Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<<First a summary of our campaign. We are simulating the era just prior to the
commencement of the Punic Wars through the end of the Macedonian Wars. In 300
BC we have as the major players: Rome, Carthage, Epirus, Macedonia, Gaul (more
on this one later!). Minors include the Samnite League, Bruttia,
Spanish/Celt-Iberian tribes, Liguria, .... you get the picture.>>

That is excellent. I want to include three example campaigns in the rulebook,
so if you want to see your names in print as designers AND playtesters, you
could always send me the map, set-up and special rules when you are done. I
have a War of the Roses campaign to include that uses Kingmaker and shows how to
adapt a boardgame, but I haven't picked the other two yet.

<<We are playing much of this campaign via e-mail on Cyberboard (are you
familiar with this program?) and only the major battles will be resolved
tabletop (the stuff of legends!). Ok, here is where I would value some input:
>>

My guys turn in their turns by email, I resolve them and battles are fought out
(we've had two so far in three turns) on the table at our local game store.

<<1. Naval - do you have any campaign level naval rules worked out? Obviously
this period and scope involved a great deal of naval movement and combat.>>

Not yet. I have a guy working on the 'framework' of Fleet Warrior so that we
can back into that game to what we come up with for CamWar. Any ideas/work you
guys do would be most welcome.

<<2. Mobile Settlements. The Gauls are the only "barbarian" group able to
mount a serious offensive in our campaign. They were lured by wealth and a
desire for good land, but weren't organized as a true army and traveled with
wives, children, etc. - their armies got big quick, but melted away quick. My
thoughts were that in order for a Gallic Army to have any staying power on an
offensive campaign, they would move as a "mobile settlement" under the command
of a FC, they moved slow but steady and were fairly self-sufficient as long as
they won. You allude to them in the rules, but not much is there - what were
your thoughts on this aspect of your rules - are we close?>>

Yes. We have an army that has three MS in our campaign and no other settlements
(except the ones he takes). It is working quite well. I think Gauls are a
great candidate.

<< Have you given thought to political entities, and economic models beyond the
cursory value placed upon cities, etc.(like trade)?>>

Yes. I have two thoughts on that
1. Those things seemed so very particular to each individual campaign that I am
not sure they have a place in the main rules (which are designed to get Warrior
games played inside a campaign context and be connected from game to game).
2. No matter what, the basics of movement, FCs, forced march, attrition, etc
HAVE to work *before* we start electing proconsuls and cutting trade routes.

I am more along the lines of adding trade/politics in an online (free)
supplement somewhere down the road. Thoughts?

Scott, could you also use the yahoo group for such mails so the other
playtesters (and anyone interested in listening in) can see the issues? Also
save me writing multiple mails on the same discoveries/questions.

Thanks
Jon