Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 09/04/2001 12:23:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
vercengetorix@... writes:

<<
Not exactly. What I am trying to say is that 7th had
layers of unnecessary manual calculations. vikings
fought as vikings reguardless of spear, javelin, or
sword. I do not want to reinvent the DBM bandwagon,
but some simplification would be helpful.

consider this: JLS fighting 1.5 ranks. Why? Because
it is a fix in the rules that makes JLS viable. When
rules need "fixes" to this degree, then a new version
needs to be written addressing it. Look at local
tournaments that have "fix" rules like 1.5 ranks of
HCT fight, or EHC skirmish. Again, I'm just trying to
point out that much of this kind of thing is
unnecessary manually and could be coopted into a
simplified matrix.

This is where we part ways again. Vikings fought as Vikings vs whom? They
are Vikings in this game for flavor only. In a chess format they are troop
types with a variety of weapons and armor and could just as easily be almost
any dark age army. I am afraid that once such simplifications were made
there would be no differentiations between Varangians and Bondi fighting for
the Normans. That cannot be your desire. Where would you place them in a
matrix? They may have done well historically against historical opponents,
but how should they do against SHC or Knights. I believe that the whole
premise of WRG is the what if of a-historical matchups. We just happen to
use it for Ancient rules set aswell. I believe that the math should probably
be more involved in that there should be at least more categories of weapon
and armor class and, I believe, Horse furniture. These arguments have been
made extensively and decided upon. I believe that a commander should not be
allowed to prompt a unit to charge an enemy that the commander himself cannot
see. Simplicity, or I should say playability begins to weigh against
historical accurarcy, but the more detail we can add, the more historically
accurate. At least to my way of thinking.

> 1. Math detracts from tactical concerns.
>
> It may. But as a commander we all have the benefit
> of the 1000 ft point of
> view and our actual contemporaries would not. So
> the trade off is of small
> concern.

Unless you are concerned with it as a game, not a
historical simulation. I must confess that I am a
tournament gamer almost exclusively. That has much to
do with my perspective.

>
> What of troops kept in reserve? or
> don't you do that? Do they
> get the same penalty for doing nothing through turn
> 5? What of troops in
> ambush who never get to spring said ambush and
> eventually leave to join the
> battle. Are they to be tired or lose the proposed
> bonus because turn 5 has
> elapsed or because they in fact maintained their
> patience and are able to
> spring the ambush late in the game?

These are excellent questions, and I'm sure a more
lucid mind than mine can congure a solution. Off
hand, I'd say that no troops under wait orders or in
ambush start their 5 bounds until they move or shoot.

Kind of kills the point, don't you think? Now you are having to keep track
of troops who are not tired for perhaps a variety of reasons as opposed to
just keeping track of those who accumulate enough fatigue to be proclaimed
tired. Did that unit come out of wait on bound 3 or bound 5?


> 2. Cascading army morale checks. This for me was
> always the most irratating part of 7th.
>
> Irritating, perhaps, but not A-Historical, in fact
> one of the flavors of 6th,
> 7th and Warrior that is quite appreciated,
> anticipated and used by most I
> know who play.

Are they playing the system or the army? Just a
question, not a dig. I liken it to tilting a pinball
machine without incurring the "tilt" light. How far
can you go before the light will come on.


> NO it does not. Players who are looking to win
> regardless of historical
> tactics may follow this route, and certainly in
> tournament play this may be
> the case, but tournaments that typically match
> knights against Romans and or
> Assyrians are by their very nature fantasy and thus
> historical model and
> historical use of the army ceases to be of primary
> concern.

bingo. See above.

No cascading morale
> and I believe you see an
> escalation of more troops on the table and this can
> just as easily detract
> from Historical army composition

Well I tend to dissagree. Historically, armies were
composed a a large number of scum foot a few
mercenaries and some eletes (mounted or otherwise).

