Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<< 75 for an ally who is a 'real' ally - i.e. from another list,
bringing
other troops; OK. But for lists that *only* have allies, no Subs -
that's the problem I see.>>

Ah. I see said the blind man. I will recommend that we look at those lists.

J



------------------------------------------------------------------------
<B>How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -
or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which
fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
</B><A HREF="http://click.egroups.com/1/3820/2/ / / /960996568/">[ Click Here
]</A>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



>>

[scott holder]

<< 75 for an ally who is a 'real' ally - i.e. from another list,
bringing
other troops; OK. But for lists that *only* have allies, no Subs -
that's the problem I see.>>

Ah. I see said the blind man. I will recommend that we look at those lists.

In some lists, there are no sub-generals. The historical record makes it
pretty clear that generals other than the CinC of certain armies fall under
our definition of "allied generals", therefore, those particular lists
shouldn't have sub-generals.

There are a couple in BIBLICAL WARRIOR. I don't have them in front of me.

Scott

[joncleaves]

Scott: You are repeating yourself, my four-horseman-brother. (Damn government
computers!)

I think Ewan's issue is that we may want to look at 'charging' a guy 75 points
for an AG if that is all he has on his list. I don't have any of those in front
of me either, just thought we might want to look at it.

[joncleaves]

<<And you could make an argument that the extra point costs for AGs are
something of a penalty paid by armies that historically did not have well
articulated command and control -- which keeps the number of commands
lower. A parallel being the higher cost of irregular command factors.>>

Exactly the concept behind them, but we will look at it.

[Ewan McNay]

75 for an ally who is a 'real' ally - i.e. from another list,
bringing
other troops; OK. But for lists that *only* have allies, no Subs -
that's the problem I see.

[Ewan McNay]

On 14 Jun 2000, Holder, Scott <FHWA> wrote:
> In some lists, there are no sub-generals. The historical record makes it
> pretty clear that generals other than the CinC of certain armies fall under
> our definition of "allied generals", therefore, those particular lists
> shouldn't have sub-generals.

Yes, I know. And am not arguing. I'm just suggsting that in those cases,
the 'native' AGs be made, say, 50 points vs. the 75 for a 'non-native' AG.
Compared to a Sub, the removal of a -1 in HtH and the chance of being
unreliable seem to blance out pretty well.

e
--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

DBM certainly has noted the disadvantage of allies vs. subs and reflected
it in points costs. Since APs are supposed to allow the establishment of
balanced scenrios (in or out of the tourney enviroment) it is at least
worth consideration if the extra points don't translate into actual
benefit.

OTOH, opening the whole point cost debate may lead to a much wider
discussion than warranted.

And you could make an argument that the extra point costs for AGs are
something of a penalty paid by armies that historically did not have well
articulated command and control -- which keeps the number of commands
lower. A parallel being the higher cost of irregular command factors.

John Meunier


On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Ewan McNay wrote:

> 75 for an ally who is a 'real' ally - i.e. from another list,
> bringing
> other troops; OK. But for lists that *only* have allies, no Subs -
> that's the problem I see.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -
> or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which
> fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3820/2/_/_/_/960996568/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, John Francis Meunier wrote:
> And you could make an argument that the extra point costs for AGs are
> something of a penalty paid by armies that historically did not have well
> articulated command and control -- which keeps the number of commands
> lower. A parallel being the higher cost of irregular command factors.

Hmm. I like this argument but as nasty evil tourney player, would
suggest that perhaps allowing one sub to all lists would allow for greater
range of playable armies - and then above that the AG 'penalty' might kick
in.

e

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Greg Regets]

I never quite got the whole logic of the difference between the S/G and the
A/G.

The A/G is bringing his men to the battle because he and his have a common
interest, common enemy or whatever (in most cases), where as when you see
troops from various nations on a Byzantine list, for example, these are
considered paid mercenaries (in most cases), giving them the ability to be
commanded by S/G.

So, the guys with the common interest, enemy, etc .... have the ability to
flee or change sides while the guys that are the paid mercenaries don't?

Human nature is always a hard thing to understand .... even by people
writing rules for generals, :-)

GREG ~abuser of light troops and guilt-ridden tournament player~

> From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg@...]
>
> I never quite got the whole logic of the difference between
> the S/G and the A/G.
>
> So, the guys with the common interest, enemy, etc .... have the ability to
> flee or change sides while the guys that are the paid mercenaries don't?
>
> Human nature is always a hard thing to understand .... even by people
> writing rules for generals, :-)

There are plenty of instances of allies not being popular with the main
army, or vice versa, and I wouldn't give you much on the "common interest"
angle.

Recently on another list someone gave an example of the main army looting
the baggage of its ally when both were on the winning side. IIRC in Armies
of the Dark Ages there's an example of Cumans slipping away at night from a
Byzantine army that they didn't trust teh nigth after they had jointly won a
battle.

Of course Lysimachus (sp??) infamously had 2000 untrustworthy Thracian
mercenaries killed, while another successor general was turned over to his
opponent who he had jsut defeated by the Argyraspids (Alex's surviving
veterans) who had lost their baggage during the battle.


_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________

[Greg Regets]

There are plenty of instances of allies not being popular with the main
army, or vice versa, and I wouldn't give you much on the "common interest"
angle.

>>>GREG>>> I quite agree.

Recently on another list someone gave an example of the main army looting
the baggage of its ally when both were on the winning side. IIRC in Armies
of the Dark Ages there's an example of Cumans slipping away at night from a
Byzantine army that they didn't trust teh nigth after they had jointly won a
battle.

>>>>GREG>>>> Exactly!!!! Cumans, on their Niki Byzantine list are commanded
by Byzantine sub-generals.

Of course Lysimachus (sp??) infamously had 2000 untrustworthy Thracian
mercenaries killed, while another successor general was turned over to his
opponent who he had jsut defeated by the Argyraspids (Alex's surviving
veterans) who had lost their baggage during the battle.

>>>>GREG>>>> We have now moved generic arguments over to Jon's Warrior list
.... bet he is pissed off at us .... :-)

Greg *standing in line to buy Warrior*

> From: paulbrewer@... [mailto:paulbrewer@...]

> Oh my goodness - Michael Campbell, the Australasian scourge
> of 7th Edition on the ancmed mailing list turns up here!

Scourge of 7th Ed??

Dunno where you got that from Paul.

Haven't played the game for 10 or more years, although I thought it had many
good features - PB's writing style not being one of them.



_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________

campbellm@...


Oh my goodness - Michael Campbell, the Australasian scourge of 7th Edition
on the ancmed mailing list turns up here!

Paul Sz

John Francis Meunier wrote:
>> And you could make an argument that the extra point costs for AGs are
>> something of a penalty paid by armies that historically did not have well
>> articulated command and control -- which keeps the number of commands
>> lower. A parallel being the higher cost of irregular command factors.
>
and Ewan Mcnay added:

>Hmm. I like this argument but as nasty evil tourney player, would
>suggest that perhaps allowing one sub to all lists would allow for greater
>range of playable armies - and then above that the AG 'penalty' might kick
>in.

I think these two contributions illustrate one of the problems with points
systems in both 7th and in games generally: Rules writers make them serve
both the purpose of getting a measure of equivalent fighting power and to
influence 'historicity'. It would be better if these could be separated
somehow, but I haven't got a solution right now.

Paul Szuscikiewicz

[joncleaves]

It is totally ok with me to have discussions about Ancients here, whether
they pertain directly to Warrior or not.
I'm a pretty low-maintenance moderator.

Jon