Re: MudGrunt

["John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/4/06, Laserlight <laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I occasionally check the Free Wargames Rules site, and lo and behold,
> someone has modified StarGrunt for medieval:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041015045724/http://mudgrunt.vildbasse.dk/
>
> I've only lightly skimmed it so have no comments on its quality other than
> to say that some things are flat wrong--eg that pikes were useless against
> infantry, or that no one used untrained (yellow) troops--but you might glean
> some useful ideas.

Some useful ideas, I guess.  It would require a complete rework IMHO.
It does not substantially address the difference between close order
and loose order troops, which is probably the key concept when dealing
with medieval units.

I'm baffled by the idea that "Damascus Swords" and "Flails" were the
two examples of excellent weapons.  I wouldn't class either that way.
Damascus swords weren't enough improved to be worth a die shift, and
flails weren't that great at all, or more folks would have used them.

It isn't nearly harsh enough on loose order infantry being run down by
shock cavalry, nor does it simulate the difficulties in mounted units
charging disciplined close order infantrymen (be they Swiss pikes, War
of the Roses billmen, Flemish guildsmen, Scottish schiltrons, Saxon
fyrd backed with huscarls, etc etc etc).

I also argue with the idea that suppressing units was a factor.
Missile fire was more important for disrupting the formations and
lowering the morale so that they would break when charged by the heavy
cavalry.

John
--
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani