Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

"A hole, is a hole, is a hole." --Maj Jonathan Smith (Richard Burton's character
in 'Where Eagles Dare')

In Warrior, nay, in *every* major ancients/medieval set of rules in play in the
USofA today, the above sentence could more accurately be stated:

"A spear is a spear is a spear".

Thus, said game systems don't care if an individual (and keep that in mind since
I'll come back to it) spear is wielded by some Sumerian peasant or the Italian
Communal troops. The fact that one is tipped with something bronze, the other
with something iron-ish is immaterial in this assumption. Under this
assumption, both are poles with something pointy and sharp on the end that can
inflict harm on an opponent. And, this concept has provided *the* major design
assumption for ancients/medieval miniature wargaming since the dawn of the
hobby. Like it or not, that's the culture we play in. Anachronistic to be sure
but that's also part of the allure, yunno, the old Julius Ceasar vs Ghenghis
Khan. Well, in part. But the only way to even possibly recreate such
ahistorical encounters, we start with simulating in-period and hope that the "A
spear is a spear is a spear" assumption works outside the period.

Every historical rules set has a vision of how it wants to portray/simulate the
period it's intended to cover. I've covered this before but will paraphrase
again here. Historical miniatures is overwhelmingly a tactical game which lends
itself to being overly detail oriented. That being said, the last decade in the
hobby has seen a concerted effort to simplify games so that they are easier to
learn, play and master. However, that move to simplicity is nothing more than
the author's 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 form the mechanical underpinnings of the game design. The
vision is influenced 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.

During my first tome on this subject, I talked about "inalienable rights" of
units as being one of the main assumptions built into Warrior. "A spear is a
spear is a spear" is another. But, because this hobby *can* get overly detail
and technical oriented, there's always the tendency to fall into the
"Tractics-ization" of any period in question. By that I mean some people focus
on individual characteristics of a weapon and compare it to something else in
terms of relative effectiveness. A good example of this, using good ole
Tractics as the whipping boy, is comparing a WW2 German Panther to an American
Sherman. No comparison. If I'm playing "Tank Grudge Match One On One",
obviously I want the Panther. However, such an analysis fails to take into
account everything else. Like the Panther's crappy reliability issues, fewer
produced, reduced veteran crew availability, etc. Another example is something
I read years ago, a memoir of a German soldier on the Eastern Front. He manned
an 88mm position and during one battle, as he put it "one shot=one kill". Every
time they shot at a T-34, they took it out. But he admitted "we ran out of ammo
before they ran out of tanks", thus, who "won" in the end? In that instance,
the Soviets did. Take this up a few levels and look at a strategic game, Third
Reich always comes to mind. A German armor counter with a 4-6 rating is the
same as an American armor counter with a 4-6 rating. In that case, the game's
authors didn't care that the German armor was qualitatively better than the
American. Other design assumptions and factors dictated both being 4-6.

And that's where "A spear is a spear is a spear" works in a Warrior context.
We're not interested in one-on-one comparisons but in "systems on systems"
comparisons and the basic system in question is the unit. Thus, a *unit* of
Sumerian Spearmen is considered the equal to the aforementioned Italian Communal
Infantry unit (assuming the same morale and training). That's because a design
assumption in Warrior is that the qualitative differences of individual weapons
and armor have minimal, if any, impact at the unit-on-unit tactical level that
is Warrior. Instead, we care about the "systems interaction", thus, how does a
Pike-based system interact with an HTW-based system and so on. Again, that's an
assumption on our part but that assumption helps us create the vision of how we
see ancients/medieval warfare being run on the table. Moreover, even if there
was some micro-local affect of qualitative weapons/armor differences, it's
effect is mitigated by the range of actual men represented by the one figure.
Thus, the Sumerian Spearmen unit might have 85 men per fig whereas the Italian
Communal Spearmen unit might only have 35 men per fig. Thus, numbers cancel out
whatever (if any) effects at the *unit* level a slightly better forged metal
breastplace would have in thwarting an individual thrust by a bronze-tipped
Sumerian spear. But again, a basic Warrior design assumption is that such
affects, at the unit level, are marginal in terms of determining outcome but if
they are there, there's another design assumption in the game to account for
that.

In two, and only two instances, Bill and I have walked up to that "qualitative"
line but in my mind, haven't crossed it. The two instances are knight armor in
the late Medieval period (the ability to count SHK shielded) and the Japanese
oyoroi armor (the LEHI). In both cases, these were made "better" because each
in itself was a complex weapons system and not simply a "better-forged"
breastplate. And, creating them the way we did in a Warrior context made
perfect sense from our unit-on-unit tactical model of combat. And, as Mark put
it recently, it *worked* in a historical context, *the* most important factor
when we approached this from a list standpoint.

Weapons systems do not develop in a vacuum and this "detail focus" on certain
weapons or armor tends to miss the importance of that......and how it works at
the unit level. For example, Japanese oroyoi armor developed over time so that
units had sufficient protection from copious missile fire while being able to
wield a variety of HTH weapons and not be shackled by cumbersome armor. It's
not as if some guy came up with this stuff one day. The same applies for the
medieval knight armor. Clearly the shield was bothersome to use in all that
plate. But also clearly was the very real threat posed by massed archery fire
(the shield wasn't, by that time, really required when running down infantry).
Thus, creative minds working for the equivalent of the medieval
military/industrial complext, over time, came up with sophisticated ways to
protect the knight from massed archery fire without the need for a shield.
Again, in both cases, Bill and I came up to this qualitative line but then
developed the list, and anything new mechanically, so that it made sense at the
unit level.

Thus, let's talk about the Swiss for a minute. The Swiss formations that we're
trying to duplicate here came about because the Swiss's main tactical threat was
the knight. After experiences such as Arbedo, you see the development of the
Swiss phalanx. Fear of massed archery fire, well, wasn't, since the Swiss's
main opponents in the latter half of the 15th century weren't the English:)
So right out of the chute, the shield wasn't a requirement. Why? Three
reasons, two of which I'll relate now. One, it was a good defensive weapon,
particularly vs missile fire but since susceptibility to missile fire wasn't an
issue, no need for a shield (contrast this to the development of the Macedonian
pike phalanx where the formation and shield usage were design features from the
start because Philip knew he'd be fighting Persia and what were the Persians
most known for? Massed archery fire). Two, since the pike formation didn't
depend on swordplay, the shield was an encumberance. Thus, if the Swiss were
forced to fight HTH with their swords, hmmm, well, the formation wasn't designed
for that not unlike the Classical era pike phalanxes. Thus, no need for a
shield. Furthermore, eliminating the shield most likely enabled the Swiss to
use longer pikes, again, something better to fight (or scare off) knight
charges.

The inherent weakness of the pike formation, namely it's susceptibility to
getting hacked to pieces by HTH opponents that overcame the formations reach and
impact, was a problem in an era where the Swiss could expect to face a variety
of tactical weapons systems, not just the knight. Thus, they added a wrinkle
which was a precursor to the pike and shot formations of 75-100 years later
(after the widespread and effective battlefield development of gunpowder) in
that they put halberdiers in the mix. These were there to counter opposing
infantry formations AND add just a little more oomph to handling knights (since
various flavors of the halberd were designed to dehorse opponents and kill them
on the ground). The Swiss were able to effectively do this by reason #3 for not
having shields: it opened up space in the formation for the halberdiers to
effectively operate. And by having a fairly open formation in the first place
(as opposed to the packed Classical era formations), and train vigourously, the
Swiss developed a system that was very effective in countering their main
threats.

And as Mark put it, as far as we're concerned, the most important systems
interaction accuracy occurs *exactly* where we want it to occur: in historical
matchups. What happens outside of that, while yes, it is a consideration, it's
a low consideration. And if we even wanted to delve into some huge qualitative
analysis of armor and arms, we would be taking Warrior into a whole new area
while also saying that we've changed our minds about some basic design
underpinnings of the game itself. It's not unlike the occasional List Rule
criticism in here: it's a basic part of Warrior, live with it.

All of this, when you boil right down to it, exemplifies the vision in Warrior.
We've stated this type of thing in various forms for years now and yet, here we
are *still* having this conversation. Why are Jon and I called upon to defend
basic design concepts of the game? And why after all these years, is there
still an effort by a handful of players to convince us to change Warrior into a
game that it's not? 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. 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 other rules sets came into being. 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, send Jon some X-rules for consideration 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]

Aren't you all glad he is back? I sure am. lol Saving me a whole mess of
time. Makes me glad he's my partner in this venture...

Some folks should save this mail and the one he wrote before it. It is a better
and more thorough statement of our philosophy than the one we keep up on the
site.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <Scott.Holder@...>
To: warriorrules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:06:31 -0600
Subject: [WarriorRules] The Vision of Rules, Part II


"A hole, is a hole, is a hole." --Maj Jonathan Smith (Richard Burton's character
in 'Where Eagles Dare')

In Warrior, nay, in *every* major ancients/medieval set of rules in play in the
USofA today, the above sentence could more accurately be stated:

"A spear is a spear is a spear".

Thus, said game systems don't care if an individual (and keep that in mind since
I'll come back to it) spear is wielded by some Sumerian peasant or the Italian
Communal troops. The fact that one is tipped with something bronze, the other
with something iron-ish is immaterial in this assumption. Under this
assumption, both are poles with something pointy and sharp on the end that can
inflict harm on an opponent. And, this concept has provided *the* major design
assumption for ancients/medieval miniature wargaming since the dawn of the
hobby. Like it or not, that's the culture we play in. Anachronistic to be sure
but that's also part of the allure, yunno, the old Julius Ceasar vs Ghenghis
Khan. Well, in part. But the only way to even possibly recreate such
ahistorical encounters, we start with simulating in-period and hope that the "A
spear is a spear is a spear" assumption works outside the period.

Every historical rules set has a vision of how it wants to portray/simulate the
period it's intended to cover. I've covered this before but will paraphrase
again here. Historical miniatures is overwhelmingly a tactical game which lends
itself to being overly detail oriented. That being said, the last decade in the
hobby has seen a concerted effort to simplify games so that they are easier to
learn, play and master. However, that move to simplicity is nothing more than
the author's 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 form the mechanical underpinnings of the game design. The
vision is influenced 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.

During my first tome on this subject, I talked about "inalienable rights" of
units as being one of the main assumptions built into Warrior. "A spear is a
spear is a spear" is another. But, because this hobby *can* get overly detail
and technical oriented, there's always the tendency to fall into the
"Tractics-ization" of any period in question. By that I mean some people focus
on individual characteristics of a weapon and compare it to something else in
terms of relative effectiveness. A good example of this, using good ole
Tractics as the whipping boy, is comparing a WW2 German Panther to an American
Sherman. No comparison. If I'm playing "Tank Grudge Match One On One",
obviously I want the Panther. However, such an analysis fails to take into
account everything else. Like the Panther's crappy reliability issues, fewer
produced, reduced veteran crew availability, etc. Another example is something
I read years ago, a memoir of a German soldier on the Eastern Front. He manned
an 88mm position and during one battle, as he put it "one shot=one kill". Every
time they shot at a T-34, they took it out. But he admitted "we ran out of ammo
before they ran out of tanks", thus, who "won" in the end? In that instance,
the Soviets did. Take this up a few levels and look at a strategic game, Third
Reich always comes to mind. A German armor counter with a 4-6 rating is the
same as an American armor counter with a 4-6 rating. In that case, the game's
authors didn't care that the German armor was qualitatively better than the
American. Other design assumptions and factors dictated both being 4-6.