Some armies were composed of such. Others were not; Caesar in Gaul had only
a 20% ratio of newly recruited legions and these had been trained for 2 years
or some such before being sent, and the current rules allow for that. Going
with the fantasy angle you seem to advocate, the army composition should be
more of what the commander wants than is dictated to, NO? I mean if you are
primarily a tournament player and prefer the a-historical matchups, then
where is your beef with allowing the individual commanders to spend their
1600 points in perhaps a less historical (a-historical) manner?

In 7th games, armies tend to be composed of
bow/lance/sh or jls/b/sh HC and/or LMI jls/sh all with
gradings of C or better. Class C if I recall is
normal trained/seasoned troops. One rarley sees class
D and if so they never leave the starting gate.

Perhaps in your experience, but not the case here at all. We have players
running E class hostage screens and D class lights is the standard here and
most of what I have seen in my experiences at Historicon. As far as L,B,Sh
and or loose foot with Jls, Sh you are referring to what is commonly called
the Arms race out here. But that is a gamesmanship thing not a rules thing.
Perhaps the best player out here, John Green, typically runs classical
armies, no L,B,Sh and only some loose order Javelins. By the way Greg, Loose
order with Jls who try to skirmish are typically caught if that is all the
army is made up of. Because our army of choice does not perform well against
a Lancer army does not mean the rules are broken, or we see a preponderance
of troops armed with Jls that things are unevenly balanced. One of the great
joys out here is taking the same opponents and trying to find a method of
defeating the same opponent in the future. Don runs EIR, almost everyone
knows these guys suck in tournament. Pat is a L,B,Sh Mongol and they have
faced each other often enough that each has had to adapt tactics to what the
other did last game to win. Consequently the win loss ratio is something
akin to 50-50. How is that possible? Everyone knows that Lancers bowl over
close order HI, particularly when the HI have no missles or long sticks. Add
B to Pat's Mongols and by yours and Greg's logic, one would forcast each
battle as something like Packers vs Army football.

I agree with you that the rules set has room for improvement. I do not agree
with the areas you have pointed out as needing attention.

Chris



=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians
>>

--- Greg Regets <greg@...> wrote:
> I agree with most of the things Wanax said, but to
> not agree with his
> conclusions.

As Ronald Regan used to say "well..."

I wasn't trying to draw a conclusion, but I was trying
to add a couple of quattlos to the topic. I'm sorry
if my statements seemed conclusive, but I'm trying to
find a way back to 7th. I also know of others who are
looking in this direction but are not inspired, as
statisticians are not game peices.

As it is, I want more from my gaming than DBM can
give, but I do not want to return to the days of 8
bounds in 4 hours with constant math distractions.
That is all.


> I think his fatigue idea might have some merit. That
> is the first time I
> have ever heard that idea suggested.

Thanks, I have a thought once in a while.

>
> Wanax's comments about JLS armed troops, in my
> opinion, are RIGHT ON BASE!
> We see far too many armies based around loose order,
> high moral foot armed
> with JLS, operating in the open, skirmishing,
> countering from bad
> situations, and to top it all off, CHARGING as soon
> as the whim hits them.
> Mix these with some good shock troops and you have a
> killer army that only
> marginally represents historical models. If you ask
> me (and you didn't,
> haha) the charge out of skirmish for infantry has
> hurt the purity of this
> system.

Thank you for the excellent example to which I was
unable to articulate.


> Having said all that, I completely disagree with
> Wanax's assumptions about
> the future of this game. 7th Edition, even in its
> current unreadable form,
> is starting to make a comeback. We are seeing this
> in our area,
> piggy-backing on the Warrior label.

This is my hope as well! I am sorry for any
confusion.


> Warrior will prosper, , and now its even
> readable!

To this you have no arguement from me!

Wanax

=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

--- "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...>
wrote:
>
> Having said all that, I completely disagree with
> Wanax's assumptions about
> the future of this game. 7th Edition, even in its
> current unreadable form,
> is starting to make a comeback. We are seeing this
> in our area,
> piggy-backing on the Warrior label.

