Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

While pondering points, I've also been thinking about how to encourage more
historical/theme events. The theme tournament is OK, and I'm glad we do one at
Historicon, but I'm not sure proliferating more theme tournaments is really
going to help very much.

I'd like to see us think more creatively about the kind of events we offer. Ewan
has mentioned (and Murray also, I believe) a number of event formats common in
the U.K. that don't occur here. One example I remember is a tournament where
you start with X points in your army, can deploy up to X-N points in any given
battle, but accumulate losses from one battle to the next (along with some
system for modifying morale class of units from one battle to the next based on
their performance).

Here's an idea I'm thinking seriously about trying out at Kubla Con in San
Francisco this May. First of all, to reassure the locals, I will be
running/umping a 1600 point 25mm open tournament. This would be in addition:

The Arsuf Campaign.

This is the 3rd Crusade, after the Philip has returned to France, and it is
mainly Richard, his English, a handful of the now-deceased Barbarossa's
Germans, and local Outremere soldiers that make up the army. The goal is to
re-capture Jerusalem, and the opposition is Saladin. Phase 1 of the plan is to
march down the coast from Acre to Jaffa as the closest supply point from which
a strike at Jerusalem can be launched.

Historically, the result was a "pyrrhic" victory for Richard. Saladin used to
forest of Arsuf to cover the approach of his army, and launched an attack on
the Crusaders with the intent of destroying the Crusader supply train resulting
in the famous Battle of Arsuf. Saladin was soundly defeated, Richard made it to
Jaffa, but either did not have or could not muster enough support to make a
serious assault on Jerusalem.

So the idea would be to use a set of grand strategic maps and a refereed hidden
movement system to allow the two sides to march individual commands.
Communication between separated commands would have to be written down, and
would suffer a distance-related time delay. Commands would get a grand
strategic movement and/or visibility bonus for various things (marching in
column, having X number scouting points, being composed entirely of light
troops, etc.). Small engagements -- a judgment call, admittedly -- would be
fought out as quickly as possible, with the results returned to the grand
strategic map. A major engagement would result in the two immediate engaging
forces being deployed on table, and other forces being stipulated as arriving X
bounds into the battle, based on their distance. There would also be a point
system for controlling key locations at the end of the game, controlling or
eliminating supply wagons, as well as killing enemy points.

This would probably be about a minimum 8 hour event, running from Saturday
afternoon into Saturday night.

Again, I'm not sure I can get it all together to run this by Memorial Day, but
I'm going to try. I'd do it in 15mm, and in that scale I have all the needed
figures for both sides.

I'd like to see us thinking of more examples like this as a way of encouraging
theme/historical events at our cons. I also like the campaign element as it:
(1) brings in more factors than just "kill your opponent", and (2) it brings in
more of the crucial "fog of war" element.


-Mark Stone

[Matt Kollmer]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
>

I think this is a really fun idea, I've not seen Warrior run this way
ever really. A couple of thoughts:
1Would this include alot Of players per side or follow the old D+D
style of having multiple DM's running the same "campain" for multiple
groups(having to do mostly with bigger events i.e. H-con)?
2Would you employ a minimum point value for an ontable "playable"
battle/skirmish.. how would deal with a smaller engagement?
3Is this Campain Warrior before CW is released?
4would the generals themselves play into the offboard stuff(character
of generals ect.)
I have thought about this in the past and could never really make
this type of thing happen. I would love to hear your future thoughts
on this, and/or the inner workings of it.
Matt


> While pondering points, I've also been thinking about how to
encourage more
> historical/theme events. The theme tournament is OK, and I'm glad
we do one at
> Historicon, but I'm not sure proliferating more theme tournaments
is really
> going to help very much.
>
> I'd like to see us think more creatively about the kind of events
we offer. Ewan
> has mentioned (and Murray also, I believe) a number of event
formats common in
> the U.K. that don't occur here. One example I remember is a
tournament where
> you start with X points in your army, can deploy up to X-N points
in any given
> battle, but accumulate losses from one battle to the next (along
with some
> system for modifying morale class of units from one battle to the
next based on
> their performance).
>
> Here's an idea I'm thinking seriously about trying out at Kubla Con
in San
> Francisco this May. First of all, to reassure the locals, I will be
> running/umping a 1600 point 25mm open tournament. This would be in
addition:
>
> The Arsuf Campaign.
>
> This is the 3rd Crusade, after the Philip has returned to France,
and it is
> mainly Richard, his English, a handful of the now-deceased
Barbarossa's
> Germans, and local Outremere soldiers that make up the army. The
goal is to
> re-capture Jerusalem, and the opposition is Saladin. Phase 1 of the
plan is to
> march down the coast from Acre to Jaffa as the closest supply point
from which
> a strike at Jerusalem can be launched.
>
> Historically, the result was a "pyrrhic" victory for Richard.
Saladin used to
> forest of Arsuf to cover the approach of his army, and launched an
attack on
> the Crusaders with the intent of destroying the Crusader supply
train resulting
> in the famous Battle of Arsuf. Saladin was soundly defeated,
Richard made it to
> Jaffa, but either did not have or could not muster enough support
to make a
> serious assault on Jerusalem.
>
> So the idea would be to use a set of grand strategic maps and a
refereed hidden
> movement system to allow the two sides to march individual commands.
> Communication between separated commands would have to be written
down, and
> would suffer a distance-related time delay. Commands would get a
grand
> strategic movement and/or visibility bonus for various things
(marching in
> column, having X number scouting points, being composed entirely of
light
> troops, etc.). Small engagements -- a judgment call, admittedly --
would be
> fought out as quickly as possible, with the results returned to the
grand
> strategic map. A major engagement would result in the two immediate
engaging
> forces being deployed on table, and other forces being stipulated
as arriving X
> bounds into the battle, based on their distance. There would also
be a point
> system for controlling key locations at the end of the game,
controlling or
> eliminating supply wagons, as well as killing enemy points.
>
> This would probably be about a minimum 8 hour event, running from
Saturday
> afternoon into Saturday night.
>
> Again, I'm not sure I can get it all together to run this by
Memorial Day, but
> I'm going to try. I'd do it in 15mm, and in that scale I have all
the needed
> figures for both sides.
>
> I'd like to see us thinking of more examples like this as a way of
encouraging
> theme/historical events at our cons. I also like the campaign
element as it:
> (1) brings in more factors than just "kill your opponent", and (2)
it brings in
> more of the crucial "fog of war" element.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>

