Professional killers?

[azrael86]

This may have been covered before, but I couldn't find it.

The re-roll mechanism applies in three ways, namely:

During a CMT
During combat
During a CT

In each case it makes superior troops more likely to be effective and poor troops less so. My question really relates to the basis for this in each case for drilled and undrilled troops.

For instance, this means that a superior undrilled warband is more likely to manoeuvre than an average one, and a superior drilled legionary will kill more enemy than an average one. It also means that a superior undrilled will shoot more effectively than an average drilled one. Which doesn't sound quite right to me.

To take each example:
a) superior undrilled troops may be some form of bodyguard, and hence it is not impossible, but usually it reflects a source who noted ferocity in combat,
not field drill.
b) Did good quality legions really work like this? Surely it is more likely that they outlasted their opponents? After all we are talking about professionals with 20 years service?
c) More difficult, because obviously 'undrilled' doesn't always mean unpractised, but it can do. Equally, do professional troops such as genoese crossbow shoot no more effectively than a city militia?

So, before retiring with my tin hat, here are some suggestions:

Superior Undrilled troops re-roll combat dice but not CMT's
Superior Drilled troops re-roll CMT's but not combat dice*
Elite troops re-roll both, but don't re-roll 2's in combat
Average and Poor troops are unaffected
CT's are unaffected

* except that superior drilled troops with missile weapons re-roll shooting dice

[hammy]

This may have been covered before, but I couldn't find it.

The re-roll mechanism applies in three ways, namely:

During a CMT
During combat
During a CT

Correct

In each case it makes superior troops more likely to be effective and poor troops less so. My question really relates to the basis for this in each case for drilled and undrilled troops.

Yup, that is the point

For instance, this means that a superior undrilled warband is more likely to manoeuvre than an average one, and a superior drilled legionary will kill more enemy than an average one. It also means that a superior undrilled will shoot more effectively than an average drilled one. Which doesn't sound quite right to me.

Why?

To take each example:
a) superior undrilled troops may be some form of bodyguard, and hence it is not impossible, but usually it reflects a source who noted ferocity in combat,
not field drill.

There would be some undrilled troops who were no better fighters but were a bit more maneuverable

b) Did good quality legions really work like this? Surely it is more likely that they outlasted their opponents? After all we are talking about professionals with 20 years service?

Most people seem to think that the Roman legionaries survived their 20 years because they were quite good at fighting.

c) More difficult, because obviously 'undrilled' doesn't always mean unpractised, but it can do. Equally, do professional troops such as genoese crossbow shoot no more effectively than a city militia?

A lot of city militia are classed as poor. There could have been an argument for geonese crossbow to be classed as superior in shooting at least.

So, before retiring with my tin hat, here are some suggestions:

Superior Undrilled troops re-roll combat dice but not CMT's
Superior Drilled troops re-roll CMT's but not combat dice*
Elite troops re-roll both, but don't re-roll 2's in combat
Average and Poor troops are unaffected
CT's are unaffected

Why should troops that are better at drill be less likely to run away? You seem happy that all superior troops have better morale but not that drilled ones are better fighters.

FWIW I think that in the early stages of development of the rules having morale and training seperate in terms of quality was considered but that it made things rather more complex than was needed and the majority of troops who have for example good morale are also good at fighting or good at maneuver.

[azrael86]

There would be some undrilled troops who were no better fighters but were a bit more maneuverable

Such as? And note not 'some' but 'all' superior undrilled troops are affected by this, so you need a lot of examples!

Most people seem to think that the Roman legionaries survived their 20 years because they were quite good at fighting.

- but this rule makes them good at killing, NOT at avoiding being killed which is surely the key ability?

c) More difficult, because obviously 'undrilled' doesn't always mean unpractised, but it can do. Equally, do professional troops such as Genoese crossbow shoot no more effectively than a city militia?
A lot of city militia are classed as poor. There could have been an argument for Genoese crossbow to be classed as superior in shooting at least.

Not the point. If you are a professional, surely you must practice more? This is the case for English longbow as I recall...

