Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I want to point out before starting that I do not expect, nor want, comment
back on this letter. I am beating a dead horse, but feel that it is worth
beating a bit. I finally had time to ponder this 'problem' on my recent
plane flights. The thesis of this little 'article' is that Warrior and TOG
have mispointed a troop type since its inception, or at least people on this
list think they have. The troop type is the Reg B trooper, no matter it's
inception from Veteran Paid Knight, Legionnaire, Hoplite, Swiss Pikeman,
Varagian, Alexandrian Companion, Alexandrian Pike, or Mongol Archer. I list
these troopers as these are the ones that people are up in arms about their
special 'sauce'... err list rules. 4 Horseman has as much admitted to the
flaw by making the new list rules for 'flavor', but the reality is that any
army based on Reg B (or A) morale troops underperforms compared to
Historical paradigms. I would actually say that it is due to flaws in the
core system that are being spackled with special rules, sort of trying to
put the finger in the damn before it breaks. Or is it? Could it be the
players are just not using the rules as (originally) intended and that
simple adjustment in playing style (and replacing a rule lost in transition
form TOG to Warrior) would have resulted in the same results? Let me
explain.

A few weeks ago, we heard about the Mongols now having too many special
rules? I do not have the book yet, but from what I can gather:

1) 1 to 1 dismounting
2) Counter anywhere on the battle field
3) LC going through heavy cavalry.
4) Special Flank Rules.

Each of these things could be done easily with a Reg B army without the
need for special rules. In case 1, the Mongols in TOG and Society lists were
a LC based army with a few upgrades to MC or HC. If played as a LC army with
4 to 8 element units, the reduced command cost of dismounting Reg versus Ir
(1+die versus 1+3+die) you get the same effect. Sure you don't have the
spear to add insult to injury to the poor elephant, but 2-4 elements of MI
bow dismounting in front of an elephant should make the point.

Side Note: Before people flame me and say I don't know about dismounting, I
will point out my knights and LC dismount in a full 75% of my games for
nearly ten years. A tactic I had to develop to get my Italian knights into
'English' formation using the wait a turn until undisorder of TOG. Ask Derek
Downs (NICT 2 years ago as he licked chops at getting a bead on my Italian
Knights- I lost because my Reg C knights failed a waver test my Reg B
knights would have made. That is not to say I would have won, Derek would
have needed to find another way to win.), Rich Kroupa, Mark Hissem
(Stradiots in front of elephants, again two years ago), or many others with
spearmen or bowmen.

A counter anywhere on the battle field sounds like a retirement to me.
One which the average regular general could prompt to the tune of 3-4 per
bound compared to the Ir general getting 1-2 per bound.

LC through HC is just a Reg A or B general realizing there is problems
the same turn and either countering or prompting a retirement (chances of
being in charge reach if there is a LC in front is minimal).

What does this require? Reg B troops (countering on any but a 1 or
easily being prompted) with the same ratio of generals as Ir troops have to
do things.

The biggest slap in the face to Reg B troops was a small rule change
from TOG to Warrior that made almost any enveloping moves useless, and
therefore Mongols (or the Alexandrian companion). The complaint by all those
Ir troopers about being able to prompt a retirement/counter in the same turn
and then being able to march. The only troops capable of doing such a
devastating maneuver were the Reg B troops, especially mounted. Counter 84%
of the time then 1+die to move from flank to middle or middle to either
flank in one turn ready to charge the next turn. If there was any rule
change that necessitated special rules, it was this. Mongols could do their
dance (and get their due). Companions could mislead and misposition
Persians, Italian knights could use 'scientific' movements, hoplites could
get local concentration very quick, and Swiss could get through the woods
and ordered. All Historical results that needed to be able to retire or
counter and march in the same turn. A skill that takes some time to get
right, but once learned is devastating and transferable to all regular
troops on any list. German knights did this well also, but had the low
morale to check it and were given the wedge to compensate. Of course this is
what made Sicilian (Dave Stiers 2 or 3 time national winner with this army),
Teutonic (a list hardly seen), Burgundians (almost never seen now, although
Scott the 4 Horseman used to play) a fantastic, great, and viable army
previously.

Instead we get a rash of special rules:
1) Swiss being the only loose order infantry to have pike (maybe to be
joined by Alexander’s and Hoplites being loose (120 pace move) and counting
as close (2 full ranks fighting with spear).

2) All lance armed troops getting 1.5 ranks (an extended list rule that
helped English and Italian knights, note the Germans already had their
special rule called wedge) which fundamentally changed the game. If you left
the march/retire rule it would not have been necessary (I won more with
Italian Condotta under the Counter/March rule than I did with the 1.5 rank
lance rule or the one below).

3) The 120 pace longbow/crossbow rule to help all those bastard children
that couldn't stop elephants. Again, a list rule for English and crusader
crossbowmen which could be B and buy horses to counter and march all day and
tire out the opposing barbarian hordes.

4) Mongol flank movement and the like mentioned above.

5) Making it so dismounts are reordered the same turn (although at the end
as the end of approaches was just too nasty) instead of waiting a complete
turn. Remember all the Varagians, English and Burgundian Archers. Their
specialness was not their weapon, but being able to be places in the nick of
time and hold fast until help came.

6) The Chris Damour rule of out scouted not being within 240 of the center
line. I list this because it was necessary to give the regular armies time
to brace for the initial hit so the board was artificially lengthened.
Really screwed the Swiss and other medieval armies which lack scouting. But
hey, we'll fix it with more special rules.

7) The Byzantine Byzantine lists which used to be elegant Reg B HC with L
and B and cool Varagians (don't throw anything, I always liked mounted
infantry, especially reg A or B) now a hodge podge of a buffet.

So we get all these special rules to try and make armies
'viable' to replace one rule. I am starting to believe that the reason you
did not see people playing Mongols, Pre Imperial Romans, etc. before is that
they did not take the time to learn how to use the troops. Anytime they did,
people with their crying (maybe those that are now crying about not pointing
list rules?) about how that rule was broken. Well to all those that hated
the counter/retire/march you have inherited more list rules than you can
count to confuse an already confused game instead of one simple rule for
all. You have made it so all troops have to fight head up instead of having
a fluid motion.

Now before the flames start, I played Condotta (1.5 Lance,
dismount ordered same turn, and XB rules) and Swiss (Swiss rules) well
before the special sauce. I enjoyed the armies then. I enjoy them now. Do
the special rules make them more viable, yes. Do they make them more viable
than when I could march and counter in the same turn, no. All the special
rules are doing is becoming a poor substitute for the elegant punch and pull
that Reg B's (and C's and D's, but not nearly as elegant as Reg B's) used to
have. The real losers? All those Reg B's not on special lists or those
presumed to be on powerful lists already (read Companions and Reg B pikes)
due to their support troops. All those Reg A's that move slightly better
than Ir A's but get no +2 if up. People not playing a troop type on almost
any list, Reg B, because they are not eager and cannot take much advantage
their ability to cheaply reposition themselves.

To the 4 horseman, well I like the list rules and the flavor they
add (especially since I love Reg B troops), you have opened a can of worms
that will get more bitching than the flowing columns of troops that Reg B's
could have. I know nothing will change and respect the desire to keep a
fixed game, but now you are fixing what was not broken before in TOG. You
have also made a game were the surgical striker (Dave Stiers with knights
and loose order regulars, Derek Downs with Seleucid, and likely Ewan giving
his love of regular armies) are dinosaurs and brought the brute to the fore
front. Forcing those that must line up troops to fight instead of allowing
for fluids which spread troops out giving cracks for Alexander to drive his
Companions through. I will point out Derek is not a brute, but he adapted
quicker than others, using 'broken' H and C lists to smooth the transition
from striker to brute and a superior playing style (superior because he
adapted) to be able to punch with elephants or bow) better than anyone else.
I am still in awe from the only time I played him. Much like when I play
Ewan or Stiers, clearly a cut above in the TOG. Not as much so in Warrior. I
will wait to see if Companions get special sauce (an army on hold since the
changing of the retire/march rule) before buying that lead for my 20 element
companion with 5 element Thessalian LC army.