And that's where "A spear is a spear is a spear" works in a Warrior context.
We're not interested in one-on-one comparisons but in "systems on systems"
comparisons and the basic system in question is the unit. Thus, a *unit* of
Sumerian Spearmen is considered the equal to the aforementioned Italian Communal
Infantry unit (assuming the same morale and training). That's because a design
assumption in Warrior is that the qualitative differences of individual weapons
and armor have minimal, if any, impact at the unit-on-unit tactical level that
is Warrior. Instead, we care about the "systems interaction", thus, how does a
Pike-based system interact with an HTW-based system and so on. Again, that's an
assumption on our part but that assumption helps us create the vision of how we
see ancients/medieval warfare being run on the table. Moreover, even if there
was some micro-local affect of qualitative weapons/armor differences, it's
effect is mitigated by the range of actual men represented by the one figure.
Thus, the Sumerian Spearmen unit might have 85 men per fig whereas the Italian
Communal Spearmen unit might only have 35 men per fig. Thus, numbers cancel out
whatever (if any) effects at the *unit* level a slightly better forged metal
breastplace would have in thwarting an individual thrust by a bronze-tipped
Sumerian spear. But again, a basic Warrior design assumption is that such
affects, at the unit level, are marginal in terms of determining outcome but if
they are there, there's another design assumption in the game to account for
that.

In two, and only two instances, Bill and I have walked up to that "qualitative"
line but in my mind, haven't crossed it. The two instances are knight armor in
the late Medieval period (the ability to count SHK shielded) and the Japanese
oyoroi armor (the LEHI). In both cases, these were made "better" because each
in itself was a complex weapons system and not simply a "better-forged"
breastplate. And, creating them the way we did in a Warrior context made
perfect sense from our unit-on-unit tactical model of combat. And, as Mark put
it recently, it *worked* in a historical context, *the* most important factor
when we approached this from a list standpoint.

Weapons systems do not develop in a vacuum and this "detail focus" on certain
weapons or armor tends to miss the importance of that......and how it works at
the unit level. For example, Japanese oroyoi armor developed over time so that
units had sufficient protection from copious missile fire while being able to
wield a variety of HTH weapons and not be shackled by cumbersome armor. It's
not as if some guy came up with this stuff one day. The same applies for the
medieval knight armor. Clearly the shield was bothersome to use in all that
plate. But also clearly was the very real threat posed by massed archery fire
(the shield wasn't, by that time, really required when running down infantry).
Thus, creative minds working for the equivalent of the medieval
military/industrial complext, over time, came up with sophisticated ways to
protect the knight from massed archery fire without the need for a shield.
Again, in both cases, Bill and I came up to this qualitative line but then
developed the list, and anything new mechanically, so that it made sense at the
unit level.

Thus, let's talk about the Swiss for a minute. The Swiss formations that we're
trying to duplicate here came about because the Swiss's main tactical threat was
the knight. After experiences such as Arbedo, you see the development of the
Swiss phalanx. Fear of massed archery fire, well, wasn't, since the Swiss's
main opponents in the latter half of the 15th century weren't the English:)
So right out of the chute, the shield wasn't a requirement. Why? Three
reasons, two of which I'll relate now. One, it was a good defensive weapon,
particularly vs missile fire but since susceptibility to missile fire wasn't an
issue, no need for a shield (contrast this to the development of the Macedonian
pike phalanx where the formation and shield usage were design features from the
start because Philip knew he'd be fighting Persia and what were the Persians
most known for? Massed archery fire). Two, since the pike formation didn't
depend on swordplay, the shield was an encumberance. Thus, if the Swiss were
forced to fight HTH with their swords, hmmm, well, the formation wasn't designed
for that not unlike the Classical era pike phalanxes. Thus, no need for a
shield. Furthermore, eliminating the shield most likely enabled the Swiss to
use longer pikes, again, something better to fight (or scare off) knight
charges.

The inherent weakness of the pike formation, namely it's susceptibility to
getting hacked to pieces by HTH opponents that overcame the formations reach and
impact, was a problem in an era where the Swiss could expect to face a variety
of tactical weapons systems, not just the knight. Thus, they added a wrinkle
which was a precursor to the pike and shot formations of 75-100 years later
(after the widespread and effective battlefield development of gunpowder) in
that they put halberdiers in the mix. These were there to counter opposing
infantry formations AND add just a little more oomph to handling knights (since
various flavors of the halberd were designed to dehorse opponents and kill them
on the ground). The Swiss were able to effectively do this by reason #3 for not
having shields: it opened up space in the formation for the halberdiers to
effectively operate. And by having a fairly open formation in the first place
(as opposed to the packed Classical era formations), and train vigourously, the
Swiss developed a system that was very effective in countering their main
threats.

And as Mark put it, as far as we're concerned, the most important systems
interaction accuracy occurs *exactly* where we want it to occur: in historical
matchups. What happens outside of that, while yes, it is a consideration, it's
a low consideration. And if we even wanted to delve into some huge qualitative
analysis of armor and arms, we would be taking Warrior into a whole new area
while also saying that we've changed our minds about some basic design
underpinnings of the game itself. It's not unlike the occasional List Rule
criticism in here: it's a basic part of Warrior, live with it.

All of this, when you boil right down to it, exemplifies the vision in Warrior.
We've stated this type of thing in various forms for years now and yet, here we
are *still* having this conversation. Why are Jon and I called upon to defend
basic design concepts of the game? And why after all these years, is there
still an effort by a handful of players to convince us to change Warrior into a
game that it's not? 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. 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 other rules sets came into being. 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, send Jon some X-rules for consideration 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




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Greg Regets]

This is a hobby where reasonably intelligent people participate ...
and put quite a bit of effort into it. It is completely natural for
these people to have strong opinions.

Electronic communication is tricky ... even normal discussion can
come across as difficult and disruptive. That is why, in large
corporations when the email flames start (as they invariably do), at
some point upper management gets everyone together in an office,
where the flow is faster, interactive, and much more intuitive.

Lacking that ability, we all do the best we can. The only real
amelioration would be to close the website ... which makes about as
much sense as telling people that actually give a damn enough to
discuss your game, to stop playing it.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Aren't you all glad he is back? I sure am. lol Saving me a whole
mess of time. Makes me glad he's my partner in this venture...
>
> Some folks should save this mail and the one he wrote before it.
It is a better and more thorough statement of our philosophy than the
one we keep up on the site.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holder, Scott <Scott.Holder@f...>
> To: warriorrules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:06:31 -0600
> Subject: [WarriorRules] The Vision of Rules, Part II
>
>
> "A hole, is a hole, is a hole." --Maj Jonathan Smith (Richard
Burton's character
> in 'Where Eagles Dare')
>
> In Warrior, nay, in *every* major ancients/medieval set of rules in
play in the
> USofA today, the above sentence could more accurately be stated:
>
> "A spear is a spear is a spear".
>
> Thus, said game systems don't care if an individual (and keep that
in mind since
> I'll come back to it) spear is wielded by some Sumerian peasant or
the Italian
> Communal troops. The fact that one is tipped with something
bronze, the other
> with something iron-ish is immaterial in this assumption. Under
this
> assumption, both are poles with something pointy and sharp on the
end that can
> inflict harm on an opponent. And, this concept has provided *the*
major design
> assumption for ancients/medieval miniature wargaming since the dawn
of the
> hobby. Like it or not, that's the culture we play in.
Anachronistic to be sure
> but that's also part of the allure, yunno, the old Julius Ceasar vs
Ghenghis
> Khan. Well, in part. But the only way to even possibly recreate
such
> ahistorical encounters, we start with simulating in-period and hope
that the "A
> spear is a spear is a spear" assumption works outside the period.
>
> Every historical rules set has a vision of how it wants to
portray/simulate the
> period it's intended to cover. I've covered this before but will
paraphrase
> again here. Historical miniatures is overwhelmingly a tactical
game which lends
> itself to being overly detail oriented. That being said, the last
decade in the
> hobby has seen a concerted effort to simplify games so that they
are easier to
> learn, play and master. However, that move to simplicity is
nothing more than
> the author's 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 form the mechanical underpinnings of the game
design. The
> vision is influenced 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.
>
> During my first tome on this subject, I talked about "inalienable
rights" of
> units as being one of the main assumptions built into Warrior. "A
spear is a
> spear is a spear" is another. But, because this hobby *can* get
overly detail
> and technical oriented, there's always the tendency to fall into
the
> "Tractics-ization" of any period in question. By that I mean some
people focus
> on individual characteristics of a weapon and compare it to
something else in
> terms of relative effectiveness. A good example of this, using
good ole
> Tractics as the whipping boy, is comparing a WW2 German Panther to
an American
> Sherman. No comparison. If I'm playing "Tank Grudge Match One On
One",
> obviously I want the Panther. However, such an analysis fails to
take into
> account everything else. Like the Panther's crappy reliability
issues, fewer
> produced, reduced veteran crew availability, etc. Another example
is something
> I read years ago, a memoir of a German soldier on the Eastern
Front. He manned
> an 88mm position and during one battle, as he put it "one shot=one
kill". Every
> time they shot at a T-34, they took it out. But he admitted "we
ran out of ammo
> before they ran out of tanks", thus, who "won" in the end? In that
instance,
> the Soviets did. Take this up a few levels and look at a strategic
game, Third
> Reich always comes to mind. A German armor counter with a 4-6
rating is the
> same as an American armor counter with a 4-6 rating. In that case,
the game's
> authors didn't care that the German armor was qualitatively better
than the
> American. Other design assumptions and factors dictated both being
4-6.
>
> And that's where "A spear is a spear is a spear" works in a Warrior
context.
> We're not interested in one-on-one comparisons but in "systems on
systems"
> comparisons and the basic system in question is the unit. Thus, a
*unit* of
> Sumerian Spearmen is considered the equal to the aforementioned
Italian Communal
> Infantry unit (assuming the same morale and training). That's
because a design
> assumption in Warrior is that the qualitative differences of
individual weapons
> and armor have minimal, if any, impact at the unit-on-unit tactical
level that
> is Warrior. Instead, we care about the "systems interaction",
thus, how does a
> Pike-based system interact with an HTW-based system and so on.
Again, that's an
> assumption on our part but that assumption helps us create the
vision of how we
> see ancients/medieval warfare being run on the table. Moreover,
even if there
> was some micro-local affect of qualitative weapons/armor
differences, it's
> effect is mitigated by the range of actual men represented by the
one figure.
> Thus, the Sumerian Spearmen unit might have 85 men per fig whereas
the Italian
> Communal Spearmen unit might only have 35 men per fig. Thus,
numbers cancel out
> whatever (if any) effects at the *unit* level a slightly better
forged metal
> breastplace would have in thwarting an individual thrust by a
bronze-tipped
> Sumerian spear. But again, a basic Warrior design assumption is
that such
> affects, at the unit level, are marginal in terms of determining
outcome but if
> they are there, there's another design assumption in the game to
account for
> that.
>
> In two, and only two instances, Bill and I have walked up to
that "qualitative"
> line but in my mind, haven't crossed it. The two instances are
knight armor in
> the late Medieval period (the ability to count SHK shielded) and
the Japanese
> oyoroi armor (the LEHI). In both cases, these were made "better"
because each
> in itself was a complex weapons system and not simply a "better-
forged"
> breastplate. And, creating them the way we did in a Warrior
context made
> perfect sense from our unit-on-unit tactical model of combat. And,
as Mark put
> it recently, it *worked* in a historical context, *the* most
important factor
> when we approached this from a list standpoint.
>
> Weapons systems do not develop in a vacuum and this "detail focus"
on certain
> weapons or armor tends to miss the importance of that......and how
it works at
> the unit level. For example, Japanese oroyoi armor developed over
time so that
> units had sufficient protection from copious missile fire while
being able to
> wield a variety of HTH weapons and not be shackled by cumbersome
armor. It's
> not as if some guy came up with this stuff one day. The same
applies for the
> medieval knight armor. Clearly the shield was bothersome to use in
all that
> plate. But also clearly was the very real threat posed by massed
archery fire
> (the shield wasn't, by that time, really required when running down
infantry).
> Thus, creative minds working for the equivalent of the medieval
> military/industrial complext, over time, came up with sophisticated
ways to
> protect the knight from massed archery fire without the need for a
shield.
> Again, in both cases, Bill and I came up to this qualitative line
but then
> developed the list, and anything new mechanically, so that it made
sense at the
> unit level.
>
> Thus, let's talk about the Swiss for a minute. The Swiss
formations that we're
> trying to duplicate here came about because the Swiss's main
tactical threat was
> the knight. After experiences such as Arbedo, you see the
development of the
> Swiss phalanx. Fear of massed archery fire, well, wasn't, since
the Swiss's
> main opponents in the latter half of the 15th century weren't the
English:)
> So right out of the chute, the shield wasn't a requirement. Why?
Three
> reasons, two of which I'll relate now. One, it was a good
defensive weapon,
> particularly vs missile fire but since susceptibility to missile
fire wasn't an
> issue, no need for a shield (contrast this to the development of
the Macedonian
> pike phalanx where the formation and shield usage were design
features from the
> start because Philip knew he'd be fighting Persia and what were the
Persians
> most known for? Massed archery fire). Two, since the pike
formation didn't
> depend on swordplay, the shield was an encumberance. Thus, if the
Swiss were
> forced to fight HTH with their swords, hmmm, well, the formation
wasn't designed
> for that not unlike the Classical era pike phalanxes. Thus, no
need for a
> shield. Furthermore, eliminating the shield most likely enabled
the Swiss to
> use longer pikes, again, something better to fight (or scare off)
knight
> charges.
>
> The inherent weakness of the pike formation, namely it's
susceptibility to
> getting hacked to pieces by HTH opponents that overcame the
formations reach and
> impact, was a problem in an era where the Swiss could expect to
face a variety
> of tactical weapons systems, not just the knight. Thus, they added
a wrinkle
> which was a precursor to the pike and shot formations of 75-100
years later
> (after the widespread and effective battlefield development of
gunpowder) in
> that they put halberdiers in the mix. These were there to counter
opposing
> infantry formations AND add just a little more oomph to handling
knights (since
> various flavors of the halberd were designed to dehorse opponents
and kill them
> on the ground). The Swiss were able to effectively do this by
reason #3 for not
> having shields: it opened up space in the formation for the
halberdiers to
> effectively operate. And by having a fairly open formation in the
first place
> (as opposed to the packed Classical era formations), and train
vigourously, the
> Swiss developed a system that was very effective in countering
their main
> threats.
>
> And as Mark put it, as far as we're concerned, the most important
systems
> interaction accuracy occurs *exactly* where we want it to occur: in
historical
> matchups. What happens outside of that, while yes, it is a
consideration, it's
> a low consideration. And if we even wanted to delve into some huge
qualitative
> analysis of armor and arms, we would be taking Warrior into a whole
new area
> while also saying that we've changed our minds about some basic
design
> underpinnings of the game itself. It's not unlike the occasional
List Rule
> criticism in here: it's a basic part of Warrior, live with it.
>
> All of this, when you boil right down to it, exemplifies the vision
in Warrior.
> We've stated this type of thing in various forms for years now and
yet, here we
> are *still* having this conversation. Why are Jon and I called upon
to defend
> basic design concepts of the game? And why after all these years,
is there
> still an effort by a handful of players to convince us to change
Warrior into a
> game that it's not? 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. 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 other rules sets came into being. 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, send Jon some X-rules for consideration 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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

