Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Everybody,

I've played many battles where one player has an unassailable terrain advantage.
In real
life - if he could - the opposing general would choose not to fight.

Example: Recently we played Post India Alexander v. Chinese Warring States. The
Alexandrian player rolled sixes for placement of his river !and! two hills. He
placed the
river across his front and the hills on either flank.

This presented an insurmountable problem (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong)
for the
Warring States chariot based army. In this, as in similar situations, somebody,
"for the
sake of the game," attacked. The players could have both done nothing and the
game
would have ended in a tie. But on a real battlefield it seems that not fighting
should favor
one side more than the other.

This stalemate happens often (possibly we are doing something wrong). Anyway, I
put
together a rules proposal that would force one army to come out and fight based
on six
variables:

1) how well the army could forage for food and/or terrorize the local population
as
incitement to battle
2) differential availability of water
3) differential availability of re-supply
4) differential desertion rates
5) attritional effects of unfamiliar climate
6) increased importance of random factors on inhospitable battlefields

So, here is a draft rule. Go ahead and tear into it if you're interested or if
you think it has
serious, fatal or just plain idiotic problems.

It would work like this: You would get the point value for each bulleted factor
that applied
to you. That would be added to a 2d5 roll. The players would then compare
scores. The
lower scoring player would lose the game by that many game points if time ran
out with
no other points scored so he would be forced to fight.

Factors would be:

STRATEGIC
+ 1
• water on the board
• water on or intersecting your side
• road on or intersecting your side
• being the defender but having fewer scouting pts
• in home climate
• no irregulars
• no ally, cautious, unreliable or rash generals
• no unreliable ally generals
• army is completely regular B or higher

+ 2
• being the defender and having more scouting pts
• river in your rear zone
• road in your rear zone
• major water feature intersecting your flank
• no D or E troops
• more scouting pts

+ 3
• major water feature in own rear zone
• out scouting the enemy

RANDOM
+ 1D5 roll



Interested to know what everybody thinks,
Jonathan

[Bill Chriss]

Actually, even though I love defensive terrain (and usually need it for my
armies), I also like this general idea. For one thing, it would provide an
opportunity to fit the Mongolian special terrain rules into a more
coherent overall system. I am going to sit and think about the details,
however. As I recall, other proposals have been floated here that involve
some form of aggression rating for each army to be published in the army
lists and used to help determine terrain placement modifiers. This is a
similar aproach to the same problem. Someone with a larger game-brain pan
(and more time than I) should look at these various proposals closely to
see what if anything can be done to avoid stalemates while simultaneously
increasing historical realism (i.e., wouldn't Alexander himself have had
to attack, feeling that iresistible Macedonian aggression rising within
him??)


-Greek



> Everybody,
>
> I've played many battles where one player has an unassailable terrain
> advantage. In real
> life - if he could - the opposing general would choose not to fight.
>
> Example: Recently we played Post India Alexander v. Chinese Warring
> States.
> The
> Alexandrian player rolled sixes for placement of his river !and! two
> hills.
> He placed the
> river across his front and the hills on either flank.
>
> This presented an insurmountable problem (I think, but correct me if I'm
> wrong) for the
> Warring States chariot based army. In this, as in similar situations,
> somebody, "for the
> sake of the game," attacked. The players could have both done nothing and
> the game
> would have ended in a tie. But on a real battlefield it seems that not
> fighting should favor
> one side more than the other.
>
> This stalemate happens often (possibly we are doing something wrong).
> Anyway, I put
> together a rules proposal that would force one army to come out and fight
> based on six
> variables:
>
> 1) how well the army could forage for food and/or terrorize the local
> population as
> incitement to battle
> 2) differential availability of water
> 3) differential availability of re-supply
> 4) differential desertion rates
> 5) attritional effects of unfamiliar climate
> 6) increased importance of random factors on inhospitable battlefields
>
> So, here is a draft rule. Go ahead and tear into it if you're interested
> or
> if you think it has
> serious, fatal or just plain idiotic problems.
>
> It would work like this: You would get the point value for each bulleted
> factor that applied
> to you. That would be added to a 2d5 roll. The players would then
> compare
> scores. The
> lower scoring player would lose the game by that many game points if time
> ran out with
> no other points scored so he would be forced to fight.
>
> Factors would be:
>
> STRATEGIC
> + 1
> • water on the board
> • water on or intersecting your side
> • road on or intersecting your side
> • being the defender but having fewer scouting pts
> • in home climate
> • no irregulars
> • no ally, cautious, unreliable or rash generals
> • no unreliable ally generals
> • army is completely regular B or higher
>
> + 2
> • being the defender and having more scouting pts
> • river in your rear zone
> • road in your rear zone
> • major water feature intersecting your flank
> • no D or E troops
> • more scouting pts
>
> + 3
> • major water feature in own rear zone
> • out scouting the enemy
>
> RANDOM
> + 1D5 roll
>
>
>
> Interested to know what everybody thinks,
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks for the feedback!

I thought about an aggression rating as well. I used logistics because:

1) I felt that it was the aggression of the player that really mattered; we're
using historical
armies with our own generaling abilities.

2) I felt that on a real ancient battlefield, the one major factor that
influenced whether a
general would attack in unfavorable circumstances was if his army was going to
starve
before the other guys army.

But your right obviously, some armies just were more aggressive. Maybe an
aggression
factor could be added like in the +2 column for "your aggression factor is lower
than your
opponent's." Then it would be important but within a logistic framework. (I
assume an
"aggression factor would also have other game uses; most importantly factoring
into who
is the attacker.) But now that I think about it writing this I remember that I
considered
this. Being the attacker is already a major push in this rules proposal towards
being the
one forced to attack; the question I guess is: is it enough? (and of course is
the whole idea
worth anything?)


Really interested in your comments pro or con.