Sean

[Mark Stone]

Sean makes some interesting points here, in many ways the other side of the coin
to Dave Markowitz's points. While I don't feel quite as strongly on these issues
as Sean, and I have a rather different playing style, I sympathize with his
concerns.

Back in the days of TOG one of the armies I played when I wanted to maximize fun
rather than maximize wins was Grenadine. Back then you got 18 figures of EHK
that didn't wedge and didn't fight in a rank and a half, you got one unit of
LMI archers, one unit of MI LTS,JLS,Sh, a smattering of light infantry, and the
entire rest of the army was Reg B light cav, predominantly with JLS,Sh. This was
the ultimate finesse army, as you really had no possibility of overwhelming
anyone frontally.

A common tactic I used was to throw my light cav forward in front of some of my
LI on one flank, and draw my opponent in that direction. In approaches the
opposition would never come to within 40p of the LC, trying to stay away from
my javelins. I could then retire back, be outside 240p, and march. My
opponent's forces would be "stuck" in the vicinity of a cheap LI unit and I'd
take the battle somewhere else.

I've looked at the new Grenadine list a number of times, and though it's a
better list in terms of troop types, I've felt unmotivated to dust off the
figures. I couldn't really put my finger on why, but Sean's email
really made it clear: all that Reg B LC just isn't as good if it can't retire
and march in the same bound. That does significantly limit one's ability to
outmaneuver an opponent, and detracts from my "pet" tactic with Grenadine.

Still, I think FHE have made some difficult choices for a hard balancing act. As
I've said before I always thought it was ridiculous that Sicilian Hohenstaufen,
an army of only mild historical interest, got showcased at tournaments while
the high profile knight armies sat on the sidelines, all over the presence or
absence of wedge. And in general if we can alter lists to bring the most known,
most historically successful, and most colorful/attractive armies to the fore in
tournament play then that's a good thing. It makes the hobby more fun, and aids
in recruiting new players.

The other trend FHE seems to have followed is to make the system "bloodier" than
it was before, leading to more decisive results more quickly. This is apparent
in changing the command retreat level from 2/3 to 1/2, in extending the close
range of LB and CB, in disallowing recall moves after impetuous charges, and
yes, in disallowing retirements and marches in the same bound. Here I think
they are following a clearly expressed player preference for having a system
that gets us to more decisive results more often in the standard 4 hour
tournament format. That is naturally going to disadvantage armies that in a
scenario format use they maneuverability to draw out a sustained advantage over
a longer period of time.

That's not a bad thing, but it does have consequences. I miss my Grenadines, but
I don't miss chasing Late Romans all over that table with my knights to end in a
feeble 1-1 draw. Overall I think the difference in feel between TOG and present
day Warrior is rather like the difference in feel between pre-Borodino and
subsequent Napoleonics. Prior to Borodino, Napoleonic battles were known
primarily as textbook cases of maneuver and finesse, with Austerlitz being
perhaps the best example. From Borodino on, Napoleonic battles were much more
of a slugfest. The changing use of artillery had a lot to do with this, though
there were other factors as well.

I do think Sean is exactly right about several things. Warrior is more of a
Borodino-style slugfest than TOG was. I also agree that among top players Derek
seems to have adapted to this change most quickly, and has the results to show
for it. I'm slowly starting to adapt myself, and the armies I play at Cold Wars
and hopefully Historicon will be a reflection of this changing environment.

I don't see all of this as necessarily a negative thing. One way or another, I
want the armies of Alexander, Julius Caesar, Richard I, Genghis Khan, the Black
Prince, and Henry V to be the ones that are regularly chosen for tournaments.
That was definitely _not_ true before, it's more true now, and that's a very
good thing. I also want decisive results in 4 hours against even, shall we say,
"deliberate" players. Changing the tournament scoring system helped some, but
not enough. Some people would still rather settle for a 1-1 draw than suffer a
5-3 loss. Go figure. The only way to further expedite results is to change the
game mechanics themselves to make action more direct and bloodier.

