Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Charles Yaw]

I would like to see the opinions others have on this subject. My
thoughts on it follow.

Terrain placement is one of the few areas of the Warriors rules in
which I find subject to question. Too often I find myself playing
on battlefields with woods in the central sector, on the flanks,
brush forming a line across the field etc. Now certainly some
terrain can be useful, some terrain can make the battle interesting
tactically, but to much clogs up the field and tends to produce 2-1
games.

Here are some thoughts and suggestions for terrain placement. I am
going to try and keep the suggestions simple to make for easy use in
game play.

1. Woods should be very hard or (depending upon the climate)
impossible to get in the center of the table. Now before someone
starts listing battles where there was a woods in the center of the
field, please note there are probably a hundred where there
weren't. Suggestion. If you fighting in a Dry climate you can not
place a woods in the central sector. Also, no army gets a +1 for
woods anywhere, even in the topics. (They tended to fight in
clearings so they could see one another.)

2. Any army that has twice the scouting as their opponent forces
the opponent to lose a terrain pick. Thus, if you have only ½ the
scouting points as your opponent in a 1600 point game, you would get
only 3 terrain choices.

3. A third idea is to eliminate all +1 additions from terrain
selection.

Any / all of these would be easy to use and in my opinion, make for
a better game.

Charles

[Bill Chriss]

>
> I would like to see the opinions others have on this subject. My
> thoughts on it follow.
>
> Terrain placement is one of the few areas of the Warriors rules in
> which I find subject to question. Too often I find myself playing
> on battlefields with woods in the central sector, on the flanks,
> brush forming a line across the field etc. Now certainly some
> terrain can be useful, some terrain can make the battle interesting
> tactically, but to much clogs up the field and tends to produce 2-1
> games.
>


You asked for comments, Charles, so here are mine, with respect, and with
which you may well disagree.

First, in my view, terrain has nothing to do with point scores. In the
theme I placed a minor river in my opponenet's forward zone with a swamp
near table middle, and either woods or rocky groound in the flanks or in
my rear (I forget which). Steve Hollowell simply forced marched his
Macedonians across the river to table center and proceeded to beat the
stuffings out of me, 5-0. I can cite numerous other examples. On the other
hand, Bill Low and I both tried hard to come to contact asap in round one
of the same Theme, had several melees, and still eneded up 2-2. Again
terrain was irrelevant.

Second, beauty here is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I, for
example, HATE those damn pieces of open string. Come on, they're HUGE. You
can preempt an entire flank from rear edge to rear edge or most of the
entire center of the table with one open space. You say it's too easy to
get woods in the center, but it has a maximum size of 520 paces in
diameter, and the odds of getting to place it in front center are 2 in 6
in home climate. I say it's too easy to place open spaces. Open spaces are
larger, about 790 paces in diameter, and the odds of placement there in
home climate are 5 in 6. So that means my complaint is actually more valid
than yours, right? Well, never mind. The point I am attempting to
illustrate is that I play a loose/close foot army and you, (I'm guessing
here) probably like lots of mounteds. As the general of my army, I would
be crazy to agree to fight an army like yours on open level ground, and
hence armies like mine seldom did so in real life.

The question then becomes how to fairly cross reference our conflicting
desires in game terms. The rules do this with randomness (dicing for
terrain precedence), with the home climate rules (which I like and think
are quite ingenious), BY MAKING IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO PLACE OPEN
TERRAIN wherever you want THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF TERRAIN, and BY MAKING
OPEN SPACES BIGGER THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER TERRAIN.

These rules, I believe, already strike a fair balance of all the interests
and factors involved. If anything, mathematically speaking, they favor
openness. When I roll a one for my woods or rocky ground or brush, or when
my opponent wins the die roll for precedence and preempts my marsh or
woods placement with one of those damn pieces of string in the middle of
the table, I don't attribute that to a deficiency in the terrain placement
rules. Some games they will seem to favor players with your predilictions,
some those with mine. That is as it should be. Overall, I don't think it's
broke, so don't fix it. Just my $.02 (or drachmas, or talents, that is).


-Greek

[Charles Yaw]

Greek,

Most of my post was aimed at Woods, which I still think are the most
inappropriate piece of terrain that can show up in the MIDDLE of a
battlefield. I don't have such a complain against hills or brush.
I tend to select at least one hill for every game and depending upon
the army I am taking, some brush.

To say opens are over rated is to miss the point IMO. Armies did
tend to fight where they could see each other. Brush allows for
this, as do hills (mostly), but opens are probably the most
approprate terrain choice to simulate acient battlefields.

Finally, I don't think terrain rules for Tournaments should give
some armies advantages. They currently do. For one off games or
campaign leagues the current rules are fine.

And in the case of your game with Steve, I belive you put the
terrain on his side of the table. Easy for him to avoid with a
force march. If you had put it on your side, it may have caused him
many more problems.