Please see other response. I was not trying to say
that 7th is dieing (though I did use those words), but
rather that there are things that would make it even
better.


>
> >Wanax is Boyd Bruce, former President of NASAMW. I
> like people to know who
> people are.

Sorry, but I though everyone knew me :)

And I've also received emails from
> another part of the country
> where they're now playing the July playtest copy,
> all 20 players! So I'm
> optimistic about the system.

I am optimistic, but not clouded by my optimism. DBM
is a compact, easy system that will dissuede players
to another system easily.

Wanax

=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

--- cncbump@... wrote:
> Wanax,
> I bow before you.

Please no, prokinesis in unwarranted.



I feel quite comfortable in making
> the absolute statement
> that javelins and shields had little to do with the
> exodus.

I'm sorry that these two thoughts were conjoined by me
into one synopsis. the JLS/sh thought was really just
trying to show how skewed 7th is towards a certain
weapons combination that is perhaps unrealistic.

the exodus was a result of 7th gamers responding to
DBM with indifference leaning towards hostility when
questions of improving the rules (7th) arose, and then
the retrenched blanket condemnation of the competing
system as childish. All was unfortuneate. I
continued to play both systems long after the exchange
became a division, and with friends on both sides I
herd all the squaak from both. I'm sure many of us
have.
> It seems to me in your statement above, you are
> advocating a simplification
> of weapons factors and how they play into the fight.

Not exactly. What I am trying to say is that 7th had
layers of unnecessary manual calculations. vikings
fought as vikings reguardless of spear, javelin, or
sword. I do not want to reinvent the DBM bandwagon,
but some simplification would be helpful.

consider this: JLS fighting 1.5 ranks. Why? Because
it is a fix in the rules that makes JLS viable. When
rules need "fixes" to this degree, then a new version
needs to be written addressing it. Look at local
tournaments that have "fix" rules like 1.5 ranks of
HCT fight, or EHC skirmish. Again, I'm just trying to
point out that much of this kind of thing is
unnecessary manually and could be coopted into a
simplified matrix.


> DBM did this with a
> more generic methodology of armor and weapons used
> by the combatants.

What DBM did was expand the DBA "roll a 6" plan of
victory. I do not advocate this degree of
simplification at all.

I do
> not believe, and I at least hope that most are in
> agreement with me, that we
> do not want to drift towards DBM type rules or troop
> types in an effort to
> draw them back.

DBM is also having these same sort of issues now
exactly because they do not define closely enough the
diference between similar troops with dis-similar
historical effects. In other words, DBM has narrowed
the troop catagories too narrowly to accomidate the
diverse troops of history.

> 1. Math detracts from tactical concerns.
>
> It may. But as a commander we all have the benefit
> of the 1000 ft point of
> view and our actual contemporaries would not. So
> the trade off is of small
> concern.

Unless you are concerned with it as a game, not a
historical simulation. I must confess that I am a
tournament gamer almost exclusively. That has much to
do with my perspective.

>
> What of troops kept in reserve? or
> don't you do that? Do they
> get the same penalty for doing nothing through turn
> 5? What of troops in
> ambush who never get to spring said ambush and
> eventually leave to join the
> battle. Are they to be tired or lose the proposed
> bonus because turn 5 has
> elapsed or because they in fact maintained their
> patience and are able to
> spring the ambush late in the game?

These are excellent questions, and I'm sure a more
lucid mind than mine can congure a solution. Off
hand, I'd say that no troops under wait orders or in
ambush start their 5 bounds until they move or shoot.

And what of
> troops who do infact take a
> beating and then must face fresh troops after turn
> 5? Are they to be
> considered on even footing?

See above.


> 2. Cascading army morale checks. This for me was
> always the most irratating part of 7th.
>
> Irritating, perhaps, but not A-Historical, in fact
> one of the flavors of 6th,
> 7th and Warrior that is quite appreciated,
> anticipated and used by most I
> know who play.

