Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Hey folks

Its been a while since I posted, as life has been crazy (although I
did manage to squeeze in the tourney in Barrie and a game or two).

I just got caught up, and have to say that I like the terrain
placement system, woods in the center and all.

Butin response, to Jon's question of "how does the climate system
work?" like Noel I would have to say that it doesn't. Really its a
system of deciding who has home field advantage, and climate had
little to do with it. As to your proposal of just eliminating the
+1 for matched climate, I think it does little or nothing to address
the real question, which is who gets the home field advantage.

In historical games its usually a non issue, but with most tourney
games being ahistoral matchups its really irrelevant. For instance,
the fact that Mark Stone' Ten Independent States have a tropical
climate is really irrelevant, except it guarantees him an advantage
in tournament play. After all, its not like my Wallachians ever
marched to China to fight them, so why should he be guaranteed home
field advantage?

I do like the idea of one side having a home field advantage, but it
would be nice if the system for determining it at least smacked a
little of strategy, tactics, and luck (which always matters, no
matter what people say :)

When two generals decide to stop dancing around and agree come to
grips in a particular place, really its based on two factors: The
more agressive the general the more likely he is to cede the home
field in favour of coming to grips with the enemy. The second is
how well informed he is about the lay of the land.

So I would propose that you determine who has the home field
advantage as follows:

Each player rolls a d6.

Modify the die roll as follows:
+1 if you have the scouting advantage
+2 if you have outscouted your opponent

An agression modifier would be nice, but would have to be generated
for every army. I like the 0-2 proposal, and it should be a
negative penalty to the die roll, as a more agressive general is
more likely to come to grips in terrain he doesn't know as well.

The player with the highest number wins, and they have the home
field advantage and a +1 on terrain placement. If they tie neither
does, and no one gets the advantage.

Comments?

Have fun!
Cole

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Scouting is irrelevant. The Irish and Burmese will stay in their woods/jungles
no matter how many horseys you have. To be honest, horses are more of a
hinderance in dense woods whereas LMi and Li would be better in dense jungles.

Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...> wrote:Hey folks

Its been a while since I posted, as life has been crazy (although I
did manage to squeeze in the tourney in Barrie and a game or two).

I just got caught up, and have to say that I like the terrain
placement system, woods in the center and all.

Butin response, to Jon's question of "how does the climate system
work?" like Noel I would have to say that it doesn't. Really its a
system of deciding who has home field advantage, and climate had
little to do with it. As to your proposal of just eliminating the
+1 for matched climate, I think it does little or nothing to address
the real question, which is who gets the home field advantage.

In historical games its usually a non issue, but with most tourney
games being ahistoral matchups its really irrelevant. For instance,
the fact that Mark Stone' Ten Independent States have a tropical
climate is really irrelevant, except it guarantees him an advantage
in tournament play. After all, its not like my Wallachians ever
marched to China to fight them, so why should he be guaranteed home
field advantage?

I do like the idea of one side having a home field advantage, but it
would be nice if the system for determining it at least smacked a
little of strategy, tactics, and luck (which always matters, no
matter what people say :)

When two generals decide to stop dancing around and agree come to
grips in a particular place, really its based on two factors: The
more agressive the general the more likely he is to cede the home
field in favour of coming to grips with the enemy. The second is
how well informed he is about the lay of the land.

So I would propose that you determine who has the home field
advantage as follows:

Each player rolls a d6.

Modify the die roll as follows:
+1 if you have the scouting advantage
+2 if you have outscouted your opponent

An agression modifier would be nice, but would have to be generated
for every army. I like the 0-2 proposal, and it should be a
negative penalty to the die roll, as a more agressive general is
more likely to come to grips in terrain he doesn't know as well.

The player with the highest number wins, and they have the home
field advantage and a +1 on terrain placement. If they tie neither
does, and no one gets the advantage.

Comments?

Have fun!
Cole






SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

kelly wilkinson wrote:
> Scouting is irrelevant. The Irish and Burmese will stay in their
> woods/jungles no matter how many horseys you have. To be honest,
> horses are more of a hinderance in dense woods whereas LMi and Li
> would be better in dense jungles.

Well Kelly, that is perhaps one of the dumbest things I've ever seen
written here.

I don't think you'll find a half-way competent soldier who would
agree that strategic scouting is anything other than critical.
Nicopolis and Arbedo would have been very different battles if there
had been better strategic scouting by the losers and winners
respectively, and those are just two examples.

