Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Larry Essick]

Here are the reasons the two games are different.

40p = 1" in 15mm. A 6'x4' table is 12*6*40 = 2880 paces wide by 12*4*40 = 1920
paces deep.

40p = 4cm in 25mm. A 8'x6' table is 12*8*2.54*10 = 2438.4 paces wide by
12*6*2.54*10 = 1828.8 paces deep.

That makes a 25mm table narrower and shallower than a 15mm table. This is why
light troops work more effectively in 15mm and heavy foot works more effectively
in 25mm.

Base width is 40mm in 15mm. 40/25.4*40 = 62.99 paces.

Base width is 60mm in 25mm. 60/40*40 = 60 paces.

In 15mm a table width of 2880 paces is covered by 2880/62.99 = 45.72 elements
widths.

In 25mm a table width of 2438.4 paces is covered by 2438.4/60 = 40.62 elements
widths.

That means you need 5 fewer elements to cover a table width. Since that is hard
to come up with it further explains why light troops are more valuable in 15mm
and why heavy foot is more common in 25mm.

A 15mm table is 1920 paces deep. Assuming that a unit starts on the center line
it must move 960 paces to cross the board. At 80 paces a move, that is 960/80 =
12 moves for heavy infantry.

A 25mm table is 1828.8 paces deep. Assuming that a unit starts on the center
line it must move 914.4 paces to cross the board. At 80 paces a move, that is
11.43 moves for heavy infantry.

Because it is unlikely that the enemy army will *not* be in front of the moving
unit(s), the half-turn difference means that heavy foot is more likely to reach
enemy earlier -- a reality increased by the relative lack of light troops in the
25mm game.

The end result is that 25mm favors heavy foot armies while 15mm favors lighter,
more mobile armies.

We can go into the dynamics of rock/paper/scissors if needed. But, if you
expect heavy foot armies then you also expect barbarian foot as a counter (or
knights and missile troops). If you expect light, mobile armies then you also
expect missile troops as a counter. So, in 25mm you get 3 basic types of
armies: heavy foot like P/El classical armies that are hard to move around,
barbarian foot (with HTW & JLS to counter the P/El), or LB/CB/B & Kn armies to
counter the barbarian foot. In 15mm you get 2 basic types of armies: light
horse armies with lots of B or regular loose armies with lots of shooting.

Larry

Larry

[joncleaves]

The end result is that 25mm favors heavy foot armies while 15mm favors lighter,
more mobile armies.>>

Larry - and I am *NOT* trying to be difficult here - but I do quite understand
the NASAMW tables are different in ratio to elements of the two scales. No
argument.
I am honestly trying to discover if there is any real difference. If there is,
as I am writing 14.0, I want to take it into account.
Also, as a NASAMW tourney player - if someone convinced me that the differences
were other than minor, my opinion would surely change as to on what size tables
we should be playing. I think it is a very important and timely discussion.
But the notion that the 25mm rear zone on an 8x5 is closer to the center line in
paces than a 15mm rear zone on a 6x4 - hey, I got that...lol - to me isn't
anywhere near enough to base the claim they are two games. I am looking for the
'other side's case' - and I can't seem to find it.

Greg speaks of 'easier pins' in 15mm. But I don't quite get that - hey I FM my
LI too, and so what's the difference? My LMI can get into a fight on bound two
in 15mm just as easily as 25mm and vice versa.

And I am really looking for in-game experiences and not back of the envelope
theory, too.

The question I continue to ask is - what makes them a LOT different? Just as an
example, I played the same army in both scales and four table sizes (actually
five now that I think about it...) all last year - one of many reasons for doing
that was to explore - DIRECTLY, in-game with practical (as opposed to
theoretical) effect - the notion that the two are different games to a
significant degree. No one is arguing minor adjustments need be made in
relation to going back and forth between the scales.

Some people argue that the skill sets are different and/or that the two play so
differently that there is essentially a '15mm Warrior' and a '25mm Warrior'. I
do not agree. I am not going to be convinced by diagrams that 25mm armies cover
slightly more table or start slightly closer to the center line - I am well
aware of both of those factoids. And yes, that makes a small difference, just
in the same way you have to adjust playing a 1200 4x4 mini.

