Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

While I'm at it I suppose I might as well ask. In terms of accurate
and educational simulation of ancient battle how does DBM rate
against Warrior. I've played DBA a few times. It's fun and I
admired it's abstractions: they're clever, elegant and enormously
speed play but I don't think you come away from it saying, "Aaahhh,
so that's how it worked back then."

I have to ask because I live in China and I can't just trot down to
the local gaming store and pick up a copy. I can order one but,
well, that's why I'm asking.

Jonathan

[joncleaves]

Fellow Warriors.

This may seem very draconian to you, and I am sorry in advance. But one of
the types of threads we do not permit is one that includes discussion of
other rules sets.

There are many reasons for this and we have thought about it for a long
time. I have personally been very pleased that it has never really come up to
any significant degree. But I knew that it would eventually.

Please do not take this as some kind of direct assault on free speech.
First, this list isn't a democratic country - it is a benevolent dictatorship.
Second, and more importantly, there are many other fora for such a
discussion, to include the NASAMWList yahoo group and Ancmed among others.

I know that many of you will scratch your heads as to why we would have this
policy, so I will give you the chief reason. Even in a benign 'comparison'
between Warrior and another rules set, players will inevitably assign
incorrect characteristics to one or the other. We would then have the option
of
letting the inaccuracy stand or stepping in and correcting the incorrect
information. As soon as one of us did that, we would instantly be attacked on
and
offline for using our group to bash someone else's rules set - and we will not
do that. Nor will we let a list subscriber bash another rules set, no
matter how much we value his or her loyalty to Warrior...lol.
We have maintained an excellent reputation in comparison to some other fora
out there and we intend to continue. Indeed, some of the authors of other
rules sets are old friends of ours and even at times collaborators on such
projects as list books. We value their continued friendship and do not want it
marred by a flame war over respective rules systems.

I know that many of you will find this ridiculous, but it is not up for
debate. At least not here. I will also note that we have managed to keep this
list completely free of such a thread for two years, so it isn't like there is
some deep need unfulfilled....

You may tell someone here why you think they should join or stay with
Warrior, but I need you to do that in absolute terms and not relative to another
set of rules.

Thanks for your support in this matter.

Jon, evil moderator




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

Dear Jonathan,

You have played DBA, which is intended and functions as a grand
tactical game. DBM is also a grand tactical game with its minor
tactics really just an extension of the grand tactical level because
the basic nature of the game mechanics have not changed from DBA --
if I slam Knights into Auxilia in the open and avoid adverse
overlaps or blocking my own recoils, the factors and quick-kill
potential means good things should happen.

Warrior has both a grand tactical level and a tactical level: it
matters a great deal exactly HOW I go about slamming those Knights
into those Auxilia. I should consider equipment, unit status,
preparing and ideally disordering the target with prep shooting,
charge distance, potential countercharges, potential counterattacks
by the enemy after pursuit, etc. The difference between the two
systems is justified by DBX being explicitly a general's game -- you
should know what the CinC knows, and lower level handling of
tactical details is factored into the random combat dice. In
Warrior, the player wears both the general's hat and the unit
commander's hat.

In terms of educational value regarding historical combat, I think
it is fair to say that by design DBM focuses top-down on what
results should occur in combats between troop types based on their
tactical roles and position (this helps make DBM a useful training
tool for developing tactical and operational "instincts" in other
contexts) while Warrior focuses on the mechanics of how combat
occurs and its results flow from the interaction of specific units
in specific combat circumstances. To give an example, in DBM, Roman
legionaries are Roman legionaries from Republic through Empire -
though they obtain rear support from bowmen later on - while in
Warrior there are variations in morale, equipment and tactical
formations and capabilities across and within individual lists that
can make a big difference in minor tactical employment.

Because of the above, DBM is quicker to pick up and achieve a
feeling of basic competence in the game mechanics and then the
ability to command a wide variety of armies, but Warrior's tactical
level offers a deeper game with a lot of scope to develop and
perfect your own ways of handling particular armies. The initial
learning curve in Warrior is not as difficult as it might at first
appear. The sequence of play does have different steps from the
standard move-shoot-melee sequence, but the component steps are
actually not that complex (except in their tactical implications).