Charles


> Second, beauty here is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I, for
> example, HATE those damn pieces of open string. Come on, they're
HUGE. You
> can preempt an entire flank from rear edge to rear edge or most of
the
> entire center of the table with one open space. You say it's too
easy to
> get woods in the center, but it has a maximum size of 520 paces in
> diameter, and the odds of getting to place it in front center are
2 in 6
> in home climate. I say it's too easy to place open spaces. Open
spaces are
> larger, about 790 paces in diameter, and the odds of placement
there in
> home climate are 5 in 6. So that means my complaint is actually
more valid
> than yours, right? Well, never mind. The point I am attempting to
> illustrate is that I play a loose/close foot army and you, (I'm
guessing
> here) probably like lots of mounteds. As the general of my army, I
would
> be crazy to agree to fight an army like yours on open level
ground, and
> hence armies like mine seldom did so in real life.
>
> The question then becomes how to fairly cross reference our
conflicting
> desires in game terms. The rules do this with randomness (dicing
for
> terrain precedence), with the home climate rules (which I like and
think
> are quite ingenious), BY MAKING IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO PLACE OPEN
> TERRAIN wherever you want THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF TERRAIN, and BY
MAKING
> OPEN SPACES BIGGER THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER TERRAIN.
>
> These rules, I believe, already strike a fair balance of all the
interests
> and factors involved. If anything, mathematically speaking, they
favor
> openness. When I roll a one for my woods or rocky ground or brush,
or when
> my opponent wins the die roll for precedence and preempts my marsh
or
> woods placement with one of those damn pieces of string in the
middle of
> the table, I don't attribute that to a deficiency in the terrain
placement
> rules. Some games they will seem to favor players with your
predilictions,
> some those with mine. That is as it should be. Overall, I don't
think it's
> broke, so don't fix it. Just my $.02 (or drachmas, or talents,
that is).
>
>
> -Greek

[Mike Turner]

Charles,
The entire point behind terrain selection is the General's impact on
the battle, and yes, generals did impact the selection of their
battlefields. You have a Cav/Elephant Army and want open terrain,
got it.

An infantry army commander looked to fight his battle on terrain that
favored him. Last evening a documentary on the Roman fight against
the British uprising specifically discussed how the Roman commander
looked for terrain that would channel the Brits into his HI and
negate the British chariots.

Certainly the French did not appreciate Henry V's pick of the terrain
at Agincourt.

But you know what, you got to deal with it!

That a Roman General would march and maneuver his army to face your
Sassanids on a pool table is very difficult to believe, he would look
for terrain that broke up your attack. Whereas your Sassanid CINC
would look for open terrain, but the battlefield would most likely be
something in between.

Your Army selection, selection of troop types s and even how many Sub
Generals you take should be considered with terrain in mind, not just
your selection but also your opponents.

In Warrior as in the real-world we harp on our officers to remember
the enemy has a vote in all of your decisions, and you have to figure
the enemy is at least as smart as you!

Mike


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "riderofrohan2001" <yaw@m...>
wrote:
> Greek,
>
> Most of my post was aimed at Woods, which I still think are the
most
> inappropriate piece of terrain that can show up in the MIDDLE of a
> battlefield. I don't have such a complain against hills or brush.
> I tend to select at least one hill for every game and depending
upon
> the army I am taking, some brush.
>
> To say opens are over rated is to miss the point IMO. Armies did
> tend to fight where they could see each other. Brush allows for
> this, as do hills (mostly), but opens are probably the most
> approprate terrain choice to simulate acient battlefields.
>
> Finally, I don't think terrain rules for Tournaments should give
> some armies advantages. They currently do. For one off games or
> campaign leagues the current rules are fine.
>
> And in the case of your game with Steve, I belive you put the
> terrain on his side of the table. Easy for him to avoid with a
> force march. If you had put it on your side, it may have caused
him
> many more problems.
>
> Charles
>
>
> > Second, beauty here is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I, for
> > example, HATE those damn pieces of open string. Come on, they're
> HUGE. You
> > can preempt an entire flank from rear edge to rear edge or most
of
> the
> > entire center of the table with one open space. You say it's too
> easy to
> > get woods in the center, but it has a maximum size of 520 paces in
> > diameter, and the odds of getting to place it in front center are
> 2 in 6
> > in home climate. I say it's too easy to place open spaces. Open
> spaces are
> > larger, about 790 paces in diameter, and the odds of placement
> there in
> > home climate are 5 in 6. So that means my complaint is actually
> more valid
> > than yours, right? Well, never mind. The point I am attempting to
> > illustrate is that I play a loose/close foot army and you, (I'm
> guessing
> > here) probably like lots of mounteds. As the general of my army,
I
> would
> > be crazy to agree to fight an army like yours on open level
> ground, and
> > hence armies like mine seldom did so in real life.
> >
> > The question then becomes how to fairly cross reference our
> conflicting
> > desires in game terms. The rules do this with randomness (dicing
> for
> > terrain precedence), with the home climate rules (which I like
and
> think
> > are quite ingenious), BY MAKING IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO PLACE
OPEN
> > TERRAIN wherever you want THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF TERRAIN, and BY
> MAKING
> > OPEN SPACES BIGGER THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER TERRAIN.
> >
> > These rules, I believe, already strike a fair balance of all the
> interests
> > and factors involved. If anything, mathematically speaking, they
> favor
> > openness. When I roll a one for my woods or rocky ground or
brush,
> or when
> > my opponent wins the die roll for precedence and preempts my
marsh
> or
> > woods placement with one of those damn pieces of string in the
> middle of
> > the table, I don't attribute that to a deficiency in the terrain
> placement
> > rules. Some games they will seem to favor players with your
> predilictions,
> > some those with mine. That is as it should be. Overall, I don't
> think it's
> > broke, so don't fix it. Just my $.02 (or drachmas, or talents,
> that is).
> >
> >
> > -Greek