Jonathan


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@... wrote:
>
> Actually, even though I love defensive terrain (and usually need it for my
> armies), I also like this general idea. For one thing, it would provide an
> opportunity to fit the Mongolian special terrain rules into a more
> coherent overall system. I am going to sit and think about the details,
> however. As I recall, other proposals have been floated here that involve
> some form of aggression rating for each army to be published in the army
> lists and used to help determine terrain placement modifiers. This is a
> similar aproach to the same problem. Someone with a larger game-brain pan
> (and more time than I) should look at these various proposals closely to
> see what if anything can be done to avoid stalemates while simultaneously
> increasing historical realism (i.e., wouldn't Alexander himself have had
> to attack, feeling that iresistible Macedonian aggression rising within
> him??)
>
>
> -Greek
>
>
>
> > Everybody,
> >
> > I've played many battles where one player has an unassailable terrain
> > advantage. In real
> > life - if he could - the opposing general would choose not to fight.
> >
> > Example: Recently we played Post India Alexander v. Chinese Warring
> > States.
> > The
> > Alexandrian player rolled sixes for placement of his river !and! two
> > hills.
> > He placed the
> > river across his front and the hills on either flank.
> >
> > This presented an insurmountable problem (I think, but correct me if I'm
> > wrong) for the
> > Warring States chariot based army. In this, as in similar situations,
> > somebody, "for the
> > sake of the game," attacked. The players could have both done nothing and
> > the game
> > would have ended in a tie. But on a real battlefield it seems that not
> > fighting should favor
> > one side more than the other.
> >
> > This stalemate happens often (possibly we are doing something wrong).
> > Anyway, I put
> > together a rules proposal that would force one army to come out and fight
> > based on six
> > variables:
> >
> > 1) how well the army could forage for food and/or terrorize the local
> > population as
> > incitement to battle
> > 2) differential availability of water
> > 3) differential availability of re-supply
> > 4) differential desertion rates
> > 5) attritional effects of unfamiliar climate
> > 6) increased importance of random factors on inhospitable battlefields
> >
> > So, here is a draft rule. Go ahead and tear into it if you're interested
> > or
> > if you think it has
> > serious, fatal or just plain idiotic problems.
> >
> > It would work like this: You would get the point value for each bulleted
> > factor that applied
> > to you. That would be added to a 2d5 roll. The players would then
> > compare
> > scores. The
> > lower scoring player would lose the game by that many game points if time
> > ran out with
> > no other points scored so he would be forced to fight.
> >
> > Factors would be:
> >
> > STRATEGIC
> > + 1
> > • water on the board
> > • water on or intersecting your side
> > • road on or intersecting your side
> > • being the defender but having fewer scouting pts
> > • in home climate
> > • no irregulars
> > • no ally, cautious, unreliable or rash generals
> > • no unreliable ally generals
> > • army is completely regular B or higher
> >
> > + 2
> > • being the defender and having more scouting pts
> > • river in your rear zone
> > • road in your rear zone
> > • major water feature intersecting your flank
> > • no D or E troops
> > • more scouting pts
> >
> > + 3
> > • major water feature in own rear zone
> > • out scouting the enemy
> >
> > RANDOM
> > + 1D5 roll
> >
> >
> >
> > Interested to know what everybody thinks,
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I mean starve and run out of water, not just starve. :-)

Jonathan

[Todd Schneider]

I don't think an agression factor is going to help.

In fact, I think you'll see the opposite happen.

Todd




--- Jonathan <ccoutoftown@...> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> I thought about an aggression rating as well. I
> used logistics because:
>
> 1) I felt that it was the aggression of the player
> that really mattered; we're using historical
> armies with our own generaling abilities.
>
> 2) I felt that on a real ancient battlefield, the
> one major factor that influenced whether a
> general would attack in unfavorable circumstances
> was if his army was going to starve
> before the other guys army.
>
> But your right obviously, some armies just were more
> aggressive. Maybe an aggression
> factor could be added like in the +2 column for
> "your aggression factor is lower than your
> opponent's." Then it would be important but within
> a logistic framework. (I assume an
> "aggression factor would also have other game uses;
> most importantly factoring into who
> is the attacker.) But now that I think about it
> writing this I remember that I considered
> this. Being the attacker is already a major push in
> this rules proposal towards being the
> one forced to attack; the question I guess is: is it
> enough? (and of course is the whole idea
> worth anything?)
>
>
> Really interested in your comments pro or con.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@...
> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, even though I love defensive terrain
> (and usually need it for my
> > armies), I also like this general idea. For one
> thing, it would provide an
> > opportunity to fit the Mongolian special terrain
> rules into a more
> > coherent overall system. I am going to sit and
> think about the details,
> > however. As I recall, other proposals have been
> floated here that involve
> > some form of aggression rating for each army to be
> published in the army
> > lists and used to help determine terrain placement
> modifiers. This is a
> > similar aproach to the same problem. Someone with
> a larger game-brain pan
> > (and more time than I) should look at these
> various proposals closely to
> > see what if anything can be done to avoid
> stalemates while simultaneously
> > increasing historical realism (i.e., wouldn't
> Alexander himself have had
> > to attack, feeling that iresistible Macedonian
> aggression rising within
> > him??)
> >
> >
> > -Greek
> >
> >
> >
> > > Everybody,
> > >
> > > I've played many battles where one player has an
> unassailable terrain
> > > advantage. In real
> > > life - if he could - the opposing general would
> choose not to fight.
> > >
> > > Example: Recently we played Post India Alexander
> v. Chinese Warring
> > > States.
> > > The
> > > Alexandrian player rolled sixes for placement of
> his river !and! two
> > > hills.
> > > He placed the
> > > river across his front and the hills on either
> flank.
> > >
> > > This presented an insurmountable problem (I
> think, but correct me if I'm
> > > wrong) for the
> > > Warring States chariot based army. In this, as
> in similar situations,
> > > somebody, "for the
> > > sake of the game," attacked. The players could
> have both done nothing and
> > > the game
> > > would have ended in a tie. But on a real
> battlefield it seems that not
> > > fighting should favor
> > > one side more than the other.
> > >
> > > This stalemate happens often (possibly we are
> doing something wrong).
> > > Anyway, I put
> > > together a rules proposal that would force one
> army to come out and fight
> > > based on six
> > > variables:
> > >
> > > 1) how well the army could forage for food
> and/or terrorize the local
> > > population as
> > > incitement to battle
> > > 2) differential availability of water
> > > 3) differential availability of re-supply
> > > 4) differential desertion rates
> > > 5) attritional effects of unfamiliar climate
> > > 6) increased importance of random factors on
> inhospitable battlefields
> > >
> > > So, here is a draft rule. Go ahead and tear
> into it if you're interested
> > > or
> > > if you think it has
> > > serious, fatal or just plain idiotic problems.
> > >
> > > It would work like this: You would get the point
> value for each bulleted
> > > factor that applied
> > > to you. That would be added to a 2d5 roll. The
> players would then
> > > compare
> > > scores. The
> > > lower scoring player would lose the game by that
> many game points if time
> > > ran out with
> > > no other points scored so he would be forced to
> fight.
> > >
> > > Factors would be:
> > >
> > > STRATEGIC
> > > + 1
> > > • water on the board
> > > • water on or intersecting your side
> > > • road on or intersecting your side
> > > • being the defender but having fewer scouting
> pts
> > > • in home climate
> > > • no irregulars
> > > • no ally, cautious, unreliable or rash generals
> > > • no unreliable ally generals
> > > • army is completely regular B or higher
> > >
> > > + 2
> > > • being the defender and having more scouting
> pts
> > > • river in your rear zone
> > > • road in your rear zone
> > > • major water feature intersecting your flank
> > > • no D or E troops
> > > • more scouting pts
> > >
> > > + 3
> > > • major water feature in own rear zone
> > > • out scouting the enemy
> > >
> > > RANDOM
> > > + 1D5 roll
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Interested to know what everybody thinks,
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
=== message truncated ===


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

[Todd Schneider]

Sorry, what I meant to say is that I don;t think an
agression is factor is going to encourage anyone to
attack more, rather that an agression factor will lead
to more terrain on the table that hinders the
attacker.

Todd

--- Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:

> I don't think an agression factor is going to help.
>
> In fact, I think you'll see the opposite happen.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
>
> --- Jonathan <ccoutoftown@...> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the feedback!
> >
> > I thought about an aggression rating as well. I
> > used logistics because:
> >
> > 1) I felt that it was the aggression of the player
> > that really mattered; we're using historical
> > armies with our own generaling abilities.
> >
> > 2) I felt that on a real ancient battlefield, the
> > one major factor that influenced whether a
> > general would attack in unfavorable circumstances
> > was if his army was going to starve
> > before the other guys army.
> >
> > But your right obviously, some armies just were
> more
> > aggressive. Maybe an aggression
> > factor could be added like in the +2 column for
> > "your aggression factor is lower than your
> > opponent's." Then it would be important but
> within
> > a logistic framework. (I assume an
> > "aggression factor would also have other game
> uses;
> > most importantly factoring into who
> > is the attacker.) But now that I think about it
> > writing this I remember that I considered
> > this. Being the attacker is already a major push
> in
> > this rules proposal towards being the
> > one forced to attack; the question I guess is: is
> it
> > enough? (and of course is the whole idea
> > worth anything?)
> >
> >
> > Really interested in your comments pro or con.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@...
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, even though I love defensive terrain
> > (and usually need it for my
> > > armies), I also like this general idea. For one
> > thing, it would provide an
> > > opportunity to fit the Mongolian special terrain
> > rules into a more
> > > coherent overall system. I am going to sit and
> > think about the details,
> > > however. As I recall, other proposals have been
> > floated here that involve
> > > some form of aggression rating for each army to
> be
> > published in the army
> > > lists and used to help determine terrain
> placement
> > modifiers. This is a
> > > similar aproach to the same problem. Someone
> with
> > a larger game-brain pan
> > > (and more time than I) should look at these
> > various proposals closely to
> > > see what if anything can be done to avoid
> > stalemates while simultaneously
> > > increasing historical realism (i.e., wouldn't
> > Alexander himself have had
> > > to attack, feeling that iresistible Macedonian
> > aggression rising within
> > > him??)
> > >
> > >
> > > -Greek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Everybody,
> > > >
> > > > I've played many battles where one player has
> an
> > unassailable terrain
> > > > advantage. In real
> > > > life - if he could - the opposing general
> would
> > choose not to fight.
> > > >
> > > > Example: Recently we played Post India
> Alexander
> > v. Chinese Warring
> > > > States.
> > > > The
> > > > Alexandrian player rolled sixes for placement
> of
> > his river !and! two
> > > > hills.
> > > > He placed the
> > > > river across his front and the hills on either
> > flank.
> > > >
> > > > This presented an insurmountable problem (I
> > think, but correct me if I'm
> > > > wrong) for the
> > > > Warring States chariot based army. In this,
> as
> > in similar situations,
> > > > somebody, "for the
> > > > sake of the game," attacked. The players
> could
> > have both done nothing and
> > > > the game
> > > > would have ended in a tie. But on a real
> > battlefield it seems that not
> > > > fighting should favor
> > > > one side more than the other.
> > > >
> > > > This stalemate happens often (possibly we are
> > doing something wrong).
> > > > Anyway, I put
> > > > together a rules proposal that would force one
> > army to come out and fight
> > > > based on six
> > > > variables:
> > > >
> > > > 1) how well the army could forage for food
> > and/or terrorize the local
> > > > population as
> > > > incitement to battle
> > > > 2) differential availability of water
> > > > 3) differential availability of re-supply
> > > > 4) differential desertion rates
> > > > 5) attritional effects of unfamiliar climate
> > > > 6) increased importance of random factors on
> > inhospitable battlefields
> > > >
> > > > So, here is a draft rule. Go ahead and tear
> > into it if you're interested
> > > > or
> > > > if you think it has
> > > > serious, fatal or just plain idiotic problems.
> > > >
> > > > It would work like this: You would get the
> point
> > value for each bulleted
> > > > factor that applied
> > > > to you. That would be added to a 2d5 roll.
> The
> > players would then
> > > > compare
> > > > scores. The
> > > > lower scoring player would lose the game by
> that
> > many game points if time
> > > > ran out with
> > > > no other points scored so he would be forced
> to
> > fight.
> > > >
> > > > Factors would be:
> > > >
> > > > STRATEGIC
> > > > + 1
> > > > • water on the board
> > > > • water on or intersecting your side
> > > > • road on or intersecting your side
> > > > • being the defender but having fewer scouting
> > pts
> > > > • in home climate
> > > > • no irregulars
> > > > • no ally, cautious, unreliable or rash
> generals
> > > > • no unreliable ally generals
> > > > • army is completely regular B or higher
> > > >
> > > > + 2
> > > > • being the defender and having more scouting
> > pts
> > > > • river in your rear zone
> > > > • road in your rear zone
> > > > • major water feature intersecting your flank
> > > > • no D or E troops
> > > > • more scouting pts
> > > >
> > > > + 3
> > > > • major water feature in own rear zone
> > > > • out scouting the enemy
> > > >
> > > > RANDOM
>
=== message truncated ===


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/22/2006 23:09:55 Central Standard Time,
dfbass@... writes:

Of course, the fact that FHE saw fit to include
the Mongolian rule does indicate there is some problem that the
generic terrain placement rules don¡¯t solve, so this may be worth
looking at more closely >>

While I do plan to take an exhaustive look at x- and optional rules when I
am done with the rulebook, please note that the Mongol list rule is not
designed to fix any 'problem' with the standard terrain placement system.

Jon


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

Actually, I like the idea of a more complex system to determine the
attacker, rather than a mere die roll. I also like the idea of there
being a built in mechanism to ¡°force¡± one player to actually advance
out of protective terrain. And I think John¡¯s idea has merit¡­however,
I think it does not effectively answer the fundamental question of why
is there such a prevalent (or is there) case of one player obviously
having an extreme advantage due to terrain placement. It seems to me,
especially in tournament play, that it should be rare that the terrain
in play will make one of the players decide that they can not possibly
win, unless they sit in a corner and wait out the opponent.

I must stress, however, that I do not know if this is a real problem,
or is merely one that is particular to a certain set of armies or to a
certain set of terrain picks. If this is a large problem, there may
be a need to ¡°fix¡± it, if not, then it is probably just an anomaly.
However, in the few games I have played, it has always been an
issue¡­so, either it I my bad luck, poor skills, or there really is a
problem here.

If there is a problem, how can it be fixed at the root. Obviously,
the most complex solution is to create more detailed terrain
placement, based more on each list than just generic rules. List
rules, like the Mongolian ¡°terrain removal¡± rule would go a long way
to solve this. For instance, in John¡¯s chariot example, the Qin list
could have a list rule that allows them to ¡°lose¡± one terrain pick to
remove a river. Such rules would need to be detailed and on a list by
list basis¡­thus, highly complex and only worth it if there really is
an inherent problem. Of course, the fact that FHE saw fit to include
the Mongolian rule does indicate there is some problem that the
generic terrain placement rules don¡¯t solve, so this may be worth
looking at more closely

Cheers,
Dan

I think I wasn't clear enough originally. The proposal was NOT a method for
choosing the
attacker (or in game terms, who has home terrain placement advantage). It was
meant for:
After the characters of sub-generals has been determined, the home terrain
advantage has
been decided and terrain has been placed then:

both players say, "I'm not moving." One because he has a huge terrain advantage
so he'll
just sit and wait, the other because it would be suicide to attack.

There should be a mechanism for adjudicating who MUST attack and I think the
best (and
most realistic) way to do it would be to base it on the logistical situations of
the armies.

So I put together the mechanism to judge who's logistical situation would be
better and
then if both sides did nothing, that player would win by that many game pts (if
they both
did nothing). It would mean, to use the chariot example, that the alexandrian
and qin
player would calculate and either Alexander would have to come out from behind
the river
or the Qin chariots would have to cross it based on who had the better supply
situation.

Of course the worse supplied player could choose to take the small loss in
anticipation of
a much more decisive defeat if he attacked but at least those games would not
end in a
tie.

Like I said originally, very interested in what people think of such a proposal.
We'll be
trying it out this weekend in a Japanese Feudal v. Late Ming game.


Jonathan


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@...> wrote:
>
> Everybody,
>
> I've played many battles where one player has an unassailable terrain
advantage. In real
> life - if he could - the opposing general would choose not to fight.
>
> Example: Recently we played Post India Alexander v. Chinese Warring States.
The
> Alexandrian player rolled sixes for placement of his river !and! two hills.
He placed the
> river across his front and the hills on either flank.
>
> This presented an insurmountable problem (I think, but correct me if I'm
wrong) for the
> Warring States chariot based army. In this, as in similar situations,
somebody, "for the
> sake of the game," attacked. The players could have both done nothing and the
game
> would have ended in a tie. But on a real battlefield it seems that not
fighting should
favor one side more than the other.
>
> This stalemate happens often (possibly we are doing something wrong). Anyway,
I put
> together a rules proposal that would force one army to come out and fight
based on six
> variables:
>
> 1) how well the army could forage for food and/or terrorize the local
population as
> incitement to battle
> 2) differential availability of water
> 3) differential availability of re-supply
> 4) differential desertion rates
> 5) attritional effects of unfamiliar climate
> 6) increased importance of random factors on inhospitable battlefields
>
> So, here is a draft rule. Go ahead and tear into it if you're interested or
if you think it
has serious, fatal or just plain idiotic problems.
>
> It would work like this: You would get the point value for each bulleted
factor that
applied to you. That would be added to a 2d5 roll. The players would then
compare
scores. The lower scoring player would lose the game by that many game points
if time
ran out with no other points scored so he would be forced to fight.
>
> Factors would be:
>
> STRATEGIC
> + 1
> • water on the board
> • water on or intersecting your side
> • road on or intersecting your side
> • being the defender but having fewer scouting pts
> • in home climate
> • no irregulars
> • no ally, cautious, unreliable or rash generals
> • no unreliable ally generals
> • army is completely regular B or higher
>
> + 2
> • being the defender and having more scouting pts
> • river in your rear zone
> • road in your rear zone
> • major water feature intersecting your flank
> • no D or E troops
> • more scouting pts
>
> + 3
> • major water feature in own rear zone
> • out scouting the enemy
>
> RANDOM
> + 1D5 roll
>
>
>
> Interested to know what everybody thinks,
> Jonathan
>

I agree with the poster that this kind of "stalemate" is a real
problem in the warrior rule set and in my opinion one of warriors
mayor weaknesses.
The idea of implementing a rule to force a fight to take place when
such situations occur is therefore a much welcomed one.