Discussion is welcomed. Some other things are not. i believe Scott was
reacting to those....

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:19:38 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Vision of Rules, Part II


This is a hobby where reasonably intelligent people participate ...
and put quite a bit of effort into it. It is completely natural for
these people to have strong opinions.

Electronic communication is tricky ... even normal discussion can
come across as difficult and disruptive. That is why, in large
corporations when the email flames start (as they invariably do), at
some point upper management gets everyone together in an office,
where the flow is faster, interactive, and much more intuitive.

Lacking that ability, we all do the best we can. The only real
amelioration would be to close the website ... which makes about as
much sense as telling people that actually give a damn enough to
discuss your game, to stop playing it.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Aren't you all glad he is back? I sure am. lol Saving me a whole
mess of time. Makes me glad he's my partner in this venture...
>
> Some folks should save this mail and the one he wrote before it.
It is a better and more thorough statement of our philosophy than the
one we keep up on the site.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holder, Scott <Scott.Holder@f...>
> To: warriorrules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:06:31 -0600
> Subject: [WarriorRules] The Vision of Rules, Part II
>
>
> "A hole, is a hole, is a hole." --Maj Jonathan Smith (Richard
Burton's character
> in 'Where Eagles Dare')
>
> In Warrior, nay, in *every* major ancients/medieval set of rules in
play in the
> USofA today, the above sentence could more accurately be stated:
>
> "A spear is a spear is a spear".
>
> Thus, said game systems don't care if an individual (and keep that
in mind since
> I'll come back to it) spear is wielded by some Sumerian peasant or
the Italian
> Communal troops. The fact that one is tipped with something
bronze, the other
> with something iron-ish is immaterial in this assumption. Under
this
> assumption, both are poles with something pointy and sharp on the
end that can
> inflict harm on an opponent. And, this concept has provided *the*
major design
> assumption for ancients/medieval miniature wargaming since the dawn
of the
> hobby. Like it or not, that's the culture we play in.
Anachronistic to be sure
> but that's also part of the allure, yunno, the old Julius Ceasar vs
Ghenghis
> Khan. Well, in part. But the only way to even possibly recreate
such
> ahistorical encounters, we start with simulating in-period and hope
that the "A
> spear is a spear is a spear" assumption works outside the period.
>
> Every historical rules set has a vision of how it wants to
portray/simulate the
> period it's intended to cover. I've covered this before but will
paraphrase
> again here. Historical miniatures is overwhelmingly a tactical
game which lends
> itself to being overly detail oriented. That being said, the last
decade in the
> hobby has seen a concerted effort to simplify games so that they
are easier to
> learn, play and master. However, that move to simplicity is
nothing more than
> the author's 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 form the mechanical underpinnings of the game
design. The
> vision is influenced 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.
>
> During my first tome on this subject, I talked about "inalienable
rights" of
> units as being one of the main assumptions built into Warrior. "A
spear is a
> spear is a spear" is another. But, because this hobby *can* get
overly detail
> and technical oriented, there's always the tendency to fall into
the
> "Tractics-ization" of any period in question. By that I mean some
people focus
> on individual characteristics of a weapon and compare it to
something else in
> terms of relative effectiveness. A good example of this, using
good ole
> Tractics as the whipping boy, is comparing a WW2 German Panther to
an American
> Sherman. No comparison. If I'm playing "Tank Grudge Match One On
One",
> obviously I want the Panther. However, such an analysis fails to
take into
> account everything else. Like the Panther's crappy reliability
issues, fewer
> produced, reduced veteran crew availability, etc. Another example
is something
> I read years ago, a memoir of a German soldier on the Eastern
Front. He manned
> an 88mm position and during one battle, as he put it "one shot=one
kill". Every
> time they shot at a T-34, they took it out. But he admitted "we
ran out of ammo
> before they ran out of tanks", thus, who "won" in the end? In that
instance,
> the Soviets did. Take this up a few levels and look at a strategic
game, Third
> Reich always comes to mind. A German armor counter with a 4-6
rating is the
> same as an American armor counter with a 4-6 rating. In that case,
the game's
> authors didn't care that the German armor was qualitatively better
than the
> American. Other design assumptions and factors dictated both being
4-6.
>
> And that's where "A spear is a spear is a spear" works in a Warrior
context.
> We're not interested in one-on-one comparisons but in "systems on
systems"
> comparisons and the basic system in question is the unit. Thus, a
*unit* of
> Sumerian Spearmen is considered the equal to the aforementioned
Italian Communal
> Infantry unit (assuming the same morale and training). That's
because a design
> assumption in Warrior is that the qualitative differences of
individual weapons
> and armor have minimal, if any, impact at the unit-on-unit tactical
level that
> is Warrior. Instead, we care about the "systems interaction",
thus, how does a
> Pike-based system interact with an HTW-based system and so on.
Again, that's an
> assumption on our part but that assumption helps us create the
vision of how we
> see ancients/medieval warfare being run on the table. Moreover,
even if there
> was some micro-local affect of qualitative weapons/armor
differences, it's
> effect is mitigated by the range of actual men represented by the
one figure.
> Thus, the Sumerian Spearmen unit might have 85 men per fig whereas
the Italian
> Communal Spearmen unit might only have 35 men per fig. Thus,
numbers cancel out
> whatever (if any) effects at the *unit* level a slightly better
forged metal
> breastplace would have in thwarting an individual thrust by a
bronze-tipped
> Sumerian spear. But again, a basic Warrior design assumption is
that such
> affects, at the unit level, are marginal in terms of determining
outcome but if
> they are there, there's another design assumption in the game to
account for
> that.
>
> In two, and only two instances, Bill and I have walked up to
that "qualitative"
> line but in my mind, haven't crossed it. The two instances are
knight armor in
> the late Medieval period (the ability to count SHK shielded) and
the Japanese
> oyoroi armor (the LEHI). In both cases, these were made "better"
because each
> in itself was a complex weapons system and not simply a "better-
forged"
> breastplate. And, creating them the way we did in a Warrior
context made
> perfect sense from our unit-on-unit tactical model of combat. And,
as Mark put
> it recently, it *worked* in a historical context, *the* most
important factor
> when we approached this from a list standpoint.
>
> Weapons systems do not develop in a vacuum and this "detail focus"
on certain
> weapons or armor tends to miss the importance of that......and how
it works at
> the unit level. For example, Japanese oroyoi armor developed over
time so that
> units had sufficient protection from copious missile fire while
being able to
> wield a variety of HTH weapons and not be shackled by cumbersome
armor. It's
> not as if some guy came up with this stuff one day. The same
applies for the
> medieval knight armor. Clearly the shield was bothersome to use in
all that
> plate. But also clearly was the very real threat posed by massed
archery fire
> (the shield wasn't, by that time, really required when running down
infantry).
> Thus, creative minds working for the equivalent of the medieval
> military/industrial complext, over time, came up with sophisticated
ways to
> protect the knight from massed archery fire without the need for a
shield.
> Again, in both cases, Bill and I came up to this qualitative line
but then
> developed the list, and anything new mechanically, so that it made
sense at the
> unit level.
>
> Thus, let's talk about the Swiss for a minute. The Swiss
formations that we're
> trying to duplicate here came about because the Swiss's main
tactical threat was
> the knight. After experiences such as Arbedo, you see the
development of the
> Swiss phalanx. Fear of massed archery fire, well, wasn't, since
the Swiss's
> main opponents in the latter half of the 15th century weren't the
English:)
> So right out of the chute, the shield wasn't a requirement. Why?
Three
> reasons, two of which I'll relate now. One, it was a good
defensive weapon,
> particularly vs missile fire but since susceptibility to missile
fire wasn't an
> issue, no need for a shield (contrast this to the development of
the Macedonian
> pike phalanx where the formation and shield usage were design
features from the
> start because Philip knew he'd be fighting Persia and what were the
Persians
> most known for? Massed archery fire). Two, since the pike
formation didn't
> depend on swordplay, the shield was an encumberance. Thus, if the
Swiss were
> forced to fight HTH with their swords, hmmm, well, the formation
wasn't designed
> for that not unlike the Classical era pike phalanxes. Thus, no
need for a
> shield. Furthermore, eliminating the shield most likely enabled
the Swiss to
> use longer pikes, again, something better to fight (or scare off)
knight
> charges.
>
> The inherent weakness of the pike formation, namely it's
susceptibility to
> getting hacked to pieces by HTH opponents that overcame the
formations reach and
> impact, was a problem in an era where the Swiss could expect to
face a variety
> of tactical weapons systems, not just the knight. Thus, they added
a wrinkle
> which was a precursor to the pike and shot formations of 75-100
years later
> (after the widespread and effective battlefield development of
gunpowder) in
> that they put halberdiers in the mix. These were there to counter
opposing
> infantry formations AND add just a little more oomph to handling
knights (since
> various flavors of the halberd were designed to dehorse opponents
and kill them
> on the ground). The Swiss were able to effectively do this by
reason #3 for not
> having shields: it opened up space in the formation for the
halberdiers to
> effectively operate. And by having a fairly open formation in the
first place
> (as opposed to the packed Classical era formations), and train
vigourously, the
> Swiss developed a system that was very effective in countering
their main
> threats.
>
> And as Mark put it, as far as we're concerned, the most important
systems
> interaction accuracy occurs *exactly* where we want it to occur: in
historical
> matchups. What happens outside of that, while yes, it is a
consideration, it's
> a low consideration. And if we even wanted to delve into some huge
qualitative
> analysis of armor and arms, we would be taking Warrior into a whole
new area
> while also saying that we've changed our minds about some basic
design
> underpinnings of the game itself. It's not unlike the occasional
List Rule
> criticism in here: it's a basic part of Warrior, live with it.
>
> All of this, when you boil right down to it, exemplifies the vision
in Warrior.
> We've stated this type of thing in various forms for years now and
yet, here we
> are *still* having this conversation. Why are Jon and I called upon
to defend
> basic design concepts of the game? And why after all these years,
is there
> still an effort by a handful of players to convince us to change
Warrior into a
> game that it's not? 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. 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 other rules sets came into being. 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, send Jon some X-rules for consideration 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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Greg Regets]

I think we all know that Jon, but such is the difficulty of this form
of communication.