[Bill Chriss]

> Greek,
>
> Most of my post was aimed at Woods, which I still think are the most
> inappropriate piece of terrain that can show up in the MIDDLE of a
> battlefield. I don't have such a complain against hills or brush.
> I tend to select at least one hill for every game and depending upon
> the army I am taking, some brush.
>
> To say opens are over rated is to miss the point IMO. Armies did
> tend to fight where they could see each other. Brush allows for
> this, as do hills (mostly), but opens are probably the most
> approprate terrain choice to simulate acient battlefields.

I would think that would be depend on the time period and the geographical
area under discussion. For example, how would you account for battles like
Teutteberg (sp) forest, not to mention many, many battles in the Indian
subcontinent and throughout southern and southeast asia? Likewise,
Demosthenes' campaigns in Ambracia/Acarnania during the Peloponnesian War
and virtually all 4th century battles in which the Aitolean League fought
as a principal were, I think, in wooded and dense terrain, but no need to
belabor the point. I suspect we will never agree on this one as it is a
matter of which battles each of us is familiar with, and nobody could
possibly know them all from ? b.c. through 1485 a.d.

I'm more interested in your point regarding visibility, which does give me
some pause. If I am understanding you correctly, I suppose you would not
object to a village or marsh in table center as much as you wood a woods.
Is that accurate? I still say that the size and ease of placing an open
space more than accounts for the perceived injustice you posit. But then,
given my army choices, it is clearly in my best interest to feel that way
Just as I suspect you would not be perceiving this as a problem if you
didn't have lots of mounted in your armies of choice, but then I am just
assuming that without proof. It is nonetheless, I believe, a matter of
perspective.


-Greek

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Spoken by someone who plays Cavalry heavy armies. Charles, I understand your
points but disagree. Terrain is the one leveler in this game where armies who
are all LMI can have a decent chance to stand up against your overwhelming
mounted forces. The game is fine the way it is.

kelly wilkinson

riderofrohan2001 <yaw@...> wrote:

I would like to see the opinions others have on this subject. My
thoughts on it follow.

Terrain placement is one of the few areas of the Warriors rules in
which I find subject to question. Too often I find myself playing
on battlefields with woods in the central sector, on the flanks,
brush forming a line across the field etc. Now certainly some
terrain can be useful, some terrain can make the battle interesting
tactically, but to much clogs up the field and tends to produce 2-1
games.

Here are some thoughts and suggestions for terrain placement. I am
going to try and keep the suggestions simple to make for easy use in
game play.

1. Woods should be very hard or (depending upon the climate)
impossible to get in the center of the table. Now before someone
starts listing battles where there was a woods in the center of the
field, please note there are probably a hundred where there
weren't. Suggestion. If you fighting in a Dry climate you can not
place a woods in the central sector. Also, no army gets a +1 for
woods anywhere, even in the topics. (They tended to fight in
clearings so they could see one another.)

2. Any army that has twice the scouting as their opponent forces
the opponent to lose a terrain pick. Thus, if you have only ½ the
scouting points as your opponent in a 1600 point game, you would get
only 3 terrain choices.

3. A third idea is to eliminate all +1 additions from terrain
selection.

Any / all of these would be easy to use and in my opinion, make for
a better game.

Charles







---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mike,

You probably don't want to hear this, but tough cookies. All your points
are absolutely right. Good post.

kelly

turner1118 <Turnerm@...> wrote:
Charles,
The entire point behind terrain selection is the General's impact on
the battle, and yes, generals did impact the selection of their
battlefields. You have a Cav/Elephant Army and want open terrain,
got it.

An infantry army commander looked to fight his battle on terrain that
favored him. Last evening a documentary on the Roman fight against
the British uprising specifically discussed how the Roman commander
looked for terrain that would channel the Brits into his HI and
negate the British chariots.

Certainly the French did not appreciate Henry V's pick of the terrain
at Agincourt.

But you know what, you got to deal with it!

That a Roman General would march and maneuver his army to face your
Sassanids on a pool table is very difficult to believe, he would look
for terrain that broke up your attack. Whereas your Sassanid CINC
would look for open terrain, but the battlefield would most likely be
something in between.

Your Army selection, selection of troop types s and even how many Sub
Generals you take should be considered with terrain in mind, not just
your selection but also your opponents.

In Warrior as in the real-world we harp on our officers to remember
the enemy has a vote in all of your decisions, and you have to figure
the enemy is at least as smart as you!