Why should troops that are better at drill be less likely to run away? You seem happy that all superior troops have better morale but not that drilled ones are better fighters.

Now this is confusing - the RAW say that this is the case! I am only saying where is the evidence that professional superior troops won battles by ferocity as opposed to superior endurance?

Clearly being superior drilled makes you a professional soldier, with the discipline not to run and the fighting spirit of the combat unit who know and trust each other in the situation. It doesn't make you a berserker.

[azrael86]

FWIW I think that in the early stages of development of the rules having morale and training seperate in terms of quality was considered but that it made things rather more complex than was needed and the majority of troops who have for example good morale are also good at fighting or good at maneuver.

Indeed - good at fighting OR good at manouevre was my point!

[hammy]

FWIW I think that in the early stages of development of the rules having morale and training seperate in terms of quality was considered but that it made things rather more complex than was needed and the majority of troops who have for example good morale are also good at fighting or good at maneuver.

Indeed - good at fighting OR good at manouevre was my point!

And mine was that while there are some troops who you could say were good a fighting but no better than their peers in terms of morale or good at drill but rubbish at fighting etc. The majority of troops that were good were good at more than one thing and distinguishing between the different things that they could be good was deemed a complication too far.

[dave_r]

Not the point. If you are a professional, surely you must practice more? This is the case for English longbow as I recall...

Would that be the Drilled Average English Longbow? Who aren't superior at fighting, but are capable of manoever?

I am only saying where is the evidence that professional superior troops won battles by ferocity as opposed to superior endurance?

Erm, lots of it? Spartans are a good example. Mongols also spring to mind. Assyrians were renowned for it. Evidence exists everywhere...

Conversely - being a skilled fighter doesn't mean to say that you are more likely to withstand taking a pasting. In fact, more experience soldiers will realise when it is about to occur and most likely start breaking off. Mercenaries were notoriously reluctant to commit to a battle until they were fairly sure they had picked the right side.

Just making somebody be able to march in straight lines and turn around does NOT make them better shooters or fighters. If they also received weapons drill then that would make them better - hence Drilled and Superior.

I don't know what you are complaining about to be honest - Superior troops are better at doing stuff than Average troops? I fail to see why this is a significant problem? Drilled troops are better at manoever than Undrilled troops - I also fail to see why this is a significant problem?

[azrael86]

FWIW I think that in the early stages of development of the rules having morale and training seperate in terms of quality was considered but that it made things rather more complex than was needed and the majority of troops who have for example good morale are also good at fighting or good at maneuver.

Indeed - good at fighting OR good at manouevre was my point!

And mine was that while there are some troops who you could say were good a fighting but no better than their peers in terms of morale or good at drill but rubbish at fighting etc. The majority of troops that were good were good at more than one thing and distinguishing between the different things that they could be good was deemed a complication too far.

Not just too like 7th edition then?

[hammy]

Indeed - good at fighting OR good at manouevre was my point!

And mine was that while there are some troops who you could say were good a fighting but no better than their peers in terms of morale or good at drill but rubbish at fighting etc. The majority of troops that were good were good at more than one thing and distinguishing between the different things that they could be good was deemed a complication too far.

Not just too like 7th edition then?

The old WRG rules do indeed roll up being good at combat and having high morale into the same rating.

It would be perfectly possible for example to say that Geonese crosbowmen are superior when shooting, have average morale and are superior in terms of maneuver while French knights are superior in close combat, have superior morale and are no more maneuvrable than any other knights. The trouble is that you would then have potentially four classifications for grade of troops (shooting, close combat, morale and maneuver) which massively complicates troop types for an IMO very minor gain.

[grahambriggs]

Most people seem to think that the Roman legionaries survived their 20 years because they were quite good at fighting.

- but this rule makes them good at killing, NOT at avoiding being killed which is surely the key ability?

Superior troops avoid being killed better than, say, average ones. They are more likely to draw or win hand to hand combats, so more likely to roll for base losses on a +2. And this is a multiplying effect, i.e. the fact that they are less likely to lose casualties on the first die roll improves their chances further on the second, etc.

