Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ed Forbes]

For navel battles, Greek fire ruled. How comman was Greek Fire used in open
battles though?
I know it was used exstensivly in navel battles and somewhat in sieges, but have
read nothing ( not an expert in this area, so not worth much) about use on the
open battlefield.
As Warrior is currently primarly an open battle system, I see little use in
costing for items whose primary use was not on the open battlefield.

As to points, my belief is that if it is more effective than HG, it should cost
more than HG. How much more is the question.

Points should reflect both effective cost and how common their use was.
Uncommon items should cost more to ensure they are as rare on the table as they
were in life.
Ed




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

Greetings Ed,
I would think that the list already do limit the numbers of the various troop
types. Some weapons are simply better than others, but some are only better
because they allow for more troops to be brought to bear. Thus Pike is better
than most other weapons if it is moving forward and gets those extra ranks.
Things such as shields are also hard to quantify. The value for MI is huge for
EHI OR SHI is a small fraction. I'm in the middle of crunching the numbers to
see how balanced the current system is. I will post a longer post this weekend.

Terry

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "eforbes100@j..." <eforbes100@j...> wrote:
>
> For navel battles, Greek fire ruled. How comman was Greek Fire used in open
battles though?
> I know it was used exstensivly in navel battles and somewhat in sieges, but
have read nothing ( not an expert in this area, so not worth much) about use on
the open battlefield.
> As Warrior is currently primarly an open battle system, I see little use in
costing for items whose primary use was not on the open battlefield.
>
> As to points, my belief is that if it is more effective than HG, it should
cost more than HG. How much more is the question.
>
> Points should reflect both effective cost and how common their use was.
Uncommon items should cost more to ensure they are as rare on the table as they
were in life.
> Ed
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ed Forbes]

My point is if the Late Roman Empire had 1 unit of something in the entire
empire, limiting the number taken would still see these items taken in every
table top battle if their cost / effectiveness ratio was favorable enough. Even
when their use on the historical battlefield was very limited.

We see this with the Late Roman chariot option. The only reason it is not on the
table often is their cost / effectiveness ratio is not favorable enough. Change
the ratio and everyone would take them all the time with this army, even though
they never saw combat.
Ed

-- "scsabrecoach" <scsabrecoach@...> wrote:

>Greetings Ed,
I would think that the list already do limit the numbers of the various troop
types.
Terry




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

Greetings Ed.
Most armies have troops that are perhaps over used from their historical orders
of battle. I don't have a problem with charging a premium on units that saw
little field use, but it shouldn't do so for line troops. Though most of us
play non historical games and want the point system to allow for some level of
balance.
Terry
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "eforbes100@j..." <eforbes100@j...> wrote:
> My point is if the Late Roman Empire had 1 unit of something in the entire
empire, limiting the number taken would still see these items taken in every
table top battle if their cost / effectiveness ratio was favorable enough. Even
when their use on the historical battlefield was very limited.
>
> We see this with the Late Roman chariot option. The only reason it is not on
the table often is their cost / effectiveness ratio is not favorable enough.
Change the ratio and everyone would take them all the time with this army, even
though they never saw combat.
> Ed
>
> -- "scsabrecoach" <scsabrecoach@y...> wrote:
>
> >Greetings Ed,
> I would think that the list already do limit the numbers of the various troop
types.
> Terry
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]