Are they playing the system or the army? Just a
question, not a dig. I liken it to tilting a pinball
machine without incurring the "tilt" light. How far
can you go before the light will come on.


> NO it does not. Players who are looking to win
> regardless of historical
> tactics may follow this route, and certainly in
> tournament play this may be
> the case, but tournaments that typically match
> knights against Romans and or
> Assyrians are by their very nature fantasy and thus
> historical model and
> historical use of the army ceases to be of primary
> concern.

bingo. See above.

No cascading morale
> and I believe you see an
> escalation of more troops on the table and this can
> just as easily detract
> from Historical army composition

Well I tend to dissagree. Historically, armies were
composed a a large number of scum foot a few
mercenaries and some eletes (mounted or otherwise).
In 7th games, armies tend to be composed of
bow/lance/sh or jls/b/sh HC and/or LMI jls/sh all with
gradings of C or better. Class C if I recall is
normal trained/seasoned troops. One rarley sees class
D and if so they never leave the starting gate.




=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Wanax Andron <vercengetorix@y...> wrote:
> --- Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> > I agree with most of the things Wanax said, but to
> > not agree with his
> > conclusions.
>
> As Ronald Regan used to say "well..."
>
Hi Boyd ! Maybe we're the only two on both lists ? So if you're not
happy with DBM and not happy with Warrior, maybe you could do better ?

thrill us and we shall come !

(Derek Hannan, NYC, playing DBM almost exclusively but willing to be
wooed).

[Todd Kaeser]

I realize that some of the discussion has been regarding the complexity of
the rules system of warrior (and 7th) and of the tables and calculations.
While I agree that there is some complications w/ calculating combats -
people can forget factors- most people have no real difficulties w/ the
charts. I would not be in favor of having a unit I've purposely kept in
reserve become tired just because it is turn 4. We have to remember that
this is a complex rules system - it incorporates 4500 years of military
history.
Other game systems have tried to simplify to workings of having
historical or nonhistorical games, ie. DBM, but they naturally tend to grow
in complexity. If I am not mistaken the DBM rulebook has become quite large
in its interpretations and has undergone various rewrites by Mr. Barker.
What used to be just blades have become fast, superior, ordinary, or
inferior. I play warrior for the reasons that it is a complex game system
that takes many factors into account. It does suck that my Reg A unit will
shake when seeing a LC unit rout, but 5 out of 6 times it will hold.
There was a comment regarding most armies that are currently in effect
are Jls,Sh armed units (often impetuous). This system tends to run in
cycles - Most would agree that the knights are waning in their glory and the
elephants are moving in to counteract this surge. Maybe the next step is
barbarian LMI w/ Jls,Sh to kill the elephants. The finals this year had 100
years war (no Jls there), Hellenistic Greek (mostly pike and LTS,Jls), Khmer
(yes LMI but Derek also had 14 some odd elephants) and Lodi dynasty
(Elephants and HC L,B,Sh)
No rules system is perfect, but this one while complex, seems to work
well.

Just a humble man's opinion,
Todd Kaeser

[Greg Regets]

John Green is the best player in this area? Those are fightin words Chris! I think both myself and Tebo will take exception to that one! The last time Johnny G. won a tournament down here, Clinton was in his first term!!!! ~wink~
I think Chris, that I said "Armies based around skirmishing javlinmen MIXED WITH shock troops" ... not armies of just skirmishing javlinmen. Right? Let me point out that you have had a shot at the KofSt.J with your LIR, and John has had two tries at them. So far the K's are 3-0 ... more games than the Cowboys will win this season!
Said tongue in cheek, with little or no respect, and virtually no tact ... Greg

P.S. I hope you know I'm just funning ya!

[Don Coon]

 


Speaking of counters!!!! Does not the Big D group owe someone in SA some of those cool counters? David " Counterless " Beeson
Yes it does!
 
