Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 24/03/2005 14:08:27 GMT Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

In Warrior, it is assumed that EVERY person stepping onto a battlefield, be
they Saxon Fyrd, Hittite Guardsmen, Aztec Otontin, Crusader Pilgrims, French
Knights and everybody in between has a certain (albeit) basic ability to move
forward, turn 90 degrees, turn 180 degrees, wheel, etc.
I am not going to muck rake - i use this board for sensible discussion.


You will note that a 4 rank pike unit for example currently cannot turn 90
degrees if adjacent to another - it can if it is 6 ranks deep - which makes
little sense to me.

I know we have had this rule for eons but maybe it is time to look at it -
it is only because of the base sizes that this is so.

I have felt for some time that maybe a unit one wide and four ranks deep
should be able to turn into a body 2 wide and two deep.

mark mallard


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

[scott holder]

Terry Dix's "agnostic" post got me to thinking about this.

Every historical rules set, lemme repeat that, EVERY historical rules set has a
vision of how it wants to portray/simulate the period it's intended to cover.
Because historical miniatures is a tactical game (it's hard to design
operational level miniature games and strategic level games are......board
games, think Third Reich), the games tend to be detail oriented. Or if other
design issues (playability, complexity, etc) are bigger factors, then mechanisms
are developed to simplify the treatment of some of the details. Even at the
tactical level, there's a lot of spectrum of activity to cover (skirmish, squad,
brigade, regiment level actions). But, when you get right down to it, any rules
author has a vision of how the period in question, at the level desired, should
be played.

Because of that vision, there are inherent assumptions built into any rules set.
And these assumptions can form the mechanical underpinnings of the game design.
And the further back in time you go, the historical record becomes less complete
and thus, you can't help but rely on context, analysis and modern comparisons as
tools that color your vision. Christian makes a great point about British
Guards at Guilford in that something as recent, and fairly well documented at
that, is still the subject of debate at our level as to the particulars. Heh
heh, hell, even the battlefield site is the subject of intense debate because a
load of people don't think the National Park Service has the Continental Third
Line even in the right location. I bring this up because short of Xenophon or
Alexander or Antigonus zooming thru time for an in-depth debriefing, we simply
are never gonna KNOW things. All we can do is read the record, analyze it,
place it in context and use what we know about other, related areas in order to
develop that vision for the period in question.

The vision is influenced (or even created) by the extant historical record, the
author(s) analysis of the material, the developing context, both ancient and
contemporary, and any modern experience that relates to the period in question.
Factor those things together and you develop a series of assumptions about the
period and then go about developing mechanical constructs to bring that to the
table. If another author has a different vision (or chooses to focus on a
different level or aspect of the tactical spectrum of ops), you then have a
different game. But that author has gone thru the exact same mental process you
have in developing that vision for the period.

In the Warrior engine, bodies of troops, virtually all bodies of troops, have
certain inalienable "rights". I choose that phrase deliberately because like the
inalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence, a body in
Warrior is granted by "the maker" (in this case the author) certain rights.
These include but are not limited to turning 90 degrees, turning 180 degrees,
wheeling, etc. These rights extend to ALL bodies in Warrior regardless of race,
creed, color, national origin or in the case of certain Greeks, sexual
orientation:). It makes no difference how motivated the body is, or how
well trained it is, the body *still* has these inalienable rights and these
rights flow from the vision and underlying assumptions and intent of the
author(s). The efficiency in which the body exercises these rights is another
factor in the game, an underlying assumption which stems from the vision.
Therefore, your efficiency in doing these things is influenced by your morale
(ability to pass waver checks), training (drilled Regs vs Irr mobs) and
battlefield influences (disorder, terrain, etc). So, while the body might be
inefficient in doing these things (Irr turning 90 degrees and only moving 40p as
opposed to Regs who get to do more things), it still has the right to do these
things. It's built into the game from the outset.

In Warrior, it is assumed that EVERY person stepping onto a battlefield, be they
Saxon Fyrd, Hittite Guardsmen, Aztec Otontin, Crusader Pilgrims, French Knights
and everybody in between has a certain (albeit) basic ability to move forward,
turn 90 degrees, turn 180 degrees, wheel, etc. If you don't agree with the
Warrior vision and assumptions that drive this fundamental construct of the
game: Perhaps. You. Should. Play. Another. Game. Don't get me wrong, I
don't want to drive away players but if you don't share this vision of
ancient/medieval warfare (or don't care and play the game because of the
intellectual exercise and challenge of the complex system in which case this
discussion is irrelevant to you, different subject), then this game is not for
you.

Can anyone show me a detailed battle account or drill manual that explicitly
says that every troop type in the 276 Warrior army lists definitively showed its
ability to turn 90 degrees? Turn 180 degrees? Wheel? No you can't. But to
follow this current thread to it's absurd extreme, that's precisely what FHE is
being asked to do in order to "justify" it's decisions about certain bodies in
specific time periods--which ignores comporable bodies in later time periods
(Swiss Pikemen come to mind).