But we even played 15mm on 5x3.5 to 'simulate' a 25mm table, and the same things
worked/did not work and victory was achieved in the same way and on the same
bound as on a 6x4. So, again, what real in-game events would lead one to
believe that they are wholly different games requiring different skill sets?

Now, let's say, for example that a 25mm table was 8x8 and Irr LMI could not make
a fight past the center line on bound 2. THAT would be the start of an
argument. Also, Fast Warrior is on so narrow a table and the army sizes are so
close to each other (and even close in composition in period) that initial
deployment makes a larger difference than in other deployment types. In
addition, the only need 4 kills to win victory conditions add another dimension
to the game.
BUT even then, the idea that you need to screen the other guy's shock and mass
on what you need to kill to win is still the right answer given those
differences. I might agree that FW is a different game given all the different
parameters but the skills and the tactics needed are the same - you may pin
someone in FW with an initial approach move, you are so close together. But you
have to recognize that you need to pin and you have to pin the right things in
the right way.

Still looking for the answer and still not needing the 8x5 vs 6x4 geometry
lesson...lol

Jon

[Todd Schneider]

I appreciate you doing the Math Larry, it does help
explain some things...

My comments are at the ***

Here are the reasons the two games are different.

40p = 1" in 15mm. A 6'x4' table is 12*6*40 = 2880
paces wide by 12*4*40 = 1920 paces deep.

40p = 4cm in 25mm. A 8'x6' table is 12*8*2.54*10 =
2438.4 paces wide by 12*6*2.54*10 = 1828.8 paces deep.

That makes a 25mm table narrower and shallower than a
15mm table. This is why light troops work more
effectively in 15mm and heavy foot works more
effectively in 25mm.

*** Effectivley how? Isn't that a subjective call
based on a person expierence? I've watched plenty of
games in both 15's and 25's, and I've played 15's
prorated to 25mm scale I've played 15's prorated to
25mm scale (Where the table is something like 5 foot
some inches by 4 foot) and the underlying mechanics
and principles of the game don't appear to have
changed any from one scale to the next.
An interesting, at least to me, question would be, if
someone sat down and figured out the dimensions of a
25mm table prorated to 15mm scale (That is making a
25mm table the same "pace distance in width and depth)
would the game be changed that dramitically?


Base width is 40mm in 15mm. 40/25.4*40 = 62.99 paces.

Base width is 60mm in 25mm. 60/40*40 = 60 paces.

In 15mm a table width of 2880 paces is covered by
2880/62.99 = 45.72 elements widths.

In 25mm a table width of 2438.4 paces is covered by
2438.4/60 = 40.62 elements widths.

That means you need 5 fewer elements to cover a table
width. Since that is hard to come up with it further
explains why light troops are more valuable in 15mm
and why heavy foot is more common in 25mm.

*** Somehow I don't think 5E of width is going to make
or break most armies in 25mm scale. That is of course
my relative inexpierence in 25's talking, but when I
do graduate to 25's, I don't see where that 5E is
going to make or break or change mys style of play.

A 15mm table is 1920 paces deep. Assuming that a unit
starts on the center line it must move 960 paces to
cross the board. At 80 paces a move, that is 960/80 =
12 moves for heavy infantry.

A 25mm table is 1828.8 paces deep. Assuming that a
unit starts on the center line it must move 914.4
paces to cross the board. At 80 paces a move, that is
11.43 moves for heavy infantry.

Because it is unlikely that the enemy army will *not*
be in front of the moving unit(s), the half-turn
difference means that heavy foot is more likely to
reach enemy earlier -- a reality increased by the
relative lack of light troops in the 25mm game.

***I think this argument could be better made if it
weren't placed in such a tactical vaccuum. Yes, it's
a half move "extra" to get to the table edge, but I
think leaving out what your opponent might be doing to
mitigate this is not right.

If I force march my troops to the center line in 15's
or 25's, and my opponeent depolys his troops at the
forward edge of his rear zone at 240p, and we both
make our regular march moves, aren't we going to be in
combat about the same time? I don't see 56 plus paces
making that much of a difference, ecspecially to long
time gamers...

The end result is that 25mm favors heavy foot armies
while 15mm favors lighter, more mobile armies.

***What would Jons Medieval Spanish and Ewans Selucids
count as in your eyes? Certainly Dereks Burmese
aren't heavy Infantry, although I can see the
arguement made that Last year his Silla Koreans were.

Todd

[Todd Schneider]

Damn cut and pasting...

Anyways, to try and make my point a bit clearer,
I've played 15's prorated to 25mm scale (Where the
table is something like 5 foot some inches by 4 foot),
and I didn't find any of the underlying mechanics,
principles or situations changed. Troops still got
into combat when I wanted them to (and when playing
Jon when I didn't want them to). From my POV,
admittedly an inexpierenced one in this regard,
nothing fundamental about Warrior changes when you
swith scale.

Todd

[Larry Essick]

> Larry - and I am *NOT* trying to be difficult here - but I do quite understand
the NASAMW tables are different in ratio to elements of the two scales. No
argument.
> I am honestly trying to discover if there is any real difference. If there
is, as I am writing 14.0, I want to take it into account.

Jon,

As someone who played both scales in TOG, I can assure you that once a person
makes the adjustment to size and distance differences that from a pure
mechanical POV there is very little difference.

The difference comes in what armies you typically face and in the composition of
your own army that you must adjust in order to meet the different threats.

This is one reason why I went to Teutonic Order and kept returning to Early
Carthaginians in TOG. Both armies were flexible enough to let me play in either
scale w/o a big impact on the composition of my army.

But, I'm looking at Catalan Company in 25mm with Warrior. It is an army that
will be extremely difficult to use in 15mm because of the spatial differences.
Giving up elements of coverage on a 15mm board is something that the Catalan
Company cannot afford to do. It becomes even more complex when you add in the
recent clarifications on how to maintain support.

Armies like Later Imperial Roman work in either scale. Like my old Teutonic
Order or Early Carthaginians, they have enough flexibility to handle just about
anyone or anything.

For 15mm I'm seriously considering Huns. It would be an impossible army to play
in 25mm because of the change in relative table depth. Ask yourself, why does
Eric play Yuan and not straight Mongols? Mongols conquered more of the known
world than any other nation, yet are entirely unplayable in 25mm. Yuan managed
to maintain a kingdom in China, yet they can win the NICT.

The spatial differences create an environment where particular troop types are
either a greater help or a greater hurt. You still see those troops on the
table, but they either seldom win or they are minimized in order to reduce their
impact (in the case of hurtful types).

That is a fault of the army lists that allow too much flexibility -- a general
design philosophy, but one that leads to abuse.

Larry

[Larry Essick]

> Anyways, to try and make my point a bit clearer,
> I've played 15's prorated to 25mm scale (Where the
> table is something like 5 foot some inches by 4 foot),
> and I didn't find any of the underlying mechanics,
> principles or situations changed. Troops still got
> into combat when I wanted them to (and when playing
> Jon when I didn't want them to). From my POV,
> admittedly an inexpierenced one in this regard,
> nothing fundamental about Warrior changes when you
> swith scale.

From a pure mechanics perspective that is correct. LMI still move 120p, HC
still move 160p, etc. And, once you get the size/distance bit figured out (and
stop eyeballing the distance using the wrong scale) most of the simple mechanics
issues become trivial.

I learned 25mm by making a 6" ruler where each inch was really 4cm in length.
It took very little time to get the movement/distance bit down.

The difference comes with things like that 5 element narrower table that you
have in 25mm. Since many 15mm armies cannot hope to cover the table, the common
tactic is to not even try. Instead you select troops that have high mobility
(LMI, LI, mounted of various types) and more generous support rules.

In 25mm a player can place a 12 element P unit 2x6 and fill up a significant
part of the board. I won the Byzantine theme tourney in TOG back in 93 using
two 12 element units of Norman Irr C HI JLS,Sh in just that manner. Let me
control 60% of the board with 2 units.

You cannot do that in 15mm.