Mike


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "riderofrohan2001" <yaw@m...>
wrote:
> Greek,
>
> Most of my post was aimed at Woods, which I still think are the
most
> inappropriate piece of terrain that can show up in the MIDDLE of a
> battlefield. I don't have such a complain against hills or brush.
> I tend to select at least one hill for every game and depending
upon
> the army I am taking, some brush.
>
> To say opens are over rated is to miss the point IMO. Armies did
> tend to fight where they could see each other. Brush allows for
> this, as do hills (mostly), but opens are probably the most
> approprate terrain choice to simulate acient battlefields.
>
> Finally, I don't think terrain rules for Tournaments should give
> some armies advantages. They currently do. For one off games or
> campaign leagues the current rules are fine.
>
> And in the case of your game with Steve, I belive you put the
> terrain on his side of the table. Easy for him to avoid with a
> force march. If you had put it on your side, it may have caused
him
> many more problems.
>
> Charles
>
>
> > Second, beauty here is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I, for
> > example, HATE those damn pieces of open string. Come on, they're
> HUGE. You
> > can preempt an entire flank from rear edge to rear edge or most
of
> the
> > entire center of the table with one open space. You say it's too
> easy to
> > get woods in the center, but it has a maximum size of 520 paces in
> > diameter, and the odds of getting to place it in front center are
> 2 in 6
> > in home climate. I say it's too easy to place open spaces. Open
> spaces are
> > larger, about 790 paces in diameter, and the odds of placement
> there in
> > home climate are 5 in 6. So that means my complaint is actually
> more valid
> > than yours, right? Well, never mind. The point I am attempting to
> > illustrate is that I play a loose/close foot army and you, (I'm
> guessing
> > here) probably like lots of mounteds. As the general of my army,
I
> would
> > be crazy to agree to fight an army like yours on open level
> ground, and
> > hence armies like mine seldom did so in real life.
> >
> > The question then becomes how to fairly cross reference our
> conflicting
> > desires in game terms. The rules do this with randomness (dicing
> for
> > terrain precedence), with the home climate rules (which I like
and
> think
> > are quite ingenious), BY MAKING IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO PLACE
OPEN
> > TERRAIN wherever you want THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF TERRAIN, and BY
> MAKING
> > OPEN SPACES BIGGER THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER TERRAIN.
> >
> > These rules, I believe, already strike a fair balance of all the
> interests
> > and factors involved. If anything, mathematically speaking, they
> favor
> > openness. When I roll a one for my woods or rocky ground or
brush,
> or when
> > my opponent wins the die roll for precedence and preempts my
marsh
> or
> > woods placement with one of those damn pieces of string in the
> middle of
> > the table, I don't attribute that to a deficiency in the terrain
> placement
> > rules. Some games they will seem to favor players with your
> predilictions,
> > some those with mine. That is as it should be. Overall, I don't
> think it's
> > broke, so don't fix it. Just my $.02 (or drachmas, or talents,
> that is).
> >
> >
> > -Greek




---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

[joncleaves]

I think we are missing the point.

Is the climate idea working?

Should woods be in the center of the table?

If we use climate, should the climate dictate the terrain choices?

Certainly the idea of a dry army getting a +1 and then using it to place a woods
in the center has no nearing on reality. That I think is Charles' issue.

Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: turner1118 <Turnerm@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:19:23 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Tournament Terrain Selection


Charles,
The entire point behind terrain selection is the General's impact on
the battle, and yes, generals did impact the selection of their
battlefields. You have a Cav/Elephant Army and want open terrain,
got it.

An infantry army commander looked to fight his battle on terrain that
favored him. Last evening a documentary on the Roman fight against
the British uprising specifically discussed how the Roman commander
looked for terrain that would channel the Brits into his HI and
negate the British chariots.

Certainly the French did not appreciate Henry V's pick of the terrain
at Agincourt.

But you know what, you got to deal with it!

That a Roman General would march and maneuver his army to face your
Sassanids on a pool table is very difficult to believe, he would look
for terrain that broke up your attack. Whereas your Sassanid CINC
would look for open terrain, but the battlefield would most likely be
something in between.

Your Army selection, selection of troop types s and even how many Sub
Generals you take should be considered with terrain in mind, not just
your selection but also your opponents.

In Warrior as in the real-world we harp on our officers to remember
the enemy has a vote in all of your decisions, and you have to figure
the enemy is at least as smart as you!