So the changes that FHE has made are certainly not perfect by any means, but
they have been positive changes overall, and given the nature of the players
involved I don't see what other direction they could have gone in.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Sean, there's a lot to your mail and I do not want to tarnish the great
effort you took to be thoughtful about our game - superb stuff.

I just have to say that not a small amount of it was inaccurate in my view.
A large part of what you ascribe to FHE was work down by NASAMW to make WRG
7.5 into 7.6. Whether or not one agrees with that stuff being 'done' to WRG,
it was fait accompli before we owned the engine.

I think there's a great body of 'rumor' surrounding what was done and why it
was done during Warrior's development. I'd be happy to take some of these
rumors and dispel them, but not if that is something no one cares for. I only
offer because I have so much respect for Sean's opinions and thoughts I am
surprised so much of his info is essentially WRG/NASAMW urban legend and not
anything FHE did or did not do, in those cases where the event even took place
at all the way it is described.

Let me know if this is something you'd like me to do and I will.

Still, good food for thought post.
Jon


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

Mark if you want more finesse in ancient tournaments push for smaller
point tournaments. When I started ancients 1000 years ago we played
something like 1250 points on 8 foot tables. Talking about flanks
being important. Now with 1600 points it is wall to wall figs there
are no flanks. The Aztec nearly cover the whole table. The finesse
however is there. It is by probing the opponents weak spots and
breaking up his line.

As for the slug fest thing. Slug fest games to me are my figs hitting
your figs head up and rolling dice. You should realize by playing
like that you are giving your game over to the dice. I am unlucky
with dice so I try to minimize them in the game. All charges should
be preped with support fire or into the flank of your opponent. This
takes the "dice" out of your game.
I have not be a "slug fest " player since 1989 when I won the NICT
with the Bactrian Greeks using Saka "wedging " cav.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Sean makes some interesting points here, in many ways the other
side of the coin
> to Dave Markowitz's points. While I don't feel quite as strongly on
these issues
> as Sean, and I have a rather different playing style, I sympathize
with his
> concerns.
>
> Back in the days of TOG one of the armies I played when I wanted to
maximize fun
> rather than maximize wins was Grenadine. Back then you got 18
figures of EHK
> that didn't wedge and didn't fight in a rank and a half, you got
one unit of
> LMI archers, one unit of MI LTS,JLS,Sh, a smattering of light
infantry, and the
> entire rest of the army was Reg B light cav, predominantly with
JLS,Sh. This was
> the ultimate finesse army, as you really had no possibility of
overwhelming
> anyone frontally.
>
> A common tactic I used was to throw my light cav forward in front
of some of my
> LI on one flank, and draw my opponent in that direction. In
approaches the
> opposition would never come to within 40p of the LC, trying to stay
away from
> my javelins. I could then retire back, be outside 240p, and march.
My
> opponent's forces would be "stuck" in the vicinity of a cheap LI
unit and I'd
> take the battle somewhere else.
>
> I've looked at the new Grenadine list a number of times, and though
it's a
> better list in terms of troop types, I've felt unmotivated to dust
off the
> figures. I couldn't really put my finger on why, but Sean's email
> really made it clear: all that Reg B LC just isn't as good if it
can't retire
> and march in the same bound. That does significantly limit one's
ability to
> outmaneuver an opponent, and detracts from my "pet" tactic with
Grenadine.
>
> Still, I think FHE have made some difficult choices for a hard
balancing act. As
> I've said before I always thought it was ridiculous that Sicilian
Hohenstaufen,
> an army of only mild historical interest, got showcased at
tournaments while
> the high profile knight armies sat on the sidelines, all over the
presence or
> absence of wedge. And in general if we can alter lists to bring the
most known,
> most historically successful, and most colorful/attractive armies
to the fore in
> tournament play then that's a good thing. It makes the hobby more
fun, and aids
> in recruiting new players.
>
> The other trend FHE seems to have followed is to make the
system "bloodier" than
> it was before, leading to more decisive results more quickly. This
is apparent
> in changing the command retreat level from 2/3 to 1/2, in extending
the close
> range of LB and CB, in disallowing recall moves after impetuous
charges, and
> yes, in disallowing retirements and marches in the same bound. Here
I think
> they are following a clearly expressed player preference for having
a system
> that gets us to more decisive results more often in the standard 4
hour
> tournament format. That is naturally going to disadvantage armies
that in a
> scenario format use they maneuverability to draw out a sustained
advantage over
> a longer period of time.
>
> That's not a bad thing, but it does have consequences. I miss my
Grenadines, but
> I don't miss chasing Late Romans all over that table with my
knights to end in a
> feeble 1-1 draw. Overall I think the difference in feel between TOG
and present
> day Warrior is rather like the difference in feel between pre-
Borodino and
> subsequent Napoleonics. Prior to Borodino, Napoleonic battles were
known
> primarily as textbook cases of maneuver and finesse, with
Austerlitz being
> perhaps the best example. From Borodino on, Napoleonic battles were
much more
> of a slugfest. The changing use of artillery had a lot to do with
this, though
> there were other factors as well.
>
> I do think Sean is exactly right about several things. Warrior is
more of a
> Borodino-style slugfest than TOG was. I also agree that among top
players Derek
> seems to have adapted to this change most quickly, and has the
results to show
> for it. I'm slowly starting to adapt myself, and the armies I play
at Cold Wars
> and hopefully Historicon will be a reflection of this changing
environment.
>
> I don't see all of this as necessarily a negative thing. One way or
another, I
> want the armies of Alexander, Julius Caesar, Richard I, Genghis
Khan, the Black
> Prince, and Henry V to be the ones that are regularly chosen for
tournaments.
> That was definitely _not_ true before, it's more true now, and
that's a very
> good thing. I also want decisive results in 4 hours against even,
shall we say,
> "deliberate" players. Changing the tournament scoring system helped
some, but
> not enough. Some people would still rather settle for a 1-1 draw
than suffer a
> 5-3 loss. Go figure. The only way to further expedite results is to
change the
> game mechanics themselves to make action more direct and bloodier.
>
> So the changes that FHE has made are certainly not perfect by any
means, but
> they have been positive changes overall, and given the nature of
the players
> involved I don't see what other direction they could have gone in.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

--- On March 3 Derek Downs "decloaked" and said: ---

> Mark if you want more finesse in ancient tournaments push for smaller
> point tournaments. When I started ancients 1000 years ago we played
> something like 1250 points on 8 foot tables. Talking about flanks
> being important. Now with 1600 points it is wall to wall figs there
> are no flanks. The Aztec nearly cover the whole table. The finesse
> however is there. It is by probing the opponents weak spots and
> breaking up his line.

Derek, I don't think we disagree here. A "slugfest" and some skill/finesse are
not incompatible. George Foreman probably threw the hardest punch of anyone
who's ever boxed professionally, but if he had not had considerable skill it
wouldn't have helped him much. Napoleon may not have cared much for the outcome
at Borodino, but he didn't lose, and he did adapt.

So no one is going to have your level of success in Warrior without a lot of
skill and finesse. Having said that, I do think there are certain armies that
have become untenable, at least in 25mm, because they require more flank space
and more depth in which to operate. I don't expect to be playing my Grenadines
any time soon, nor my Post Mongol Russians. I find myself drawn to the Parthian
list, but again I just don't see it as tenable as things are now.

It will be interesting to see how the Mongols fare -- and I mean Gengis Khan
Mongols, not Timurid or Yuan, or any of those other "diluted" flavors.

And it would be very interesting if you and I met in the NICT this year. I don't
expect to win, but you're one of the top players I've yet to cross swords with.
Fun as it might be, I won't be running Northern Barbarians. But then you
probably won't be running Khmer either, will you?