The spatial difference means that you have to choose different troop types or
not be competitive. Armies like Burmese work in either scale because they are
mobile and flexible enough. You'll have to ask Ewan about Seleucid. IMO they
are one of the elite armies, so anyone should be able to win with them. I know
I did the only tournament I every played with them -- won the team title that
year.

Larry

[Todd Schneider]

At The ***

>From a pure mechanics perspective that is correct.
>LMI still move 120p, HC still move 160p, etc. And,
>once you get the size/distance bit figured out (and
>stop eyeballing the distance using the wrong scale)
>most of the simple mechanics issues become trivial.

>The difference comes with things like that 5 element
>narrower table that you have in 25mm. Since many
>15mm armies cannot hope to cover the table, the
>common tactic is to not even try. Instead you select
>troops that have high mobility (LMI, LI, mounted of
>various types) and more generous support rules.

***Those 5 Elements of distance aren't going to make
or break my Army in terms of how I play it. To me,
that smacks of an excuse. It's akin to saying Ewan
would have beat Derek at this years finals if he had
5E extra width to work with. Noone I have talked to or
played against in any game has suggested thats ever
the case, which leads me to beleive that 5E (which is
really a 4E unit of LI with 40p on either side) is
more a psychological crutch than anything else.

>In 25mm a player can place a 12 element P unit 2x6
>and fill up a significant part of the board. I won
>the Byzantine theme tourney in TOG back in 93 using
>two 12 element units of Norman Irr C HI JLS,Sh in
>just that manner. Let me control 60% of the board
>with 2 units.

***It had nothing to do with your opponents inability
to counter them?
To whit, last year Derek won the NICT playing Silla
Koreans, and the board was alive and well for awhile
proclaiming that "Shooting" was to powerful and
ruining the game because he ran out what is
essentially a Knight Army with Cheap double Armed
Support troops.
Yet how many "shooting" Armies were at the NICT this
year? Seeing as how Silla Koreans were so successful
last year, why didn't anyone else decide to run them
(Imitation being the sincerest form of Flattery and
all...)? Certain players (like Ewan) stick to certain
lists (like Selucids) because it fits their style of
play, and other players play what they want to,
"tenets" of the game be damned (in some cases). Some
players bring a list that may not be competitive to a
tournament maybe not expecting to win it all, but
looking to have a good time.

That being said, if you played the list you played in
93, would you have the same results today?

Ultimately I think the majority of a battle comes down
to the person your playing and the vote they have on
the type of game you want to run. The list you run
and they list they run may swing things in one
direction or another, but frankly, you could give me
Dereks Khmer (Or silla Korean for that matter) list
and have Derek run any list he wants against me and
he'll probably win 10 out of 10 times, because he's a
better player. His list has nothing to do with how
well he plays.

It's something I expierenced this past year. Jon and
I played at least 30 plus games of Warrior in 4
different scales/table sizes. He used Medieval
Spanish probably 90% of the time. I ran a variety of
LIR lists, because I'm a LIR player. That list fits
my style. He won the Majority of the time. Was it
because he's a better player than me? Or because he
knew how to exploit those extra 5E or the smaller
table better? Jon has a style of play that suits him,
and his chosen Army of last year, very well. And each
time we played his plans never really wavered or
changed. He was always in contact by bound three
(believe me, you heard it if you weren't ) and the
game was usually over by bound Five, or six.

>You cannot do that in 15mm.

***Pat Byrnes might argue with that. He and I played
a game where his 12E Viking Units pretty much
controlled the table, and I was running LIR (or As I
call it, the Game of "Down Two"). But to make such a
defintive statement is not right IMO.

>The spatial difference means that you have to choose
>different troop types or not be competitive. Armies
>like Burmese work in either scale because they are
>mobile and flexible enough.

It has to be more than just the list your running and
the scale your playing in. The quality of player has
to be a part of it as well.

>You'll have to ask Ewan about Seleucid. IMO they are
>one of the elite armies, so anyone should be able to
>win with them.

