Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

One more note. Please realize that the point cost system does not simply
represent some arbitrary assignment of value to *fighting power* (perceived
or otherwise). It includes the difficulty in training that particular troop
type. Note Irreg Arty crews, for example.....

Some would argue that certain troops are *better* than other troops of the
same or greater point cost. This is generally done from the perspective of
either a simple 'laboratory' analysis of how these two units would match up
using the dreaded caveat 'all other things being equal'. Another player will
look at the same EXACT troop matchup and know how it would typically actually
play out on the battlefield and find the points just right for the situation.
This is why I would never 'get into it' with someone over how some matchup
is 'unfair' for the 'more expensive' troop type. Not that I haven't been
tempted, mind you.... :)

Just FYI
Jon


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 06/19/2002 4:22:06 PM Central Daylight Time, gar@...
writes:

<< It works so well, that in my own army the el-crapo peasant militia will
beat up on my historically valued elite infantry, not point for point mind
you, but figure for figure, at almost 1/3 the cost. My elite guys only chance
is to skirmish away from the 'dreaded' militia, or not follow-up after they
win the first bound, two things that are completely against what they did
historically.

I do like the way command costs work, but in many medieval armies, the cost
difference for standards so compensates for units command factors, such that
it allows the irregular army to have a like number of units anyway.

Funny how that works.

Greg ~the gives up being logical and just plays, HO~
>>

Lets see Greg,

I am just guessing here that you are refering to you KoSJ army. I am also
guessing that you are comparing the 2HCT armed militia to the Jls armed
marines. this is actually a good matchup for the marines man for man.
Assuming that both charge; the militia get a 4@5 for the 2HCT and 1 for
charging so a total of 4@6 (20 if memory serves) for casualty output. The
marines get a 6@3 + 1 for Jls, +1 for charging and then -1 for facing 2HCT so
a total of 6@4 for a casualty output of 18. Your marines recoil but in
subsequent bounds the militia continue to fight 4@6 while the marines fight
6@3 + 1 for Jls, +3 for the militia being unshielded, -1 for facing 2HCT for
a total of 6@6 putting out 30 casualties to the militia's putting out 20.
Following that the marines would get the benefit of 1 more for following up.
I suspect you would argue that after first recoil, the militia would expand
out thus giving them an 8@6, but that assumes the marines have no support or
are not also expanded out. Often times the cheaper more numerous troops will
overwhelm the more expensive elites. So if your elites are to go into
battle, insure that they are supported and they will win the battle I think
you are thinking of.

Of course this is all based on alot of assumptions and I freely admit if I am
wrong on the troop types that you are thinking of, then this whole diatribe
is of no value what so ever. ;^)
Chris

[joncleaves]

Fellow Warriors

Command factors are designed to simulate, over the units of an entire army, the
effort required to 'articulate' an ancient/medieval combat force. 25 points for
irregular command factors does not FORCE one to take bigger units, but over an
entire army, if a player takes many small irregular units, he will not be
placing as many points (on a percentage basis) into actual troops as a player
with a regular army or one with his irregular forces grouped into larger units.
It may be true that some individual regular unit/irregular unit comparisons
don't show a significant difference in why command factors are costed the way
they are. We do not find that important, as it is a trend over an entire army
the command factor rule is meant to influence. If you try to articulate a
number of irregular units into smaller, less unwieldy 'packages', you will 'pay'
for the command and control 'effort' required to do so and will have to make it
work for you. Onesies and twosies, where the issue is one of 50 or so points or
less over an entire army are not statistically significant.

The same 'philosophy' guides the notion of not adding points cost to troops with
list rules. In each case the list rules adding a point a figure or some such
would amount to < 50 points (usually a LOT less) over the entire army. This is
not worth developing a complicated scheme of additional point costs. None of
the list rules has proved unbalancing and each gives their respective army some
flavor without having several additional pages in the main rulebook.

This mail is meant to explain something we have gone over several times before
to the many new members on the list. Players on this group or anywhere else, as
with any other issue, may discuss these decisions as much as they want. But I
can guarantee you that neither is changing, as we are convinced both 'systems'
work just the way we want them to.

Just FYI
Jon

[Greg Regets]

Your right, the point system works great!

It works so well, that in my own army the el-crapo peasant militia will beat up
on my historically valued elite infantry, not point for point mind you, but
figure for figure, at almost 1/3 the cost. My elite guys only chance is to
skirmish away from the 'dreaded' militia, or not follow-up after they win the
first bound, two things that are completely against what they did historically.

I do like the way command costs work, but in many medieval armies, the cost
difference for standards so compensates for units command factors, such that it
allows the irregular army to have a like number of units anyway.

Funny how that works.

Greg ~the gives up being logical and just plays, HO~

----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 3:39 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Of Command Factors and List Rules Costs


Fellow Warriors

Command factors are designed to simulate, over the units of an entire army,
the effort required to 'articulate' an ancient/medieval combat force. 25 points
for irregular command factors does not FORCE one to take bigger units, but over
an entire army, if a player takes many small irregular units, he will not be
placing as many points (on a percentage basis) into actual troops as a player
with a regular army or one with his irregular forces grouped into larger units.
It may be true that some individual regular unit/irregular unit comparisons
don't show a significant difference in why command factors are costed the way
they are. We do not find that important, as it is a trend over an entire army
the command factor rule is meant to influence. If you try to articulate a
number of irregular units into smaller, less unwieldy 'packages', you will 'pay'
for the command and control 'effort' required to do so and will have to make it
work for you. Onesies and twosies, where the issue is one of 50 or so points or
less over an entire army are not statistically significant.

