Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 4 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>>
>> In a message dated 2/3/2005 20:01:01 Central Standard Time, mdevans@k...
writes:
>>
>> I would suggest that Scott requires all 2005 NICT participants to
>> prepare their lists in a similar common format. >>
>
> That I *gotta* see...lol
>

Actually, I've been working on a program that would (a) enable people to
construct an army list via a web page, with all points correctly costed out,
(b) view other people's army lists thusly constructed that the "owner" has
allowed to be made publicly viewable, and (c) post comments on publicly
viewable army lists thusly constructed. Once completed, it would be very easy
to adapt this to whatever tournament purposes FHE or NASAMW had in mind.

The catch, of course, is that I have to do this in my spare time and it will be
some months before its ready for public testing.


-Mark Stone

[Phil Gardocki]

I have a program I use to build my lists.
It uses Visual Basic for Applications in Excel.
I have been using for about a decade, but other gamers appear unenthusiastic
when I try to give it to them.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, February 04, 2005 2:33 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] common list formats


>
>--- On February 4 Jon Cleaves said: ---
>
>>>
>>> In a message dated 2/3/2005 20:01:01 Central Standard Time, mdevans@k...
>writes:
>>>
>>> I would suggest that Scott requires all 2005 NICT participants to
>>> prepare their lists in a similar common format. >>
>>
>> That I *gotta* see...lol
>>
>
>Actually, I've been working on a program that would (a) enable people to
>construct an army list via a web page, with all points correctly costed
out,
>(b) view other people's army lists thusly constructed that the "owner" has
>allowed to be made publicly viewable, and (c) post comments on publicly
>viewable army lists thusly constructed. Once completed, it would be very
easy
>to adapt this to whatever tournament purposes FHE or NASAMW had in mind.
>
>The catch, of course, is that I have to do this in my spare time and it
will be
>some months before its ready for public testing.
>
>
>-Mark Stone
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 4 Phil Gardocki said: ---

>
> I have a program I use to build my lists.
> It uses Visual Basic for Applications in Excel.
> I have been using for about a decade, but other gamers appear unenthusiastic
> when I try to give it to them.
>

Yes, I have a nice setup in Excel for working up army lists. What I'm looking
for, however, is something more: something that can be deployed on a public
website, used by many people, and each army list generated on the site made
either public, private, or private to a group. And all this coupled with some
sort of comment/discussion/rating system.

The backend is going to be written in Python, and I have some bare bones code
that does some of the work so far. I'm still trying to decide between DHTML and
Flash for the front end. DHTML is easier, more universal, and I know it already.
Flash programming I'd actually have to learn -- not that it appears to be too
difficult -- but it would give the whole system greater capability for
expanding features in the future.

We'll see. As I said, it's likely to be some months before any of this sees the
light of day.


-Mark Stone

[Doug]

>Yes, I have a nice setup in Excel for working up army lists. What I'm looking
>for, however, is something more: something that can be deployed on a public
>website,

That gets around the platform-specificity problem, but OTOH who wants
to be forced to be online while playing with army lists?

The format of the lists in the books bugs me; I want a columnar
format so I can scan downwards in order to find all the lines having
"Sh" etc.

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 4 Doug said: ---

>>
>> What I'm looking for, however, is something more: something that can be
>> deployed on a public website,
>>
>
> That gets around the platform-specificity problem, but OTOH who wants
> to be forced to be online while playing with army lists?
>

Well, I guess that shows my bias. Isn't everybody online all the time? :)

I guess I just assume that "doing something on the computer" and "doing
something on the computer online" are synonymous.


-Mark Stone

[Mike Turner]

Having played in PA the last three years I can tell you this:

I don't think Scott cares about format as long as he can read it and
it is legal.
The competitors at that level of competition are all individuals,
many of whom like to do things their own way.

Common Format briefs well,
Will execute poorly

Time better spent gaming

Mike

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
> >Yes, I have a nice setup in Excel for working up army lists. What
I'm looking
> >for, however, is something more: something that can be deployed
on a public
> >website,
>
> That gets around the platform-specificity problem, but OTOH who
wants
> to be forced to be online while playing with army lists?
>
> The format of the lists in the books bugs me; I want a columnar
> format so I can scan downwards in order to find all the lines
having
> "Sh" etc.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On February 4 Phil Gardocki said: ---
>
>
> We'll see. As I said, it's likely to be some months before any of
this sees the
> light of day.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

I'd be interested in seeing and using this when it is completed
Mark - good effort.

murray

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@l...>
wrote:
>
> Having played in PA the last three years I can tell you this:
>
> I don't think Scott cares about format as long as he can read it
and
> it is legal.
> The competitors at that level of competition are all individuals,
> many of whom like to do things their own way.
>
> Common Format briefs well,
> Will execute poorly
>
> Time better spent gaming
>
> Mike
>

Unless you want the broader wargaming community to have access to
the lists which were used in an understandable form - I think it is
useful for newer gamers to see how many troops of which type are
favoured for units, how many of which class and which weapon etc.

This was extremely difficult to achieve in the totally disorganised
way the lists were presented to Scott. Gets back to supporting the
newer players IMO.

Muz

[joncleaves]

I wouldn't say the lists were presented to Scott in a totally disorganized way.
Mine certainly was not. But what Scott did was simply cut and paste the points
portion of every list into a single document.

Sure that made it hard to read, but the man just got the first draft of
Classical done in the same week Oriental arrived in the mail - give him a break!
lol

I am also not convinced that reading last year's lists from the NICT is all that
big a help to new players. For one thing, a 1/4 of them are now illegal, and in
two months, half of them will be. More importantly, brand new players should
not, IMO, be taught in a 'let's get you to the NICT' fashion. That comes later.
They should be taught how to write a list they like first. Then the nuances of
what unit sizes and troop combinations best fit their style of play. For
example, Ewan is a absolutely top end player. However, I would NEVER take the
Sassanids the way he did this past year. That list suits his style of play, but
the chances that any other player, especially a brand new one could, would or
should be doing the same things with it are mighty slim. I would never
recommend someone take the Han the way I did in 2003. They sucked. But I was
in a hurry and those were the figures I could get.
I have 'trained' a lot of guys to local victory and to qualification in the
NICT, but I would never use someone else's list as an example. What I *do* do
is to help them write a list I think matches the style I have observed them to
be comfortable with. It is a very individual, personal thing.

Too many personal and practical things go into the NICT lists to make them a
general guide for someone new. Just my $0.02.

jon

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> I am also not convinced that reading last year's lists from the NICT is
> all that big a help to new players. For one thing, a 1/4 of them are
> now illegal, and in two months, half of them will be. More
> importantly, brand new players should not, IMO, be taught in a 'let's
> get you to the NICT' fashion. That comes later. They should be taught
> how to write a list they like first. Then the nuances of what unit
> sizes and troop combinations best fit their style of play. For
> example, Ewan is a absolutely top end player. However, I would NEVER
> take the Sassanids the way he did this past year. That list suits his
> style of play, but the chances that any other player, especially a
> brand new one could, would or should be doing the same things with it
> are mighty slim. I would never recommend someone take the Han the way
> I did in 2003. They sucked. But I was in a hurry and those were the
> figures I could get. I have 'trained' a lot of guys to local victory
> and to qualification in the NICT, but I would never use someone else's
> list as an example. What I *do* do is to help them write a list I
> think matches the style I have observed them to be comfortable with.
> It is a very individual, personal thing.

Yes, I'll get to the impartial, unbiased and utterly accurate NICT list
analysis. [The formatting into .xls is neat, but alas not helpful for the
purposes of commentary ]

I was surprised - OK, astonished - at some of the ways other people took
Sassanids in both Theme and Open tournaments last H'Con. The more so as
I'd discussed my planned list with two folks beforehand and reached
consensus from pretty close starting points. So, Jon, if you'd care to
comment on what exactly you would not have done as I did, I (at least)
would be interested. (And yes, I know that at least Frank took them the
way he could get figures. That's an external uninteresting from list
construction p.o.v.)

I think I have said this before, but will risk repetition: I don't think
that one should have a player-style; I think one's style should be
dictated by the army. [And by the conditions of tournament] Otherwise
you both limit and handicap yourself by in most cases trying to play an
army in a non-optimal way.

E

[Ed Forbes]

I think players do best if they chose an army that matches their basic style of
play. If one is basicly aggressive and impatient, playing an army that requires
one to be passive and patient is fighting ones own nature.

The better players can override these basic tendencies, but this is the same as
traning oneself to bat both left and right handed.

Ed

-- Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:

I think I have said this before, but will risk repetition: I don't think
that one should have a player-style; I think one's style should be
dictated by the army. [And by the conditions of tournament] Otherwise
you both limit and handicap yourself by in most cases trying to play an
army in a non-optimal way.

E





Yahoo! Groups Links





___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, eforbes100@... wrote:
> The better players can override these basic tendencies, but this is the same
as traning oneself to bat both left and right handed.

I read this and thought 'Ed plays cricket?!'

Then baseball occurred to me. Oh well .

[On topic: Yes, I understand Ed's point, I just happen to disagree both as
a fact and as an aim. Players may be *taught* a certain style, perhaps,
and I suppose that some - as some generals - may prefer to sit and wait
vs. charge. But I think that the idea of personal style is less common
than often thought, and *definitely* think that it should be eradicated
from oneself if possible. If life hands you Mongols, trying to play like
a hoplite... well, it'll make for short games*. And I have found when
teaching that presenting the concept of what a given troop type is goood
at leads naturally to a flexible approach in terms of what the player
does when handed Gauls ("OK, OK, charge already!") vs. Papal Italian ("If
you wanted enthusiasm, boss, you shoulda gone to France.")]

* Passing up opportunity for cheap shots about mongol dismounts here.

E

[joncleaves]

So, Jon, if you'd care to
comment on what exactly you would not have done as I did, I (at least)
would be interested. >>

I would not have taken so many LI and LC.

