Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I guess I'm in trouble for having asked this question. Thanks for
the cogent response - very helpful.

Jonathan


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "mailtomikek" <mailtomikek@y...>
wrote:
> 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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "ccoutoftown"
<ccoutoftown@y...> wrote:
> I guess I'm in trouble for having asked this question. Thanks for
> the cogent response - very helpful.
>
> Jonathan

You asked a question natural in many forums and I was trying to be
helpful so I don't think there's any trouble, and now we know
there's a content rule. Everything useful re Warrior in the
response could be resaid without reference to other rules sets.

Mike