Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- I said: ---

>> We've had debates on this list about whether, for example, darts should be
>> declared since they are hidden behind shields. What that debate misses is
>> that the same logic applies to much more salient details of an army. Absent
>> force marchers, I can't see how many units you have, or how many generals, or
>> what your units are armed with, because you are out of visibility range. I
>> certainly can't "see" whether your subgeneral is cautious or rash. To me, the
>> logical conclusion is _not_ that this information should therefore remain
>> secret, but rather that the disclosure of this information is _not_ based on
>> visibility, but rather based on pre-battle knowledge of the opponent that
>> comes to light in the course of operations that led to the battle in the
>> first place.

--- To which Ewan replied: ---

> We come to different conclusions; from different axioms, I think, as mine
> is a 'gameplay over all' approach. Hence my comment about limited
> knowledge/disclosure - because yes, you are likely to know whether your
> Roman opponent brought massed Hun allies or seven legions, but not
> *exactly* what, and the added uncertainty is likely (imnsho) to improve
> the game. This is another one of the 'more complexity and options are
> good things' on which we've agreed previously, so I'm surprised to find
> you in disagreement here.

You raise a good question, and I had to think about this one a bit to see why I
came down on this unexpected side of the issue. There are three points, I
suppose.

First, I'm not interested in adding complexity for complexity's sake, but only
if it has some substantial historical basis. I believe the basis I outline
above -- assumed pre-battle operational experience with one's opponent -- is
the only consistent historical basis that can be applied. Trying to apply "what
is visible at the time of battle" just doesn't hold up. Now, I grant you that
how much is knowable from pre-battle operational experience is subject to a
wide range of interpretations, so there must be more to my concerns than that.

So, second, I guess my interest in complexity is, in this case, overridden by my
desire to avoid abuse in a tournament context. A couple of examples: currently,
when my opponent declares how many scouting points are not visible, that's
really just a time-saver for me having to do the count myself. The fact that I
could serves as a check on someone lapsing into a miscount of their scouting
points (inadvertent or not). Making scouting points vague at the start means
that an error, if discovered at all, might not become apparent until several
bounds into a game, at which point a remedy becomes problematic.

And currently, when my opponent declares all his armament for each unit, it's
then up to me to remember which is which. If instead darts, for example, are
concealed, I can imagine the following: an opponent has two dart-capable units,
one of which has darts and the other doesn't. After several bounds, it now
matters which has darts. My opponent, who hasn't kept clear notes of which is
which, is pretty sure, but not positive, that the unit that under current
circumstances would be best suited to have darts indeed, by some remarkable
coincidence, does have darts. This isn't even necessarily conscious cheating,
but it is a bit of abuse that players are tempted to indulge in, even if
subconsciously, unless we openly declare everything at the beginning.

Are there ways to work around this? With some fiddling, and depending on how
much effort a tournament umpire is will to put in, yes. But I think we have to
recognize that every game is, at some level, just that -- a game. There are
aspects of history that can be simulated, and others that cannot. Each rules
set defines a certain paradigm within which it operates, a paradigm where
certain aspects of simulation work quite well and others do not.

And that, I suppose, is my third point. The Warrior paradigm is one in which we,
as players, have a great deal more knowledge and control than any single
individual on the battlefield would actually have had. We know exactly what the
morale class of our own units is. We know exactly how far each unit can move. We
know exactly whether or not a target is in range. Most importantly, we
"telescope" between playing the role of CinC, subordinate general, or unit
commander, depending on which facet of the game we're playing through at any
given moment. All of those elements are, in some sense, "unrealistic". However,
they are precisely the elements that define the Warrior paradigm, thereby
enabling realism of other kinds that otherwise would not be possible. Very,
very few games give you Warrior's sense of combined arms, tactical interaction,
and real-time collision of battle lines from a turn-based system. Warrior is an
incredibly elegant simulation of these aspects of command. "Muddying" all that
with some vagueness about unit composition and disposition strikes me as
inconsistent with the paradigm.

There are other game systems that go to greater lengths to introduce "fog of
war" elements. I've played a number of these, and they can be a refreshing
change of pace. However, to really get a consistent sense of "fog of war",
these systems make the paradigm choice that you, the player, are "role playing"
the CinC. Ironically, the result of a well-designed rules set of this kind is
that after the setup, you are in essence "discovering" who will win rather than
determining victory in the course of subsequent play. So much control has been
taken out of the player's hands that it feels more like watching a movie than
playing a game. I don't doubt for a moment that that's a very realistic
assessment of what command and control felt like to a CinC, particularly in our
period of history. But it isn't much fun as a game, and it impedes simulation of
subsequent tactical decision-making in local areas of a battle. The latter is
exactly what Warrior excels at.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

This gets a bit lengthy. I'd apologise, but I wouldn't be sincere .

