Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Peter,

The thing is that constricting the size of a battlefield makes it less
effective for armies that used maneuver to win battles. This plays into armies
with lots of elephants and foot. Many of my 25mm opponents were forced to meet
my Burmese elephants head on which was lovely for me as overall, I was able to
butcher much of what they had. Even in the games I lost, I was still able to
kill around 1,000 of the 1,600 points they had. Now, let's say I have to worry
about my flanks in a game where the board is much larger. Now I really have to
use much more skill. Like I said before, get with jake and play a 25mm mini
format game and tell me what you think.

kw

Peter Celella <pcelella@...> wrote:

Kelly:

I'm not sure what you mean. That I would enjoy a 25mm mini format more
than the normal 1600 game, or that it would more closely resemble an
ancient battle?

I would agree that if it is a cavalry battle, the greater space would
make for more flank actions, ebb and flow, etc. Those kinds of actions
typical of steppe warfare - and would probably be more enjoyable for
both opponents playing that type of army. But I'm not sure that this
would be a better representation of all ancient warfare in all cases,
or even more enjoyable for a player with an army that has a core
component of close order infantry.

Did I misinterpret you?

Peter

p.s. All my opinions of course need to be taken in the light of my
relative inexperience as a Warrior player. I plan on playing several
1200 point 15mm games at Pointcon later in March. This will probably
feel ridiculously open to me - playing for the first time in 15mm at
Bill's was definitely edifying.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Play a game in the 25mm mini format and get back with me.
>
> kw
>
> Peter Celella <pcelella@c...> wrote:
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > There it is. Stated by one of the best players of the rules engine.
> I've been playing the 25mm mini format with Dave Smith and really get
> the feeling that the official table size needs a bit more depth for
> Cav types. The way it is now kind of gives me that "Fast Warrior"
> feeling where you are almost too close to your opponent to start out
> the game. I think adding some depth and width would help rectify this
> though. Any thoughts from any other players?
> >
> > kw
> >
>
>
> The table size may be small for cavalry armies with battles take took
> place on the steppes, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't also be right
> for most other ancient, dark age, and medieval battles.
>
> If you look at the accounts of many classical era battles, one of the
> toughest challenges for a commander was to force his opponent into a
> set battle like Warrior simulates. In all of the First Punic War, I
> think there was only 3 such battles. Normally a commander would
> approach the enemy camp, challenge the enemy to battle, and array
> themselves in battle formation waiting for the enemy to come forth to
> join them. In some cases, this could be repeated over successive days.
> Eventually, the enemy would either offer battle in return or withdraw.
> In any case, this doesn't seem like a situation where the manuevering
> and skirmishing is much different than a 1600 point game on a 5' x 8'
> table.
>
> In the European Dark Ages, was this process much different? How about
> during the High Middle Ages like the battles of the HYW?
>
> So, the table may be small if you're Mongols fighting Early Russians
> out on the steps, but is it small for hoplites, Romans, or French
Knights?
>
> And isn't the macro effect of skirmishing for position simulated by
> the scouting point and deployment rules?
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


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

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

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

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



---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Doug,

This is an interesting point. Dave Smith brought this point up in our 25mm
game. We both are of the opinion that 3 picks each may be a bit excessive, that
is unless your playing macabean jews or Vikings. . .

kw

Doug <rockd@...> wrote:
A deeper question might be whether or not it is too easy for a player
to shut down the flanks with terrain.

I've always thought it would be interesting to have "make the table a
foot wider" as a terrain choice; but of course that won't work in
tournaments that are limited to the tables lined up in a hall.

>The table size may be small for cavalry armies with battles take took
>place on the steppes, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't also be right
>for most other ancient, dark age, and medieval battles.
>
>So, the table may be small if you're Mongols fighting Early Russians
>out on the steps, but is it small for hoplites, Romans, or French Knights?

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


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

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

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

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



---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

That is, many of my 25mm NICT opponents.

kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:Peter,

The thing is that constricting the size of a battlefield makes it less
effective for armies that used maneuver to win battles. This plays into armies
with lots of elephants and foot. Many of my 25mm opponents were forced to meet
my Burmese elephants head on which was lovely for me as overall, I was able to
butcher much of what they had. Even in the games I lost, I was still able to
kill around 1,000 of the 1,600 points they had. Now, let's say I have to worry
about my flanks in a game where the board is much larger. Now I really have to
use much more skill. Like I said before, get with jake and play a 25mm mini
format game and tell me what you think.

kw

Peter Celella <pcelella@...> wrote:

Kelly:

I'm not sure what you mean. That I would enjoy a 25mm mini format more
than the normal 1600 game, or that it would more closely resemble an
ancient battle?

I would agree that if it is a cavalry battle, the greater space would
make for more flank actions, ebb and flow, etc. Those kinds of actions
typical of steppe warfare - and would probably be more enjoyable for
both opponents playing that type of army. But I'm not sure that this
would be a better representation of all ancient warfare in all cases,
or even more enjoyable for a player with an army that has a core
component of close order infantry.

Did I misinterpret you?

Peter

p.s. All my opinions of course need to be taken in the light of my
relative inexperience as a Warrior player. I plan on playing several
1200 point 15mm games at Pointcon later in March. This will probably
feel ridiculously open to me - playing for the first time in 15mm at
Bill's was definitely edifying.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Play a game in the 25mm mini format and get back with me.
>
> kw
>
> Peter Celella <pcelella@c...> wrote:
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > There it is. Stated by one of the best players of the rules engine.
> I've been playing the 25mm mini format with Dave Smith and really get
> the feeling that the official table size needs a bit more depth for
> Cav types. The way it is now kind of gives me that "Fast Warrior"
> feeling where you are almost too close to your opponent to start out
> the game. I think adding some depth and width would help rectify this
> though. Any thoughts from any other players?
> >
> > kw
> >
>
>
> The table size may be small for cavalry armies with battles take took
> place on the steppes, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't also be right
> for most other ancient, dark age, and medieval battles.
>
> If you look at the accounts of many classical era battles, one of the
> toughest challenges for a commander was to force his opponent into a
> set battle like Warrior simulates. In all of the First Punic War, I
> think there was only 3 such battles. Normally a commander would
> approach the enemy camp, challenge the enemy to battle, and array
> themselves in battle formation waiting for the enemy to come forth to
> join them. In some cases, this could be repeated over successive days.
> Eventually, the enemy would either offer battle in return or withdraw.
> In any case, this doesn't seem like a situation where the manuevering
> and skirmishing is much different than a 1600 point game on a 5' x 8'
> table.
>
> In the European Dark Ages, was this process much different? How about
> during the High Middle Ages like the battles of the HYW?
>
> So, the table may be small if you're Mongols fighting Early Russians
> out on the steps, but is it small for hoplites, Romans, or French
Knights?
>
> And isn't the macro effect of skirmishing for position simulated by
> the scouting point and deployment rules?
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


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

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

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

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



---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


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

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

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

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




---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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