I started a thread about LEHI, etc ... which somewhat merged with a
discussion about Japanese armor, which took points from one on Swiss
list rules, and merged into a huge conflagration about fatigue,
armor, bows, other weapons, etc ...

Do you actually think anyone planned it this way? Hell, I was on one
side in the LEHI post, and on the other in the Swiss, and didn't even
participate in the Japanese armor discussion ... and still all this
got merged. By the time it all came down, I could hardly tell what
side I was on on any of these issues.

To be quite honest, I'm appauled that anyone at FHE would make a
blanket statement like "play something else" in response to things
topical that were nothing more than small snippets from a variety of
people on a variety of topics, with a variety of points of view. I
saw no singular attack from anyone aimed at FHE, to merit such a
response.

You have a great game ... perhaps the best ever written. You are a
master at making very complicated notion, easy to understand. You
have great army lists, without a doubt the best ever written. With
quality, comes the expectation of even more quality. If Warrior was
the worst game ever written, nobody would be here and nothing would
be said about it at all ... but of course, that wouldn't be something
you would really want, now would it?

With all respect due ... you guys are just being too thin skinned. If
you are going to have a website, this will happen. You can hope it
doesn't, but you can also hope the air is cleaner, while
understanding that there is nothing else to breath.

Have a great day, and please forgive in advance, any overly
aggressive language on my part.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Discussion is welcomed. Some other things are not. i believe
Scott was reacting to those....
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:19:38 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Vision of Rules, Part II
>
>
> This is a hobby where reasonably intelligent people participate ...
> and put quite a bit of effort into it. It is completely natural for
> these people to have strong opinions.
>
> Electronic communication is tricky ... even normal discussion can
> come across as difficult and disruptive. That is why, in large
> corporations when the email flames start (as they invariably do),
at
> some point upper management gets everyone together in an office,
> where the flow is faster, interactive, and much more intuitive.
>
> Lacking that ability, we all do the best we can. The only real
> amelioration would be to close the website ... which makes about as
> much sense as telling people that actually give a damn enough to
> discuss your game, to stop playing it.
>
> g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > Aren't you all glad he is back? I sure am. lol Saving me a
whole
> mess of time. Makes me glad he's my partner in this venture...
> >
> > Some folks should save this mail and the one he wrote before it.
> It is a better and more thorough statement of our philosophy than
the
> one we keep up on the site.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Holder, Scott <Scott.Holder@f...>
> > To: warriorrules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:06:31 -0600
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] The Vision of Rules, Part II
> >
> >
> > "A hole, is a hole, is a hole." --Maj Jonathan Smith (Richard
> Burton's character
> > in 'Where Eagles Dare')
> >
> > In Warrior, nay, in *every* major ancients/medieval set of rules
in
> play in the
> > USofA today, the above sentence could more accurately be stated:
> >
> > "A spear is a spear is a spear".
> >
> > Thus, said game systems don't care if an individual (and keep
that
> in mind since
> > I'll come back to it) spear is wielded by some Sumerian peasant
or
> the Italian
> > Communal troops. The fact that one is tipped with something
> bronze, the other
> > with something iron-ish is immaterial in this assumption. Under
> this
> > assumption, both are poles with something pointy and sharp on the
> end that can
> > inflict harm on an opponent. And, this concept has provided
*the*
> major design
> > assumption for ancients/medieval miniature wargaming since the
dawn
> of the
> > hobby. Like it or not, that's the culture we play in.
> Anachronistic to be sure
> > but that's also part of the allure, yunno, the old Julius Ceasar
vs
> Ghenghis
> > Khan. Well, in part. But the only way to even possibly recreate
> such
> > ahistorical encounters, we start with simulating in-period and
hope
> that the "A
> > spear is a spear is a spear" assumption works outside the period.
> >
> > Every historical rules set has a vision of how it wants to
> portray/simulate the
> > period it's intended to cover. I've covered this before but will
> paraphrase
> > again here. Historical miniatures is overwhelmingly a tactical
> game which lends
> > itself to being overly detail oriented. That being said, the
last
> decade in the
> > hobby has seen a concerted effort to simplify games so that they
> are easier to
> > learn, play and master. However, that move to simplicity is
> nothing more than
> > the author's 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 form the mechanical underpinnings of the
game
> design. The
> > vision is influenced 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.
> >
> > During my first tome on this subject, I talked about "inalienable
> rights" of
> > units as being one of the main assumptions built into
Warrior. "A
> spear is a
> > spear is a spear" is another. But, because this hobby *can* get
> overly detail
> > and technical oriented, there's always the tendency to fall into
> the
> > "Tractics-ization" of any period in question. By that I mean
some
> people focus
> > on individual characteristics of a weapon and compare it to
> something else in
> > terms of relative effectiveness. A good example of this, using
> good ole
> > Tractics as the whipping boy, is comparing a WW2 German Panther
to
> an American
> > Sherman. No comparison. If I'm playing "Tank Grudge Match One
On
> One",
> > obviously I want the Panther. However, such an analysis fails to
> take into
> > account everything else. Like the Panther's crappy reliability
> issues, fewer
> > produced, reduced veteran crew availability, etc. Another
example
> is something
> > I read years ago, a memoir of a German soldier on the Eastern
> Front. He manned
> > an 88mm position and during one battle, as he put it "one
shot=one
> kill". Every
> > time they shot at a T-34, they took it out. But he admitted "we
> ran out of ammo
> > before they ran out of tanks", thus, who "won" in the end? In
that
> instance,
> > the Soviets did. Take this up a few levels and look at a
strategic
> game, Third
> > Reich always comes to mind. A German armor counter with a 4-6
> rating is the
> > same as an American armor counter with a 4-6 rating. In that
case,
> the game's
> > authors didn't care that the German armor was qualitatively
better
> than the
> > American. Other design assumptions and factors dictated both
being
> 4-6.
> >
> > And that's where "A spear is a spear is a spear" works in a
Warrior
> context.
> > We're not interested in one-on-one comparisons but in "systems on
> systems"
> > comparisons and the basic system in question is the unit. Thus,
a
> *unit* of
> > Sumerian Spearmen is considered the equal to the aforementioned
> Italian Communal
> > Infantry unit (assuming the same morale and training). That's
> because a design
> > assumption in Warrior is that the qualitative differences of
> individual weapons
> > and armor have minimal, if any, impact at the unit-on-unit
tactical
> level that
> > is Warrior. Instead, we care about the "systems interaction",
> thus, how does a
> > Pike-based system interact with an HTW-based system and so on.
> Again, that's an
> > assumption on our part but that assumption helps us create the
> vision of how we
> > see ancients/medieval warfare being run on the table. Moreover,
> even if there
> > was some micro-local affect of qualitative weapons/armor
> differences, it's
> > effect is mitigated by the range of actual men represented by the
> one figure.
> > Thus, the Sumerian Spearmen unit might have 85 men per fig
whereas
> the Italian
> > Communal Spearmen unit might only have 35 men per fig. Thus,
> numbers cancel out
> > whatever (if any) effects at the *unit* level a slightly better
> forged metal
> > breastplace would have in thwarting an individual thrust by a
> bronze-tipped
> > Sumerian spear. But again, a basic Warrior design assumption is
> that such
> > affects, at the unit level, are marginal in terms of determining
> outcome but if
> > they are there, there's another design assumption in the game to
> account for
> > that.
> >
> > In two, and only two instances, Bill and I have walked up to
> that "qualitative"
> > line but in my mind, haven't crossed it. The two instances are
> knight armor in
> > the late Medieval period (the ability to count SHK shielded) and
> the Japanese
> > oyoroi armor (the LEHI). In both cases, these were made "better"
> because each
> > in itself was a complex weapons system and not simply a "better-
> forged"
> > breastplate. And, creating them the way we did in a Warrior
> context made
> > perfect sense from our unit-on-unit tactical model of combat.
And,
> as Mark put
> > it recently, it *worked* in a historical context, *the* most
> important factor
> > when we approached this from a list standpoint.
> >
> > Weapons systems do not develop in a vacuum and this "detail
focus"
> on certain
> > weapons or armor tends to miss the importance of that......and
how
> it works at
> > the unit level. For example, Japanese oroyoi armor developed
over
> time so that
> > units had sufficient protection from copious missile fire while
> being able to
> > wield a variety of HTH weapons and not be shackled by cumbersome
> armor. It's
> > not as if some guy came up with this stuff one day. The same
> applies for the
> > medieval knight armor. Clearly the shield was bothersome to use
in
> all that
> > plate. But also clearly was the very real threat posed by massed
> archery fire
> > (the shield wasn't, by that time, really required when running
down
> infantry).
> > Thus, creative minds working for the equivalent of the medieval
> > military/industrial complext, over time, came up with
sophisticated
> ways to
> > protect the knight from massed archery fire without the need for
a
> shield.
> > Again, in both cases, Bill and I came up to this qualitative line
> but then
> > developed the list, and anything new mechanically, so that it
made
> sense at the
> > unit level.
> >
> > Thus, let's talk about the Swiss for a minute. The Swiss
> formations that we're
> > trying to duplicate here came about because the Swiss's main
> tactical threat was
> > the knight. After experiences such as Arbedo, you see the
> development of the
> > Swiss phalanx. Fear of massed archery fire, well, wasn't, since
> the Swiss's
> > main opponents in the latter half of the 15th century weren't the
> English:)
> > So right out of the chute, the shield wasn't a requirement.
Why?
> Three
> > reasons, two of which I'll relate now. One, it was a good
> defensive weapon,
> > particularly vs missile fire but since susceptibility to missile
> fire wasn't an
> > issue, no need for a shield (contrast this to the development of
> the Macedonian
> > pike phalanx where the formation and shield usage were design
> features from the
> > start because Philip knew he'd be fighting Persia and what were
the
> Persians
> > most known for? Massed archery fire). Two, since the pike
> formation didn't
> > depend on swordplay, the shield was an encumberance. Thus, if
the
> Swiss were
> > forced to fight HTH with their swords, hmmm, well, the formation
> wasn't designed
> > for that not unlike the Classical era pike phalanxes. Thus, no
> need for a
> > shield. Furthermore, eliminating the shield most likely enabled
> the Swiss to
> > use longer pikes, again, something better to fight (or scare off)
> knight
> > charges.
> >
> > The inherent weakness of the pike formation, namely it's
> susceptibility to
> > getting hacked to pieces by HTH opponents that overcame the
> formations reach and
> > impact, was a problem in an era where the Swiss could expect to
> face a variety
> > of tactical weapons systems, not just the knight. Thus, they
added
> a wrinkle
> > which was a precursor to the pike and shot formations of 75-100
> years later
> > (after the widespread and effective battlefield development of
> gunpowder) in
> > that they put halberdiers in the mix. These were there to
counter
> opposing
> > infantry formations AND add just a little more oomph to handling
> knights (since
> > various flavors of the halberd were designed to dehorse opponents
> and kill them
> > on the ground). The Swiss were able to effectively do this by
> reason #3 for not
> > having shields: it opened up space in the formation for the
> halberdiers to
> > effectively operate. And by having a fairly open formation in
the
> first place
> > (as opposed to the packed Classical era formations), and train
> vigourously, the
> > Swiss developed a system that was very effective in countering
> their main
> > threats.
> >
> > And as Mark put it, as far as we're concerned, the most important
> systems
> > interaction accuracy occurs *exactly* where we want it to occur:
in
> historical
> > matchups. What happens outside of that, while yes, it is a
> consideration, it's
> > a low consideration. And if we even wanted to delve into some
huge
> qualitative
> > analysis of armor and arms, we would be taking Warrior into a
whole
> new area
> > while also saying that we've changed our minds about some basic
> design
> > underpinnings of the game itself. It's not unlike the occasional
> List Rule
> > criticism in here: it's a basic part of Warrior, live with it.
> >
> > All of this, when you boil right down to it, exemplifies the
vision
> in Warrior.
> > We've stated this type of thing in various forms for years now
and
> yet, here we
> > are *still* having this conversation. Why are Jon and I called
upon
> to defend
> > basic design concepts of the game? And why after all these
years,
> is there
> > still an effort by a handful of players to convince us to change
> Warrior into a
> > game that it's not? 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. 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 other rules sets came into being. 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, send Jon some X-rules for consideration 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