Mike


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "riderofrohan2001" <yaw@m...>
wrote:
> Greek,
>
> Most of my post was aimed at Woods, which I still think are the
most
> inappropriate piece of terrain that can show up in the MIDDLE of a
> battlefield. I don't have such a complain against hills or brush.
> I tend to select at least one hill for every game and depending
upon
> the army I am taking, some brush.
>
> To say opens are over rated is to miss the point IMO. Armies did
> tend to fight where they could see each other. Brush allows for
> this, as do hills (mostly), but opens are probably the most
> approprate terrain choice to simulate acient battlefields.
>
> Finally, I don't think terrain rules for Tournaments should give
> some armies advantages. They currently do. For one off games or
> campaign leagues the current rules are fine.
>
> And in the case of your game with Steve, I belive you put the
> terrain on his side of the table. Easy for him to avoid with a
> force march. If you had put it on your side, it may have caused
him
> many more problems.
>
> Charles
>
>
> > Second, beauty here is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I, for
> > example, HATE those damn pieces of open string. Come on, they're
> HUGE. You
> > can preempt an entire flank from rear edge to rear edge or most
of
> the
> > entire center of the table with one open space. You say it's too
> easy to
> > get woods in the center, but it has a maximum size of 520 paces in
> > diameter, and the odds of getting to place it in front center are
> 2 in 6
> > in home climate. I say it's too easy to place open spaces. Open
> spaces are
> > larger, about 790 paces in diameter, and the odds of placement
> there in
> > home climate are 5 in 6. So that means my complaint is actually
> more valid
> > than yours, right? Well, never mind. The point I am attempting to
> > illustrate is that I play a loose/close foot army and you, (I'm
> guessing
> > here) probably like lots of mounteds. As the general of my army,
I
> would
> > be crazy to agree to fight an army like yours on open level
> ground, and
> > hence armies like mine seldom did so in real life.
> >
> > The question then becomes how to fairly cross reference our
> conflicting
> > desires in game terms. The rules do this with randomness (dicing
> for
> > terrain precedence), with the home climate rules (which I like
and
> think
> > are quite ingenious), BY MAKING IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO PLACE
OPEN
> > TERRAIN wherever you want THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF TERRAIN, and BY
> MAKING
> > OPEN SPACES BIGGER THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER TERRAIN.
> >
> > These rules, I believe, already strike a fair balance of all the
> interests
> > and factors involved. If anything, mathematically speaking, they
> favor
> > openness. When I roll a one for my woods or rocky ground or
brush,
> or when
> > my opponent wins the die roll for precedence and preempts my
marsh
> or
> > woods placement with one of those damn pieces of string in the
> middle of
> > the table, I don't attribute that to a deficiency in the terrain
> placement
> > rules. Some games they will seem to favor players with your
> predilictions,
> > some those with mine. That is as it should be. Overall, I don't
> think it's
> > broke, so don't fix it. Just my $.02 (or drachmas, or talents,
> that is).
> >
> >
> > -Greek





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Charles Yaw]

Mike, go back and READ my post. Army type has nothing to do with
it. Woods have a lot to do with it.

Charles


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@l...>
wrote:
> Charles,
> The entire point behind terrain selection is the General's impact
on
> the battle, and yes, generals did impact the selection of their
> battlefields. You have a Cav/Elephant Army and want open terrain,
> got it.
>
> An infantry army commander looked to fight his battle on terrain
that
> favored him. Last evening a documentary on the Roman fight
against
> the British uprising specifically discussed how the Roman
commander
> looked for terrain that would channel the Brits into his HI and
> negate the British chariots.
>
> Certainly the French did not appreciate Henry V's pick of the
terrain
> at Agincourt.
>
> But you know what, you got to deal with it!
>
> That a Roman General would march and maneuver his army to face
your
> Sassanids on a pool table is very difficult to believe, he would
look
> for terrain that broke up your attack. Whereas your Sassanid CINC
> would look for open terrain, but the battlefield would most likely
be
> something in between.
>
> Your Army selection, selection of troop types s and even how many
Sub
> Generals you take should be considered with terrain in mind, not
just
> your selection but also your opponents.
>
> In Warrior as in the real-world we harp on our officers to
remember
> the enemy has a vote in all of your decisions, and you have to
figure
> the enemy is at least as smart as you!
>
> Mike
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "riderofrohan2001" <yaw@m...>
> wrote:
> > Greek,
> >
> > Most of my post was aimed at Woods, which I still think are the
> most
> > inappropriate piece of terrain that can show up in the MIDDLE of
a
> > battlefield. I don't have such a complain against hills or
brush.
> > I tend to select at least one hill for every game and depending
> upon
> > the army I am taking, some brush.
> >
> > To say opens are over rated is to miss the point IMO. Armies
did
> > tend to fight where they could see each other. Brush allows for
> > this, as do hills (mostly), but opens are probably the most
> > approprate terrain choice to simulate acient battlefields.
> >
> > Finally, I don't think terrain rules for Tournaments should
give
> > some armies advantages. They currently do. For one off games
or
> > campaign leagues the current rules are fine.
> >
> > And in the case of your game with Steve, I belive you put the
> > terrain on his side of the table. Easy for him to avoid with a
> > force march. If you had put it on your side, it may have caused
> him
> > many more problems.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> >
> > > Second, beauty here is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I,
for
> > > example, HATE those damn pieces of open string. Come on,
they're
> > HUGE. You
> > > can preempt an entire flank from rear edge to rear edge or
most
> of
> > the
> > > entire center of the table with one open space. You say it's
too
> > easy to
> > > get woods in the center, but it has a maximum size of 520
paces in
> > > diameter, and the odds of getting to place it in front center
are
> > 2 in 6
> > > in home climate. I say it's too easy to place open spaces.
Open
> > spaces are
> > > larger, about 790 paces in diameter, and the odds of placement
> > there in
> > > home climate are 5 in 6. So that means my complaint is
actually
> > more valid
> > > than yours, right? Well, never mind. The point I am attempting
to
> > > illustrate is that I play a loose/close foot army and you,
(I'm
> > guessing
> > > here) probably like lots of mounteds. As the general of my
army,
> I
> > would
> > > be crazy to agree to fight an army like yours on open level
> > ground, and
> > > hence armies like mine seldom did so in real life.
> > >
> > > The question then becomes how to fairly cross reference our
> > conflicting
> > > desires in game terms. The rules do this with randomness
(dicing
> > for
> > > terrain precedence), with the home climate rules (which I like
> and
> > think
> > > are quite ingenious), BY MAKING IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO PLACE
> OPEN
> > > TERRAIN wherever you want THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF TERRAIN, and
BY
> > MAKING
> > > OPEN SPACES BIGGER THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER TERRAIN.
> > >
> > > These rules, I believe, already strike a fair balance of all
the
> > interests
> > > and factors involved. If anything, mathematically speaking,
they
> > favor
> > > openness. When I roll a one for my woods or rocky ground or
> brush,
> > or when
> > > my opponent wins the die roll for precedence and preempts my
> marsh
> > or
> > > woods placement with one of those damn pieces of string in the
> > middle of
> > > the table, I don't attribute that to a deficiency in the
terrain
> > placement
> > > rules. Some games they will seem to favor players with your
> > predilictions,
> > > some those with mine. That is as it should be. Overall, I
don't
> > think it's
> > > broke, so don't fix it. Just my $.02 (or drachmas, or talents,
> > that is).
> > >
> > >
> > > -Greek