[Ed Forbes]

I love kriegspiel strategic map games that are double blind. If we only bring
out the lead for the major battles, should work fine.

Ed


I'd like to see us thinking of more examples like this as a way of encouraging
theme/historical events at our cons. I also like the campaign element as it:
(1) brings in more factors than just "kill your opponent", and (2) it brings in
more of the crucial "fog of war" element.


-Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

I think this is a very intriguing idea and if someone wanted to do
this at an HMGS-E con I would certainly devote a bunch of time to
participate.

However, having run campaigns many times in the past I tended to
move towards very simple systems with an overriding objective to
produce an even battle for each player every campagin turn - hence
my diplomacy-style campaigns. This was because my players wanted to
fight battles and did not want to win the campaign 'on the map'
which would probably actually be a much more historical result but
not as fun for them.

But me, as a player, I go for stuff like this especially as my ego
is used to getting thwomped anyhow so at least this way I can blame
the guy who forget to send the supply galleys down the river! And it
is even more fun if he 'forgot' to do it on purpose!

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
>
> While pondering points, I've also been thinking about how to
encourage more
> historical/theme events. The theme tournament is OK, and I'm glad
we do one at
> Historicon, but I'm not sure proliferating more theme tournaments
is really
> going to help very much.
>
> I'd like to see us think more creatively about the kind of events
we offer. Ewan
> has mentioned (and Murray also, I believe) a number of event
formats common in
> the U.K. that don't occur here. One example I remember is a
tournament where
> you start with X points in your army, can deploy up to X-N points
in any given
> battle, but accumulate losses from one battle to the next (along
with some
> system for modifying morale class of units from one battle to the
next based on
> their performance).
>
> Here's an idea I'm thinking seriously about trying out at Kubla
Con in San
> Francisco this May. First of all, to reassure the locals, I will be
> running/umping a 1600 point 25mm open tournament. This would be in
addition:
>
> The Arsuf Campaign.
>
> This is the 3rd Crusade, after the Philip has returned to France,
and it is
> mainly Richard, his English, a handful of the now-deceased
Barbarossa's
> Germans, and local Outremere soldiers that make up the army. The
goal is to
> re-capture Jerusalem, and the opposition is Saladin. Phase 1 of
the plan is to
> march down the coast from Acre to Jaffa as the closest supply
point from which
> a strike at Jerusalem can be launched.
>
> Historically, the result was a "pyrrhic" victory for Richard.
Saladin used to
> forest of Arsuf to cover the approach of his army, and launched an
attack on
> the Crusaders with the intent of destroying the Crusader supply
train resulting
> in the famous Battle of Arsuf. Saladin was soundly defeated,
Richard made it to
> Jaffa, but either did not have or could not muster enough support
to make a
> serious assault on Jerusalem.
>
> So the idea would be to use a set of grand strategic maps and a
refereed hidden
> movement system to allow the two sides to march individual
commands.
> Communication between separated commands would have to be written
down, and
> would suffer a distance-related time delay. Commands would get a
grand
> strategic movement and/or visibility bonus for various things
(marching in
> column, having X number scouting points, being composed entirely
of light
> troops, etc.). Small engagements -- a judgment call, admittedly --
would be
> fought out as quickly as possible, with the results returned to
the grand
> strategic map. A major engagement would result in the two
immediate engaging
> forces being deployed on table, and other forces being stipulated
as arriving X
> bounds into the battle, based on their distance. There would also
be a point
> system for controlling key locations at the end of the game,
controlling or
> eliminating supply wagons, as well as killing enemy points.
>
> This would probably be about a minimum 8 hour event, running from
Saturday
> afternoon into Saturday night.
>
> Again, I'm not sure I can get it all together to run this by
Memorial Day, but
> I'm going to try. I'd do it in 15mm, and in that scale I have all
the needed
> figures for both sides.
>
> I'd like to see us thinking of more examples like this as a way of
encouraging
> theme/historical events at our cons. I also like the campaign
element as it:
> (1) brings in more factors than just "kill your opponent", and (2)
it brings in
> more of the crucial "fog of war" element.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>