Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/11/2005 01:55:56 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

<<You can argue that functional representation is still simulation,>>

It is a component of it yes. I would also agree that we are not far apart
and it is probably as much a semantics problem surrounding the word simulation
as it applies to game design as anything else.

J






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

[Mark Stone]

--- On June 10 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> and despite Mark's continued statements to the contrary Warrior is designed as
> a simulation...lol
>

Our views are not so far apart, though I suspect you already know this, Jon.

I appreciate that FHE puts extra thought into whether the function of a unit is
right after having pondered whether the equipment and classification of a unit
is historical. That insistence on getting functional representation right has
led, for example, to many good list rules when the default "language" of the
rules did not suffice to properly express the function of a troop type. You can
argue that functional representation is still simulation, and of course it is in
the sense of still trying to capture something real about history. But I think
we've all experienced rules systems that fret over simulation and recognize
that Warrior goes at realism differently.

Where you and I do disagree is in a case like this:
You don't want to grant shields to Almughuvars, even if it makes them function
historically, unless there's at least some reasonable historical basis for
saying that some of them had shields. I, on the other hand (a) don't believe
they really had shields, and (b) don't care if giving them shields is what it
takes to make them behave historically in the system. So I take the functional
goal to an extreme that you don't (in my opinion), and place a higher value on
functional accuracy alone than you do (in my opinion).


-Mark Stone