Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On September 30 Mark Mallard said: ---

>
> On this subject maybe its time to look at the cost of an allied general?
> Personally i am happy with them as they are, i feel it reflects the numbers of
> battles where allied generals did act oddly by sitting idly by or switching
> sides.
>
> Maybe a points cost at time of writing list of say 10 points to guarantee an
> allied general is bold would be fair.
>

The problem is that the point system is intended to reflect more than just the
value of the costed item in a competition battle. Jon has cited three factors
that determine the point cost:
- Value of the item in battle;
- Rarity of the item within our period;
- Complexity of technology and/or training involved in deploying the item.

The result is that many things cost more than they are "worth", and several
things cost less than they are "worth".

Ally generals are a perfect example of this. There is only one small advantage
of an ally general over a subgeneral: ally generals add one to a down die roll
by their body in hth even after the first bound of combat. There is only one
rare advantage of a subgeneral over an ally general: unreliable ally generals
can theoretically switch sides (though I've never seen it happen). Neither of
these warrants a point difference of 25 points just on the relative value of
the two. Instead the point difference is based on other factors.

To cite another of many obvious examples where point cost and value separate: It
costs 8 points per stand to upgrade MI to HI. It costs 4 points per stand to
give MI shields. Which is more useful overall, shielded MI or shieldless HI? I
can think of a few very specialized situations in which I might prefer to have
shieldless HI, but by far shielded MI is the overall superior troop type. Why
then, does it cost more to upgrade to HI than it does to add shields? Because
historically shields were relatively easy to come by, whereas armor to the
standard of HI/LHI was always an expensive and labor intensive good in this
time period.

Does that mean we should "fix" the point system? No. FHE gives priority to
getting history right. If you fight scenario battles or campaigns in period
between historical opponents, and use the point system as a measure of what
level of resource committment it took a particular side to field a particular
army, then I believe the point system is quite accurate.

The problem -- if there is one -- is that while we give priority to history in
game design, we also give priority to open competition between ahistorical
opponents in game play. Let's face it: most Warrior games take place under
conditions which permit ahistorical matchups.

The result is that it should be possible for a skilled player, particularly one
skilled in list selection and army construction to "game" the system. In other
words, it should be possible to throw out any historical interest, look at the
game purely as a game, and come up with an army that maximizes undervalued
goods and minimizes overvalued goods, and thus come up with an army that has a
significant competitive advantage over the "average" army.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that (a) Derek Downs is just such a
skilled player, and (b) his last two NICT championship armies reflect just such
an approach to list selection and army construction. Now as I've said before,
Derek is also a very skilled player at the table, which is by far the most
important factor. But there is some extra advantage to be gained by thinking
about the value discrepancies in the point system and how to exploit them, and
I suggest that Derek has done exactly that.

Now, if you're going to talk the talk you have to walk the walk. If I believe
this theory to be true, then I ought to be willing to put it to the test
myself. And I hope to be doing exactly that at Cold Wars this spring: showing
up with an army I have absolutely no historical interest in, but which I think
is a highly optimized use of the point system.

By the way, Jon, there is one part of the point system that I think _is_ utterly
broken: I can think of absolutely no justification, either in terms of value or
history, for allowing an elephant unit containing a general to cost _less_ than
an elephant unit that does not contain a general. That's the one thing I would
plea for you to fix.


-Mark Stone