Also, they are more likely to be able to make the complex moves required to put them in a good position.

[grahambriggs]

c) More difficult, because obviously 'undrilled' doesn't always mean unpractised, but it can do. Equally, do professional troops such as Genoese crossbow shoot no more effectively than a city militia?
A lot of city militia are classed as poor. There could have been an argument for Genoese crossbow to be classed as superior in shooting at least.

Not the point. If you are a professional, surely you must practice more? This is the case for English longbow as I recall...

I don't know where you get the idea that professional troops practice more? Hunnic horsemen were not professional, they simply lived in the saddle and used a bow as part of life. They seemed to be better than contemporary professional horse.

A cab driver is professional, and may be better than some 'amateur' drivers. But that doesn't mean cab drivers are the best drivers.

[rayfredjohn]

Top Hole Young Winston.

The rhetoric (?) of Plato from one so young.


Double Drop Duggins

Roving Reporter UP NORF

[hazelbark]

And i would add the authors didn't get to this situation by accident, it was shockingly designed that way in the rules, so before wandering off with changes how about giving them credit for considering the interactions an rules?

For my part the way they work give more variety to what could be very coarse otherwise and i find plenty f historical justification for the way they are.

[madaxeman]

A cab driver is professional, and may be better than some 'amateur' drivers. But that doesn't mean cab drivers are the best drivers.

The transverse waterway, and a grading-based reduced ability to maneuver when South of it is thankfully "below the level of abstraction of these rules". At least until an army list is produced with "london cabbie" as a troop type.



tim
www.madaxeman.com

[rayfredjohn]

Troop Type

London Cabby

Elite, Drilled, Medium Chariot, Shotgun, Baseball Bat, Knife. 27 points but still good value.

God Bless You Govnor

[shall]

VS Mini cab

Poor Undrilled Bwg (disguised as light chariot) Handgun Gaffa Tape 14pts

See the system works perfectly as designed !

Si

[azrael86]

And i would add the authors didn't get to this situation by accident, it was shockingly designed that way in the rules, so before wandering off with changes how about giving them credit for considering the interactions an rules?

So we aren't allowed to enquire as to the reasoning, just have to accept that the powers that be have taken it all into account for us?

For my part the way they work give more variety to what could be very coarse otherwise and i find plenty f historical justification for the way they are.

and distinguishing between the different things that they could be good was deemed a complication too far.

Curious then that my suggestion would have made the situation more complex (why Hammy says it was rejected) but you think it would make the process less so....

Personally I fail to see why fanatical irregulars (delis or Crusader knights, say) and disciplined career soldiers (Legions or Janissaries) have to work under the same characteristics. After all, the rules stipulate that adding 3' to the length of a spear makes a difference, but spending 4 hours a day practicing doesn't?

[azrael86]

Troop Type

London Cabby

Elite, Drilled, Medium Chariot, Shotgun, Baseball Bat, Knife. 27 points but still good value.

God Bless You Govnor

and ....No moves are considered complex

[hammy]

Personally I fail to see why fanatical irregulars (delis or Crusader knights, say) and disciplined career soldiers (Legions or Janissaries) have to work under the same characteristics. After all, the rules stipulate that adding 3' to the length of a spear makes a difference, but spending 4 hours a day practicing doesn't?

Err, they don't. One lot are undrilled and the other lot are drilled. This makes a HUGE difference to their maneuverability. Poor quality drilled troops are more maneuverable than Elite undrilled.

The simplification is that where troops are of a better or worse than average quality that change applies to all the relevant dice rolls rather than have troops that are superior for maneuver, poor for shooting, average for close combat and elite for morale.

[philqw78]

Personally I fail to see why fanatical irregulars (delis or Crusader knights, say) and disciplined career soldiers (Legions or Janissaries) have to work under the same characteristics

They don't. Mongols were not professional soldiers but count as drilled under the rules because of their manouverability.

And its not the length ot the spear, its how you use it.

[babyshark]

And its not the length ot the spear, its how you use it.

That's what I keep telling her.

Marc