Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ed Forbes]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:24:42 EST JonCleaves@... writes:
> Again, Ed, we will consider a complete and playtested point values
> list. I
> have had no takers to date.
>
> We will not be considering single point value issues. Has to be a
> package
> deal.
>
> Jon
>

I agree that it needs to be a package deal. It is also a lot of work and
I can see why no one has stepped up to do it.

In the play testing, if it is done, I would suggest that a data base be
kept and that players of accepted equal ability are chosen to play
multiple games of the different mixes and the different point lists.
Hard numbers on actual results are needed that can be cross indexed for
correlation.

Correlations other than that very good players can consistently beat
lesser players is needed. About the only way to see how a different
point schedule works in an army level setting and with different types of
armies is to play them a large number of times with rated players and
inputting the results.

It could very easily be that there are no problems with the current
points list, but considering the current favorites and the current
losers, I doubt it. Pike armies went from the number one "favorite"
army to about the last choice taken. Ability under the rules should be
closely related to the points cost. The "favorite" armies change after
each rule set change, so the points list almost has to be off kilter. It
would be good to know to a reasonable probability though.

I make the suggestion again that all future tournament play has the data
filled so that hard analysis can be done on the results. I think that
the results of such a survey would be surprising. Without this data,
most of these discussions are just guess work. Informed guess work for
those who play regularly, but still guess work.

I am making the assumption here that tournament data has not been kept on
file. Is this a true assumption? If the data exists, it will make the
project easier.

Ed F

Ed F is right here.  The problem's been staring us in the face for years - every time there's a rule change the competition players change their army!  

It's a tall order for any rule set to cover such a vast period of history and various styles of fighting but WRG 7th got the closest and Warrior is aiming for the same.  For one-off competitive type games the points system needs to strike a balance between 'Infantry' and 'Cavalry' armies and 'Reg' and 'Irreg' armies. At present a points system that seems to have been accepted doctrine for donkey's years won't really  do it. That's where Ed is right - the proof of that is the armies we see regularly wheeled  out for competitions.  Maybe it is a misconception but do they truly reflect the period and styles of fighting across the board....?

Strangely, I first felt unease about the points values when regularly fighting within historical context using WRG lists.  Early Roman v Carthage started to become a routine headache because Rome was always very heavily outnumbered.  The feeling was that the bog-standard Roman HI was just costing too much for what he could actually achieve on the table.  Late Roman v Sassanid was a similar problem - the Persians just got too much good kit (usually in the shape of 'B' class double armed cavalry)....  Not the detailed statistic that FHE need to hear - but has anyone else had a similar feeling?

I strongly suspect the 'lance and a half' rule is going to make 'Cavalry' even more appealing than it already is...

Bob

[Don Coon]

> It's a tall order for any rule set to cover such a vast period of history
and
> various styles of fighting but WRG 7th got the closest and Warrior is
aiming
> for the same. For one-off competitive type games the points system needs
to
> strike a balance between 'Infantry' and 'Cavalry' armies and 'Reg' and
> 'Irreg' armies.

Another playtesting issue for point value overhalls, is to allow the
building of armies not by army list at all, but by any desired troop type.
I do not mean a change to the rules, just a playtest vehicle. If you have
playtesters build their "dream army" you will begin to see potential point
imbalances, as "army listless" armies will begin to gravitate to the most
efficient in terms of points. Would players favor MI over HI? B over C?
Irr over Reg? Taking off army list restrictions is essential to PLAYTEST a
new point system. Waiting to see what the good players start winning with,
with established army lists only covers part of the job.

Don

[Ed Forbes]

Don,

This is a very good idea.
I had not thought of this aspect of the problem and your solution is
excellent. Much better data would be generated this way as it is fully
"free market" and not constrained. Results could be generated quicker
and with fewer battles.

Ed F

If
> you have
> playtesters build their "dream army" you will begin to see
> potential point
> imbalances, as "army listless" armies will begin to gravitate to the
> most
> efficient in terms of points.