Slitherine

What do you think about the warriors?
It seems to me they are quite useless (absolutely terrible against mounted troops, not so good against foot), but maybe I lost something...

Moro, I do agree that they are not very good but I don't think totally useless. Take the Caucasian States. All their Warriors have Lt Spear to counter the +PoA of the mounted. If you elect to only take 24, you can have 3 BG of 8, deployed 3/3/2 or 4/4 with Sword as well. IF (and it is a BIG if) they survive the fire going in they are going to get an overlap at ++PoA (possibly 2 overlaps if the death rolls are kind). They are almost cheap if you take them without swords and hide them in the shrubbery - for 160 points you can get 5 BG of 8 bases that nothing is going to want to tangle with in rough ground and the move fast through it.

Until we see what they do with the Far Eastern lists it is going to be difficult to tell if they are a sideshow or if they are filler de jour.

Warriors are a useful part of a combined-arms force where their weaknesses can be mitigated.

Warriors have the advantages of speed and deadly overlaps (getting the automatic ++). Unlike Pike and Shot, they can use wider or deeper formations, though their ability to do this or manoeuvre is reduced by their -1 on Complex Move Tests. They cannot form part of a Division, meaning that a commander can't move groups of BGs quickly around a flank or from a flank march.

They are good terrain troops, but vulnerable like Medium Foot in the open against mounted. 2 hits from artillery automatically forces them to Cohesion Test regardless of BG size, but this won't come up too often.

The automatic ++ overlap shapes tactics - it needs to be pursued and used aggressively. Warriors want gaps in the enemy line that allow these overlaps, meaning they want to stretch the opposition, outwing them and threaten to outflank them. Overlaps are key for close combat Warriors in trying to wear down the enemy if he can't be overwhelmed - this typically means use two BGs of Warriors against one Pike & Shot BG where possible.

I like close combat Warriors in a mix of 8s (or larger) and 6s. 8-10 bases is more resistant to Cohesion Tests from shooting and can fight deep to absorb losses or wide for overlaps.

Warriors vary widely in capabilities that give them other tools beyond the overlap. Scottish Highlanders, with Bow or Musket*, Impact Foot, and Swordsmen, are good troops against infantry that is unprotected or in terrain, where they can shoot up or chase away lights and beat unprotected Shot in close combat. They are normally down 2 POAs against Impact Pistols in open ground, but note that their overlap is a ++ to help offset this, and with good shooting they can take off a base or disrupt the Pistoliers, meaning they are only down a single POA in the frontal fight but get the overlap advantage and advantage of numbers of dice in Melee.

Most Warriors have only 1 or 2 close combat POAs, often unsuitable against Pike, Shot and Pistol BGs. Impact Foot is the best of these as it works against pike & shot BGs. Spearmen is useful, particularly against the mounted threat. Light Spear helps against mounted charges and non-Western foot.

Shooting POAs are good and allow the Warriors to face Western pike, shot and pistol formations on relatively equal terms. Archers have a better POA against mounted than firearms, providing better odds of disruption, and are no worse off against Western troops than Warriors with close combat POAs that are ineffective.

I hope this is useful to you. Here is some more discussion on them.

viewtopic.php?t=20797

Forgot the automatic ++PoA for overlap - I would run them without Sword most times I guess.

Can't wait to try my highlanders...

One of these days I will paint up those Warlord highlanders I have and try them out, see how they like Parliamentarian flavoured haggis I plan to try the bow* and musket* just to see how it works before they charge in as impact foot.

deadtorius wrote: I plan to try the bow* and musket* just to see how it works before they charge in as impact foot.

They get 3 dice at long range, which is tasty

Thanks for your advise!
I played Scots Royalists army heavy of highlanders (6 units) a couple of time and there was a slaughter. Maybe the problem is the player, not the highlanders, but I could not find reason to take a 48 points units of warrior instead of a 38 points units of Pike&shot.
I will try again, following your advice, who knows...

48 points of wild Scots you still get more shooting than the pike and shot unit, not to mention better POA's in melee. I am still looking forward to the day I have some highlanders painted up, my first run will probably be with my ECW royalists making not very dour looking brightly dressed Scots, but it will let me try that army sooner than waiting till I actually put together and paint up an army of proper Covenanters

Warriors can be useful in small numbers (like for the covenanters) but the problem its when, like for asian armies , the whoole list is made of them.

I'll try to use them like a sort of super dragoons in terrain, in the open terrain they probably will losse all fighting without fortifications

I think the warrior and highlander category catches them just about right in that they can be very good such as Killiekrankie or fail miserably. They certainly did not like cavalry but at Falkirk in the 1745 they did turn the Government horse with missile fire.
I think the new Jacobite rebellion list could be interesting particularly with the option of I think 18 superior clansmen. A good charge which disrupts a pike and shot unit switches the balance nicely in the favour of the clansmen.
I fought a Montrose army last night with my Late Swedes and it took me 3 charges to break a highland although I confess that it was uphill.
John

Warriors can be useful in small numbers (like for the covenanters) but the problem its when, like for asian armies , the whoole list is made of them.

probably right from the look of it. Could be very tough times for the American (and the like) armies. Hard to argue this isn't entirely historical though. The designers have also pretty explicitly stated that, as a design decision, they have made outdated weapon systems uncompetitive.

I'll know for sure once "Cities of Gold" comes out and I can try my Inca. I suspect it will be exactly what it looks like though!

Martin

I have found them to be better than I feared against foot.

As others have said they don't have a fun time versus mounted.