I know I couldn't win with them right now. Ewans been
playing them ever since the list came out (apparently
) so I would expect he knows how it handles on the
tabletop, in both scales. Could I win with it?
Eventually. But it takes time and training. And I'm
going a different direction next year :-)

Todd

[Larry Essick]

> ***Those 5 Elements of distance aren't going to make
> or break my Army in terms of how I play it. To me,
> that smacks of an excuse.

Well, when you have more experience to draw on come and discuss it with me
again. ;-)

Give any good player a 5E wide hole and you will lose. Being able, or unable,
to adjust to that is very important and *does* change the composition of armies
on the table.

I know you and Jon played several games. It doesn't show anything because you
basically played the same game over and over and over again. Play 30 games with
different armies against different opponents and see if you think that table
size doesn't significantly change your troop selection.

Anyone can run LIR. It is probably the best all around army in the game. It
works in either scale because of its flexibility and massive shooting output.

BTW, shooting *is* too powerful. Jon and I have already had this discussion,
and he disagrees. But, if shooting were really as effective as it is in Warrior
(or some of the other rules as well) then shooting armies would be all that ever
developed.

Until the advent of the gunpowder age, and then only with the development of
accurate guns, shooting has emerged. But before that it was not present in the
numbers or as tactically significant as it is in Warrior (with some few
exceptions). It is poor list design that lets this happen, but that is a
problem with a design philosophy that gives players the whole candy store to
shop in. LIR chariots are the perfect example. Never fielded, maybe never even
constructed, yet possible if you want to buy them. Just horrid historical
research translated to the game because "it might have happened." Might as well
allow hot-air balloons or giant kite-borne fliers -- pure fantasy.

> ***It had nothing to do with your opponents inability
> to counter them?

I beat Derek to win the title. One of 3 theme tournaments I won during the 90's
in TOG. It had to do with the restrictions on army selections and an incredible
up roll with disordered, tired at contact, Irr A HC in the game against Derek
(and his inability to pass a waiver test).

It would never even be attempted by a competent player in 15mm. Too much table
to work with.

> That being said, if you played the list you played in
> 93, would you have the same results today?

If in the theme against theme armies, I'd expect that I probably would come very
close. :-)

> His list has nothing to do with how well he plays. ;-)

Spoken with the understanding of youth. Wait until you have a few more years of
experience and you'll understand that the selection of the army and the
composition of the list is an extension of how good a player is. Derek's lists
are good because Derek selects and fields them and at the same time Derek is
good because he knows what to do with the lists he selects and fields.

> ***Pat Byrnes might argue with that. He and I played
> a game where his 12E Viking Units pretty much
> controlled the table, and I was running LIR (or As I
> call it, the Game of "Down Two"). But to make such a
> defintive statement is not right IMO.

I don't know what Pat's composition was, but I'd guess LMI/LHI and not MI/HI.
Close formation Vikings should be overwhelmed by LIR. I played a lot of
barbarian foot in 15mm. It works only if you hit hard enough and have lots of
Irr C units to bulk it out.

I've only seen one player run Vikings in 15mm well enough to win consistently.
I've never seen anyone win consistently with Spanish or other barbarians in
15mm. The armies have too many other weaknesses to exploit.

> >The spatial difference means that you have to choose
> >different troop types or not be competitive. Armies
> >like Burmese work in either scale because they are
> >mobile and flexible enough.
>
> It has to be more than just the list your running and
> the scale your playing in. The quality of player has
> to be a part of it as well.

Why? Why are some players good in 25mm but not in 15mm (and the other way
around). If player quality is a factor then they'd be good regardless. But,
there are only 8 or 10 players for whom this holds true. Even then, with 1 or 2
exceptions, you will see that they run different armies with different
compositions in the two scales.

Larry

[Todd Schneider]

At the *** again.

--- larryessick@... wrote:
---------------------------------
> ***Those 5 Elements of distance aren't going to make
> or break my Army in terms of how I play it. To me,
> that smacks of an excuse.

Well, when you have more experience to draw on come
and discuss it with me again. ;-)


Give any good player a 5E wide hole and you will lose.
Being able, or unable, to adjust to that is very
important and *does* change the composition of armies
on the table.