[Charles Yaw]

Yes, Thank You Jon, that is exactly my point.

Charles

>
> I think we are missing the point.
>
> Is the climate idea working?
>
> Should woods be in the center of the table?
>
> If we use climate, should the climate dictate the terrain choices?
>
> Certainly the idea of a dry army getting a +1 and then using it to
place a woods in the center has no nearing on reality. That I think
is Charles' issue.
>
> Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: turner1118 <Turnerm@l...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:19:23 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Tournament Terrain Selection
>
>
> Charles,
> The entire point behind terrain selection is the General's impact
on
> the battle, and yes, generals did impact the selection of their
> battlefields. You have a Cav/Elephant Army and want open terrain,
> got it.
>
> An infantry army commander looked to fight his battle on terrain
that
> favored him. Last evening a documentary on the Roman fight
against
> the British uprising specifically discussed how the Roman
commander
> looked for terrain that would channel the Brits into his HI and
> negate the British chariots.
>
> Certainly the French did not appreciate Henry V's pick of the
terrain
> at Agincourt.
>
> But you know what, you got to deal with it!
>
> That a Roman General would march and maneuver his army to face
your
> Sassanids on a pool table is very difficult to believe, he would
look
> for terrain that broke up your attack. Whereas your Sassanid CINC
> would look for open terrain, but the battlefield would most likely
be
> something in between.
>
> Your Army selection, selection of troop types s and even how many
Sub
> Generals you take should be considered with terrain in mind, not
just
> your selection but also your opponents.
>
> In Warrior as in the real-world we harp on our officers to
remember
> the enemy has a vote in all of your decisions, and you have to
figure
> the enemy is at least as smart as you!
>
> Mike
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "riderofrohan2001" <yaw@m...>
> wrote:
> > Greek,
> >
> > Most of my post was aimed at Woods, which I still think are the
> most
> > inappropriate piece of terrain that can show up in the MIDDLE of
a
> > battlefield. I don't have such a complain against hills or
brush.
> > I tend to select at least one hill for every game and depending
> upon
> > the army I am taking, some brush.
> >
> > To say opens are over rated is to miss the point IMO. Armies
did
> > tend to fight where they could see each other. Brush allows for
> > this, as do hills (mostly), but opens are probably the most
> > approprate terrain choice to simulate acient battlefields.
> >
> > Finally, I don't think terrain rules for Tournaments should
give
> > some armies advantages. They currently do. For one off games
or
> > campaign leagues the current rules are fine.
> >
> > And in the case of your game with Steve, I belive you put the
> > terrain on his side of the table. Easy for him to avoid with a
> > force march. If you had put it on your side, it may have caused
> him
> > many more problems.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> >
> > > Second, beauty here is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I,
for
> > > example, HATE those damn pieces of open string. Come on,
they're
> > HUGE. You
> > > can preempt an entire flank from rear edge to rear edge or
most
> of
> > the
> > > entire center of the table with one open space. You say it's
too
> > easy to
> > > get woods in the center, but it has a maximum size of 520
paces in
> > > diameter, and the odds of getting to place it in front center
are
> > 2 in 6
> > > in home climate. I say it's too easy to place open spaces.
Open
> > spaces are
> > > larger, about 790 paces in diameter, and the odds of placement
> > there in
> > > home climate are 5 in 6. So that means my complaint is
actually
> > more valid
> > > than yours, right? Well, never mind. The point I am attempting
to
> > > illustrate is that I play a loose/close foot army and you,
(I'm
> > guessing
> > > here) probably like lots of mounteds. As the general of my
army,
> I
> > would
> > > be crazy to agree to fight an army like yours on open level
> > ground, and
> > > hence armies like mine seldom did so in real life.
> > >
> > > The question then becomes how to fairly cross reference our
> > conflicting
> > > desires in game terms. The rules do this with randomness
(dicing
> > for
> > > terrain precedence), with the home climate rules (which I like
> and
> > think
> > > are quite ingenious), BY MAKING IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO PLACE
> OPEN
> > > TERRAIN wherever you want THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF TERRAIN, and
BY
> > MAKING
> > > OPEN SPACES BIGGER THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER TERRAIN.
> > >
> > > These rules, I believe, already strike a fair balance of all
the
> > interests
> > > and factors involved. If anything, mathematically speaking,
they
> > favor
> > > openness. When I roll a one for my woods or rocky ground or
> brush,
> > or when
> > > my opponent wins the die roll for precedence and preempts my
> marsh
> > or
> > > woods placement with one of those damn pieces of string in the
> > middle of
> > > the table, I don't attribute that to a deficiency in the
terrain
> > placement
> > > rules. Some games they will seem to favor players with your
> > predilictions,
> > > some those with mine. That is as it should be. Overall, I
don't
> > think it's
> > > broke, so don't fix it. Just my $.02 (or drachmas, or talents,
> > that is).
> > >
> > >
> > > -Greek
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Stone]