Mea Culpa
 
Don

[Don Coon]

 

I think Chris, that I said "Armies based around skirmishing javlinmen MIXED WITH shock troops" ... not armies of just skirmishing javlinmen. Right? Let me point out that you have had a shot at the KofSt.J with your LIR, and John has had two tries at them. So far the K's are 3-0 ... more games than the Cowboys will win this season!
 
Unfortunately 2 of those will be against my Cardinals .
 
Don

[Eric Turner]

A small addition. I have run for many years, an army with only 4 figure
armed with JLS, half the Infantry has no shield but coward behind a paives.
Only a quarter of my Cav has shield.
And Tech wise, a Jav and wicker shield was easy and simple to make and
then to mass produce.
Eric Turner
Todd Kaeser wrote:
I realize that some of the discussion has been
regarding the complexity of
the rules system of warrior (and 7th) and of the tables and calculations.
While I agree that there is some complications w/ calculating combats
-
people can forget factors- most people have no real difficulties
w/ the
charts.  I would not be in favor of having a unit I've purposely
kept in
reserve become tired just because it is turn 4.  We have to
remember that
this is a complex rules system - it incorporates 4500 years of
military
history.
    Other game systems have tried to simplify to
workings of having
historical or nonhistorical games, ie. DBM, but they naturally
tend to grow
in complexity.  If I am not mistaken the DBM rulebook has
become quite large
in its interpretations and has undergone various rewrites by Mr.
Barker.
What used to be just blades have become fast, superior, ordinary,
or
inferior.  I play warrior for the reasons that it is a complex
game system
that takes many factors into account.  It does suck that my
Reg A unit will
shake when seeing a LC unit rout, but 5 out of 6 times it will
hold.
    There was a comment regarding most armies that
are currently in effect
are Jls,Sh armed units (often impetuous).  This system tends
to run in
cycles - Most would agree that the knights are waning in their
glory and the
elephants are moving in to counteract this surge.  Maybe the
next step is
barbarian LMI w/ Jls,Sh to kill the elephants.  The finals
this year had 100
years war (no Jls there), Hellenistic Greek (mostly pike and LTS,Jls),
Khmer
(yes LMI but Derek also had 14 some odd elephants) and Lodi dynasty
(Elephants and HC L,B,Sh)
    No rules system is perfect, but this one while
complex, seems to work
well.
Just a humble man's opinion,
Todd Kaeser
 

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.

Attachment: (image/gif) C:WINDOWSTEMP
smail9B.gif [not stored]
Attachment: (image/jpeg) C:WINDOWSTEMP
smailMF.jpeg [not stored]
Attachment: (image/gif) C:WINDOWSTEMP
smailH0.gif [not stored]
Attachment: (image/gif) C:WINDOWSTEMP
smail4R.gif [not stored]
Attachment: (image/gif) C:WINDOWSTEMP
smailMI.gif [not stored]
Attachment: (image/gif) C:WINDOWSTEMP
smailSS.gif [not stored]

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 09/04/2001 4:25:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
greg@... writes:

<< John Green is the best player in this area? Those are fightin words Chris!
I
think both myself and Tebo will take exception to that one! The last time
Johnny G. won a tournament down here, Clinton was in his first term!!!!
~wink~

Dude!!!!!!!!! That is because the last time Johnny came to a tournament down
here Clinton was in his first term.

I think Chris, that I said "Armies based around skirmishing javlinmen MIXED
WITH shock troops" ... not armies of just skirmishing javlinmen. Right? Let
me point out that you have had a shot at the KofSt.J with your LIR, and John
has had two tries at them. So far the K's are 3-0 ... more games than the
Cowboys will win this season!

Don't confuse my location of domicile with my preference for Football teams.
I am probably more of a detester of the Cowboys than you. As to your beloved
KofSt.J, I hear that you are trying to sell them off despite their perfect
record.