And apart from scouting, you ignore the important aspect of
strategic mobility. A more mobile (i.e. mounted) has a greater
flexibility in moving and choosing its ground than a less mobile
army.

And most importantly, this isn't about historical battles. Its
about adjudicating who has a home field advantage in non-historical
tournament battles. What is irrelevant is the fact that there are
jungles in Burma and woods in Ireland.

So why not a scouting/agression based system for determining it,
coupled with terrain effects on tactical scouting for balance? Its
way better than what we have now, and has a modicum of real
strategic footing.

Have fun!
Cole





>
> Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@m...> wrote:Hey folks
>
> Its been a while since I posted, as life has been crazy (although
I
> did manage to squeeze in the tourney in Barrie and a game or two).
>
> I just got caught up, and have to say that I like the terrain
> placement system, woods in the center and all.
>
> Butin response, to Jon's question of "how does the climate system
> work?" like Noel I would have to say that it doesn't. Really its
a
> system of deciding who has home field advantage, and climate had
> little to do with it. As to your proposal of just eliminating the
> +1 for matched climate, I think it does little or nothing to
address
> the real question, which is who gets the home field advantage.
>
> In historical games its usually a non issue, but with most tourney
> games being ahistoral matchups its really irrelevant. For
instance,
> the fact that Mark Stone' Ten Independent States have a tropical
> climate is really irrelevant, except it guarantees him an
advantage
> in tournament play. After all, its not like my Wallachians ever
> marched to China to fight them, so why should he be guaranteed
home
> field advantage?
>
> I do like the idea of one side having a home field advantage, but
it
> would be nice if the system for determining it at least smacked a
> little of strategy, tactics, and luck (which always matters, no
> matter what people say
>
> When two generals decide to stop dancing around and agree come to
> grips in a particular place, really its based on two factors: The
> more agressive the general the more likely he is to cede the home
> field in favour of coming to grips with the enemy. The second is
> how well informed he is about the lay of the land.
>
> So I would propose that you determine who has the home field
> advantage as follows:
>
> Each player rolls a d6.
>
> Modify the die roll as follows:
> +1 if you have the scouting advantage
> +2 if you have outscouted your opponent
>
> An agression modifier would be nice, but would have to be
generated
> for every army. I like the 0-2 proposal, and it should be a
> negative penalty to the die roll, as a more agressive general is
> more likely to come to grips in terrain he doesn't know as well.
>
> The player with the highest number wins, and they have the home
> field advantage and a +1 on terrain placement. If they tie
neither
> does, and no one gets the advantage.
>
> Comments?
>
> Have fun!
> Cole
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Don't get me wrong ...
I enjoy playing the terrain placement too. Its a good portion of the
game. I don't think anyone would want to get rid of it. The home
field thing just doesn't work for me as it is.

Cole has a good start.
I'm sure we could toss some other factors in there, without going too
crazy. Any ideas? Aggression is hard to rate, unless Rash or Cautious
generals are involved.

So if you get your home field.. I'd still like to see characteristic
terrain selection if possible. Yes, I know there are woods in dry
lands (thank-you geographers) but they certainly aren't known for
that. There might have been some desert battles where woods were
pivotal, but I can't think of any today.

As an example:
I'd say limit the woods availability in this circumstance (dry climate
fighting at home)-- not remove woods completely -- just so the
egyptians aren't hiding behind a wall of forest. The woods roll could
be modified, or the the quantity of woods selections could be limited,
something to encourage characteristic terrain.

The same would go for the other climate regions -- limit terrain to
reflect geographical character. Some armies could exist in more than
one climate region, and thus have a choice. A few new terrain picks
could be invented that could better reflect the climate regions.

This could add up to a lot of work for some poor rule writing sap, my
appologies.
It could be worth it though. It would be nice to see armies using the
sort of terrain they would have trained on.

Noel.

[Craig Scott]

Hello Folks,

In a tournament format no climate advantage should be (+1) given, no
pretence, just keep it straight forward and simple. Both start with
an equal footing, then it is up to the generals (o:

Craig

[Steve Hollowell]

This would be my preference.

craigshar2 <craigshar@...> wrote:
Hello Folks,

In a tournament format no climate advantage should be (+1) given, no
pretence, just keep it straight forward and simple. Both start with
an equal footing, then it is up to the generals (o:

Craig





SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Todd Schneider]

I think agression factors would be the wrong way to
go, in that they would invariably raise more arguments
than the problem they are trying to solve.

