Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mike Bard]

For general comment, not any indication that I prefer DBM over Warrior.

1. Warrior has a far superior SKIRMISH system. In my opinion the best of
any historical game.
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...)
3. Warrior does not have the better main line combat (close order infantry
vs close order infantry).

Expansion of 3:

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.
Note that 120 paces is wide enough for enemy bodies to advance through.
Many times close order infantry operate as largely independent bodies that
move around like ancient tanks. Flanks are secondary. Mutual body support
in a single line is relatively worthless. Kills are gained by, in my
opinion, sending other bodies (typically cavalry or barbarians) between the
blocks of infantry to either flank the enemy, or break through locally. I
can't recall any classical battle in which heavy troops advanced inside
lines of close order infantry as a matter of course.

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. This works for skirmishing because
comparatively small numbers of troops were engaged, and with the fluid
nature weapons made a bigger difference. In close order combat, it was
morale and training that was far more important.

And, as to shields, in Warrior attacking on the shielded flank is almost as
bad as attacking frontally, unless you are lancers. It is ALWAYS ALWAYS far
more efficient to attack on the shieldless flank due to the bonuses.

How to fix this? (for what it's worth). Skirmishing and main line combat
need to be two completely separate games with two completely separate
mechanisms. Warrior doesn't do that, DBM doesn't do that, and I don't think
anybody else does that.

Regardless, I will continue to prefer Warrior over DBM (and DBMM from what
I've seen) because it has far greater tactical depth.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy (who is still looking for a Cold Wars doubles
partner)

P.S. Doubtless there are historical battles that counter my points. How
common were their tactics though? Were they always used, or only rarely?

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?
>
> Mike,
>
> I just had to bite on this comment about historical accuracy. Whis is
it you find to be more historically accurate about DBM?
>
> Kelly Wilkinson