Some comments on this whole discussion.

1. The current terrain system favors open terrain over closed terrain. If you
find yourself consistently in battles with closed terrain and that's not what
you want, then you're doing your terrain picks wrong. Dice can screw you on
terrain in any given battle, but in the aggregate, over the long run, if you
want mostly open terrain, you should be able to get it. I've played mostly
cavalry armies, and never felt particularly constrained, even in 25mm at 2000
points.

2. Anyone fighting in their home climate should have a +1 even if they are
picking terrain uncommon in that climate. It's the "home field advantage".
Woods may be rare in dry areas, but if it's _my_ dry area, then I'll know
better than my opponent how to steer the battle towards what woods there are.

3. Whether climate should determine attacker and defender is somewhat debatable.
Part of what I like about 10 Independent States is that, being tropical, I'm
always in my home climate. That strikes me as a bit of a stretch. I'd actually
prefer a system like DBM, where armies get an aggression ranking (partly
dependent on climate), and dice for attacker and defender. That seems more
realistic, and also eliminates the peculiar situation of _both_ players getting
a +1.


-Mark Stone

[Bill Chriss]

To respond briefly to Jon's question, yes, I think the climate rules work
well and are quite ingenious (as I said previously). That said, if FHE is
looking to change the rules (which, being an old school guy, I am
predisposed to oppose) I would have to agree with Mark that the DBM method
he describes (I wouldn't know because I've never played it, 'nuff said)
seems a bit more sophisticated.

However, I doubt such an agreession/passivity system would change
anything. Value judgments would still be made by someone (FHE) about
various armies (which some or all of us would probably disagree with and
grouse about to some extent); and the armies that currently add one the
most (i.e., tropical) would continue to do so. In other words, troops that
already like dense terrain, like Aetolians, Gauls, and VietNamese
generally fought at home and would actually add one to terrain rolls even
more than now, thus producing another reaction from mounted conqueror
generals that the game board is mysteriously still not "open enough."
Granted, occasionally you would get someone like Vikings who would have a
harder time placing dense terrain because they were generally invaders.
They might be considerably worse off under such a system, just as others
would fare better. And then the better armies' owners would defend the
system and those who fare worse would be unhappy.

Meanwhile, we could argue about whether armies like Spartans were passive
or agressive. Well, that would depend on whther you're talking about the
Peloponnesian War or the 399 campaign in Asia Minor, and whether you're
comparing them on an agressiveness scale with their fellow Greeks or with
Persians or Mongols, or what.

I just don't see an injustice clear enough to alter the rules of the game.
As Mark and I have both said here, the truth is that the current system
already favors open terrain. If you want to tinker, I could probably argue
quite forcefully that many more ancient and medieval battles involved
really significant water features than we currently see in the game system
(Issus, Granicus, Hydaspes, Milvian Bridge, Stamford Bridge, etc, etc.). I
could make a strong argument that from a realism standpoint, what we
really need is more major and minor water features and bridges and fords.
It might make things easier on my armies. Do we really want to go down
this road?


-Greek

Hello folks, I'm Noel.
I'm new around here.

I think it's a good idea to discuss this.

I don't really support the "home climate" idea.
The "home climate advantage" never really seems to make the
battlefield more like someone's home climate. I see how it simulates a
"home climate" general using his superior local knowledge, but instead
it seems to show that most generals would rather live somewhere else!

For Example: battles vs Greeks never seem to take place in a
battlefield that looks like it could be in Greece. How often do desert
dwellers take sand dunes -- even if they don't have camels? There are
a lot of dunes in the desert, hard to avoid really.

I'd be happier if home climate would influence historic terrain choice
rather than hand out an advantage that feels rather arbitrary.
Perhaps fighting in your home climate could make some terrain picks
compulsory or more available/limited availability? Or perhaps a hill
could have different requirements for different home climates. Say,
rocky in greece, dunes in arabia, a different size somwhere else, etc...
Something like this could be worked out over time.

