Raiders. Why?

Anything else related to the TRIUMPH! rules
User avatar
Kontos
Squire
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Raiders. Why?

Postby Kontos » Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:03 am

I keep looking for a justification for this troop type. There is a full array of infantry types covering the major fighting styles throughout the hIstory covered by Triumph! The Meshwesh descriptor appears to be the antithesis of a knight shattering formation. It seems they were fit into the rules to fill a need for an infantry type to shatter knights and cataphracts - a need that may have been fulfilled by another foot type if needed at all. I know it is late in the game and there is probably a lot of support for Raiders. I would just like something tangible to hold on to and accept Raiders as necessary in the game.

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Raiders. Why?

Postby David Kuijt » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:31 am

Why are you focusing on their interaction with Knights, Frank? That's a minor part of their story. Given that Knights shatter them as well, they aren't going to seek out that fight without overlaps, and even then it is scary.

Think of it more this way. Elite Foot and Heavy Foot are 4pt and 3pt versions of similar close-order troops. Raiders and Light Foot are 4pt and 3pt versions of similar open-order troops.

Or you could see Raiders as a half-way type between Elite Foot and Light Foot. That's another way to look at it.

Without the Raider troop type the Sea Peoples, early Vikings, Celtiberians, Samnites, and Early Swiss would have to be classified into a bucket that doesn't fit them nearly as well. Those armies need an "Elite Open-order Foot" troop type, to differentiate them quality-wise from their historical Open-order foot opponents (Early Hebrew, M. Irish, Iberian/Lusitanian, Apulian/Lucanian/Brutian/Sikel etcs.) who were not as feared.

The Knight interaction is there to support Early Swiss (who will still get their ass kicked if they rely on it), and some singleton stands of Raiders elsewhere who were known as effective anti-knight fighters (Byzantine Menlavtoi (sp?), Palestinian club-men, a few others). Given the fact that Raiders are +2 v. Knights, Knights are +3 v. them, and Knights shatter Raiders (like any foot) in the open, a Raider who relies on that combat result will be unhappy, like as not.

Does that help?
DK

User avatar
Bill Hupp
Squire
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Raiders. Why?

Postby Bill Hupp » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:40 am

It's my impression that even in the legacy system, raiders represent some very specific troops types without which a couple of armies would be hard to do, namely Viking Raiders and Sea Peoples.

A couple of faster raider stands in the Viking army itself makes them more tactically interesting.

Do you have any specific objections other than added complexity?

Bill
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
I play lots of games and I like Triumph!

User avatar
Kontos
Squire
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Raiders. Why?

Postby Kontos » Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:10 pm

David Kuijt wrote:Why are you focusing on their interaction with Knights, Frank? That's a minor part of their story. Given that Knights shatter them as well, they aren't going to seek out that fight without overlaps, and even then it is scary.

Think of it more this way. Elite Foot and Heavy Foot are 4pt and 3pt versions of similar close-order troops. Raiders and Light Foot are 4pt and 3pt versions of similar open-order troops.

Or you could see Raiders as a half-way type between Elite Foot and Light Foot. That's another way to look at it.

Without the Raider troop type the Sea Peoples, early Vikings, Celtiberians, Samnites, and Early Swiss would have to be classified into a bucket that doesn't fit them nearly as well. Those armies need an "Elite Open-order Foot" troop type, to differentiate them quality-wise from their historical Open-order foot opponents (Early Hebrew, M. Irish, Iberian/Lusitanian, Apulian/Lucanian/Brutian/Sikel etcs.) who were not as feared.

The Knight interaction is there to support Early Swiss (who will still get their ass kicked if they rely on it), and some singleton stands of Raiders elsewhere who were known as effective anti-knight fighters (Byzantine Menlavtoi (sp?), Palestinian club-men, a few others). Given the fact that Raiders are +2 v. Knights, Knights are +3 v. them, and Knights shatter Raiders (like any foot) in the open, a Raider who relies on that combat result will be unhappy, like as not.

Does that help?


I focused on the Knight interaction since it stood out on the QRS being the only infantry in the game that shattered them. Your argument for an elite open order troop type is certainly valid. The reference to specialized mounted fighters, particularly menalautoi, is the tangible item I was looking for. My only remaining concern would be how often I see the Raider troop type in army lists but will have to digest that on a case by case basis after research. Good discussion. Thanks.