It sounds as though you are looking for rules that focus on the
tactical details of what happened and why, and Warrior offers that.
I am not experienced enough in Warrior myself to offer an opinion,
but Warrior players generally seem very satisfied with Warrior's
depth as a game and that it is superior (though not claimed to be
perfect) in simulating history (to the extent any miniatures game
can be said to be a simulation).

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Mike

[John Murphy]

Depends what you want, and you will get a very different answer here
than on the mailing list for DBM or AW/MW or WHAB.

Warrior, to me, is a fun tactical game that gets the whole small-to-
mid level unit interaction where troops have some morale
and "memory" and wear out and don't like being pushed back or caught
flat-footed (unless they are shooting the heck out of someone), and
where every little skirmisher gets to shoot his missile weapon
(except legionary pila is handled as HtH). If you like John Keegan's
books or Victor Hanson's books on hoplite warfare, you will like
Warrior. However, it does not always get some "who wins what" right
if you ask me, and I actually think even the FHE folks will admit
that. It suffers from its WRG heritage so like that product it
tends, I believe, to over-state impetuousity of cheap unarmored
irregulars at the expense of troops like Roman legionaries or Greek
hoplites (and same could be said for mounted). To some degree,
though, even this is historical, just the balance is not quite there
yet. Me, I think Warrior's command system is WRG-archaic too, but
that is not the focus of the game typically (which says a lot right
there).

DBM, on the other hand, is very much more abstract. Skirmishers and
cavalry do not shoot missiles - all that is handled as close (not
even called HtH) combat. However, in some ways this permits DBM to
concentrate on getting the who wins what a bit closer (Romans and
Greeks do better in a straight-up fight for isntance). There are
still monumental problems at the grand-tactical level though as the
IgoHugo causes problems with it as a simulation. And it keeps
getting tweaked around in major ways so you have to re-learn it
every two years. The command control system is, I think, pretty
innovative (some hate it) just the fact it is ties to little
elements and not units, and that the troops actually _like_ being
pushed back, is a quirk - but that is all at the detail level where
it does less of a good job.

WHAB I have only played a couple times. Probably a suprisingly
promising set of rules at the very small level of detail (more so
tha Warrior even), probably terrible at a higher grand-tactical
level. But I can't really say.

AM/MW might be pretty interesting. The command system has grown on
me and I actually think RenWar has one of the best. Combat is
similar to Warrior in ways but generally less complicated. However,
because of this I am not sure but I do not think it has the same
kind of fatigue effects or momentum effects that Warrior has, and I
am not sure the morale rules are as good either.

The ideal would be to take Warrior combat and combine with RenWar
command. But like a Frankenstein monster it might just bring out the
worse aspects of each.

[John Murphy]

Oh, I would also mention that the way terrain is built into the DBM
army lists, and the deployment of troops and placement of terrain is
handled with regard to invaders and defenders, is unique and not
there in Warrior. This is good and bad, and some like it and some
not, but admittedly there are ways in DBM of taking advantage of the
system in very un-historical ways, but at least the attempt is made.
OTOH generally there are certain aspects of Warrior terrain effects,
as you get into it, that seem odd - maybe because I have not yet
gotten used to them. But in my experience terrain does not screw up
a battlefield (either too much or too little) in Warrior the way it
can in DBM. Just form a playability standpoint.

I would second Jon's recommendation of the ancmed group on Yahoo. On
the other hand, NASAMWList is by its nature "North America-centric".

Bob

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Please do not take this as some kind of direct assault on free speech.
> First, this list isn't a democratic country - it is a benevolent
> dictatorship.
> Second, and more importantly, there are many other fora for such a
> discussion, to include the NASAMWList yahoo group and Ancmed among
> others.
>
--

- Enaa mqatreg naa l-Ruumaayey.