<<I think I have said this before, but will risk repetition: I don't think
that one should have a player-style; I think one's style should be
dictated by the army. [And by the conditions of tournament] Otherwise
you both limit and handicap yourself by in most cases trying to play an
army in a non-optimal way.>>

Since I am an advocate of 'style', let us make sure we are talking about the
same thing. Unlike you or I, many - the majority - of new Warrior players
cannot pick an ideal, optimal open tournament army and purchase the lead and
have it professionally painted nearly at will. The figures will represent a
significant purchase in their lives and the painting will be something they will
often want to do themselves, but typically not quickly due to time constraints -
as much as a year or more in some cases. This isn't going to be some army they
store or sell after this years' Historicon - it's a new member of their family.
Thus, it has to be something they will enjoy owning and playing for years. It
may even be the only army they ever own or play....

Given that, if a player *enjoys* a certain style army, it makse no sense for him
or her to invest so much time and money in an army with another character, no
matter the current conventional wisdom of top competitors in national
open-format tourneys.

I am not advocating becoming tactically predictable, certainly. Nor would I
suggest playing an army in a manner inconsistent with its nature. But human
nature being what it is and after 30 years of gaming there is no doubt in my
mind that players have certain preferences or tendencies in the type of forces
they most enjoy employing. My only suggestion is to determine what those
preferences are and try to match the armies you play to them. Especially when
one does not have the ability to build/buy armies whenever one pleases.

Just my $0.02
J

[joncleaves]

* Passing up opportunity for cheap shots about mongol dismounts here.>>

No, actually, you took it...lol Duly noted, too..

J

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote, in response to me:

> So, Jon, if you'd care to comment on what exactly you would not have
> done as I did, I (at least) would be interested. >>
>
> I would not have taken so many LI and LC.

And bought more - HC? MI?

> <<I think I have said this before, but will risk repetition: I don't
> think that one should have a player-style; I think one's style should
> be dictated by the army. [And by the conditions of tournament]
> Otherwise you both limit and handicap yourself by in most cases trying
> to play an army in a non-optimal way.>>
>
> Since I am an advocate of 'style', let us make sure we are talking
> about the same thing. Unlike you or I, many - the majority - of new
> Warrior players cannot pick an ideal, optimal open tournament army and
> purchase the lead and have it professionally painted nearly at will.

:-) I'm glad you're that rich, but I'm not! I bought the Sassanids - but
they're the first and only 25mm troops I own, and the only army I ever
bought. I definitely expect to play them for a long time.

> The figures will represent a significant purchase in their lives and
> the painting will be something they will often want to do themselves,
> but typically not quickly due to time constraints - as much as a year
> or more in some cases. This isn't going to be some army they store or
> sell after this years' Historicon - it's a new member of their family.
> Thus, it has to be something they will enjoy owning and playing for
> years. It may even be the only army they ever own or play....

All agreed. The army I last started painting, in 15mm, was back in '96.
I don't have a single unit completed. It's still on the agenda..

> Given that, if a player *enjoys* a certain style army, it makse no
> sense for him or her to invest so much time and money in an army with
> another character, no matter the current conventional wisdom of top
> competitors in national open-format tourneys.
> I am not advocating becoming tactically predictable, certainly. Nor
> would I suggest playing an army in a manner inconsistent with its
> nature. But human nature being what it is and after 30 years of gaming
> there is no doubt in my mind that players have certain preferences or
> tendencies in the type of forces they most enjoy employing. My only
> suggestion is to determine what those preferences are and try to match
> the armies you play to them. Especially when one does not have the
> ability to build/buy armies whenever one pleases.

[I really don't know what the comments on buying armies are about. So
I'll not comment there.]

If a player wants to charge knights - sure, go ahead and charge knights.
Run French Ordonnance. But that's not going to win you tournaments, just
as shooting darts from triple-armed legions or herding together every
known Midianite camel-rider is not. (Well, OK, that last, maybe..)

And if you're playing in an Asian Theme tournament, wanting to charge
knights is not going to help.

Maybe we're talking about slightly different things - you seem to be
talking about army style vs. player style. I confess, for instance, to
preferring regular support troops (e.g. the Sassanids), which I guess is a
'style.' But then what one does with that style of troops - i.e. player
style - depends on whether they are LI, LC, LMI B, LHI LTS/JLS...

Back to the Sassanids - before them, I played largely Seleucids; prior to
that it was primarily Imperialists, and before *that* it was Aztecs.
Which serendipitously for my argument here seems to be four completely
different army styles, leading to four completely different ways of
playing. Trying to impose some 'player style' *has* to be a bad thing.

I guess I don't know any player who has stuck to one army exclusively over
any serious length of time - which could be my failing in only knowing
three or four regional groups in the US, plus the UK and Europe, plus the
national and international tournament scenes. So I think that in
essentially all cases, a given player is going to try more than one army.
And as soon as that happens, the optimal way to run army 2 is going to
be different from army 1.

E, opinionated as ever.