths of diverse MW tournament lists on a neutral table. On the basis of this measurement, compensating factors (if appropriate and called for) may be assigned. Thus is the goal of the “weight of arms”.

Aggression Ratings?

One solution proposed for MW assigned ratings to armies based on an arbitrary index of historical “attitude”. It was proposed that each army be rated for it’s historical propensity towards offensive behavior, the presumption being many of the weaker MW armies would be assigned low aggression factors, allowing them certain advantages when generating terrain for tournament games. The problem with this approach is its fixed, arbitrary nature; in addition, it only indirectly addresses the problem it was proposed to solve. Aggressive Viking raiders may still find themselves in an open field fighting the stodgy War of the Roses Lancastrians, whose masses of longbow and contingents of FPC knights may be expected to eviscerate them. How useful are intuitive insights into historical situations when staging ahistorical match-ups on the tournament table?

The Vikings of 900 AD were relatively well equipped aggressors, preying on targets of opportunity isolated along water-based routes; those same Vikings transported in time to a mid-15th C. English heath look a sorry lot, by latter-day standards very needy indeed, lacking proper full plate harness, long- and crossbows, and training.

Working with the Givens

The initial weight of arms email on the GoreAMwar list proposed a scheme not dissimilar to scouting for indexing the relative power, or weight, of MW armies. After playing around with some simple factors, it was determined that the best tool to use is the given MW points schedule. Why re-invent the wheel? The issue then becomes one of re-weighting the MW prices to emphasize, if not exaggerate, the differences in MW armies. Should a given troop type be counted at 100%? or more? or less?

A Note on Generals

Since generals are used in a variety roles, both aggressively and passively, and their overall effect on the game may be due more to the die roll for their character rather than their ostensible troop class, arms, etc, it was decided that they should be rated at par for their WoA score. Each general used in an army list is weighted at 100% of the MW list price, the factors discussed below notwithstanding.

The Four Factors of the Weight of Arms

The following factors comprise the weight of arms. These are:

Mounted only:
Horsepower
The (always controversial) wedge

Foot only:

Firepower
Type and quality of arms

Horsepower

Since weight of arms is a measure of the relative strength of MW armies in open terrain, not surprisingly horsepower is given first consideration. Basically, all horse count at least full value, with a doubling for wedging. MW prices are taken at face value as measures of the relative values of different mounted troop types. An army’s toughness - survivability -- in the open often doesn’t depend upon its having significant cavalry assets of its own, rather having such assets is vital for rapidly projecting power across the gaming table (and scoring points).

The Wedge

The wedge formation is a special case, since not all mounted may use it, and it confers a huge advantage to those that may and do use it. The combat system of MW is resolved by multiplying a constant (per round, if not per combat) ranks-eligible-to-fight number by a highly variable total combat factor. This results in shock cavalry delivering a potentially awesome total attack value in the first round of combat. That wedging cavalry may sometimes roll badly and collapse in disorder doesn’t offset the greater probability they will usually win the first round against comparable non-wedgers. Obviously, melees between wedgers will be decided by other factors. The use of the wedge by infantry is quite tame in comparison, allowing (for example) under-rated Viking axemen a better chance to win some of the time against the more-formidable (cateris paribus) long-spear, pike, or even various.

Firepower

Firepower is the most commonly available MW offset to horsepower; the best firepower offsets are longbow, crossbow, and artillery. Horsebows are already accounted for in the horsepower factor itself, so we’re really only talking about foot firepower. Thus, long-and crossbows, and artillery, are counted at 100%. All other ranged weapons are counted at 50%, except javelins, which count zero, since they are surely a forlorn hope as the last line of defense against shock cavalry. Regular footbows, lacking the range of long- and crossbows, have a very brief window of opportunity to offset the horsy set; handguns are even worse. A 50% discount for these seems about right.

Type and quality of arms (non-missile troops)

Type and quality of arms adjustments are made for any foot not covered by the above firepower rule. The best melee weapons are also the best anti-horsepower weapons: pike and longspear. Because of the number of ranks they count in melee, and the (-1d6) penalty they exact on charging cavalry, these weapons must count at par value (100%); the case could be made for rating them higher, but it will not be made here. For troops not armed with pike or long-spear, those counting close order HI or greater are given full weight (count at 100%). Other foot greater than LAI are counted at 50%. LAI counts 0. UI is counted at -100% (!). The reason for the dramatic negative UI adjustment is simple: UI without missile weapons, and neither armed with pike or long-spear, are dog-meat in the open. Shock cavalry lives for a clean shot at these guys. SI, unless it is armed with ranged weapons, counts at zero; cheap SI is not afforded the negative weight of the more expensive and harder to protect UI.

The “X” Factor

Once the weight of arms totals are computed for the opposing armies, what shall be done with them? In the text of the proposed tournament rule below, a difference in weight of x allows the low scorer to choose one of the compensating options (modeled roughly on the MW scouting rule). A difference of 2x allows two choices to be made. The catch is, what shall be the value of x? This is an empirical issue, but it looks as though a value somewhere around 100 points will serve. WoA needs to be computed for a number and variety of tournament lists, and the results compared and contrasted. Some examples may be found below. I expect to finish the computations for a number lists and post the results on the GoreAMwar file section and/or the Saga Publications Web site (especially if anyone is interested in pursuing this further).

Weight of Arms: Proposed Tournament Optional Rule

Part II (Saga 86)