The same 'philosophy' guides the notion of not adding points cost to troops
with list rules. In each case the list rules adding a point a figure or some
such would amount to < 50 points (usually a LOT less) over the entire army.
This is not worth developing a complicated scheme of additional point costs.
None of the list rules has proved unbalancing and each gives their respective
army some flavor without having several additional pages in the main rulebook.

This mail is meant to explain something we have gone over several times before
to the many new members on the list. Players on this group or anywhere else, as
with any other issue, may discuss these decisions as much as they want. But I
can guarantee you that neither is changing, as we are convinced both 'systems'
work just the way we want them to.

Just FYI
Jon

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

As an owner of a Nikephorian Byzantine Army, I cringe
at the fact that I must pay out the butt for Varangian
Guardsmen(HI,2HCW,Sh) at around 8 points a piece(And
if I want to represent them as the Emperor's own I
should add EHI and a horse to be historical)! These
troops at Durazzo slapped around a unit of Normans who
charged them in the face.It should be noted that they
were routed as they were charged in the flank but this
happens to the best of units when this occurs.
Further, many of these same troops proved more than up
to the task of fighting the Normans to a stand still
at Hastings finally leaving the battlefield when it
was dark and well after their king had succombed to
his wounds.
In Warrior, as it was with the former system, I find
it hard to justify the point value for such a troop
type as these when for 6 points per figure, I can
purchase a skutatoi armed with LTS,JLS,D,Sh. These
guys make the Norman Cav. think 3 or 4 times about
charging whereas the elite of the army are fodder!
Terry Gore's MW page has recently had some very
interesting discussion concerning the types of axes
wielded by Saxon Huscarls and Varangians and it seems
to be that they have come to the conclusion that the
axe as reflected in their system needed an overhaul.
Considering the style of warfare that the Byzantine
Empire was engaged in with the Turks, it seems to me
that they were very flexible and usually used that
which was most effective. It therefore makes me
wonder, "how will the Four Horsemen represent these
troops? I'm sure that Scott (Whatever HO he fancies
himself ) will come up with a list Rule to reflect
and justify the points cost! Ofcourse that is my hope!
;)

May the Schwartz be with you all!,

Kelly
Schwartz HO

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

[Greg Regets]

Chris ...

I was actually thinking about 16 of my militia with LTS vs. 16 of any of my
better infantry with 2HCT, 2HCT/CB ... or even my Comnenan army, where my
'dreaded' REG D Skuts or 'simply awesome' REG D Peltastoi, would beat the
stuffing out of my Varangians.

You know, I won about ten tournaments with that army over the three or four
years I played it, and never even painted a Varangian. :-)

Are you guys running something in Dallas some time soon? Joan and I just moved
into a home that will allow me to have tournaments with 12 - 16 players once I
get a bit of a remodel done and buy some playing surfaces. I'm planning on
having something about every other month or so.

Anyway ... I have to stop looking at these points thing in a laboratory ...
;-)

Greg



----- Original Message -----
From: cncbump@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Of Command Factors and List Rules Costs


In a message dated 06/19/2002 4:22:06 PM Central Daylight Time, gar@...
writes:

<< It works so well, that in my own army the el-crapo peasant militia will
beat up on my historically valued elite infantry, not point for point mind
you, but figure for figure, at almost 1/3 the cost. My elite guys only chance
is to skirmish away from the 'dreaded' militia, or not follow-up after they
win the first bound, two things that are completely against what they did
historically.

I do like the way command costs work, but in many medieval armies, the cost
difference for standards so compensates for units command factors, such that
it allows the irregular army to have a like number of units anyway.

Funny how that works.

Greg ~the gives up being logical and just plays, HO~
>>

Lets see Greg,

I am just guessing here that you are refering to you KoSJ army. I am also
guessing that you are comparing the 2HCT armed militia to the Jls armed
marines. this is actually a good matchup for the marines man for man.
Assuming that both charge; the militia get a 4@5 for the 2HCT and 1 for
charging so a total of 4@6 (20 if memory serves) for casualty output. The
marines get a 6@3 + 1 for Jls, +1 for charging and then -1 for facing 2HCT so
a total of 6@4 for a casualty output of 18. Your marines recoil but in
subsequent bounds the militia continue to fight 4@6 while the marines fight
6@3 + 1 for Jls, +3 for the militia being unshielded, -1 for facing 2HCT for
a total of 6@6 putting out 30 casualties to the militia's putting out 20.
Following that the marines would get the benefit of 1 more for following up.
I suspect you would argue that after first recoil, the militia would expand
out thus giving them an 8@6, but that assumes the marines have no support or
are not also expanded out. Often times the cheaper more numerous troops will
overwhelm the more expensive elites. So if your elites are to go into
battle, insure that they are supported and they will win the battle I think
you are thinking of.

Of course this is all based on alot of assumptions and I freely admit if I am
wrong on the troop types that you are thinking of, then this whole diatribe
is of no value what so ever. ;^)
Chris

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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