I recently played the Marian Romans against the early Germans - basically a straight up infantry battle. The Romans survived the initial onslaught of the Germans but then were destroyed as the German warriors shattered the legions (elite and heavy foot) every time they beat them (not doubled). Historically, that just doesn't feel right.
In Rules Section 62.2 it states that warriors and warbands shatter elite and heavy foot (and others) when they win (not double, just when they win). I can accept that warriors and warbands can shatter disciplined infantry but only during the INITIAL charge (or round of combat). If the elite or heavy foot survive that initial round then they should have a big advantage over the warbands and warriors. Historically these warriors and warbands relied on the initial impact to break their enemies. If they got into a slugging match they were likely going to lose (i.e. they could no longer break their opponents with their ferocity, charge impact, etc.).
I think that perhaps some of the shatter rules should be limited to initial contact.
Medieval knights would probably have the same type of issue. Their initial charge is devastating; however, if they get caught up in melee their ability to shatter their opponent is greatly reduced or non-existent.
Can anyone explain why limiting the shatter to the initial round of combat would be a bad rule?
Warriors Shattering
-
David Kuijt
- Grand Master WGC
- Posts: 1488
- Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
- Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Re: Warriors Shattering
1) it requires memory. We don't like that. Or markers, which is even worse.
2) I'd like that rule -- for a tactical game. 20 men to a stand, perhaps. Even better for a game that doesn't employ alternating turns (Igo-Ugo), such as one with some sort of "opportunity fire" or response move. But in a game where a turn represents 15 minutes or more, in an Igo-Ugo format, every single turn of "combat" represents multiple charges, countercharges, recoveries, pauses, and so on. We assume that every type of stand fights in the way that is most effective for it, without requiring orders to do so. In the real world no stand of knights ever stood and was attacked -- their power was in their charge, so if someone looked like they were going to attack them, they charged (often called a "countercharge"). But that "charge" is part of the combat results table, and rules like knights following up if they win in combat (regardless of whether they "attacked" or "defended"). Recovery, pauses, charging again -- that's also part of the combat results table.
2) I'd like that rule -- for a tactical game. 20 men to a stand, perhaps. Even better for a game that doesn't employ alternating turns (Igo-Ugo), such as one with some sort of "opportunity fire" or response move. But in a game where a turn represents 15 minutes or more, in an Igo-Ugo format, every single turn of "combat" represents multiple charges, countercharges, recoveries, pauses, and so on. We assume that every type of stand fights in the way that is most effective for it, without requiring orders to do so. In the real world no stand of knights ever stood and was attacked -- their power was in their charge, so if someone looked like they were going to attack them, they charged (often called a "countercharge"). But that "charge" is part of the combat results table, and rules like knights following up if they win in combat (regardless of whether they "attacked" or "defended"). Recovery, pauses, charging again -- that's also part of the combat results table.
DK
Re: Warriors Shattering
Thank you for clarifying how each turn equates to real time events. While one stand might move into contact with another stand, that would merely mean that the first stand moved into the proximity of the other stand and in the next 15 minutes or so one or the other or both engaged in close combat with possible charges and counter charges. Is my understanding correct?
In regard to the Roman Legions facing warriors if the Romans were able to be the initial active player and chose order of resolution of the battles, the elite foot would start at +5 vs Warriors +3 and if with that advantage flanking penalties were added to battles, the elite foot should be able to double the Warriors even with a tie roll. The Marion Romans could have up to 8 elite foot to form a sufficient line to face up to substantial warrior line and so in theory as the battle progressed it would seem as though if the Romans survived the initial stages, they would do OK. I plan to test this theory out.
In regard to the Roman Legions facing warriors if the Romans were able to be the initial active player and chose order of resolution of the battles, the elite foot would start at +5 vs Warriors +3 and if with that advantage flanking penalties were added to battles, the elite foot should be able to double the Warriors even with a tie roll. The Marion Romans could have up to 8 elite foot to form a sufficient line to face up to substantial warrior line and so in theory as the battle progressed it would seem as though if the Romans survived the initial stages, they would do OK. I plan to test this theory out.