Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/6/2002 17:59:41 Central Standard Time,
scribblerjohn@... writes:

> >Things may actually be somewhat different yet. I don't think any of
> us yet fully
> >grasp the implications of Warrior's shooting arc rules, and how
> that makes dense
> >missile fire even more dangerous. We may have gotten a first
> glimpse of that
> >from Chris' success at the NICT.
>
> Could someone expand on this observation? I don't know what Chris did.>>


I watched some of each of Chris's games and do not remember anything about
shooting arcs being key to his wins. Mark knows that I disagree with him
about the 'impact' of this rule.

>
> >
> >We need to keep in mind that regardless of the nominal period in
> which we're
> >playing, the game mechanics of Warrior make the game
> very "Napoleonic". TOG, and
> >Warrior so far, has been dominated by "pin and punch" maneuver
> tactics combined
> >with effective skirmisher tactics that all have an early-Napoleon
> feel to them
> >(up to, say, Austerlitz).
>
> I've heard this before. Do the horsemen find this an unfair
> characterization? Mark doesn't intend this way, but I often read this
> in critical comments from others.

I know I disagree, but I also have a tremendous respect for Mark . Pin and
punch, as it is known, is one methodology in employing units in a Warrior
army. It sure isn't the only one and it doesn't always work. I play both
ancients and napoleonics and I do find some things similar (some parts of the
art of war are timeless) and some things very different. I would not agree,
however, with the characterization of Warrior as having an 'early-napoleonic'
feel. But, Mark makes a good argument and I would also not apply the term
'unfair' to what he said.


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

Thanks for the reply. A couple of follow up comments below ...

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> Things may actually be somewhat different yet. I don't think any of
us yet fully
> grasp the implications of Warrior's shooting arc rules, and how
that makes dense
> missile fire even more dangerous. We may have gotten a first
glimpse of that
> from Chris' success at the NICT.

Could someone expand on this observation? I don't know what Chris did.

>
> We need to keep in mind that regardless of the nominal period in
which we're
> playing, the game mechanics of Warrior make the game
very "Napoleonic". TOG, and
> Warrior so far, has been dominated by "pin and punch" maneuver
tactics combined
> with effective skirmisher tactics that all have an early-Napoleon
feel to them
> (up to, say, Austerlitz).

I've heard this before. Do the horsemen find this an unfair
characterization? Mark doesn't intend this way, but I often read this
in critical comments from others.


The Warrior shooting arc rule probably won't change
> the underlying Napoleonic feel of the game mechanics, but may shift
things
> towards a later Napoleon (think Borodino) massed fire and attrition
game.


I wonder if the Napoleonic feel would go away if you cut the number
of allowable command factors in half or down to one third the current
levels? Big units play differently, I bet.

John Meunier