The suggestion offered by the poster is an interesting one and adds
more complexity over an idea that is simply based on the relative
aggression of different military leaders or armies. Such factors
could of course be part of the total calculation but is in my
opinion not in line with the logistics idea presented by the poster
and should better be left out.
As I see it, the aggressiveness of the troops should be a factor
though. If an army contains a lot of Irr A and eager troops, such an
army would be more likely to charge headfirst into combat as it
would be hard for the commanders to keep their subordinates in
check.

This sort of rule would of course need some play testing and
tweaking to make sure that it really works out as it is supposed to
and doesn't bring along some unthought-of new problems to the
game...

/Erik

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@...>
wrote:
>
> Everybody,
>
> I've played many battles where one player has an unassailable
terrain advantage. In real
> life - if he could - the opposing general would choose not to
fight.
>
> Example: Recently we played Post India Alexander v. Chinese
Warring States. The
> Alexandrian player rolled sixes for placement of his river !and!
two hills. He placed the
> river across his front and the hills on either flank.
>
> This presented an insurmountable problem (I think, but correct me
if I'm wrong) for the
> Warring States chariot based army. In this, as in similar
situations, somebody, "for the
> sake of the game," attacked. The players could have both done
nothing and the game
> would have ended in a tie. But on a real battlefield it seems
that not fighting should favor
> one side more than the other.
>
> This stalemate happens often (possibly we are doing something
wrong). Anyway, I put
> together a rules proposal that would force one army to come out
and fight based on six
> variables:
>
> 1) how well the army could forage for food and/or terrorize the
local population as
> incitement to battle
> 2) differential availability of water
> 3) differential availability of re-supply
> 4) differential desertion rates
> 5) attritional effects of unfamiliar climate
> 6) increased importance of random factors on inhospitable
battlefields
>
> So, here is a draft rule. Go ahead and tear into it if you're
interested or if you think it has
> serious, fatal or just plain idiotic problems.
>
> It would work like this: You would get the point value for each
bulleted factor that applied
> to you. That would be added to a 2d5 roll. The players would
then compare scores. The
> lower scoring player would lose the game by that many game points
if time ran out with
> no other points scored so he would be forced to fight.
>
> Factors would be:
>
> STRATEGIC
> + 1
> • water on the board
> • water on or intersecting your side
> • road on or intersecting your side
> • being the defender but having fewer scouting pts
> • in home climate
> • no irregulars
> • no ally, cautious, unreliable or rash generals
> • no unreliable ally generals
> • army is completely regular B or higher
>
> + 2
> • being the defender and having more scouting pts
> • river in your rear zone
> • road in your rear zone
> • major water feature intersecting your flank
> • no D or E troops
> • more scouting pts
>
> + 3
> • major water feature in own rear zone
> • out scouting the enemy
>
> RANDOM
> + 1D5 roll
>
>
>
> Interested to know what everybody thinks,
> Jonathan
>

Jon,

I know you have a lot to do, and don't expect FHE to make changes over
night, so I will happily wait for the x-rules to be reviewed and
changes to be implemented. But, in the meantime, I'd like to be able
to discuss how others (not just FHE) is experiencing th rules, and see
what suggestions they have, suggestions we can play test while we wait
for FHE.

Now, my apologies if my words were not exact, but the fact is that you
did make a change at a list rules level in order to make an army
behave more correctly historically by "modifying" the terrain
placement rules. Regardless of whther you want to call this "fixing a
problem" or "making the list more historical", the end result is the
same: the terrain placement, as it is, does not adequately cover all
situations. If it did, you wouldn't have had to make an exception for
the Mongols. That was my point, and I think it is still a valid point.

Thus, I'd like to hear what other people think about the need for
changes, whether a general rule (such as John posted with is original
post) or some other variation.

Now, my hope is that we can come up with a solution to the root
proble, not a mere band-aide solution. My problem with the "forcing
an army to fight rule" is two-fold:

1. Tournament: how will this affect scoring? If it is a huge impact,
it could bring about abuse where some people design armies to take
advantage of this rule, i.e.: I make an army that is "unbeatable" in a
niche defensive posture, than make sure that I always have less
"fighting" points, making the other player the attacker. If they
choose not to attack, I win on points. If they attack, I win due to
my superior position. Alternatively, the points for this could be
minor, in which case, players will ignore it, take the mninimal lose
as opposed to the larger loss caused by attacking a bad position.
This would, of course, defeat the point of this rule.

2. Casual play: again, I think if I was the player "forced" to attack,
I might just say "you win" and not bother to actually play it out...so
it again does not solve the root problem.

Again, I think if we come up with a systematic, list based rule to
avoid the situation all together, we'd be better off. To use John's
example of Alex vs Qin, if the Qin had the option to remove the river,
there wouldn't be an issue. Or if Qin army's could only have rivers
place on the flanks, again, it would eliminate the problem altogether.

While it might take a lot of work, I bet if all the seasoned players
on the list threw out the "bad match ups" they have had, we'd be able
to start ona rpetty comprehensive list of what could be done to
resolve the problem.

Fianlly, I think the idea of determining the attacker based on
logistics is still a good idea, as it could keep people from sitting
in a corner, but it does not fully address the problem of terrain
placement advantages making it ridiculous to even bother playing the
game...think of it this way, if you ahd an opponent with a ton of
artillery sitting on top of a hill, with foot troops set behind
ditched palisades...if you were the general, would you bother to attack???

Cheers,
Dan
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/22/2006 23:09:55 Central Standard Time,
> dfbass@... writes:
>
> Of course, the fact that FHE saw fit to include
> the Mongolian rule does indicate there is some problem that the
> generic terrain placement rules don¡¯t solve, so this may be worth
> looking at more closely >>
>
> While I do plan to take an exhaustive look at x- and optional rules
when I
> am done with the rulebook, please note that the Mongol list rule is not
> designed to fix any 'problem' with the standard terrain placement
system.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I think that making terrain list rules for every army would be unworkable:

1) whoa! what a lot of work!
2) it takes the system further away from the "ancient combat methods are
universal"
concept which I think is one of its major strengths

In response to Dan's comments about ways around the 'forced to fight' x-rule;
First,
obviously, he's right; it could be abused. I think that is less of a problem
than something
to keep in mind when designing its details. Second, the idea that some armies
and
battlefields would be designed to use it, I also don't think would be a terrible
thing. It
would widen and legitimate an entrenching style of play, a legitimate tactical
choice.
Third, again it's true that some people would take a small "logistics" loss in a
tourney over
certain suicide, but at least it would be a loss and not a tie. Further, in
games at home,
the adjudication of who *must* attack wouldn't, I think, result in one player
saying, "fuck
it, lets not play." I think on the contrary it would allow them to set up and
play realistically
- one of them would be faced with a difficult tactical problem to over come
instead of one
of them having to say, "shit, I'll attack so we can have a game."

