Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Mike,

I have a few specific responses below, and I'll post a longer, more
philosophical comment in a separate message.

--- On January 24 Michael Bard said: ---

>
> 1. Warrior has a far superior SKIRMISH system. In my opinion the best of
> any historical game.
>

This shows how individual perceptions can be. I think that DBM gets the behavior
of bow-armed cavalry right much more effectively than Warrior does. Look at
Christian's comments about Mongols and Skythians, and you'll see that what he's
saying is that by and large mounted bows were used at hand-to-hand ranges, and
with dangerous effect. DBM does a reasonable job of capturing this,
particularly in the interaction between LC and knights.

In Warrior, way too many troops are eligible to skirmish, largely because
there's no way to create a rough terrain, non-skirmishing missile-armed troop
type. And I'm still completely baffled at the idea that skirmish is a
"shooting" formation requiring a possible shooting target to enter the
formation, when (a) it almost always diminishes the effects of shooting, and
(b) is almost always used within the game in response to _being_ a target, not
_having_ a target.

>
> 2. Warrior has a superior order/command system (he says remembering his
> notorious Cold Wars doubles games - two in a row - where EVERY order pip die
> roll was 1,1,3 1,1,2 1,1,3...)
>

I totally agree here; it's one of the subtler but more enjoyable aspects of
playing the game.

>
> a. My understanding of classical battles is that there were large relatively
> solid blocks of men that advanced to engage the enemy. Flank attacks were
> death. Echelons were very tightly formed.
>
> In Warrior by and large this doesn't work. Bodies move very independly and,
> as long as their are friendly bodies within 120 paces, are completely happy.
>

Wow, I really have to disagree here. The flank charge is one of the most
devestating forms of attack in Warrior; I can't count the number of games I've
won or lost on the basis of a crucial flank charge.

One of the reasons I have never played an army with close order foot in Cold
Wars or the NICT is because it is so important and so difficult to cover your
flanks.

There are players who do this very well. Dave Markowitz and his partner won Cold
Wars several years ago playing Scots Common Army, with a carefully managed wall
of Irr C MI LTS,Sh as their main battle line (I think it was 128 figures of
LTS). Bill Chamis and I played Knights of Saint John against them in the
finals, and watching Dave's LTS guys suck 2 CPF from bombard fire, pass their
waver test, and then overrun the bombard position was an impressive sight, and
indeed one that had a very historical feel to it.

>
> b. For good or bad, Warrior determines the effectiveness of everything by
> what they are armed with and what they are carried. There is a significant
> amount of information that training and morale were far more important than
> weapons except for extreme differences.
>

Every game system has its "theme", or "metaphor", through which expresses
whatever simulation it is capable of. And you're absolutely right about the
"theme" of Warrior. However, I think that Jon and Scott have done an incredible
job of expanding that theme to its limits to capture those other aspects of
warfare. Think of weapons type as a key component of the "grammar" of the
Warrior language. Nonetheless, it is a complete language (what we in computer
science would call "Turing complete"). It can express any idea, it's just that
some will be expressed more easily and elegantly than others.

By way of example, look at the handling of the Romans in Warrior. Lots of
barbarians carried spears that were the size and weight of a pilum. They aren't
all going to be classified as HTW, because 99% lacked the training. I'd wager
that lots spear-armed barbarians of the time attempted to respond to a mounted
charge by planting the butt of their spear in the ground (and praying). Only
the Romans made an explicit discipline out of this to figure out how to make it
effective. Hence only the Romans get fulcrum.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Many, many times in Warrior the decision to
give a particular troop type a particular weapon is more a reflection of
training and morale than it is of weaponry per se.

>
> P.P.S. How many games of Warrior are decided by the clashes of infantry
> lines compared to how many are decided by who wins the skirmisher conflict?
>

Well I'd argue, and I think the history of the Skythians, Huns, Turks, Berbers,
and Mongols backs me up on this, that skirmisher conflict was more decisive in
this period than clashing lines of infantry.


-Mark Stone

[Todd Kaeser]

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
snip...

Good memory Mark - Dave and I actually had 240 (max on LTS) 5 units of 48.
Taking on the bombard was one of my most enjoyable attacks. We could only hold
the line b/c at 2000 points we could cover the field. Scots has problems w/
this at 1600 points.



Todd Kaeser


There are players who do this very well. Dave Markowitz and his partner won Cold
Wars several years ago playing Scots Common Army, with a carefully managed wall
of Irr C MI LTS,Sh as their main battle line (I think it was 128 figures of
LTS). Bill Chamis and I played Knights of Saint John against them in the
finals, and watching Dave's LTS guys suck 2 CPF from bombard fire, pass their
waver test, and then overrun the bombard position was an impressive sight, and
indeed one that had a very historical feel to it.





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

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