Said tongue in cheek, with little or no respect, and virtually no tact
... Greg

P.S. I hope you know I'm just funning ya!
>>
I know, I know. You are the last of the great liberals, avoid conflict at
all costs!!!!
(said with just as little respect and barely audible because my tongue is
buried so deeply within my cheek)
Chris

You have some interesting points but surely there will always be (and
always has been ) a balance between book keeping and a game that many
will feel as over simplistic. I myself enjoyed my first few games of
DBA, probably due to the simplicity and straight forward ideas
involved. But then the lack of subtlety quickly made its mark and my
assumption is that DBM would have similar characteristics (though I
have never played it.)

I suggest different players will prefer different styles.

Adam

p.s. surely book keeping would be needed to remember which bounds a
unit gets this suggested +1 for not being tired?



--- In WarriorRules@y..., Wanax Andron <vercengetorix@y...> wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> I do not usually comment on this list, but I feel I
> must make a statement about WRG7th and it's successor
> Warrior. I will begin by saying I still play 7th, and
> I enjoy it; but it cannot compete and will struggle to
> gain new gamers due mainly to two continual
> problems...
>
> 7th was a vaible game system, which was clunky in
> exicution. It also forced gamers to spend much time
> in mathmatical calculation which detracted from
> tactical considerations outside of this mathmatical
> matching for battle. As a result, people in 25mm
> ended up with just a very few armies that were
> feasable and all of them relied upon JLS as the final
> arbiter. Outside of Derek Downs, I never saw anyone
> play an army that did not count sheilded and use JLS,
> often impetous.
>
> Here I have listed two major problems that eventually
> drove many many gamers to such games as DBM and DBA.
> I am not advocating these other game systems, but I
> would be deluding myself as well as you all if I
> didn't point them out.
>
> 1. Math detracts from tactical concerns. If Warrior
> could in some way consume much of the math via a
> matrix, then this would end much of the confusion. An
> example would be perhaps some way to incorporate
> weapons modifiers without relying upon the gamer. Do
> we need to constantly rememeber tactical modifiers
> like charging, LTS armed chariot crew, or 1/5
> elephant? can't these sort of things be absorbed in a
> more user friendly tactical matrix? Not a DBA type of
> "roll a 6" matrix, but something in between that and
> the sliderule math for impet HC charging downhill with
> lance, JLS, sh with a general, shooting tired, tired,
> disordered passing through friendly foot, facing Pk
> armed, shielded, disordered tired HI?
>
> And tiredness; it is important to add this layer of
> complexity to a situation in which everyone can be
> assumed tired from bound four on? Almost 99% of all
> cheating takes place with tiredness, so let us just
> factor tiredness in and let it go. One suggestion
> might be to simply give all shooting and charging in
> the first 5 bounds a +1. Afterward, everyone is tired
> anyway from nerves.
>
> 2. Cascading army morale checks. This for me was
> always the most irratating part of 7th. It forces
> players to use armies unhistorically, and it also
> causes players to develop armies that do not
> prepresent the historical model very well. It is just
> unsupportable that a unit of close order class D would
> cause Macedonian Companions to waver test; more likely
> they would ride them down in an effort to pass through
> and impact upon the pursuing enemy.
>
> Just some thoughts to see if anyone is open to new
> ideas.
>
> Ok, flame retardent suit in place, pleae respond.
>
> Wanax
>
> =====
> Wake up and smell the Assyrians
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo!
Messenger
> http://im.yahoo.com

> We see far too many armies based around loose order, high moral
foot armed
> with JLS, operating in the open, skirmishing, countering from bad
> situations, and to top it all off, CHARGING as soon as the whim
hits them.
> Mix these with some good shock troops and you have a killer army
that only
> marginally represents historical models. If you ask me (and you
didn't,
> haha) the charge out of skirmish for infantry has hurt the purity
of this
> system.

I'm not a competition gamer, so I probably do not see as many armies
ruthlessly designed for victory, but surely this problem (?) is at
least partly balanced by the waver test for cavalry attacking loose
order foot? I know my friends with Late romans wet themselves with
anxiety at the thought of their Auxilia being anywhere that might get
charged by mounted troops!

This is not an opinion, I am trying to learn, so stop loading the
hail shot!

Adam