***The issue isn't a 5E hole. The issue is that the
table is 5E wider.
Place your army on the table.
Once placed, add 5E width to the flank your choice.
Is your armies position now untenable?
Or, if you prefer, add 2.5 Elements of width to each
flank.
Is your armies position untenable?
That is the main argument I am seeing being made about
the differences between scale. 5E width.

I know you and Jon played several games. It doesn't
show anything because you basically played the same
game over and over and over again.

***Well, none of them were ever exactly the same. The
fact that you think those games showed or taught
nothing speaks volumes...

Play 30 games with different armies against different
opponents and see if you think that table size doesn't
significantly change your troop selection.

***If I had that ability, I would. But, given that I
have probably just as many, if not more games, of
warrior this past year in differing scales than many
other players, my impression is that those 200p aren't
changing my game, or my opponents game.

Anyone can run LIR. It is probably the best all
around army in the game. It works in either scale
because of its flexibility and massive shooting
output.


Until the advent of the gunpowder age, and then only
with the development of accurate guns, shooting has
emerged. But before that it was not present in the
numbers or as tactically significant as it is in
Warrior (with some few exceptions). It is poor list
design that lets this happen, but that is a problem
with a design philosophy that gives players the whole
candy store to shop in. LIR chariots are the perfect
example. Never fielded, maybe never even constructed,
yet possible if you want to buy them. Just horrid
historical research translated to the game because "it
might have happened." Might as well allow hot-air
balloons or giant kite-borne fliers -- pure fantasy.

***Larry, if those LIR schythed Chariots were a
required buy, your Argument would have more merit.
The fact that Scott in the book says they are included
to add some flavor speaks volumes about his List
design philosophy...As I understand it in TOG if Phil
Barker read a dissertation saying that a Late Imperial
Scyhted Chariot was used somewhere, it would have been
in the list no other questions asked.

> ***It had nothing to do with your opponents
inability
> to counter them?

I beat Derek to win the title. One of 3 theme
tournaments I won during the 90's in TOG. It had to
do with the restrictions on army selections and an
incredible up roll with disordered, tired at contact,
Irr A HC in the game against Derek (and his inability
to pass a waiver test).

***So it wasn't those 12E units that caused your
victory, it was an incredible die roll at the right
time?

It would never even be attempted by a competent player
in 15mm. Too much table to work with.



> That being said, if you played the list you played
in
> 93, would you have the same results today?

If in the theme against theme armies, I'd expect that
I probably would come very close. :-)

> His list has nothing to do with how well he plays.
;-)

Spoken with the understanding of youth.

***Youth? Youth has nothing to do with that
declaration Larry. I would Wager I've played just as
many games of Warrior (if not More) this past year
than probably 75% of the players out there. I've
played with a variety of Armies, against a decent
sized group of good players whose skill level ranges
from below mine to perenial NICT qualifiers, and if
theres one thing I've learned since I've started
playing Warrior it's that a guys List Composistion
will not determine his skill level and competency with
that list during the course of the game.
Derek hasn't won the past two NICT's because of his
lists alone, he's won them because he's a great
player, and thats not just my opinion. I've never
met/played Derek, but I would suspect if you took a
poll asking who the top players he would be mentioned
top 5 no problem.
Good Warrior players aren't Good because of the lists
they choose, they are good because they far better
understand the nuances of the game better than newer
players like myself.
Jon isn't a good Warrior player because he beat me 30+
times with the same Medieval Spanish list, he's a good
player because he could beat me 30 times with 30
different lists, because he understands the mechanics
behind the game, and those mechanics are no different
on an 8x5 than they are a 6x4 or a 3x2 or a 4x4, in
any scale.

To me, thats the Mark of a Good Warrior player.


>Why? Why are some players good in 25mm but not in
>15mm (and the other way around).
>If player quality is a factor then they'd be good
>regardless. But, there are only 8 or 10 players for
>whom this holds true. Even then, with 1 or 2
>exceptions, you will see that they run different
>armies with different compositions in the two scales.

***Larry, I'll be honest with you here: I do not know
why one player would excel in 15mm scale and not 25's.
I would submit a player who excels in 15's isn't a
Good Warrior player overall if he can't handle 200
extra paces of width and a little bit more/less depth
with the same list he runs in 15's, and vice versa for
25 to 15 players.

Then again, all of the guys I play with have had
little trouble making a transistion between scales.

Todd

[joncleaves]

Well, when you have more experience to draw on come and discuss it with me
again. >>
This is patronizing - the smiley helps, but when you do it again later in
the same mail you cross the bounds of list-congeniality. Please refrain.



Anyone can run LIR. It is probably the best all around army in the game.>>

I would completely disagree, but then you know that....lol


BTW, shooting *is* too powerful. Jon and I have already had this
discussion, and he disagrees. But, if shooting were really as effective as it
is in
Warrior (or some of the other rules as well) then shooting armies would be all
that ever developed.>>
Which is what happened. At the beginning of the gunpowder era, look at how
the winning armies of both east and west are armed..... What weapon did the
saracens use on the crusaders? English on the French? Mongols on
everyone?..lol



It is poor list design that lets this happen, but that is a problem with a
design philosophy that gives players the whole candy store to shop in. LIR
chariots are the perfect example. Never fielded, maybe never even constructed,
yet possible if you want to buy them. Just horrid historical research
translated to the game because "it might have happened." Might as well allow
hot-air balloons or giant kite-borne fliers -- pure fantasy.>>
Yes, we all know you disagree. And you may go on disagreeing so long as you
don't couch your disagreement purposefully in terms designed to piss people
off. Man, it is a good thing Scott blocks your mail or I would be listening
to this one all day...lol

Why? Why are some players good in 25mm but not in 15mm (and the other way
around). >>
And again, my question asked a different way: Who exactly are these folks?
Who specifically do you think is 'good' in one but not the other? Do they
agree? Why is it this way, if true? Inquiring minds want to know....lol

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/26/2004 07:53:27 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

This is just not true. List design is a *significant* part of the
game - thankfully. Is it enough to overcome the skill difference
between novice and expert? No. Is it enough to make the difference
between players closer in skill? Yes.>>
[
[
The last two points I 100% agree with, fwiw.

J


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

[Ewan McNay]

Todd -

- I think this has run to the conclusion of usefulness, pretty much,
but a few comments below.

Todd Schneider wrote:
> ***Those 5 Elements of distance aren't going to make
> or break my Army in terms of how I play it. To me,
> that smacks of an excuse. It's akin to saying Ewan
> would have beat Derek at this years finals if he had
> 5E extra width to work with. Noone I have talked to or
> played against in any game has suggested thats ever
> the case, which leads me to beleive that 5E (which is
> really a 4E unit of LI with 40p on either side) is
> more a psychological crutch than anything else.

First, your analogy does not hold water. Second, would a table that
was deeper and wider have made a difference to the game vs. Derek (to
pick the random game you chose)? Yes, a significant one: his Khmer
had no mounted and minimal LI, so beeing able to get to flanks even
more easily than i did would have been a big, significant, plus.
Which is why that Khmer army would not be run in 15mm.

But, this seems to come down to a couple of people noting that in
their experience, yes, 15mm and 25mm play differently, vs. you and Jon
saying that in your experience, they don't. Fine - you're of course
entitled to your opinion. I do think it's a little odd when in the
same post you use me as an example *and* ridicule my experience, but
I'll get over it .

> Ultimately I think the majority of a battle comes down
> to the person your playing and the vote they have on
> the type of game you want to run. The list you run
> and they list they run may swing things in one
> direction or another, but frankly, you could give me
> Dereks Khmer (Or silla Korean for that matter) list
> and have Derek run any list he wants against me and
> he'll probably win 10 out of 10 times, because he's a
> better player. His list has nothing to do with how
> well he plays.

This is just not true. List design is a *significant* part of the
game - thankfully. Is it enough to overcome the skill difference
between novice and expert? No. Is it enough to make the difference
between players closer in skill? Yes.

>>You'll have to ask Ewan about Seleucid. IMO they are
>>one of the elite armies, so anyone should be able to
>>win with them.
>
> I know I couldn't win with them right now. Ewans been
> playing them ever since the list came out (apparently
> ) so I would expect he knows how it handles on the
> tabletop, in both scales. Could I win with it?
> Eventually. But it takes time and training. And I'm
> going a different direction next year :-)

Seleucids work better in 25mm, unsurprisingly. I've played them a lot
sure; maybe 60+ games in 15mm, ditto in 25mm.

From that experience - again, an army you chose - there's a huge
difference in the army feel, in what one does to win, in what one has
to worry about, and a host of other critical elements between the two
scales. As I said, though, I don't think this is getting through, so
I'm done with this topic.

E

JonCleaves@... wrote:

>
> BTW, shooting *is* too powerful. Jon and I have already had this
> discussion, and he disagrees. But, if shooting were really as
> effective as it is in
> Warrior (or some of the other rules as well) then shooting armies
> would be all
> that ever developed.>>
> Which is what happened. At the beginning of the gunpowder era, look
> at how
> the winning armies of both east and west are armed..... What weapon
> did the
> saracens use on the crusaders? English on the French? Mongols on
> everyone?..lol

The Swiss didn't have any appreciable number of missile troops. Spain
didn't rely on massed bowfire. Most of Europe for that matter.
The people you cite above were able to use their bowfire effectively
because their opponents were vulnerable to it (well, the Mongols could
have been armed with toothpicks and they still would have scared the
hell out of everyone). You are also taking one part of a cyclical trend
in isolation. Ascendancy of bows, then infantry, then cavalry, then bow
again (grossly oversimplified) does not mean that bows should be
dominant. It's like someone winning a Rock, Paper, Scissors tournament
uses Rock in the last match, and people walk away thinking Rock is the
new Black.

Bob

>

[Larry Essick]

> This is patronizing - the smiley helps, but when you do it again later in
> the same mail you cross the bounds of list-congeniality. Please refrain.

Jon,

I know that the written tone was patronizing. That's why I put in the . It
is equivalent to your "lol". But, the intent is not to be patronizing.

Todd is an excellent apologist for you. It is obvious that he has learned the
game from you and is very much influenced by you.

But, he lacks the experience for his opinions. His example of 30 some games vs
your Med. Spanish is the best example. He needs 300 games with a variety of
armies against a variety of opponents. Then he'll understand what he is talking
about and his opinion will be more informed.

> Which is what happened. At the beginning of the gunpowder era, look at how
> the winning armies of both east and west are armed..... What weapon did the
> saracens use on the crusaders? English on the French? Mongols on
> everyone?..lol

Jon,

I mention that there are some notable exceptions. However, Saracen archery was
notably ineffective vs Crusaders. Reports abound of how the arrows were unable
to penetrate Crusader mail. It was tactics and not shooting that mattered.
Similarly, Mongols were effective because of tactical doctrine and an overall
strategic approach that emphasised terror against those who opposed them and
mercy to those who capitualted. The shooting of both would have been
inconsequential had they not been horse archers able to avoid the charges of
their opponents.

Only the English of the HYW really emphasised shooting, but if you look at the
battles you'll find it was their use of field defenses and the dismounted
men-at-arms that enabled them to win their battles.

Your argument is flawed because it is poor history -- romanticised wargamer's
history -- but poor history nonetheless.

> Why? Why are some players good in 25mm but not in 15mm (and the other way
> around). >>
> And again, my question asked a different way: Who exactly are these folks?
> Who specifically do you think is 'good' in one but not the other? Do they
> agree? Why is it this way, if true? Inquiring minds want to know....lol

Jon,

Try looking at the results pages on the NASAMW site and checking out who the
winners are. If you have an inquiring mind then do some work. (I don't know if
that deserves a "lol" or a "", but it is as patronizing as your remark.)

Larry

[joncleaves]

The Swiss didn't have any appreciable number of missile troops. Spain
didn't rely on massed bowfire. Most of Europe for that matter.>>
[
Got it - I was talking both about the winning/dominant armies as well as those
who began structuring regular armies through law and edict. Not to mention that
I would not hold up Europe as the best army-creating force in the time period
we're talking about...lol

<< does not mean that bows should be dominant. >>

Don't believe they are, but have already been over this a few times..lol

Jon