Don't be so shocked, Greg. We are not in the business of pleasing everyone. We
are in the business of pleasing the most players we can. Not the same thing.
If one guy left our game system for another and by doing so removed a large
amount of work from us having to respond to him and try and make him see why we
do what we do, more would get done for the other X players. I would call that
positive.
I will even say, as I have before, that there are a couple of guys I would PAY
to leave Warrior if I could...

A guy plays D+D, goes on a muderous shooting spree and in his suicide note tells
the world the game made him do it - don't think Wizards wouldn't want him to not
play their system if they could so choose.

Here's a scenario - Scott and Bill send me a set of sources to look at for a
list rule they are proposing. I look them over, mess around on my tabletop, ask
some questions we go back and forth, seeking out some experts in the field as
well as some power players for their opinion on balance and abuses. Hours and
hours spent on as few as a couple of words in a list rule or troop line. We
come to a consensus and make the call.

A week after the list book comes out we get:

'you've unbalanced the lists. my army Z from 500 BC can no longer beat army X
from 1400 AD - what gives?''
'my reading of troop X is different than yours. I offer no hard sources, but
would you relook your list rule? its wrong.'
'I have a <piece of equipment> i use for reenactments and you guys have no idea
how it works.'

Don't say that we do not get mails like that - you *know* they are in the
archives for all to see. They are not 'discussions', they are gripes - often
from the same 4-5 people. Gripes deserve what they get from us.

J


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:16:23 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Vision of Rules, Part II


I think we all know that Jon, but such is the difficulty of this form
of communication.

I started a thread about LEHI, etc ... which somewhat merged with a
discussion about Japanese armor, which took points from one on Swiss
list rules, and merged into a huge conflagration about fatigue,
armor, bows, other weapons, etc ...

Do you actually think anyone planned it this way? Hell, I was on one
side in the LEHI post, and on the other in the Swiss, and didn't even
participate in the Japanese armor discussion ... and still all this
got merged. By the time it all came down, I could hardly tell what
side I was on on any of these issues.

To be quite honest, I'm appauled that anyone at FHE would make a
blanket statement like "play something else" in response to things
topical that were nothing more than small snippets from a variety of
people on a variety of topics, with a variety of points of view. I
saw no singular attack from anyone aimed at FHE, to merit such a
response.

You have a great game ... perhaps the best ever written. You are a
master at making very complicated notion, easy to understand. You
have great army lists, without a doubt the best ever written. With
quality, comes the expectation of even more quality. If Warrior was
the worst game ever written, nobody would be here and nothing would
be said about it at all ... but of course, that wouldn't be something
you would really want, now would it?

With all respect due ... you guys are just being too thin skinned. If
you are going to have a website, this will happen. You can hope it
doesn't, but you can also hope the air is cleaner, while
understanding that there is nothing else to breath.

Have a great day, and please forgive in advance, any overly
aggressive language on my part.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Discussion is welcomed. Some other things are not. i believe
Scott was reacting to those....
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:19:38 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Vision of Rules, Part II
>
>
> This is a hobby where reasonably intelligent people participate ...
> and put quite a bit of effort into it. It is completely natural for
> these people to have strong opinions.
>
> Electronic communication is tricky ... even normal discussion can
> come across as difficult and disruptive. That is why, in large
> corporations when the email flames start (as they invariably do),
at
> some point upper management gets everyone together in an office,
> where the flow is faster, interactive, and much more intuitive.
>
> Lacking that ability, we all do the best we can. The only real
> amelioration would be to close the website ... which makes about as
> much sense as telling people that actually give a damn enough to
> discuss your game, to stop playing it.
>
> g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > Aren't you all glad he is back? I sure am. lol Saving me a
whole
> mess of time. Makes me glad he's my partner in this venture...
> >
> > Some folks should save this mail and the one he wrote before it.
> It is a better and more thorough statement of our philosophy than
the
> one we keep up on the site.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Holder, Scott <Scott.Holder@f...>
> > To: warriorrules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:06:31 -0600
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] The Vision of Rules, Part II
> >
> >
> > "A hole, is a hole, is a hole." --Maj Jonathan Smith (Richard
> Burton's character
> > in 'Where Eagles Dare')
> >
> > In Warrior, nay, in *every* major ancients/medieval set of rules
in
> play in the
> > USofA today, the above sentence could more accurately be stated:
> >
> > "A spear is a spear is a spear".
> >
> > Thus, said game systems don't care if an individual (and keep
that
> in mind since
> > I'll come back to it) spear is wielded by some Sumerian peasant
or
> the Italian
> > Communal troops. The fact that one is tipped with something
> bronze, the other
> > with something iron-ish is immaterial in this assumption. Under
> this
> > assumption, both are poles with something pointy and sharp on the
> end that can
> > inflict harm on an opponent. And, this concept has provided
*the*
> major design
> > assumption for ancients/medieval miniature wargaming since the
dawn
> of the
> > hobby. Like it or not, that's the culture we play in.
> Anachronistic to be sure
> > but that's also part of the allure, yunno, the old Julius Ceasar
vs
> Ghenghis
> > Khan. Well, in part. But the only way to even possibly recreate
> such
> > ahistorical encounters, we start with simulating in-period and
hope
> that the "A
> > spear is a spear is a spear" assumption works outside the period.
> >
> > Every historical rules set has a vision of how it wants to
> portray/simulate the
> > period it's intended to cover. I've covered this before but will
> paraphrase
> > again here. Historical miniatures is overwhelmingly a tactical
> game which lends
> > itself to being overly detail oriented. That being said, the
last
> decade in the
> > hobby has seen a concerted effort to simplify games so that they
> are easier to
> > learn, play and master. However, that move to simplicity is
> nothing more than
> > the author's 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 form the mechanical underpinnings of the
game
> design. The
> > vision is influenced 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.
> >
> > During my first tome on this subject, I talked about "inalienable
> rights" of
> > units as being one of the main assumptions built into
Warrior. "A
> spear is a
> > spear is a spear" is another. But, because this hobby *can* get
> overly detail
> > and technical oriented, there's always the tendency to fall into
> the
> > "Tractics-ization" of any period in question. By that I mean
some
> people focus
> > on individual characteristics of a weapon and compare it to
> something else in
> > terms of relative effectiveness. A good example of this, using
> good ole
> > Tractics as the whipping boy, is comparing a WW2 German Panther
to
> an American
> > Sherman. No comparison. If I'm playing "Tank Grudge Match One
On
> One",
> > obviously I want the Panther. However, such an analysis fails to
> take into
> > account everything else. Like the Panther's crappy reliability
> issues, fewer
> > produced, reduced veteran crew availability, etc. Another
example
> is something
> > I read years ago, a memoir of a German soldier on the Eastern
> Front. He manned
> > an 88mm position and during one battle, as he put it "one
shot=one
> kill". Every
> > time they shot at a T-34, they took it out. But he admitted "we
> ran out of ammo
> > before they ran out of tanks", thus, who "won" in the end? In
that
> instance,
> > the Soviets did. Take this up a few levels and look at a
strategic
> game, Third
> > Reich always comes to mind. A German armor counter with a 4-6
> rating is the
> > same as an American armor counter with a 4-6 rating. In that
case,
> the game's
> > authors didn't care that the German armor was qualitatively
better
> than the
> > American. Other design assumptions and factors dictated both
being
> 4-6.
> >
> > And that's where "A spear is a spear is a spear" works in a
Warrior
> context.
> > We're not interested in one-on-one comparisons but in "systems on
> systems"
> > comparisons and the basic system in question is the unit. Thus,
a
> *unit* of
> > Sumerian Spearmen is considered the equal to the aforementioned
> Italian Communal
> > Infantry unit (assuming the same morale and training). That's
> because a design
> > assumption in Warrior is that the qualitative differences of
> individual weapons
> > and armor have minimal, if any, impact at the unit-on-unit
tactical
> level that
> > is Warrior. Instead, we care about the "systems interaction",
> thus, how does a
> > Pike-based system interact with an HTW-based system and so on.
> Again, that's an
> > assumption on our part but that assumption helps us create the
> vision of how we
> > see ancients/medieval warfare being run on the table. Moreover,
> even if there
> > was some micro-local affect of qualitative weapons/armor
> differences, it's
> > effect is mitigated by the range of actual men represented by the
> one figure.
> > Thus, the Sumerian Spearmen unit might have 85 men per fig
whereas
> the Italian
> > Communal Spearmen unit might only have 35 men per fig. Thus,
> numbers cancel out
> > whatever (if any) effects at the *unit* level a slightly better
> forged metal
> > breastplace would have in thwarting an individual thrust by a
> bronze-tipped
> > Sumerian spear. But again, a basic Warrior design assumption is
> that such
> > affects, at the unit level, are marginal in terms of determining
> outcome but if
> > they are there, there's another design assumption in the game to
> account for
> > that.
> >
> > In two, and only two instances, Bill and I have walked up to
> that "qualitative"
> > line but in my mind, haven't crossed it. The two instances are
> knight armor in
> > the late Medieval period (the ability to count SHK shielded) and
> the Japanese
> > oyoroi armor (the LEHI). In both cases, these were made "better"
> because each
> > in itself was a complex weapons system and not simply a "better-
> forged"
> > breastplate. And, creating them the way we did in a Warrior
> context made
> > perfect sense from our unit-on-unit tactical model of combat.
And,
> as Mark put
> > it recently, it *worked* in a historical context, *the* most
> important factor
> > when we approached this from a list standpoint.
> >
> > Weapons systems do not develop in a vacuum and this "detail
focus"
> on certain
> > weapons or armor tends to miss the importance of that......and
how
> it works at
> > the unit level. For example, Japanese oroyoi armor developed
over
> time so that
> > units had sufficient protection from copious missile fire while
> being able to
> > wield a variety of HTH weapons and not be shackled by cumbersome
> armor. It's
> > not as if some guy came up with this stuff one day. The same
> applies for the
> > medieval knight armor. Clearly the shield was bothersome to use
in
> all that
> > plate. But also clearly was the very real threat posed by massed
> archery fire
> > (the shield wasn't, by that time, really required when running
down
> infantry).
> > Thus, creative minds working for the equivalent of the medieval
> > military/industrial complext, over time, came up with
sophisticated
> ways to
> > protect the knight from massed archery fire without the need for
a
> shield.
> > Again, in both cases, Bill and I came up to this qualitative line
> but then
> > developed the list, and anything new mechanically, so that it
made
> sense at the
> > unit level.
> >
> > Thus, let's talk about the Swiss for a minute. The Swiss
> formations that we're
> > trying to duplicate here came about because the Swiss's main
> tactical threat was
> > the knight. After experiences such as Arbedo, you see the
> development of the
> > Swiss phalanx. Fear of massed archery fire, well, wasn't, since
> the Swiss's
> > main opponents in the latter half of the 15th century weren't the
> English:)
> > So right out of the chute, the shield wasn't a requirement.
Why?
> Three
> > reasons, two of which I'll relate now. One, it was a good
> defensive weapon,
> > particularly vs missile fire but since susceptibility to missile
> fire wasn't an
> > issue, no need for a shield (contrast this to the development of
> the Macedonian
> > pike phalanx where the formation and shield usage were design
> features from the
> > start because Philip knew he'd be fighting Persia and what were
the
> Persians
> > most known for? Massed archery fire). Two, since the pike
> formation didn't
> > depend on swordplay, the shield was an encumberance. Thus, if
the
> Swiss were
> > forced to fight HTH with their swords, hmmm, well, the formation
> wasn't designed
> > for that not unlike the Classical era pike phalanxes. Thus, no
> need for a
> > shield. Furthermore, eliminating the shield most likely enabled
> the Swiss to
> > use longer pikes, again, something better to fight (or scare off)
> knight
> > charges.
> >
> > The inherent weakness of the pike formation, namely it's
> susceptibility to
> > getting hacked to pieces by HTH opponents that overcame the
> formations reach and
> > impact, was a problem in an era where the Swiss could expect to
> face a variety
> > of tactical weapons systems, not just the knight. Thus, they
added
> a wrinkle
> > which was a precursor to the pike and shot formations of 75-100
> years later
> > (after the widespread and effective battlefield development of
> gunpowder) in
> > that they put halberdiers in the mix. These were there to
counter
> opposing
> > infantry formations AND add just a little more oomph to handling
> knights (since
> > various flavors of the halberd were designed to dehorse opponents
> and kill them
> > on the ground). The Swiss were able to effectively do this by
> reason #3 for not
> > having shields: it opened up space in the formation for the
> halberdiers to
> > effectively operate. And by having a fairly open formation in
the
> first place
> > (as opposed to the packed Classical era formations), and train
> vigourously, the
> > Swiss developed a system that was very effective in countering
> their main
> > threats.
> >
> > And as Mark put it, as far as we're concerned, the most important
> systems
> > interaction accuracy occurs *exactly* where we want it to occur:
in
> historical
> > matchups. What happens outside of that, while yes, it is a
> consideration, it's
> > a low consideration. And if we even wanted to delve into some
huge
> qualitative
> > analysis of armor and arms, we would be taking Warrior into a
whole
> new area
> > while also saying that we've changed our minds about some basic
> design
> > underpinnings of the game itself. It's not unlike the occasional
> List Rule
> > criticism in here: it's a basic part of Warrior, live with it.
> >
> > All of this, when you boil right down to it, exemplifies the
vision
> in Warrior.
> > We've stated this type of thing in various forms for years now
and
> yet, here we
> > are *still* having this conversation. Why are Jon and I called
upon
> to defend
> > basic design concepts of the game? And why after all these
years,
> is there
> > still an effort by a handful of players to convince us to change
> Warrior into a
> > game that it's not? 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. 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 other rules sets came into being. 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, send Jon some X-rules for consideration 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>









Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> 'you've unbalanced the lists. my army Z from 500 BC can no longer beat
> army X from 1400 AD - what gives?'' 'my reading of troop X is different
> than yours. I offer no hard sources, but would you relook your list
> rule? its wrong.' 'I have a <piece of equipment> i use for
> reenactments and you guys have no idea how it works.'

Surely the third is rather different - and more useful - than the prior two?

[Mike Turner]

Amen, well said, well spoken,

As someone who's been in the e-group since June 2000, Jon's right
on, it is the same half dozen people bringing up the same issues at
least once (or twice) a year.

Mike

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Don't be so shocked, Greg. We are not in the business of pleasing
everyone. We are in the business of pleasing the most players we
can. Not the same thing. If one guy left our game system for
another and by doing so removed a large amount of work from us
having to respond to him and try and make him see why we do what we
do, more would get done for the other X players. I would call that
positive.
> I will even say, as I have before, that there are a couple of guys
I would PAY to leave Warrior if I could...
>
> A guy plays D+D, goes on a muderous shooting spree and in his
suicide note tells the world the game made him do it - don't think
Wizards wouldn't want him to not play their system if they could so
choose.
>
> Here's a scenario - Scott and Bill send me a set of sources to
look at for a list rule they are proposing. I look them over, mess
around on my tabletop, ask some questions we go back and forth,
seeking out some experts in the field as well as some power players
for their opinion on balance and abuses. Hours and hours spent on
as few as a couple of words in a list rule or troop line. We come
to a consensus and make the call.
>
> A week after the list book comes out we get:
>
> 'you've unbalanced the lists. my army Z from 500 BC can no longer
beat army X from 1400 AD - what gives?''
> 'my reading of troop X is different than yours. I offer no hard
sources, but would you relook your list rule? its wrong.'
> 'I have a <piece of equipment> i use for reenactments and you guys
have no idea how it works.'
>
> Don't say that we do not get mails like that - you *know* they are
in the archives for all to see. They are not 'discussions', they
are gripes - often from the same 4-5 people. Gripes deserve what
they get from us.
>
> J
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:16:23 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Vision of Rules, Part II
>
>
> I think we all know that Jon, but such is the difficulty of this
form
> of communication.
>
> I started a thread about LEHI, etc ... which somewhat merged with
a
> discussion about Japanese armor, which took points from one on
Swiss
> list rules, and merged into a huge conflagration about fatigue,
> armor, bows, other weapons, etc ...
>
> Do you actually think anyone planned it this way? Hell, I was on
one
> side in the LEHI post, and on the other in the Swiss, and didn't
even
> participate in the Japanese armor discussion ... and still all
this
> got merged. By the time it all came down, I could hardly tell what
> side I was on on any of these issues.
>
> To be quite honest, I'm appauled that anyone at FHE would make a
> blanket statement like "play something else" in response to things
> topical that were nothing more than small snippets from a variety
of
> people on a variety of topics, with a variety of points of view. I
> saw no singular attack from anyone aimed at FHE, to merit such a
> response.
>
> You have a great game ... perhaps the best ever written. You are a
> master at making very complicated notion, easy to understand. You
> have great army lists, without a doubt the best ever written. With
> quality, comes the expectation of even more quality. If Warrior
was
> the worst game ever written, nobody would be here and nothing
would
> be said about it at all ... but of course, that wouldn't be
something
> you would really want, now would it?
>
> With all respect due ... you guys are just being too thin skinned.
If
> you are going to have a website, this will happen. You can hope it
> doesn't, but you can also hope the air is cleaner, while
> understanding that there is nothing else to breath.
>
> Have a great day, and please forgive in advance, any overly
> aggressive language on my part.
>
> g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > Discussion is welcomed. Some other things are not. i believe
> Scott was reacting to those....
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:19:38 -0000
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Vision of Rules, Part II
> >
> >
> > This is a hobby where reasonably intelligent people
participate ...
> > and put quite a bit of effort into it. It is completely natural
for
> > these people to have strong opinions.
> >
> > Electronic communication is tricky ... even normal discussion
can
> > come across as difficult and disruptive. That is why, in large
> > corporations when the email flames start (as they invariably
do),
> at
> > some point upper management gets everyone together in an office,
> > where the flow is faster, interactive, and much more intuitive.
> >
> > Lacking that ability, we all do the best we can. The only real
> > amelioration would be to close the website ... which makes about
as
> > much sense as telling people that actually give a damn enough to
> > discuss your game, to stop playing it.
> >
> > g
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > >
> > > Aren't you all glad he is back? I sure am. lol Saving me a
> whole
> > mess of time. Makes me glad he's my partner in this venture...
> > >
> > > Some folks should save this mail and the one he wrote before
it.
> > It is a better and more thorough statement of our philosophy
than
> the
> > one we keep up on the site.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Holder, Scott <Scott.Holder@f...>
> > > To: warriorrules@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:06:31 -0600
> > > Subject: [WarriorRules] The Vision of Rules, Part II
> > >
> > >
> > > "A hole, is a hole, is a hole." --Maj Jonathan Smith (Richard
> > Burton's character
> > > in 'Where Eagles Dare')
> > >
> > > In Warrior, nay, in *every* major ancients/medieval set of
rules
> in
> > play in the
> > > USofA today, the above sentence could more accurately be
stated:
> > >
> > > "A spear is a spear is a spear".
> > >
> > > Thus, said game systems don't care if an individual (and keep
> that
> > in mind since
> > > I'll come back to it) spear is wielded by some Sumerian
peasant
> or
> > the Italian
> > > Communal troops. The fact that one is tipped with something
> > bronze, the other
> > > with something iron-ish is immaterial in this assumption.
Under
> > this
> > > assumption, both are poles with something pointy and sharp on
the
> > end that can
> > > inflict harm on an opponent. And, this concept has provided
> *the*
> > major design
> > > assumption for ancients/medieval miniature wargaming since the
> dawn
> > of the
> > > hobby. Like it or not, that's the culture we play in.
> > Anachronistic to be sure
> > > but that's also part of the allure, yunno, the old Julius
Ceasar
> vs
> > Ghenghis
> > > Khan. Well, in part. But the only way to even possibly
recreate
> > such
> > > ahistorical encounters, we start with simulating in-period and
> hope
> > that the "A
> > > spear is a spear is a spear" assumption works outside the
period.
> > >
> > > Every historical rules set has a vision of how it wants to
> > portray/simulate the
> > > period it's intended to cover. I've covered this before but
will
> > paraphrase
> > > again here. Historical miniatures is overwhelmingly a
tactical
> > game which lends
> > > itself to being overly detail oriented. That being said, the
> last
> > decade in the
> > > hobby has seen a concerted effort to simplify games so that
they
> > are easier to
> > > learn, play and master. However, that move to simplicity is
> > nothing more than
> > > the author's 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 form the mechanical underpinnings of the
> game
> > design. The
> > > vision is influenced 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.
> > >
> > > During my first tome on this subject, I talked
about "inalienable
> > rights" of
> > > units as being one of the main assumptions built into
> Warrior. "A
> > spear is a
> > > spear is a spear" is another. But, because this hobby *can*
get
> > overly detail
> > > and technical oriented, there's always the tendency to fall
into
> > the
> > > "Tractics-ization" of any period in question. By that I mean
> some
> > people focus
> > > on individual characteristics of a weapon and compare it to
> > something else in
> > > terms of relative effectiveness. A good example of this,
using
> > good ole
> > > Tractics as the whipping boy, is comparing a WW2 German
Panther
> to
> > an American
> > > Sherman. No comparison. If I'm playing "Tank Grudge Match
One
> On
> > One",
> > > obviously I want the Panther. However, such an analysis fails
to
> > take into
> > > account everything else. Like the Panther's crappy
reliability
> > issues, fewer
> > > produced, reduced veteran crew availability, etc. Another
> example
> > is something
> > > I read years ago, a memoir of a German soldier on the Eastern
> > Front. He manned
> > > an 88mm position and during one battle, as he put it "one
> shot=one
> > kill". Every
> > > time they shot at a T-34, they took it out. But he
admitted "we
> > ran out of ammo
> > > before they ran out of tanks", thus, who "won" in the end? In
> that
> > instance,
> > > the Soviets did. Take this up a few levels and look at a
> strategic
> > game, Third
> > > Reich always comes to mind. A German armor counter with a 4-6
> > rating is the
> > > same as an American armor counter with a 4-6 rating. In that
> case,
> > the game's
> > > authors didn't care that the German armor was qualitatively
> better
> > than the
> > > American. Other design assumptions and factors dictated both
> being
> > 4-6.
> > >
> > > And that's where "A spear is a spear is a spear" works in a
> Warrior
> > context.
> > > We're not interested in one-on-one comparisons but in "systems
on
> > systems"
> > > comparisons and the basic system in question is the unit.
Thus,
> a
> > *unit* of
> > > Sumerian Spearmen is considered the equal to the
aforementioned
> > Italian Communal
> > > Infantry unit (assuming the same morale and training). That's
> > because a design
> > > assumption in Warrior is that the qualitative differences of
> > individual weapons
> > > and armor have minimal, if any, impact at the unit-on-unit
> tactical
> > level that
> > > is Warrior. Instead, we care about the "systems interaction",
> > thus, how does a
> > > Pike-based system interact with an HTW-based system and so
on.
> > Again, that's an
> > > assumption on our part but that assumption helps us create the
> > vision of how we
> > > see ancients/medieval warfare being run on the table.
Moreover,
> > even if there
> > > was some micro-local affect of qualitative weapons/armor
> > differences, it's
> > > effect is mitigated by the range of actual men represented by
the
> > one figure.
> > > Thus, the Sumerian Spearmen unit might have 85 men per fig
> whereas
> > the Italian
> > > Communal Spearmen unit might only have 35 men per fig. Thus,
> > numbers cancel out
> > > whatever (if any) effects at the *unit* level a slightly
better
> > forged metal
> > > breastplace would have in thwarting an individual thrust by a
> > bronze-tipped
> > > Sumerian spear. But again, a basic Warrior design assumption
is
> > that such
> > > affects, at the unit level, are marginal in terms of
determining
> > outcome but if
> > > they are there, there's another design assumption in the game
to
> > account for
> > > that.
> > >
> > > In two, and only two instances, Bill and I have walked up to
> > that "qualitative"
> > > line but in my mind, haven't crossed it. The two instances
are
> > knight armor in
> > > the late Medieval period (the ability to count SHK shielded)
and
> > the Japanese
> > > oyoroi armor (the LEHI). In both cases, these were
made "better"
> > because each
> > > in itself was a complex weapons system and not simply
a "better-
> > forged"
> > > breastplate. And, creating them the way we did in a Warrior
> > context made
> > > perfect sense from our unit-on-unit tactical model of combat.
> And,
> > as Mark put
> > > it recently, it *worked* in a historical context, *the* most
> > important factor
> > > when we approached this from a list standpoint.
> > >
> > > Weapons systems do not develop in a vacuum and this "detail
> focus"
> > on certain
> > > weapons or armor tends to miss the importance of that......and
> how
> > it works at
> > > the unit level. For example, Japanese oroyoi armor developed
> over
> > time so that
> > > units had sufficient protection from copious missile fire
while
> > being able to
> > > wield a variety of HTH weapons and not be shackled by
cumbersome
> > armor. It's
> > > not as if some guy came up with this stuff one day. The same
> > applies for the
> > > medieval knight armor. Clearly the shield was bothersome to
use
> in
> > all that
> > > plate. But also clearly was the very real threat posed by
massed
> > archery fire
> > > (the shield wasn't, by that time, really required when running
> down
> > infantry).
> > > Thus, creative minds working for the equivalent of the
medieval
> > > military/industrial complext, over time, came up with
> sophisticated
> > ways to
> > > protect the knight from massed archery fire without the need
for
> a
> > shield.
> > > Again, in both cases, Bill and I came up to this qualitative
line
> > but then
> > > developed the list, and anything new mechanically, so that it
> made
> > sense at the
> > > unit level.
> > >
> > > Thus, let's talk about the Swiss for a minute. The Swiss
> > formations that we're
> > > trying to duplicate here came about because the Swiss's main
> > tactical threat was
> > > the knight. After experiences such as Arbedo, you see the
> > development of the
> > > Swiss phalanx. Fear of massed archery fire, well, wasn't,
since
> > the Swiss's
> > > main opponents in the latter half of the 15th century weren't
the
> > English:)
> > > So right out of the chute, the shield wasn't a requirement.
> Why?
> > Three
> > > reasons, two of which I'll relate now. One, it was a good
> > defensive weapon,
> > > particularly vs missile fire but since susceptibility to
missile
> > fire wasn't an
> > > issue, no need for a shield (contrast this to the development
of
> > the Macedonian
> > > pike phalanx where the formation and shield usage were design
> > features from the
> > > start because Philip knew he'd be fighting Persia and what
were
> the
> > Persians
> > > most known for? Massed archery fire). Two, since the pike
> > formation didn't
> > > depend on swordplay, the shield was an encumberance. Thus, if
> the
> > Swiss were
> > > forced to fight HTH with their swords, hmmm, well, the
formation
> > wasn't designed
> > > for that not unlike the Classical era pike phalanxes. Thus,
no
> > need for a
> > > shield. Furthermore, eliminating the shield most likely
enabled
> > the Swiss to
> > > use longer pikes, again, something better to fight (or scare
off)
> > knight
> > > charges.
> > >
> > > The inherent weakness of the pike formation, namely it's
> > susceptibility to
> > > getting hacked to pieces by HTH opponents that overcame the
> > formations reach and
> > > impact, was a problem in an era where the Swiss could expect
to
> > face a variety
> > > of tactical weapons systems, not just the knight. Thus, they
> added
> > a wrinkle
> > > which was a precursor to the pike and shot formations of 75-
100
> > years later
> > > (after the widespread and effective battlefield development of
> > gunpowder) in
> > > that they put halberdiers in the mix. These were there to
> counter
> > opposing
> > > infantry formations AND add just a little more oomph to
handling
> > knights (since
> > > various flavors of the halberd were designed to dehorse
opponents
> > and kill them
> > > on the ground). The Swiss were able to effectively do this by
> > reason #3 for not
> > > having shields: it opened up space in the formation for the
> > halberdiers to
> > > effectively operate. And by having a fairly open formation in
> the
> > first place
> > > (as opposed to the packed Classical era formations), and train
> > vigourously, the
> > > Swiss developed a system that was very effective in countering
> > their main
> > > threats.
> > >
> > > And as Mark put it, as far as we're concerned, the most
important
> > systems
> > > interaction accuracy occurs *exactly* where we want it to
occur:
> in
> > historical
> > > matchups. What happens outside of that, while yes, it is a
> > consideration, it's
> > > a low consideration. And if we even wanted to delve into some
> huge
> > qualitative
> > > analysis of armor and arms, we would be taking Warrior into a
> whole
> > new area
> > > while also saying that we've changed our minds about some
basic
> > design
> > > underpinnings of the game itself. It's not unlike the
occasional
> > List Rule
> > > criticism in here: it's a basic part of Warrior, live with
it.
> > >
> > > All of this, when you boil right down to it, exemplifies the
> vision
> > in Warrior.
> > > We've stated this type of thing in various forms for years now
> and
> > yet, here we
> > > are *still* having this conversation. Why are Jon and I called
> upon
> > to defend
> > > basic design concepts of the game? And why after all these
> years,
> > is there
> > > still an effort by a handful of players to convince us to
change
> > Warrior into a
> > > game that it's not? 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. 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 other rules sets came into being. 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, send Jon some X-rules for consideration 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