User avatar
Kontos
Squire
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Raiders. Why?

Postby Kontos » Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:11 pm

Bill Hupp wrote:It's my impression that even in the legacy system, raiders represent some very specific troops types without which a couple of armies would be hard to do, namely Viking Raiders and Sea Peoples.

A couple of faster raider stands in the Viking army itself makes them more tactically interesting.

Do you have any specific objections other than added complexity?

Bill

No. Just trying to fit the right pegs into the right holes. :)

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Raiders. Why?

Postby David Kuijt » Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:56 pm

Kontos wrote:My only remaining concern would be how often I see the Raider troop type in army lists but will have to digest that on a case by case basis after research. Good discussion. Thanks.


The five-ish armies I mentioned (Samnites, Sea Peeps, Early Swiss, Raider-period Vikings, Celtiberians) are the mainstream ones with a majority of Raiders that I can think off without any research; there is at least one more (Siamese, Thai, Burmese -- something around there) that is less common. Then there are a number of armies that have Thureophoroi or Thorakitaoi, and one of the Hellenistic Greekies has a majority of Raiders IIRC.

Beyond that there are a few armies with a mix like later Tamil (Elephants and Raiders) or EIR (Elite Foot and Raiders). And then some armies with just one or two stands of Raiders (almost every Mediterranean army from Big Al until Rome has either Celtiberian mercs or mercenary Thureophoroi). After you leave the Classical period they are much less common, largely disappearing until Vikings and Early Swiss and those might be almost the only armies with Raiders after the fall of Rome (Asia excepted).

So I'd say that few Biblical armies had them except Sea Peeps and one or two of the Assyrians. They're a common stand type in the Classical and Roman periods. Then mostly gone after the fall of Rome except Viks and Swiss.

Interesting that Pike have a similar phasing in and out of fashion -- Sumerians and similar, then Minoans, then out of fashion until Philip of Macedon; dominant type until Rome outmatches the Diadachoi, then disappearing until the Later Swiss and Scots. Not exactly synchronized with Raiders, of course.
DK

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Raiders. Why?

Postby David Kuijt » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:05 pm

Kontos wrote:I focused on the Knight interaction since it stood out on the QRS being the only infantry in the game that shattered them. Your argument for an elite open order troop type is certainly valid. The reference to specialized [anti] mounted fighters, particularly menalautoi, is the tangible item I was looking for.


That and making the Early Swiss-Austrian and Early Viking-Carolingian matchups less dire and more historical. The Austrian and Carolingian Knights certainly had the upper hand in those fights (based upon the historical record), but it wasn't a mail-it-in mockery of a battle, which is what it would be without the Shatter of Raiders on Knights.
DK

User avatar
Kontos
Squire
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Raiders. Why?

Postby Kontos » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:12 pm

Disappearance makes sense given the predominantly mounted migrations into western Europe during the fall of Rome and the subsequent "Dark Ages". I haven't checked yet but the eastern cultures during this same period did not suffer the same fate so I am curious how Raiders fit in there. The east relied more on cataphracts and chariots so maybe less of a need for "raiders" per se but the Chinese polearms, i.e. dagger-axe, may be a candidate unless they went spear or elite class. Research is so much fun. I have to roll up my sleeves and find the time to do more reading.

Rod
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Raiders. Why?

Postby Rod » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:18 pm

Just curious would Japanese armed with the "Anti-mounted" sword like a Zanbato or Nodachi count as raiders?

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Raiders. Why?

Postby David Kuijt » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:42 pm

Kontos wrote:The east relied more on cataphracts and chariots so maybe less of a need for "raiders" per se but the Chinese polearms, i.e. dagger-axe, may be a candidate unless they went spear or elite class.


Don't judge based upon weapons if there is any way to avoid it. The dagger-axe was a polearm issued to vast quantities of men -- most troops with them were (like the majority of Chinese foot through many periods) totally non-elite. So troops equipped with those are usually rated as Heavy Foot, sometimes as Levy, and (when used as a shielded front-line in front of vast quantities of crossbowmen) Pavise.

There might be some rare times/armies when a few stands were rated as Elite Foot, but that is most definitely the exception, not the rule.

Some Chinese armies had one stand of "Dare to Die" elite or semi-suicidal troops that could throw away their armor and fight as Raiders, but I think that is after the dagger-axe was no longer in use.
DK


Return to “General Rules Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest