Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

I am hereby changing the plan.

The next rules product will now be Warrior Battles, an introductory
rules set that:

- permits learning the very basics of the Warrior system quickly
without requiring any 'relearning' when the player moves to Warrior.
- will contain selected Warrior Battles army lists from the most
familiar of the ancient and medieval armies that may be used for WB
games or as building blocks for Fast Warrior armies
- will contain hardstock color elements for two basic armies so that
a new player can play immediately upon acquiring the rules
- will feature our new 'productions values' (redesigned layout, four
color process, quality paper, thicker gloss cover, etc)
- will feature a fast play combat system that will also be useable in
Warrior games should the players so desire

This has moved ahead of Campaign Warrior and Fantasy Warrior for the
following reasons:
1. CamWar rules are basically all done, but the DBX/WAB conversion
rules and the sample campaigns will take more time than originally
planned
2. Fantasy Warrior is coming along fine, but with 60 army lists and
the as yet unfinalized flying rules, there's still plenty to do. I
also want to inlcude WB-sized lists in FanWar and possibly make the
WB combat system either standard or included so WB would have to come
first anyway.
3. WB is the fastest way to get our new production values in front
of players and generate interest in getting them into future products.
4. Recruiting new players has a higher priority with us right now
than supporting either campaigns or fantasy play and I simply must
prioritize to get one done.

I'll keep you posted on a playtestable draft.

NOTE: FanWar work and CamWar work will not stop - just taking a back
seat from primary writing. I'll let them ride (3.2 and 1.3 versions)
while I get the draft of WB done and just collect reports from our
campaign.

Off to the keyboard.
Roll up and win.
J

[Bill Chriss]

Jon:

I agree with every one else, for what it is worth. It seems
logical to keep the basic bound organization and concentrate rather
on simplifying the various other non-essential compliccations we have
all grown to love so dearly--those things that give the game its
realism (for detail nuts like me)and its complex feel.

For example, you could collapse a few missile weapon categories
into two or just one (there are only four hit charts anyway by
group). List simplification and regimentation (as in give them the
colored bases with predefined troop types a la napoleon's battles)
are obvious candidates. Eliminate all ruses, strategems,
fortifications, and expendables (I can't believe I'm actually writing
this). Simplify available terrain (as in "rough" or "smooth",
period). Again, I'm shocked at myself!

This is pretty much the same techniqu used by avalon hill and
others for decades in differentiating between "basic" and "advanced"
versions of its wargames like Anzio, D-Day, etc. Just my thoughts.


The Greek

Agreed.

Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: hrisikos8 [mailto:hrisikos@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:22 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Warrior Battles



Jon:

I agree with every one else, for what it is worth. It seems
logical to keep the basic bound organization and concentrate rather
on simplifying the various other non-essential compliccations we have
all grown to love so dearly--those things that give the game its
realism (for detail nuts like me)and its complex feel.

For example, you could collapse a few missile weapon categories
into two or just one (there are only four hit charts anyway by
group). List simplification and regimentation (as in give them the
colored bases with predefined troop types a la napoleon's battles)
are obvious candidates. Eliminate all ruses, strategems,
fortifications, and expendables (I can't believe I'm actually writing
this). Simplify available terrain (as in "rough" or "smooth",
period). Again, I'm shocked at myself!

This is pretty much the same techniqu used by avalon hill and
others for decades in differentiating between "basic" and "advanced"
versions of its wargames like Anzio, D-Day, etc. Just my thoughts.


The Greek




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Click Here!
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050590
80:HM/A=1595053/R=0/SIG=124gf29oe/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogy
o?YH=3707890&yhad=1595053>


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

[joncleaves]

Just to whet your appetites

> For example, you could collapse a few missile weapon categories
> into two or just one (there are only four hit charts anyway by
> group).>>

We'll have the same weapons, as it will be *possible* to also use the main list
books to write a Warrior Battles list.

<< List simplification>>

WB will include the 30 most recognizable armies in historically matched pairs
spread evenly across geography and time periods. The lists will be identical to
the FW lists and you will be able to use almost any FW list with WB straight up.
WB will include two 'cardboard armies' that look like 15mm elements from above
and will be 15mm scale so someone can play from the moment he/she buys the
rules.

<< Eliminate all ruses, strategems,
> fortifications, and expendables >>

Done. And orders (each army will operate like they have the equivalent of a mix
of attack/probe). And flank marches, ambushes, forced marches, anything off
table...

<< Simplify available terrain >>

Clear, rough, very rough.

:)

Please, folks, I've got a plan. No need to offer unsolicited advice. And so
far the solicited advice (on and offline) is 100% interactive bound, so that's
the base plan.

J

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "hrisikos8" <hrisikos@D...>
wrote:
>
>
> Jon:
>
> I agree with every one else, for what it is worth. It seems
> logical to keep the basic bound organization and concentrate rather
> on simplifying the various other non-essential compliccations we
have

I agree learning the basic sequence structure is more important.
Once you've got the basic framework, you can add some of the more
complicated stuff in regular warrior.

Gilles