-Mark Stone

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

The Khmer keep getting better everyday. Check out the changes made in the
Burmese allies. No more spearmen! that means more points for more effective
alternatives when taking these guys as an ally. By the way, do you need any
Burmese Elephants? I may have some for sell as I'm a Khmer player now. Death
to the infidels (any who oppose me!) and moogboys.

k

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On March 3 Derek Downs "decloaked" and said: ---

> Mark if you want more finesse in ancient tournaments push for smaller
> point tournaments. When I started ancients 1000 years ago we played
> something like 1250 points on 8 foot tables. Talking about flanks
> being important. Now with 1600 points it is wall to wall figs there
> are no flanks. The Aztec nearly cover the whole table. The finesse
> however is there. It is by probing the opponents weak spots and
> breaking up his line.

Derek, I don't think we disagree here. A "slugfest" and some skill/finesse are
not incompatible. George Foreman probably threw the hardest punch of anyone
who's ever boxed professionally, but if he had not had considerable skill it
wouldn't have helped him much. Napoleon may not have cared much for the outcome
at Borodino, but he didn't lose, and he did adapt.

So no one is going to have your level of success in Warrior without a lot of
skill and finesse. Having said that, I do think there are certain armies that
have become untenable, at least in 25mm, because they require more flank space
and more depth in which to operate. I don't expect to be playing my Grenadines
any time soon, nor my Post Mongol Russians. I find myself drawn to the Parthian
list, but again I just don't see it as tenable as things are now.

It will be interesting to see how the Mongols fare -- and I mean Gengis Khan
Mongols, not Timurid or Yuan, or any of those other "diluted" flavors.

And it would be very interesting if you and I met in the NICT this year. I don't
expect to win, but you're one of the top players I've yet to cross swords with.
Fun as it might be, I won't be running Northern Barbarians. But then you
probably won't be running Khmer either, will you?


-Mark Stone

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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

I have to agree with you. There is no room for a cav army in 25mm.
Except maybe the SHK knight armies which tend to run over things.
That is way I loved it way back when when we were at 1250 points.
there were still flank battles and such. And Khmer is over I an on to
bigger and better things now.

Derek

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The Khmer keep getting better everyday. Check out the changes
made in the Burmese allies. No more spearmen! that means more points
for more effective alternatives when taking these guys as an ally. By
the way, do you need any Burmese Elephants? I may have some for sell
as I'm a Khmer player now. Death to the infidels (any who oppose
me!) and moogboys.
>
> k
>
> Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On March 3 Derek Downs "decloaked" and said: ---
>
> > Mark if you want more finesse in ancient tournaments push for
smaller
> > point tournaments. When I started ancients 1000 years ago we
played
> > something like 1250 points on 8 foot tables. Talking about flanks
> > being important. Now with 1600 points it is wall to wall figs
there
> > are no flanks. The Aztec nearly cover the whole table. The finesse
> > however is there. It is by probing the opponents weak spots and
> > breaking up his line.
>
> Derek, I don't think we disagree here. A "slugfest" and some
skill/finesse are
> not incompatible. George Foreman probably threw the hardest punch
of anyone
> who's ever boxed professionally, but if he had not had considerable
skill it
> wouldn't have helped him much. Napoleon may not have cared much for
the outcome
> at Borodino, but he didn't lose, and he did adapt.
>
> So no one is going to have your level of success in Warrior without
a lot of
> skill and finesse. Having said that, I do think there are certain
armies that
> have become untenable, at least in 25mm, because they require more
flank space
> and more depth in which to operate. I don't expect to be playing my
Grenadines
> any time soon, nor my Post Mongol Russians. I find myself drawn to
the Parthian
> list, but again I just don't see it as tenable as things are now.
>
> It will be interesting to see how the Mongols fare -- and I mean
Gengis Khan
> Mongols, not Timurid or Yuan, or any of those other "diluted"
flavors.
>
> And it would be very interesting if you and I met in the NICT this
year. I don't
> expect to win, but you're one of the top players I've yet to cross
swords with.
> Fun as it might be, I won't be running Northern Barbarians. But
then you
> probably won't be running Khmer either, will you?
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Greg Regets]

1250 points was the standard in Texas for as long as I can remember.
We changed to 1500, then 1600 points, when our group joined NASAMW.