Possibly. However, there are issues.

one is the assumption that we don't do this either, or did not consult someone
who had.
I have fired both normal and repeating period crossbows, drawn a longbow, fought
with longsword, sabre and katana, worn armor, tried to shoot an arrow from
horseback. and? I'm no mongol, I assure you. armor isn't as light as not
wearing it. an 18 ft pike is a bitch to employ and easy to get in underneath
unless the formation is PERFECT....
I'm good with a katana, though...
We have access to a great share of the world's military museums - some aren't
very far from where we work. We wouldn't make a judgment about a piece of
equipment without thinking through available possibly accurate replications and
those that keep and mess with them.

another issue is the frequent problem that these pieces of equipment are made
from modern materials or from unrepresentative plans or models.
for example, i find a suit of armor buried with a nobleman. i have it
reconstructed as best i can and draw conclusions. problem is, only he had that
good a suit of armor - the other 10000 guys in his army did not.

or, more typically the issue, we are trying to capture the blend of a particular
piece of equipment and the SYSTEM that employed it. See Scott's mail.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:03:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: The Vision of Rules, Part II




JonCleaves@... wrote:
> 'you've unbalanced the lists. my army Z from 500 BC can no longer beat
> army X from 1400 AD - what gives?'' 'my reading of troop X is different
> than yours. I offer no hard sources, but would you relook your list
> rule? its wrong.' 'I have a <piece of equipment> i use for
> reenactments and you guys have no idea how it works.'

Surely the third is rather different - and more useful - than the prior two?





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Greg Regets]

I'm not disputing that Jon ... as a matter of fact I have written
some of them.

AGAIN ... with quality, comes expectations. If you don't want or
can't accept that, stop writing such a kick-ass game system!!! ;-)