Mark Stone wrote:

> --- I said: ---
>>>We've had debates on this list about whether, for example, darts should be
>>>declared since they are hidden behind shields. What that debate misses is
>>>that the same logic applies to much more salient details of an army. Absent
>>>force marchers, I can't see how many units you have, or how many generals, or
>>>what your units are armed with, because you are out of visibility range. I
>>>certainly can't "see" whether your subgeneral is cautious or rash. To me, the
>>>logical conclusion is _not_ that this information should therefore remain
>>>secret, but rather that the disclosure of this information is _not_ based on
>>>visibility, but rather based on pre-battle knowledge of the opponent that
>>>comes to light in the course of operations that led to the battle in the
>>>first place.

> --- To which Ewan replied: ---
>>We come to different conclusions; from different axioms, I think, as mine
>>is a 'gameplay over all' approach. Hence my comment about limited
>>knowledge/disclosure - because yes, you are likely to know whether your
>>Roman opponent brought massed Hun allies or seven legions, but not
>>*exactly* what, and the added uncertainty is likely (imnsho) to improve
>>the game. This is another one of the 'more complexity and options are
>>good things' on which we've agreed previously, so I'm surprised to find
>>you in disagreement here.

So Mark responded:
> First, I'm not interested in adding complexity for complexity's sake, but only
> if it has some substantial historical basis. I believe the basis I outline
> above -- assumed pre-battle operational experience with one's opponent -- is
> the only consistent historical basis that can be applied. Trying to apply
"what
> is visible at the time of battle" just doesn't hold up. Now, I grant you that
> how much is knowable from pre-battle operational experience is subject to a
> wide range of interpretations, so there must be more to my concerns than that.

We differ here too, but I think it's irrelevant in this case, mostly.

> So, second, I guess my interest in complexity is, in this case, overridden by
my
> desire to avoid abuse in a tournament context. A couple of examples:
currently,
> when my opponent declares how many scouting points are not visible, that's
> really just a time-saver for me having to do the count myself. The fact that I
> could serves as a check on someone lapsing into a miscount of their scouting
> points (inadvertent or not). Making scouting points vague at the start means
> that an error, if discovered at all, might not become apparent until several
> bounds into a game, at which point a remedy becomes problematic.

Well, we agree here, I think, in principle, but not in specifics. I am
actually (one of the few remaining?) in the camp that darts - for example
- should be able to be hidden. As should (although more arguably) an
incendiary pig, for example. As are - right? - incendiary arrows, which
carry this strong records requirement. So I don't think that there's a
game-wise case for disclosure, although it's entirely possible that I may
be wrong on needing to declare incendiary shots (which I think is silly,
if so).

The onus is *strongly* on the user to show that they have clear records
where needed. Marking underside of bases is the best way I've seen.

But if your opponent has the option to have darts - or not - then I don't
think there's a 'realism' argument for you knowing whether he brought them
to battle, and I think that the nuance of having to plan for their
possible existence is worthwhile.

[In passing, I do understand the records roblem. A long time ago, when I
was still playing the WRG Gush Renaissance rules - a period I really like
but no-one now plays! - I used Polish a lot. After the first game in one
tournament, my opponent asked me how I had managed to fit into my list the
pistols I had declared my winged husars to be armed with. When we looked,
I hadn't actually so equipped them. Now, I hadn't actually ever *used*
these pistols in the game; nonetheless, my bad, so I got stripped of the
game points *and* had to play my next game at top table as if I had indeed
won! Painful...]

> And currently, when my opponent declares all his armament for each unit, it's
> then up to me to remember which is which. If instead darts, for example, are
> concealed, I can imagine the following: an opponent has two dart-capable
units,
> one of which has darts and the other doesn't. After several bounds, it now
> matters which has darts. My opponent, who hasn't kept clear notes of which is
> which, is pretty sure, but not positive, that the unit that under current
> circumstances would be best suited to have darts indeed, by some remarkable
> coincidence, does have darts. This isn't even necessarily conscious cheating,
> but it is a bit of abuse that players are tempted to indulge in, even if
> subconsciously, unless we openly declare everything at the beginning.

Well, see above; but - also in passing, really - I think that the current
environment is that one may ask repeatedly, if necessitated by one's poor
memory, about opposing unit armament, so there's no memory
load/requirement after disclosure, regardless of what that disclosure
includes.

> Are there ways to work around this? With some fiddling, and depending on how
> much effort a tournament umpire is will to put in, yes. But I think we have to
> recognize that every game is, at some level, just that -- a game. There are
> aspects of history that can be simulated, and others that cannot. Each rules
> set defines a certain paradigm within which it operates, a paradigm where
> certain aspects of simulation work quite well and others do not.

Oh, sure - you tell *me* this? I think that the vaguer scouting
announcement helps gamewise, otherwise I would not suggest it.

I do think it's silly that I know - because my opponent has one scouting
point missing - that despite the ambush rules, it's overwhelmingly likely
that the patch of brush has a 2E LI unit in it. I'd like to remove that
if possible.

e