[Jeff Zorn]

Howdy,

Folks can always hop over to the dbmlist on Yahoo. Folks there don't mind
comparing DBM to Warrior, or any other rules set.

Jeff Zorn

At 09:22 AM 8/7/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Fellow Warriors.
>
>This may seem very draconian to you, and I am sorry in advance. But one of
>the types of threads we do not permit is one that includes discussion of
>other rules sets.
>
>There are many reasons for this and we have thought about it for a long
>time. I have personally been very pleased that it has never really come
>up to
>any significant degree. But I knew that it would eventually.
>
>Please do not take this as some kind of direct assault on free speech.
>First, this list isn't a democratic country - it is a
>benevolent dictatorship.
> Second, and more importantly, there are many other fora for such a
>discussion, to include the NASAMWList yahoo group and Ancmed among others.
>
>I know that many of you will scratch your heads as to why we would have this
>policy, so I will give you the chief reason. Even in a benign 'comparison'
>between Warrior and another rules set, players will inevitably assign
>incorrect characteristics to one or the other. We would then have the
>option of
>letting the inaccuracy stand or stepping in and correcting the incorrect
>information. As soon as one of us did that, we would instantly be
>attacked on and
>offline for using our group to bash someone else's rules set - and we
>will not
>do that. Nor will we let a list subscriber bash another rules set, no
>matter how much we value his or her loyalty to Warrior...lol.
>We have maintained an excellent reputation in comparison to some other fora
>out there and we intend to continue. Indeed, some of the authors of other
>rules sets are old friends of ours and even at times collaborators on such
>projects as list books. We value their continued friendship and do
>not want it
>marred by a flame war over respective rules systems.
>
>I know that many of you will find this ridiculous, but it is not up for
>debate. At least not here. I will also note that we have managed
>to keep this
>list completely free of such a thread for two years, so it isn't
>like there is
>some deep need unfulfilled....
>
>You may tell someone here why you think they should join or stay with
>Warrior, but I need you to do that in absolute terms and not relative to
>another
>set of rules.
>
>Thanks for your support in this matter.
>
>Jon, evil moderator
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

no problem



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Fellow Warriors.
>
> This may seem very draconian to you, and I am sorry in advance.
But one of
> the types of threads we do not permit is one that includes
discussion of
> other rules sets.
>
> There are many reasons for this and we have thought about it for a
long
> time. I have personally been very pleased that it has never
really come up to
> any significant degree. But I knew that it would eventually.
>
> Please do not take this as some kind of direct assault on free
speech.
> First, this list isn't a democratic country - it is a benevolent
dictatorship.
> Second, and more importantly, there are many other fora for
such a
> discussion, to include the NASAMWList yahoo group and Ancmed among
others.
>
> I know that many of you will scratch your heads as to why we would
have this
> policy, so I will give you the chief reason. Even in a
benign 'comparison'
> between Warrior and another rules set, players will inevitably
assign
> incorrect characteristics to one or the other. We would then have
the option of
> letting the inaccuracy stand or stepping in and correcting the
incorrect
> information. As soon as one of us did that, we would instantly be
attacked on and
> offline for using our group to bash someone else's rules set - and
we will not
> do that. Nor will we let a list subscriber bash another rules
set, no
> matter how much we value his or her loyalty to Warrior...lol.
> We have maintained an excellent reputation in comparison to some
other fora
> out there and we intend to continue. Indeed, some of the authors of
other
> rules sets are old friends of ours and even at times collaborators
on such
> projects as list books. We value their continued friendship and do
not want it
> marred by a flame war over respective rules systems.
>
> I know that many of you will find this ridiculous, but it is not up
for
> debate. At least not here. I will also note that we have managed
to keep this
> list completely free of such a thread for two years, so it isn't
like there is
> some deep need unfulfilled....
>
> You may tell someone here why you think they should join or stay
with
> Warrior, but I need you to do that in absolute terms and not
relative to another
> set of rules.
>
> Thanks for your support in this matter.
>
> Jon, evil moderator
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]