Have a wonderful holiday season ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Don't be so shocked, Greg. We are not in the business of pleasing
everyone. We are in the business of pleasing the most players we
can. Not the same thing. If one guy left our game system for
another and by doing so removed a large amount of work from us having
to respond to him and try and make him see why we do what we do, more
would get done for the other X players. I would call that positive.
> I will even say, as I have before, that there are a couple of guys
I would PAY to leave Warrior if I could...
>
> A guy plays D+D, goes on a muderous shooting spree and in his
suicide note tells the world the game made him do it - don't think
Wizards wouldn't want him to not play their system if they could so
choose.
>
> Here's a scenario - Scott and Bill send me a set of sources to look
at for a list rule they are proposing. I look them over, mess around
on my tabletop, ask some questions we go back and forth, seeking out
some experts in the field as well as some power players for their
opinion on balance and abuses. Hours and hours spent on as few as a
couple of words in a list rule or troop line. We come to a consensus
and make the call.
>
> A week after the list book comes out we get:
>
> 'you've unbalanced the lists. my army Z from 500 BC can no longer
beat army X from 1400 AD - what gives?''
> 'my reading of troop X is different than yours. I offer no hard
sources, but would you relook your list rule? its wrong.'
> 'I have a <piece of equipment> i use for reenactments and you guys
have no idea how it works.'
>
> Don't say that we do not get mails like that - you *know* they are
in the archives for all to see. They are not 'discussions', they are
gripes - often from the same 4-5 people. Gripes deserve what they
get from us.
>
> J
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:16:23 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Vision of Rules, Part II
>
>
> I think we all know that Jon, but such is the difficulty of this
form
> of communication.
>
> I started a thread about LEHI, etc ... which somewhat merged with a
> discussion about Japanese armor, which took points from one on
Swiss
> list rules, and merged into a huge conflagration about fatigue,
> armor, bows, other weapons, etc ...
>
> Do you actually think anyone planned it this way? Hell, I was on
one
> side in the LEHI post, and on the other in the Swiss, and didn't
even
> participate in the Japanese armor discussion ... and still all this
> got merged. By the time it all came down, I could hardly tell what
> side I was on on any of these issues.
>
> To be quite honest, I'm appauled that anyone at FHE would make a
> blanket statement like "play something else" in response to things
> topical that were nothing more than small snippets from a variety
of
> people on a variety of topics, with a variety of points of view. I
> saw no singular attack from anyone aimed at FHE, to merit such a
> response.
>
> You have a great game ... perhaps the best ever written. You are a
> master at making very complicated notion, easy to understand. You
> have great army lists, without a doubt the best ever written. With
> quality, comes the expectation of even more quality. If Warrior was
> the worst game ever written, nobody would be here and nothing would
> be said about it at all ... but of course, that wouldn't be
something
> you would really want, now would it?
>
> With all respect due ... you guys are just being too thin skinned.
If
> you are going to have a website, this will happen. You can hope it
> doesn't, but you can also hope the air is cleaner, while
> understanding that there is nothing else to breath.
>
> Have a great day, and please forgive in advance, any overly
> aggressive language on my part.
>
> g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > Discussion is welcomed. Some other things are not. i believe
> Scott was reacting to those....
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:19:38 -0000
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Vision of Rules, Part II
> >
> >
> > This is a hobby where reasonably intelligent people
participate ...
> > and put quite a bit of effort into it. It is completely natural
for
> > these people to have strong opinions.
> >
> > Electronic communication is tricky ... even normal discussion can
> > come across as difficult and disruptive. That is why, in large
> > corporations when the email flames start (as they invariably do),
> at
> > some point upper management gets everyone together in an office,
> > where the flow is faster, interactive, and much more intuitive.
> >
> > Lacking that ability, we all do the best we can. The only real
> > amelioration would be to close the website ... which makes about
as
> > much sense as telling people that actually give a damn enough to
> > discuss your game, to stop playing it.
> >
> > g
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > >
> > > Aren't you all glad he is back? I sure am. lol Saving me a
> whole
> > mess of time. Makes me glad he's my partner in this venture...
> > >
> > > Some folks should save this mail and the one he wrote before
it.
> > It is a better and more thorough statement of our philosophy than
> the
> > one we keep up on the site.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Holder, Scott <Scott.Holder@f...>
> > > To: warriorrules@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:06:31 -0600
> > > Subject: [WarriorRules] The Vision of Rules, Part II
> > >
> > >
> > > "A hole, is a hole, is a hole." --Maj Jonathan Smith (Richard
> > Burton's character
> > > in 'Where Eagles Dare')
> > >
> > > In Warrior, nay, in *every* major ancients/medieval set of
rules
> in
> > play in the
> > > USofA today, the above sentence could more accurately be stated:
> > >
> > > "A spear is a spear is a spear".
> > >
> > > Thus, said game systems don't care if an individual (and keep
> that
> > in mind since
> > > I'll come back to it) spear is wielded by some Sumerian peasant
> or
> > the Italian
> > > Communal troops. The fact that one is tipped with something
> > bronze, the other
> > > with something iron-ish is immaterial in this assumption.
Under
> > this
> > > assumption, both are poles with something pointy and sharp on
the
> > end that can
> > > inflict harm on an opponent. And, this concept has provided
> *the*
> > major design
> > > assumption for ancients/medieval miniature wargaming since the
> dawn
> > of the
> > > hobby. Like it or not, that's the culture we play in.
> > Anachronistic to be sure
> > > but that's also part of the allure, yunno, the old Julius
Ceasar
> vs
> > Ghenghis
> > > Khan. Well, in part. But the only way to even possibly
recreate
> > such
> > > ahistorical encounters, we start with simulating in-period and
> hope
> > that the "A
> > > spear is a spear is a spear" assumption works outside the
period.
> > >
> > > Every historical rules set has a vision of how it wants to
> > portray/simulate the
> > > period it's intended to cover. I've covered this before but
will
> > paraphrase
> > > again here. Historical miniatures is overwhelmingly a tactical
> > game which lends
> > > itself to being overly detail oriented. That being said, the
> last
> > decade in the
> > > hobby has seen a concerted effort to simplify games so that
they
> > are easier to
> > > learn, play and master. However, that move to simplicity is
> > nothing more than
> > > the author's 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 form the mechanical underpinnings of the
> game
> > design. The
> > > vision is influenced 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.
> > >
> > > During my first tome on this subject, I talked
about "inalienable
> > rights" of
> > > units as being one of the main assumptions built into
> Warrior. "A
> > spear is a
> > > spear is a spear" is another. But, because this hobby *can*
get
> > overly detail
> > > and technical oriented, there's always the tendency to fall
into
> > the
> > > "Tractics-ization" of any period in question. By that I mean
> some
> > people focus
> > > on individual characteristics of a weapon and compare it to
> > something else in
> > > terms of relative effectiveness. A good example of this, using
> > good ole
> > > Tractics as the whipping boy, is comparing a WW2 German Panther
> to
> > an American
> > > Sherman. No comparison. If I'm playing "Tank Grudge Match One
> On
> > One",
> > > obviously I want the Panther. However, such an analysis fails
to
> > take into
> > > account everything else. Like the Panther's crappy reliability
> > issues, fewer
> > > produced, reduced veteran crew availability, etc. Another
> example
> > is something
> > > I read years ago, a memoir of a German soldier on the Eastern
> > Front. He manned
> > > an 88mm position and during one battle, as he put it "one
> shot=one
> > kill". Every
> > > time they shot at a T-34, they took it out. But he
admitted "we
> > ran out of ammo
> > > before they ran out of tanks", thus, who "won" in the end? In
> that
> > instance,
> > > the Soviets did. Take this up a few levels and look at a
> strategic
> > game, Third
> > > Reich always comes to mind. A German armor counter with a 4-6
> > rating is the
> > > same as an American armor counter with a 4-6 rating. In that
> case,
> > the game's
> > > authors didn't care that the German armor was qualitatively
> better
> > than the
> > > American. Other design assumptions and factors dictated both
> being
> > 4-6.
> > >
> > > And that's where "A spear is a spear is a spear" works in a
> Warrior
> > context.
> > > We're not interested in one-on-one comparisons but in "systems
on
> > systems"
> > > comparisons and the basic system in question is the unit.
Thus,
> a
> > *unit* of
> > > Sumerian Spearmen is considered the equal to the aforementioned
> > Italian Communal
> > > Infantry unit (assuming the same morale and training). That's
> > because a design
> > > assumption in Warrior is that the qualitative differences of
> > individual weapons
> > > and armor have minimal, if any, impact at the unit-on-unit
> tactical
> > level that
> > > is Warrior. Instead, we care about the "systems interaction",
> > thus, how does a
> > > Pike-based system interact with an HTW-based system and so on.
> > Again, that's an
> > > assumption on our part but that assumption helps us create the
> > vision of how we
> > > see ancients/medieval warfare being run on the table.
Moreover,
> > even if there
> > > was some micro-local affect of qualitative weapons/armor
> > differences, it's
> > > effect is mitigated by the range of actual men represented by
the
> > one figure.
> > > Thus, the Sumerian Spearmen unit might have 85 men per fig
> whereas
> > the Italian
> > > Communal Spearmen unit might only have 35 men per fig. Thus,
> > numbers cancel out
> > > whatever (if any) effects at the *unit* level a slightly better
> > forged metal
> > > breastplace would have in thwarting an individual thrust by a
> > bronze-tipped
> > > Sumerian spear. But again, a basic Warrior design assumption
is
> > that such
> > > affects, at the unit level, are marginal in terms of
determining
> > outcome but if
> > > they are there, there's another design assumption in the game
to
> > account for
> > > that.
> > >
> > > In two, and only two instances, Bill and I have walked up to
> > that "qualitative"
> > > line but in my mind, haven't crossed it. The two instances are
> > knight armor in
> > > the late Medieval period (the ability to count SHK shielded)
and
> > the Japanese
> > > oyoroi armor (the LEHI). In both cases, these were
made "better"
> > because each
> > > in itself was a complex weapons system and not simply a "better-
> > forged"
> > > breastplate. And, creating them the way we did in a Warrior
> > context made
> > > perfect sense from our unit-on-unit tactical model of combat.
> And,
> > as Mark put
> > > it recently, it *worked* in a historical context, *the* most
> > important factor
> > > when we approached this from a list standpoint.
> > >
> > > Weapons systems do not develop in a vacuum and this "detail
> focus"
> > on certain
> > > weapons or armor tends to miss the importance of that......and
> how
> > it works at
> > > the unit level. For example, Japanese oroyoi armor developed
> over
> > time so that
> > > units had sufficient protection from copious missile fire while
> > being able to
> > > wield a variety of HTH weapons and not be shackled by
cumbersome
> > armor. It's
> > > not as if some guy came up with this stuff one day. The same
> > applies for the
> > > medieval knight armor. Clearly the shield was bothersome to
use
> in
> > all that
> > > plate. But also clearly was the very real threat posed by
massed
> > archery fire
> > > (the shield wasn't, by that time, really required when running
> down
> > infantry).
> > > Thus, creative minds working for the equivalent of the medieval
> > > military/industrial complext, over time, came up with
> sophisticated
> > ways to
> > > protect the knight from massed archery fire without the need
for
> a
> > shield.
> > > Again, in both cases, Bill and I came up to this qualitative
line
> > but then
> > > developed the list, and anything new mechanically, so that it
> made
> > sense at the
> > > unit level.
> > >
> > > Thus, let's talk about the Swiss for a minute. The Swiss
> > formations that we're
> > > trying to duplicate here came about because the Swiss's main
> > tactical threat was
> > > the knight. After experiences such as Arbedo, you see the
> > development of the
> > > Swiss phalanx. Fear of massed archery fire, well, wasn't,
since
> > the Swiss's
> > > main opponents in the latter half of the 15th century weren't
the
> > English:)
> > > So right out of the chute, the shield wasn't a requirement.
> Why?
> > Three
> > > reasons, two of which I'll relate now. One, it was a good
> > defensive weapon,
> > > particularly vs missile fire but since susceptibility to
missile
> > fire wasn't an
> > > issue, no need for a shield (contrast this to the development
of
> > the Macedonian
> > > pike phalanx where the formation and shield usage were design
> > features from the
> > > start because Philip knew he'd be fighting Persia and what were
> the
> > Persians
> > > most known for? Massed archery fire). Two, since the pike
> > formation didn't
> > > depend on swordplay, the shield was an encumberance. Thus, if
> the
> > Swiss were
> > > forced to fight HTH with their swords, hmmm, well, the
formation
> > wasn't designed
> > > for that not unlike the Classical era pike phalanxes. Thus, no
> > need for a
> > > shield. Furthermore, eliminating the shield most likely
enabled
> > the Swiss to
> > > use longer pikes, again, something better to fight (or scare
off)
> > knight
> > > charges.
> > >
> > > The inherent weakness of the pike formation, namely it's
> > susceptibility to
> > > getting hacked to pieces by HTH opponents that overcame the
> > formations reach and
> > > impact, was a problem in an era where the Swiss could expect to
> > face a variety
> > > of tactical weapons systems, not just the knight. Thus, they
> added
> > a wrinkle
> > > which was a precursor to the pike and shot formations of 75-100
> > years later
> > > (after the widespread and effective battlefield development of
> > gunpowder) in
> > > that they put halberdiers in the mix. These were there to
> counter
> > opposing
> > > infantry formations AND add just a little more oomph to
handling
> > knights (since
> > > various flavors of the halberd were designed to dehorse
opponents
> > and kill them
> > > on the ground). The Swiss were able to effectively do this by
> > reason #3 for not
> > > having shields: it opened up space in the formation for the
> > halberdiers to
> > > effectively operate. And by having a fairly open formation in
> the
> > first place
> > > (as opposed to the packed Classical era formations), and train
> > vigourously, the
> > > Swiss developed a system that was very effective in countering
> > their main
> > > threats.
> > >
> > > And as Mark put it, as far as we're concerned, the most
important
> > systems
> > > interaction accuracy occurs *exactly* where we want it to
occur:
> in
> > historical
> > > matchups. What happens outside of that, while yes, it is a
> > consideration, it's
> > > a low consideration. And if we even wanted to delve into some
> huge
> > qualitative
> > > analysis of armor and arms, we would be taking Warrior into a
> whole
> > new area
> > > while also saying that we've changed our minds about some basic
> > design
> > > underpinnings of the game itself. It's not unlike the
occasional
> > List Rule
> > > criticism in here: it's a basic part of Warrior, live with it.
> > >
> > > All of this, when you boil right down to it, exemplifies the
> vision
> > in Warrior.
> > > We've stated this type of thing in various forms for years now
> and
> > yet, here we
> > > are *still* having this conversation. Why are Jon and I called
> upon
> > to defend
> > > basic design concepts of the game? And why after all these
> years,
> > is there
> > > still an effort by a handful of players to convince us to
change
> > Warrior into a
> > > game that it's not? 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. 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 other rules sets came into being. 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, send Jon some X-rules for consideration 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>