I think the Climate is a good place to start.
I don't think both sides should get a +1 though.

I do think scouting should play a bigger role in
terrain choice.

Heres the previous email I sent to Jon as an "X-Rule"
idea:

"What are the benefits of having more scouting points
than your opponent currently?

I think it’s a bit minor myself. If I am playing my
Araucanians against say, Mongols, I buy a CinC and
Three Sub Gens, I can set up three commands without
really giving my true disposistion away, and in some
cases even out deploy an opponent, depending on how
many Sub Gens he has.

That being said, if your out scouted, shouldn’t you be
at a bigger disadvantage?

Here a couple of X Rules to consider. Please let me
know what you think of them.

A player with more scouting points than his opponent
always gets the first Terrain pick, unless a Major
Water Feature is chosen.

A player who outscouts (IE has more than 3x the
necessary scouting points), gets the first two terrain
picks, unless the first choice is a Major Water
Feature.

I haven’t figured out the major water feature part
yet.

Call me crazy, but I think an army that’s out scouted
shouldn’t get to choose “all” the ground it fights on,
likewise the penalty should be harsher for being out
scouted."

IMO There could be a mechanism for being able to
choose (or possibly even remove) a piece of terrain
first if your completely outscout your opponent, no
matter who's home climate your in.

Todd

--- Noel White <agrianian@...> wrote:

> Don't get me wrong ...
> I enjoy playing the terrain placement too. Its a
> good portion of the
> game. I don't think anyone would want to get rid of
> it. The home
> field thing just doesn't work for me as it is.
>
> Cole has a good start.
> I'm sure we could toss some other factors in there,
> without going too
> crazy. Any ideas? Aggression is hard to rate, unless
> Rash or Cautious
> generals are involved.
>
> So if you get your home field.. I'd still like to
> see characteristic
> terrain selection if possible. Yes, I know there are
> woods in dry
> lands (thank-you geographers) but they certainly
> aren't known for
> that. There might have been some desert battles
> where woods were
> pivotal, but I can't think of any today.
>
> As an example:
> I'd say limit the woods availability in this
> circumstance (dry climate
> fighting at home)-- not remove woods completely --
> just so the
> egyptians aren't hiding behind a wall of forest. The
> woods roll could
> be modified, or the the quantity of woods selections
> could be limited,
> something to encourage characteristic terrain.
>
> The same would go for the other climate regions --
> limit terrain to
> reflect geographical character. Some armies could
> exist in more than
> one climate region, and thus have a choice. A few
> new terrain picks
> could be invented that could better reflect the
> climate regions.
>
> This could add up to a lot of work for some poor
> rule writing sap, my
> appologies.
> It could be worth it though. It would be nice to see
> armies using the
> sort of terrain they would have trained on.
>
> Noel.
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

We are not going to do 'aggression factors' for each army or some such.

The two proposals I am considering - but very much want this excellent
discussion to run to hear more - are:

No generalized +1 for 'home climate'
Getting a +1 to get a terrain feature of the 'appropriate type' for the climate
played in.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Climate and Tournament Terrain Selection


I think agression factors would be the wrong way to
go, in that they would invariably raise more arguments
than the problem they are trying to solve.

I think the Climate is a good place to start.
I don't think both sides should get a +1 though.

I do think scouting should play a bigger role in
terrain choice.

Heres the previous email I sent to Jon as an "X-Rule"
idea:

"What are the benefits of having more scouting points
than your opponent currently?

I think it?s a bit minor myself. If I am playing my
Araucanians against say, Mongols, I buy a CinC and
Three Sub Gens, I can set up three commands without
really giving my true disposistion away, and in some
cases even out deploy an opponent, depending on how
many Sub Gens he has.

That being said, if your out scouted, shouldn?t you be
at a bigger disadvantage?

Here a couple of X Rules to consider. Please let me
know what you think of them.

A player with more scouting points than his opponent
always gets the first Terrain pick, unless a Major
Water Feature is chosen.

A player who outscouts (IE has more than 3x the
necessary scouting points), gets the first two terrain
picks, unless the first choice is a Major Water
Feature.

I haven?t figured out the major water feature part
yet.

Call me crazy, but I think an army that?s out scouted
shouldn?t get to choose ?all? the ground it fights on,
likewise the penalty should be harsher for being out
scouted."