Do we *know* that a French Knight unit trained to perform in place 90 degree
turns? Do we know if an Aztec Jaguar Knight could do the same thing? How about
a Tang Dynasty Jian'er Spearman? How about a Gallic mob? We might but
probably don't. But you don't need to compile that level of data in the first
place. The vision of Warrior explicitly states that all these guys have certain
inalienable rights and the abilities described are basic mechanics built into
the game. And that assumption is based on the above comments regarding reading
and analyzing the extant historical record and applying any subsequent
experience, modern commentary, etc., the result of which is the Warrior vision
of ancient/medieval warfare. If you don't buy into that vision, see above
recommendation for finding another game that better suits your sensibilities on
this issue.

If we were to "deny" Macedonian pike phalanxes the same inalienable rights that
Saxon Fyrd have in the game, we then have two decision points facing us. The
first is that we scrap the whole Warrior model and adopt something in which
movement in general is more restricted and the entire flavor of battle is very
different than what is portrayed in Warrior, ie., an altogether new or different
game. There are several rules sets out there that do just that. That's one
reason why Warrior exists, and a reason why any other rules set exists: they
provide an outlet for the author(s) and players' vision of ancient/medieval
warfare to be expressed on the table. The second decision point keeps us in a
Warrior context: is there something in the record that, in the opinion of the
author(s), suggests that Troop Type X should be treated differently than Troop
Type Y? That's where the joy of list rules *could* come into play and as
everyone can see, we've not shied away from applying them in cases we feel are
warranted.

But look closely at all the list rules in Warrior army lists and *nowhere* will
you see us deny any body it's inalienable right to turn 90 degrees or turn 180
degrees. It's true that in a limited number of instances we've put limits on
the efficiency in which those rights are exercised (see IW #11, Mithradatic,
Ex-Slave Phalangites for an example) but nowhere have we taken them away.

So why start with Macedonian pike phalanxes? Why pick on them when we allow
half-starved Crusader Pilgrims the right to make such maneuvers? Does the
historical record and our analysis of it factoring in the context of the times,
our vision of ancient/medieval warfare, and experiences of a more modern nature
such as Christian describes provide enough justification for tweaking with such
a basic Warrior construct for this specific type of troops in this context? The
short answer is no. The "level of evidence" would hafta be mighty high in order
to putz with such a fundamental aspect of this game. And it doesn't. If you
disagree, that's too bad.

Nothing is to stop a player, particularly when playing a scenario game and
wanting to duplicate his *vision* of a specific battle, from tweaking the rules
to better fit that vision. Or develop your own rules. That's one reason why
Tactica and then Armati came into being. Or Ancient/Medieval Warfare. If you
have a vision that isn't satisfied by a rules set, you're certainly free to putz
around with it to your heart's content, or go off in an entirely different
direction. But don't expect the rules set's authors to "buy into" your vision
and assumptions.

scott

[joncleaves]

Wow. That's more words than I have heard Scott string together without an
intervening twelve pack of Coronna in the 20 years I have known him....lol
Thanks, Chris - that was totally worth the price of admission...

J


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

You hit the nail on the head. When I started my thread on 90 degree turns,
this is what I was alluding to. Let me clarify that this rule is a Phil Barker
holdover and not a monster that was created by FHE. It would be nice if it were
"clarified"(changed) but if it is not, I'll still be happy just not thrilled.

kw

markmallard7@... wrote:
In a message dated 24/03/2005 14:08:27 GMT Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

In Warrior, it is assumed that EVERY person stepping onto a battlefield, be
they Saxon Fyrd, Hittite Guardsmen, Aztec Otontin, Crusader Pilgrims, French
Knights and everybody in between has a certain (albeit) basic ability to move
forward, turn 90 degrees, turn 180 degrees, wheel, etc.
I am not going to muck rake - i use this board for sensible discussion.


You will note that a 4 rank pike unit for example currently cannot turn 90
degrees if adjacent to another - it can if it is 6 ranks deep - which makes
little sense to me.

I know we have had this rule for eons but maybe it is time to look at it -
it is only because of the base sizes that this is so.

I have felt for some time that maybe a unit one wide and four ranks deep
should be able to turn into a body 2 wide and two deep.

mark mallard


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

[Mark Stone]

Scott,

This is an oustanding piece of writing, and such a great statement of design
philosophy that you ought to consider putting it up on the FHE website
somewhere. If nothing else, think of the time you/Jon could save by simply
pointing people to that URL instead of beating more dead horses on this group.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Great point, Mark. Bill already had the idea of putting our company philosophy
online so we could refer people. We have been hashing it out and I am
incorporating what Scott wrote.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:41:04 +0000
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] The Vision of Rules



Scott,

This is an oustanding piece of writing, and such a great statement of design
philosophy that you ought to consider putting it up on the FHE website
somewhere. If nothing else, think of the time you/Jon could save by simply
pointing people to that URL instead of beating more dead horses on this group.


-Mark Stone



Yahoo! Groups Links






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