I don't care for the predetermined "home climate winner" idea either.
It could be mixed up a little. Cold invaded Warm sometimes! Making it
random (to some extent) could only improve game variety -- expand the
"what if" vocabulary.

As for the woods in the center, it can be crappy, but I wouldn't want
to take them away from armies who did use them that way. Poor
barbarians got enough problems.

Well, that's what I think.
Noel.



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I think we are missing the point.
>
> Is the climate idea working?
>
> Should woods be in the center of the table?
>
> If we use climate, should the climate dictate the terrain choices?
>
> Certainly the idea of a dry army getting a +1 and then using it to
place a woods in the center has no nearing on reality. That I think
is Charles' issue.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

My comments are below.

Noel White <agrianian@...> wrote:

Hello folks, I'm Noel.
I'm new around here.

I think it's a good idea to discuss this.

I don't really support the "home climate" idea.
The "home climate advantage" never really seems to make the
battlefield more like someone's home climate. I see how it simulates a
"home climate" general using his superior local knowledge, but instead
it seems to show that most generals would rather live somewhere else!

For Example: battles vs Greeks never seem to take place in a
battlefield that looks like it could be in Greece. How often do desert
dwellers take sand dunes -- even if they don't have camels? There are
a lot of dunes in the desert, hard to avoid really.

***Kelly***

Noel, It seems more reasonable that the desert dwellers would be fighting over
land that is NOT desert. With the exception of a few crusader battles, most are
fought near a source of water. As most cities are located near a water source
and many of these are near battles, this seems to bear out.





I'd be happier if home climate would influence historic terrain choice
rather than hand out an advantage that feels rather arbitrary.
Perhaps fighting in your home climate could make some terrain picks
compulsory or more available/limited availability? Or perhaps a hill
could have different requirements for different home climates. Say,
rocky in greece, dunes in arabia, a different size somwhere else, etc...
Something like this could be worked out over time.

***Kelly***

Persia is considered dry. But the Persian Empire is not merely desert. I've
noticed that the early Achaemenid Persian list is broken up into various
Satrapys. Whereas One or more Chinese list are broken up into regions and have
different "climates." It would seem logical that each Empire of similar size
should have a differentiated climate based on the type of army. That is just
speculation though. When I look at the Seleucid Kingdom which represents much of
what was left of the Persian Empire, I notice that their climate is "Warm." Why
is that? Is it merely a holdover from Phil Barker?

I don't care for the predetermined "home climate winner" idea either.
It could be mixed up a little. Cold invaded Warm sometimes! Making it
random (to some extent) could only improve game variety -- expand the
"what if" vocabulary.

As for the woods in the center, it can be crappy, but I wouldn't want
to take them away from armies who did use them that way. Poor
barbarians got enough problems.

Well, that's what I think.
Noel.

***Kelly***

I have to agree with Noel on this last point. What would Jake Kovel's LMI,
2hcw,jLs do without their woods to plash!




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I think we are missing the point.
>
> Is the climate idea working?
>
> Should woods be in the center of the table?
>
> If we use climate, should the climate dictate the terrain choices?
>
> Certainly the idea of a dry army getting a +1 and then using it to
place a woods in the center has no nearing on reality. That I think
is Charles' issue.






SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

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

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Mark Stone wrote:
> 1. The current terrain system favors open terrain over closed terrain. If you
> find yourself consistently in battles with closed terrain and that's not what
> you want, then you're doing your terrain picks wrong. Dice can screw you on
> terrain in any given battle, but in the aggregate, over the long run, if you
> want mostly open terrain, you should be able to get it. I've played mostly
> cavalry armies, and never felt particularly constrained, even in 25mm at 2000
> points.

Well - I'm actually not sure that this is so true.

Having brought Sassanids to the NICT again - report to come some time
after next week, when I get to breathe - I was unsurprised to find the
assorted pike armies that I faced trying to close the table. They all had
decent success in doing so:

* getting first pick is often key
* a minor water feature - see Mark's own previous articles - is a good
choice, sometimes, *and* the fact [which I haven't checked for myself, but
take Scott's word for] that fords are now placed after all terrain,
rather than following the feature, makes them even more effective
* good die rolls, of course.

I fought Alex Imp 3 times: across multiple woods of max size, across
multiple steep hills of max size, and across a mwf in one flank zone and
multiple marshes of max size.

Yes, I can place a road and open spaces. But after getting second roll -
or after the mwf - I'm almost always going to have two maxe size piece of
terrain crowding the effective battle frontage. So I would have been
happy, as my pike opponents, in having a terrain setup that favoured me.

Small sample. Against Tim's gauls, I got to place first *and* he missed
his first brush. Result: an open field, pretty much. Still, I think the
balance is tilted in favour of armies with ability to contest at least one
max sized piece of very rough terrain. Which is, I think, a good thing,
even though it hurts me.

> dependent on climate), and dice for attacker and defender. That seems more
> realistic, and also eliminates the peculiar situation of _both_ players
getting
> a +1.

Yeah - that both getting +1 is maybe silly.

E