IMO There could be a mechanism for being able to
choose (or possibly even remove) a piece of terrain
first if your completely outscout your opponent, no
matter who's home climate your in.

Todd

--- Noel White <agrianian@...> wrote:

> Don't get me wrong ...
> I enjoy playing the terrain placement too. Its a
> good portion of the
> game. I don't think anyone would want to get rid of
> it. The home
> field thing just doesn't work for me as it is.
>
> Cole has a good start.
> I'm sure we could toss some other factors in there,
> without going too
> crazy. Any ideas? Aggression is hard to rate, unless
> Rash or Cautious
> generals are involved.
>
> So if you get your home field.. I'd still like to
> see characteristic
> terrain selection if possible. Yes, I know there are
> woods in dry
> lands (thank-you geographers) but they certainly
> aren't known for
> that. There might have been some desert battles
> where woods were
> pivotal, but I can't think of any today.
>
> As an example:
> I'd say limit the woods availability in this
> circumstance (dry climate
> fighting at home)-- not remove woods completely --
> just so the
> egyptians aren't hiding behind a wall of forest. The
> woods roll could
> be modified, or the the quantity of woods selections
> could be limited,
> something to encourage characteristic terrain.
>
> The same would go for the other climate regions --
> limit terrain to
> reflect geographical character. Some armies could
> exist in more than
> one climate region, and thus have a choice. A few
> new terrain picks
> could be invented that could better reflect the
> climate regions.
>
> This could add up to a lot of work for some poor
> rule writing sap, my
> appologies.
> It could be worth it though. It would be nice to see
> armies using the
> sort of terrain they would have trained on.
>
> Noel.
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Mallard]

Jon,

on the subject of terrain.

some terrain has a minimum/or maximum size which makes it difficult to fit
into a particular zone of the table.

if for example you must place a wood in a rear zone for example is it
permissable for it to cross over into another zone?

if so, under what circumstances?

this question comes about because if you have to put a wood in a rear zone
it then has to have regular sides due to size contraints and zone sizes.

mark mallard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Charles Yaw]

> Jon Cleaves wrote: The two proposals I am considering
> No generalized +1 for 'home climate'

This would be very appropriate for tournament games, which were the
focus of my orginal post.

> Getting a +1 to get a terrain feature of the 'appropriate type'
>for the climate played in.

What would be the 'appropriate type' for each climate? Would both
players get a +1 for the placement of that feature?

I agree with the suggestion that scouting points play some part in
determing terrain placement. Perhaps if you have twice the scouting
points of your opponent, you get the first terrain placement (after
Major Water)

Charles




>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Schneider <thresh1642@y...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Climate and Tournament Terrain
Selection
>
>
> I think agression factors would be the wrong way to
> go, in that they would invariably raise more arguments
> than the problem they are trying to solve.
>
> I think the Climate is a good place to start.
> I don't think both sides should get a +1 though.
>
> I do think scouting should play a bigger role in
> terrain choice.
>
> Heres the previous email I sent to Jon as an "X-Rule"
> idea:
>
> "What are the benefits of having more scouting points
> than your opponent currently?
>
> I think it?s a bit minor myself. If I am playing my
> Araucanians against say, Mongols, I buy a CinC and
> Three Sub Gens, I can set up three commands without
> really giving my true disposistion away, and in some
> cases even out deploy an opponent, depending on how
> many Sub Gens he has.
>
> That being said, if your out scouted, shouldn?t you be
> at a bigger disadvantage?
>
> Here a couple of X Rules to consider. Please let me
> know what you think of them.
>
> A player with more scouting points than his opponent
> always gets the first Terrain pick, unless a Major
> Water Feature is chosen.
>
> A player who outscouts (IE has more than 3x the
> necessary scouting points), gets the first two terrain
> picks, unless the first choice is a Major Water
> Feature.
>
> I haven?t figured out the major water feature part
> yet.
>
> Call me crazy, but I think an army that?s out scouted
> shouldn?t get to choose ?all? the ground it fights on,
> likewise the penalty should be harsher for being out
> scouted."
>
> IMO There could be a mechanism for being able to
> choose (or possibly even remove) a piece of terrain
> first if your completely outscout your opponent, no
> matter who's home climate your in.
>
> Todd
>
> --- Noel White <agrianian@y...> wrote:
>
> > Don't get me wrong ...
> > I enjoy playing the terrain placement too. Its a
> > good portion of the
> > game. I don't think anyone would want to get rid of
> > it. The home
> > field thing just doesn't work for me as it is.
> >
> > Cole has a good start.
> > I'm sure we could toss some other factors in there,
> > without going too
> > crazy. Any ideas? Aggression is hard to rate, unless
> > Rash or Cautious
> > generals are involved.
> >
> > So if you get your home field.. I'd still like to
> > see characteristic
> > terrain selection if possible. Yes, I know there are
> > woods in dry
> > lands (thank-you geographers) but they certainly
> > aren't known for
> > that. There might have been some desert battles
> > where woods were
> > pivotal, but I can't think of any today.
> >
> > As an example:
> > I'd say limit the woods availability in this
> > circumstance (dry climate
> > fighting at home)-- not remove woods completely --
> > just so the
> > egyptians aren't hiding behind a wall of forest. The
> > woods roll could
> > be modified, or the the quantity of woods selections
> > could be limited,
> > something to encourage characteristic terrain.
> >
> > The same would go for the other climate regions --
> > limit terrain to
> > reflect geographical character. Some armies could
> > exist in more than
> > one climate region, and thus have a choice. A few
> > new terrain picks
> > could be invented that could better reflect the
> > climate regions.
> >
> > This could add up to a lot of work for some poor
> > rule writing sap, my
> > appologies.
> > It could be worth it though. It would be nice to see
> > armies using the
> > sort of terrain they would have trained on.
> >
> > Noel.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings Jon,
Given those 2 choices I would just do without the +1.
TD

