Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tim Grimmett]

I have followed many of the debates raging in this group with interest
sitting here in Damascus Syria. I am unable to "test" many observations on
a table here but I often tinker with my Han Chinese list in the hope that I
might actually attend this year's Historicon.

I think the principal change in Warrior is the 50% demoralization rule. For
you that are getting to play a lot, how has this changed the way you design
your armies---larger commands? less LI? bigger LI? more units?

I'd like to hear what the "lessons learned" are.

Tim Grimmett

Attachment: (application/ms-tnef) [not stored]

[joncleaves]

Tim, Don

We all had odd numbers at 2/3s, too. The only real change has been that
games play faster.

I have heard some players complain that they can't take as many light troops,
but of course they CAN.... ;)

Lessons learned is a good way to discuss this, cuz it sure ain't changin'
Jon

[Don Coon]

> I think the principal change in Warrior is the 50% demoralization rule.
For
> you that are getting to play a lot, how has this changed the way you
design
> your armies---larger commands? less LI? bigger LI? more units?

First and foremost, All commands have an ODD number of bodies. Where
points/leaders allow, smaller commands are better than large ones. The
closer you can get to 3 bodies per command the better the ratio of
broken/shaken to non broken/shaken becomes. i.e 2 of 3, 3 of 5, 4 of 7, 5
of 9 etc. When the army list allows it, penny packets of LI can come in
handy. They move forward quickly to pin the enemy, and can retire/counter
back later and count as a good order body to prevent demoralization. We
tend to play with lots of units here, but that is not a result of the 50%
rule. Also in this area we almost all play with fighting leaders. Our CINC
and subgens are in units rather than independant staff elements. This allows
them to count for demoralization prevention (as well as getting another
fighting body in the fray).

Don

[Don Coon]

> Tim, Don
>
> We all had odd numbers at 2/3s, too. The only real change has been that
> games play faster.

Perhaps, but in 2/3 days 6 body commands needed 4 to demoralize, 7 body
commands also needed 4. Today 6 body commands need 3, and 7 body commands
need 4. So odds were not always they break point. Now they are. I was not
advocating change and I do not think Tim was either.

Don

[Greg Regets]

While the number of bodies in a command is obviously a bit more important
now, I still think that organizing your army around functionality is more
important than organizing with a slant towards when you will be demoralized.
As Don stated, we tend to use "fighting generals" down here and in most
cases, lots of them. I like to balance the want to have commands optimized
for lack of demoralization, with the need to have commands with combat
effective orders, depending on the role they will play in the battle. This
is especially important in the 15mm scale in my opinion. The "line 'em up
and charge" tactic is rarely effective in that scale, given the amount of
space for maneuver.

My suggestion would be to build your commands based on their role, then
concern yourself with the number of bodies in each command.

Like Jon, I very much support the 1/2 demoralization rule. It adds a bit of
defense back to the game, which for many armies, is very historical. It also
forces players using the "hammer and anvil" tactic to more carefully plan
the actions of the command or commands committed to the anvil role. This is
one of the best changes to the game in my opinion.

Greg

[Tim Grimmett]

Jon/Guys-

Not my intent to "challenge" the rule. I'm asking those of you who have
played more than I what the impact is on your thinking as far as list
development and command structuring.

The way I see it makes me less inclined to buy RD LI Nu on the Han Chinese
list -or at least put them in one command. It also impacts the tactic of
throwing out a command of 3 LI units and 4 Cav units with the intent that
several units of LI die so that real men can charge through them. One bad
roll and you have a command in retreat......

Tim Grimmett
"Warrior-less in Damascus"

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets [SMTP:greg@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 6:50 PM
To: 'WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Question to the group

While the number of bodies in a command is obviously a bit more
important
now, I still think that organizing your army around functionality is
more
important than organizing with a slant towards when you will be
demoralized.
As Don stated, we tend to use "fighting generals" down here and in
most
cases, lots of them. I like to balance the want to have commands
optimized
for lack of demoralization, with the need to have commands with
combat
effective orders, depending on the role they will play in the
battle. This
is especially important in the 15mm scale in my opinion. The "line
'em up
and charge" tactic is rarely effective in that scale, given the
amount of
space for maneuver.

My suggestion would be to build your commands based on their role,
then
concern yourself with the number of bodies in each command.

Like Jon, I very much support the 1/2 demoralization rule. It adds a
bit of
defense back to the game, which for many armies, is very historical.
It also
forces players using the "hammer and anvil" tactic to more carefully
plan
the actions of the command or commands committed to the anvil role.
This is
one of the best changes to the game in my opinion.

Greg

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Attachment: (application/ms-tnef) [not stored]