Jonathan



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jakeb.rm" <dfbass@...> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> I know you have a lot to do, and don't expect FHE to make changes over
> night, so I will happily wait for the x-rules to be reviewed and
> changes to be implemented. But, in the meantime, I'd like to be able
> to discuss how others (not just FHE) is experiencing th rules, and see
> what suggestions they have, suggestions we can play test while we wait
> for FHE.
>
> Now, my apologies if my words were not exact, but the fact is that you
> did make a change at a list rules level in order to make an army
> behave more correctly historically by "modifying" the terrain
> placement rules. Regardless of whther you want to call this "fixing a
> problem" or "making the list more historical", the end result is the
> same: the terrain placement, as it is, does not adequately cover all
> situations. If it did, you wouldn't have had to make an exception for
> the Mongols. That was my point, and I think it is still a valid point.
>
> Thus, I'd like to hear what other people think about the need for
> changes, whether a general rule (such as John posted with is original
> post) or some other variation.
>
> Now, my hope is that we can come up with a solution to the root
> proble, not a mere band-aide solution. My problem with the "forcing
> an army to fight rule" is two-fold:
>
> 1. Tournament: how will this affect scoring? If it is a huge impact,
> it could bring about abuse where some people design armies to take
> advantage of this rule, i.e.: I make an army that is "unbeatable" in a
> niche defensive posture, than make sure that I always have less
> "fighting" points, making the other player the attacker. If they
> choose not to attack, I win on points. If they attack, I win due to
> my superior position. Alternatively, the points for this could be
> minor, in which case, players will ignore it, take the mninimal lose
> as opposed to the larger loss caused by attacking a bad position.
> This would, of course, defeat the point of this rule.
>
> 2. Casual play: again, I think if I was the player "forced" to attack,
> I might just say "you win" and not bother to actually play it out...so
> it again does not solve the root problem.
>
> Again, I think if we come up with a systematic, list based rule to
> avoid the situation all together, we'd be better off. To use John's
> example of Alex vs Qin, if the Qin had the option to remove the river,
> there wouldn't be an issue. Or if Qin army's could only have rivers
> place on the flanks, again, it would eliminate the problem altogether.
>
> While it might take a lot of work, I bet if all the seasoned players
> on the list threw out the "bad match ups" they have had, we'd be able
> to start ona rpetty comprehensive list of what could be done to
> resolve the problem.
>
> Fianlly, I think the idea of determining the attacker based on
> logistics is still a good idea, as it could keep people from sitting
> in a corner, but it does not fully address the problem of terrain
> placement advantages making it ridiculous to even bother playing the
> game...think of it this way, if you ahd an opponent with a ton of
> artillery sitting on top of a hill, with foot troops set behind
> ditched palisades...if you were the general, would you bother to attack???
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 2/22/2006 23:09:55 Central Standard Time,
> > dfbass@ writes:
> >
> > Of course, the fact that FHE saw fit to include
> > the Mongolian rule does indicate there is some problem that the
> > generic terrain placement rules don¡¯t solve, so this may be worth
> > looking at more closely >>
> >
> > While I do plan to take an exhaustive look at x- and optional rules
> when I
> > am done with the rulebook, please note that the Mongol list rule is not
> > designed to fix any 'problem' with the standard terrain placement
> system.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Couldn't we make this easier by giving terrain a point
value? 100 points for a hill, 200 for a river? Thus,
in the example give the army on the defensive behind a
river with hills on each flank would have 1200 points
of troops to fight 1600 points of attackers.
Or, allow unit substitution after terrain placement.
I would want my War of the Roses cannons on the field
given the terrrain placement in our example.

On the other hand, I like the idea of putting
logistics into the game. That is part of the reason
why campaigns have always interrested me. When I saw
"Sahara" Humphrey Bogart as a kid it seemed seemed
more realistic than a lot of other war movies because
the allied forces had contol of the water in the oasis
(don't spoil it for the people who haven't seen it)
forcing the Germans to attack a well defended
posisition. Tbhe forces were not equal in points but
the terrain and logistics

--- Jonathan <ccoutoftown@...> wrote:

> I think I wasn't clear enough originally. The
> proposal was NOT a method for choosing the
> attacker (or in game terms, who has home terrain
> placement advantage). It was meant for:
> After the characters of sub-generals has been
> determined, the home terrain advantage has
> been decided and terrain has been placed then:
>
> both players say, "I'm not moving." One because he
> has a huge terrain advantage so he'll
> just sit and wait, the other because it would be
> suicide to attack.
>
> There should be a mechanism for adjudicating who
> MUST attack and I think the best (and
> most realistic) way to do it would be to base it on
> the logistical situations of the armies.
>
> So I put together the mechanism to judge who's
> logistical situation would be better and
> then if both sides did nothing, that player would
> win by that many game pts (if they both
> did nothing). It would mean, to use the chariot
> example, that the alexandrian and qin
> player would calculate and either Alexander would
> have to come out from behind the river
> or the Qin chariots would have to cross it based on
> who had the better supply situation.
>
> Of course the worse supplied player could choose to
> take the small loss in anticipation of
> a much more decisive defeat if he attacked but at
> least those games would not end in a
> tie.
>
> Like I said originally, very interested in what
> people think of such a proposal. We'll be
> trying it out this weekend in a Japanese Feudal v.
> Late Ming game.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan"
> <ccoutoftown@...> wrote:
> >
> > Everybody,
> >
> > I've played many battles where one player has an
> unassailable terrain advantage. In real
> > life - if he could - the opposing general would
> choose not to fight.
> >
> > Example: Recently we played Post India Alexander
> v. Chinese Warring States. The
> > Alexandrian player rolled sixes for placement of
> his river !and! two hills. He placed the
> > river across his front and the hills on either
> flank.
> >
> > This presented an insurmountable problem (I think,
> but correct me if I'm wrong) for the
> > Warring States chariot based army. In this, as in
> similar situations, somebody, "for the
> > sake of the game," attacked. The players could
> have both done nothing and the game
> > would have ended in a tie. But on a real
> battlefield it seems that not fighting should
> favor one side more than the other.
> >
> > This stalemate happens often (possibly we are
> doing something wrong). Anyway, I put
> > together a rules proposal that would force one
> army to come out and fight based on six
> > variables:
> >
> > 1) how well the army could forage for food and/or
> terrorize the local population as
> > incitement to battle
> > 2) differential availability of water
> > 3) differential availability of re-supply
> > 4) differential desertion rates
> > 5) attritional effects of unfamiliar climate
> > 6) increased importance of random factors on
> inhospitable battlefields
> >
> > So, here is a draft rule. Go ahead and tear into
> it if you're interested or if you think it
> has serious, fatal or just plain idiotic problems.
> >
> > It would work like this: You would get the point
> value for each bulleted factor that
> applied to you. That would be added to a 2d5 roll.
> The players would then compare
> scores. The lower scoring player would lose the
> game by that many game points if time
> ran out with no other points scored so he would be
> forced to fight.
> >
> > Factors would be:
> >
> > STRATEGIC
> > + 1
> > • water on the board
> > • water on or intersecting your side
> > • road on or intersecting your side
> > • being the defender but having fewer scouting pts
> > • in home climate
> > • no irregulars
> > • no ally, cautious, unreliable or rash generals
> > • no unreliable ally generals
> > • army is completely regular B or higher
> >
> > + 2
> > • being the defender and having more scouting pts
> > • river in your rear zone
> > • road in your rear zone
> > • major water feature intersecting your flank
> > • no D or E troops
> > • more scouting pts
> >
> > + 3
> > • major water feature in own rear zone
> > • out scouting the enemy
> >
> > RANDOM
> > + 1D5 roll
> >
> >
> >
> > Interested to know what everybody thinks,
> > Jonathan
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>

[John Garlic]

Here's an idea which just struck me while reading this post. Why not use the
current terrain placement rules. In event there was a problem where one or
both players thought terrain really shut down possibility of a 'fair and open'
battle, the tournament director could be called over and one player would
randomly select an envelope which the director had prepared in advance. The
envelope would contain a list of 3-6 pieces of terrain which players would then
alternately place and use that battlefield instead. The envelope lists could be
prepared in advance and would be the random 'default' terrain. If the
tournament director had time and inclination, envelopes could even be labeled
'tropical,' 'cold,' etc.

John Garlic

In a message dated 2/24/2006 4:41:09 AM Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:
I think that making terrain list rules for every army would be unworkable:

1) whoa! what a lot of work!
2) it takes the system further away from the "ancient combat methods are
universal"
concept which I think is one of its major strengths

In response to Dan's comments about ways around the 'forced to fight' x-rule;
First,
obviously, he's right; it could be abused. I think that is less of a problem
than something
to keep in mind when designing its details. Second, the idea that some
armies and
battlefields would be designed to use it, I also don't think would be a
terrible thing. It
would widen and legitimate an entrenching style of play, a legitimate
tactical choice.
Third, again it's true that some people would take a small "logistics" loss
in a tourney over
certain suicide, but at least it would be a loss and not a tie. Further, in
games at home,
the adjudication of who *must* attack wouldn't, I think, result in one player
saying, "fuck
it, lets not play." I think on the contrary it would allow them to set up
and play realistically
- one of them would be faced with a difficult tactical problem to over come
instead of one
of them having to say, "shit, I'll attack so we can have a game."

Jonathan



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jakeb.rm" <dfbass@...> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> I know you have a lot to do, and don't expect FHE to make changes over
> night, so I will happily wait for the x-rules to be reviewed and
> changes to be implemented. But, in the meantime, I'd like to be able
> to discuss how others (not just FHE) is experiencing th rules, and see
> what suggestions they have, suggestions we can play test while we wait
> for FHE.
>
> Now, my apologies if my words were not exact, but the fact is that you
> did make a change at a list rules level in order to make an army
> behave more correctly historically by "modifying" the terrain
> placement rules. Regardless of whther you want to call this "fixing a
> problem" or "making the list more historical", the end result is the
> same: the terrain placement, as it is, does not adequately cover all
> situations. If it did, you wouldn't have had to make an exception for
> the Mongols. That was my point, and I think it is still a valid point.
>
> Thus, I'd like to hear what other people think about the need for
> changes, whether a general rule (such as John posted with is original
> post) or some other variation.
>
> Now, my hope is that we can come up with a solution to the root
> proble, not a mere band-aide solution. My problem with the "forcing
> an army to fight rule" is two-fold:
>
> 1. Tournament: how will this affect scoring? If it is a huge impact,
> it could bring about abuse where some people design armies to take
> advantage of this rule, i.e.: I make an army that is "unbeatable" in a
> niche defensive posture, than make sure that I always have less
> "fighting" points, making the other player the attacker. If they
> choose not to attack, I win on points. If they attack, I win due to
> my superior position. Alternatively, the points for this could be
> minor, in which case, players will ignore it, take the mninimal lose
> as opposed to the larger loss caused by attacking a bad position.
> This would, of course, defeat the point of this rule.
>
> 2. Casual play: again, I think if I was the player "forced" to attack,
> I might just say "you win" and not bother to actually play it out...so
> it again does not solve the root problem.
>
> Again, I think if we come up with a systematic, list based rule to
> avoid the situation all together, we'd be better off. To use John's
> example of Alex vs Qin, if the Qin had the option to remove the river,
> there wouldn't be an issue. Or if Qin army's could only have rivers
> place on the flanks, again, it would eliminate the problem altogether.
>
> While it might take a lot of work, I bet if all the seasoned players
> on the list threw out the "bad match ups" they have had, we'd be able
> to start ona rpetty comprehensive list of what could be done to
> resolve the problem.
>
> Fianlly, I think the idea of determining the attacker based on
> logistics is still a good idea, as it could keep people from sitting
> in a corner, but it does not fully address the problem of terrain
> placement advantages making it ridiculous to even bother playing the
> game...think of it this way, if you ahd an opponent with a ton of
> artillery sitting on top of a hill, with foot troops set behind
> ditched palisades...if you were the general, would you bother to attack???
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 2/22/2006 23:09:55 Central Standard Time,
> > dfbass@ writes:
> >
> > Of course, the fact that FHE saw fit to include
> > the Mongolian rule does indicate there is some problem that the
> > generic terrain placement rules don¡¯t solve, so this may be worth
> > looking at more closely >>
> >
> > While I do plan to take an exhaustive look at x- and optional rules
> when I
> > am done with the rulebook, please note that the Mongol list rule is not
> > designed to fix any 'problem' with the standard terrain placement
> system.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>







