Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Greetings folks,

As Jon has said it is ok to discuss point system, I will put forth the basic
question. Should a points system reflect the cost to train and equip the
troops, or should it be only a way to balance the the playing field for game
play.
My personal opinion is that it should be used to balance gameplay. That having
been said I do understand that to do that now would mean a large reworking of
the system. I would expect the numbers to increase and ofcourse there is still
the very real problem that any new system could create as much complaints as it
might solve. The manipulations of any point system is part of army design. I'm
not sure that could change or that it would be good to do so.

[Frank Gilson]

I've worked in game design and development for years.

I've seen various point systems for 'purchasing' style game setups, as
well as structures surrounding the same (pick one army list, one
version, things like that.)

Yes, my opinion is that such a point system should be used to balance
gameplay.

However, designing, developing, and testing such a system for any
complex game is an enormous effort.

The point system Warrior has as a legacy of the past is useable.

Replacing it would be a team effort of many months...in my business,
I'd probably have to pay a suitable group $250,000 for that amount of
work...and expect to get a result somewhere around 7 or 8 months down
the line.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "scsabrecoach"
<scsabrecoach@y...> wrote:
> Greetings folks,
>
> As Jon has said it is ok to discuss point system, I will put forth
the basic question. Should a points system reflect the cost to train
and equip the troops, or should it be only a way to balance the the
playing field for game play.
> My personal opinion is that it should be used to balance gameplay.
That having been said I do understand that to do that now would mean a
large reworking of the system. I would expect the numbers to increase
and ofcourse there is still the very real problem that any new system
could create as much complaints as it might solve. The manipulations
of any point system is part of army design. I'm not sure that could
change or that it would be good to do so.

[Doug]

It would be interesting to know how Barker originally came to the
numbers used. Were there different drafts playtested way back when?

I guess this conversation confuses me. Does this mean that Warrior
armies are not balanced against each other but purely against history?
I had not heard that yet so pardon me if it is old news.

-Brinton


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
> It would be interesting to know how Barker originally came to the
> numbers used. Were there different drafts playtested way back when?

Greetings Brinton and Doug,
Speaking strictly of the WRG game that Warrior draws from, the cost of the
troops are based on the cost of training and equiping them. This is why an
element of HI P costs the same as HI LTS or HI HTW assuming the morale and
training are the same.

You would have to go back atleast to the 4th ed of WRG to find a significantly
different point system, and I'm not sure that that one is that different as I
have never seen it.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Brinton" <brwilliams@a...> wrote:
> I guess this conversation confuses me. Does this mean that Warrior
> armies are not balanced against each other but purely against history?
> I had not heard that yet so pardon me if it is old news.
>
> -Brinton
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
> > It would be interesting to know how Barker originally came to the
> > numbers used. Were there different drafts playtested way back when?

[Doug]

>
>Speaking strictly of the WRG game that Warrior draws from, the cost
>of the troops are based on the cost of training and equiping them.
>This is why an element of HI P costs the same as HI LTS or HI HTW
>assuming the morale and training are the same.

Yes, but I'm interested in Barker's thought process which led him to
set certain things as the same number of points and how he figured
the amount of difference in points for non-equivalent items. Did he
just "add a point" or try to "add a percentage" or a "ratio" etc.

>You would have to go back atleast to the 4th ed of WRG to find a
>significantly different point system, and I'm not sure that that one
>is that different as I have never seen it.

[Ed Forbes]

4th ed WRG points are almost exactly the same as today. About the only thing
changed in points cost over the years is adding troop types and fitting their
cost into the game.
Ed

-- Doug <rockd@...> wrote:
>You would have to go back atleast to the 4th ed of WRG to find a
>significantly different point system, and I'm not sure that that one
>is that different as I have never seen it.




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

> As Jon has said it is ok to discuss point system, I will put forth
the basic question. Should a points system reflect the cost to train
and equip the troops, or should it be only a way to balance the the
playing field for game play.
> My personal opinion is that it should be used to balance gameplay.
That having been said I do understand that to do that now would mean
a large reworking of the system. I would expect the numbers to
increase and ofcourse there is still the very real problem that any
new system could create as much complaints as it might solve. The
manipulations of any point system is part of army design. I'm not
sure that could change or that it would be good to do so.
*******************************************************************
The only problem I might have with that method (using points primarily
to balance game play) is that it often encourages players not to think
like their historical counterparts. Sometimes you had access to troops
that were easy to procure and very effective on the field, and
sometimes all you had was an expensive, outdated system of fighting.

I find that WARRIOR allows better generals to filter through the army
lists. I can play the Mycenean Greeks with my Alexandrian army, a
thousand year technology advantage with super-list-rules, and still go
home with my tail between my legs.
I'm not saying the current point system is perfect, but I think
balancing game play is less important than we might think (and
ultimately impossible). When we try to emulate the real world, we
forget that it's not a fair place. For this game, I'd rather it were
unbalanced, so we can live-out and re-enact the battles of ancient
world -- for fun!
I think If one want's fairness, one should play chess -- a game with
much simpler rules and no story.

Oh well. We may all want different things out of this game, but that
is my opinion.

Noel.

[Ed Forbes]

As the interest in this system is primarily tournament play, reducing game
balance to far will both reduce the number of armies played and the overall
interest in the game.
My 2 cents worth anyway.

Ed

-- "Noel White" <agrianian@...> wrote:
I think balancing game play is less important than we might think (and
ultimately impossible). When we try to emulate the real world, we
forget that it's not a fair place. For this game, I'd rather it were
unbalanced, so we can live-out and re-enact the battles of ancient
world -- for fun!
I think If one want's fairness, one should play chess -- a game with
much simpler rules and no story.

Oh well. We may all want different things out of this game, but that
is my opinion.

Noel.






Yahoo! Groups Links







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