> We are not going to do 'aggression factors' for each army or some such.
>
> The two proposals I am considering - but very much want this excellent
discussion to run to hear more - are:
>
> No generalized +1 for 'home climate'
> Getting a +1 to get a terrain feature of the 'appropriate type' for the
climate played in.
>
> Jon
>

[Bill Chriss]

> This would be my preference.
>
> craigshar2 wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> In a tournament format no climate advantage should be (+1) given, no
> pretence, just keep it straight forward and simple. Both start with
> an equal footing, then it is up to the generals (o:
>
> Craig
>

My friends Craig and Steve,

Unless I am mistaken, don't both of you guys like wide open spaces and
usually play armies that do, too? :-)

I must repeat that with a couple of exceptions, this is what we will
continue to see in this thread...those of us who like to cut down frontage
arguing for a system that helps do that, and those opposed arguing for the
opposite. Thus, I will excuse myself from further comment, except to say
that:

1. I still say it ain't broke;

2. I agree that some of the suggestions that would make terrain selection
more complex and hence more elegant deserve further study.

-Greek

[Steve Hollowell]

Hiya Greek,

I actually prefer some good terrain on my flanks. In our last encounter I just
happened to be running Sassanids (an army that likes wide open spaces). I am a
knight army guy at heart and with the mediocre foot that usually accompanies the
knights, I like to put some rough terrain on my flanks and occasionally the
middle..

I just never have been a big fan of the +1 business.

hrisikos@... wrote:
> This would be my preference.
>
> craigshar2 wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> In a tournament format no climate advantage should be (+1) given, no
> pretence, just keep it straight forward and simple. Both start with
> an equal footing, then it is up to the generals (o:
>
> Craig
>

My friends Craig and Steve,

Unless I am mistaken, don't both of you guys like wide open spaces and
usually play armies that do, too? :-)

I must repeat that with a couple of exceptions, this is what we will
continue to see in this thread...those of us who like to cut down frontage
arguing for a system that helps do that, and those opposed arguing for the
opposite. Thus, I will excuse myself from further comment, except to say
that:

1. I still say it ain't broke;

2. I agree that some of the suggestions that would make terrain selection
more complex and hence more elegant deserve further study.

-Greek






---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Bill Chriss]

> Hiya Greek,
>
> I actually prefer some good terrain on my flanks. In our last encounter I
> just happened to be running Sassanids (an army that likes wide open
> spaces). I am a knight army guy at heart and with the mediocre foot that
> usually accompanies the knights, I like to put some rough terrain on my
> flanks and occasionally the middle..
>
> I just never have been a big fan of the +1 business.
>


Ah yes, the Later Crusaders. I still have the scars...It would appear that
the only choice for me in next year's theme will be Italian Condotta
(Venetians in Greece), or the next best thing would be Post-Mongol
Russian, Orthodox, at least, if not Greek.


-Greek