RE: MudGrunt [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I agree that those rules don't really address medieval combat very well.

For FMA purposes, Blood and Thunder still seems to give the best
approximation of combat in the period.
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/misc/fmafanta.htm

Brendan
'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Atkinson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: MudGrunt
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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

IMPORTANT 
1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses. 
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information 
   for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, 
   please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email. 
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not 
   a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 
4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
publications 
   and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
messages. 
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails

   of this type from DVA. 
6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.