----- Original Message ----- From: "Joey Beutel"
"Neolithic warriors do not use shields, although later primitive
types might have animal-hide shields that stop 1 hit adjust DX by
1."
"Heavy wooden shields covered with hippopotamus hide stop 1 hit and
adjust DX -1."
"Light infantry carry large wicker shields which stop 1 hit and
adjust DX -1."
Okaaaaay.
That one i see no problem with, as a shield with animal hide is
exactly what a shield with hippopotamus hide is... and I see no
reason
why a wicker shield can't be similar (its various special rules
actually make it quite different).
I grew up around war-gameing so maybe it's just me but having
unspecified hides streched over a frame (to my understanding of what
he mentions) match woven reeds and/or wood with a specifically thick
hide is quite a bit much to ask.
This wasn't research into what our ansestors could do but rather
looking at a questionable list from origional Melee and somewhat
arbitrarally call any ancient shield "small" and of a given -1 hit
value no matter what it's hit with.
Poor art.
Then there's stuff like.
"After the 8th Century BC, heavy infantry wore iron-reinforced
leather armor which may be considered equal to MELEE chainmail.
Before that, they wore breastplates and helms and carried large
shields. The helm and breastplates may be considered chainmail, but
with MA reduced to 5."
MA 5.
Ughh.
Yeah, I laughed at that too, due to our recent talks about MA. Then
again, I've recently been thinking "who cares?" because the MA rules
have always worked for me in combat situations. Might not work for a
race, sure, but in combat it should work fine.
Really?
IMO it's not that they can't move quickly in heavy armor, just that
they can't move as quickly as long as an equal Figure outta the
stuff but if their both swinging the same swords?
Reguardless 5 MA isn't really a brisk walk.
Look at the people and equipment he's referencing and make your own
call.
According to Hyginus, the Achaeans killed 362 Trojans during their
ten years at Troy."
Nifty lil thought...
If he's talking Neolithic tribesmen colonizing the area then he
already covered this and is really just saying that one "tribe" is
called Achaeans.
If he's using it like Homer then the stone tools are WAY off.
Where's the Dendra panoply?
Heck, based off the above those guys probably only get an MA of 2.
There are some small differences, but I agree that this was kinda a
redundant rule.
This was where I gave up on any chance of learning anything from
this artical and figured out the guy was hanging guess numbers on
historical terms he just pulled outta his nethers.
We might as well be talking about Orcs here.
He thinks knights lack discipline and Philip and Alex's "strategy"
were responsible for Macedonian success "rather than any
technological superiority".
Well, the Macedonians did use rather similar weapons (and even
tactics, on the small scale) to their greek counterparts, and there
is
no doubt that Alex's strategy and use of his companion cavalry was
essential to his victories. Also, knights' discipline varied a lot,
but for most of medieval history, in most areas, they were not very
disciplined. Note the Battle of Agincourt's charge of knights that
resulted in them all getting killed because, essentially, they were
bored. (they also killed their own men in the charge). And even the
better disciplined knights (in the sense that they listened to their
commander's orders) still fought in a rather barbaric style compared
to the tightly packed ranks of hoplites, as melees descended into
brawls rather quickly in medieval europe.
???
Yahweh save me from the goyim...