Yahoo! Groups Links





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

What about a "Remove one Terrain Item" option as a standard pick. For
example, my choices could be Open, Brush, Hill, Remove One Item. Make it
available to anyone, but it only works on a 4 or 5+ roll.

Eliminates the need for exhaustive revisit of the list rules, helps a
general concerned with poor matchups, doesn't always work so it is not a
panacea.

I don't agree that ancient combat methods are universal, some things are
just plain superior. Chariot based armies having to cross a river is a prime
example. The strength of the terrain generation system is that it allows a
player to be an actual general, and attempt to choose a battle field on
favourable terms. As the commander of a Chariot based army, avoiding a fight
across a river is probably part of my overall strategy. So part of my
Pre-Battle maneuvering is aimed at drawing my opponent away from major
rivers. The dice decide how successfull I am.

Just trying to look at this from a different point of view, hope it helps.
Some might say the Open Feature already accomplishes this.

Allan


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 5:39 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: forcing army to fight x-rule proposal


I think that making terrain list rules for every army would be unworkable:

1) whoa! what a lot of work!
2) it takes the system further away from the "ancient combat methods are
universal"
concept which I think is one of its major strengths

In response to Dan's comments about ways around the 'forced to fight'
x-rule; First,
obviously, he's right; it could be abused. I think that is less of a
problem than something
to keep in mind when designing its details. Second, the idea that some
armies and
battlefields would be designed to use it, I also don't think would be a
terrible thing. It
would widen and legitimate an entrenching style of play, a legitimate
tactical choice.
Third, again it's true that some people would take a small "logistics" loss
in a tourney over
certain suicide, but at least it would be a loss and not a tie. Further, in
games at home,
the adjudication of who *must* attack wouldn't, I think, result in one
player saying, "fuck
it, lets not play." I think on the contrary it would allow them to set up
and play realistically
- one of them would be faced with a difficult tactical problem to over come
instead of one
of them having to say, "shit, I'll attack so we can have a game."

Jonathan



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jakeb.rm" <dfbass@...> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> I know you have a lot to do, and don't expect FHE to make changes over
> night, so I will happily wait for the x-rules to be reviewed and
> changes to be implemented. But, in the meantime, I'd like to be able
> to discuss how others (not just FHE) is experiencing th rules, and see
> what suggestions they have, suggestions we can play test while we wait
> for FHE.
>
> Now, my apologies if my words were not exact, but the fact is that you
> did make a change at a list rules level in order to make an army
> behave more correctly historically by "modifying" the terrain
> placement rules. Regardless of whther you want to call this "fixing a
> problem" or "making the list more historical", the end result is the
> same: the terrain placement, as it is, does not adequately cover all
> situations. If it did, you wouldn't have had to make an exception for
> the Mongols. That was my point, and I think it is still a valid point.
>
> Thus, I'd like to hear what other people think about the need for
> changes, whether a general rule (such as John posted with is original
> post) or some other variation.
>
> Now, my hope is that we can come up with a solution to the root
> proble, not a mere band-aide solution. My problem with the "forcing
> an army to fight rule" is two-fold:
>
> 1. Tournament: how will this affect scoring? If it is a huge impact,
> it could bring about abuse where some people design armies to take
> advantage of this rule, i.e.: I make an army that is "unbeatable" in a
> niche defensive posture, than make sure that I always have less
> "fighting" points, making the other player the attacker. If they
> choose not to attack, I win on points. If they attack, I win due to
> my superior position. Alternatively, the points for this could be
> minor, in which case, players will ignore it, take the mninimal lose
> as opposed to the larger loss caused by attacking a bad position.
> This would, of course, defeat the point of this rule.
>
> 2. Casual play: again, I think if I was the player "forced" to attack,
> I might just say "you win" and not bother to actually play it out...so
> it again does not solve the root problem.
>
> Again, I think if we come up with a systematic, list based rule to
> avoid the situation all together, we'd be better off. To use John's
> example of Alex vs Qin, if the Qin had the option to remove the river,
> there wouldn't be an issue. Or if Qin army's could only have rivers
> place on the flanks, again, it would eliminate the problem altogether.
>
> While it might take a lot of work, I bet if all the seasoned players
> on the list threw out the "bad match ups" they have had, we'd be able
> to start ona rpetty comprehensive list of what could be done to
> resolve the problem.
>
> Fianlly, I think the idea of determining the attacker based on
> logistics is still a good idea, as it could keep people from sitting
> in a corner, but it does not fully address the problem of terrain
> placement advantages making it ridiculous to even bother playing the
> game...think of it this way, if you ahd an opponent with a ton of
> artillery sitting on top of a hill, with foot troops set behind
> ditched palisades...if you were the general, would you bother to attack???
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 2/22/2006 23:09:55 Central Standard Time,
> > dfbass@ writes:
> >
> > Of course, the fact that FHE saw fit to include
> > the Mongolian rule does indicate there is some problem that the
> > generic terrain placement rules don¡¯t solve, so this may be worth
> > looking at more closely >>
> >
> > While I do plan to take an exhaustive look at x- and optional rules
> when I
> > am done with the rulebook, please note that the Mongol list rule is not
> > designed to fix any 'problem' with the standard terrain placement
> system.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>







Yahoo! Groups Links