1250 points is a much better game in my opinion. 1600 points in 25mm,
reminds me of that game we all used to play as kids, where we would
line plastic soldiers up and roll marbles at them.

g

P.S. Jon ... love the new book cover! :-)




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "downs_derek" <darnd022263@a...>
wrote:
>
> I have to agree with you. There is no room for a cav army in 25mm.
> Except maybe the SHK knight armies which tend to run over things.
> That is way I loved it way back when when we were at 1250 points.
> there were still flank battles and such. And Khmer is over I an on
to
> bigger and better things now.
>
> Derek
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > The Khmer keep getting better everyday. Check out the
changes
> made in the Burmese allies. No more spearmen! that means more
points
> for more effective alternatives when taking these guys as an ally.
By
> the way, do you need any Burmese Elephants? I may have some for
sell
> as I'm a Khmer player now. Death to the infidels (any who oppose
> me!) and moogboys.
> >
> > k
> >
> > Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> > --- On March 3 Derek Downs "decloaked" and said: ---
> >
> > > Mark if you want more finesse in ancient tournaments push for
> smaller
> > > point tournaments. When I started ancients 1000 years ago we
> played
> > > something like 1250 points on 8 foot tables. Talking about
flanks
> > > being important. Now with 1600 points it is wall to wall figs
> there
> > > are no flanks. The Aztec nearly cover the whole table. The
finesse
> > > however is there. It is by probing the opponents weak spots and
> > > breaking up his line.
> >
> > Derek, I don't think we disagree here. A "slugfest" and some
> skill/finesse are
> > not incompatible. George Foreman probably threw the hardest punch
> of anyone
> > who's ever boxed professionally, but if he had not had
considerable
> skill it
> > wouldn't have helped him much. Napoleon may not have cared much
for
> the outcome
> > at Borodino, but he didn't lose, and he did adapt.
> >
> > So no one is going to have your level of success in Warrior
without
> a lot of
> > skill and finesse. Having said that, I do think there are certain
> armies that
> > have become untenable, at least in 25mm, because they require
more
> flank space
> > and more depth in which to operate. I don't expect to be playing
my
> Grenadines
> > any time soon, nor my Post Mongol Russians. I find myself drawn
to
> the Parthian
> > list, but again I just don't see it as tenable as things are now.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see how the Mongols fare -- and I mean
> Gengis Khan
> > Mongols, not Timurid or Yuan, or any of those other "diluted"
> flavors.
> >
> > And it would be very interesting if you and I met in the NICT
this
> year. I don't
> > expect to win, but you're one of the top players I've yet to
cross
> swords with.
> > Fun as it might be, I won't be running Northern Barbarians. But
> then you
> > probably won't be running Khmer either, will you?
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

There it is. Stated by one of the best players of the rules engine. I've been
playing the 25mm mini format with Dave Smith and really get the feeling that the
official table size needs a bit more depth for Cav types. The way it is now kind
of gives me that "Fast Warrior" feeling where you are almost too close to your
opponent to start out the game. I think adding some depth and width would help
rectify this though. Any thoughts from any other players?

kw

downs_derek <darnd022263@...> wrote:

I have to agree with you. There is no room for a cav army in 25mm.
Except maybe the SHK knight armies which tend to run over things.
That is way I loved it way back when when we were at 1250 points.
there were still flank battles and such. And Khmer is over I an on to
bigger and better things now.

Derek

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The Khmer keep getting better everyday. Check out the changes
made in the Burmese allies. No more spearmen! that means more points
for more effective alternatives when taking these guys as an ally. By
the way, do you need any Burmese Elephants? I may have some for sell
as I'm a Khmer player now. Death to the infidels (any who oppose
me!) and moogboys.
>
> k
>
> Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On March 3 Derek Downs "decloaked" and said: ---
>
> > Mark if you want more finesse in ancient tournaments push for
smaller
> > point tournaments. When I started ancients 1000 years ago we
played
> > something like 1250 points on 8 foot tables. Talking about flanks
> > being important. Now with 1600 points it is wall to wall figs
there
> > are no flanks. The Aztec nearly cover the whole table. The finesse
> > however is there. It is by probing the opponents weak spots and
> > breaking up his line.
>
> Derek, I don't think we disagree here. A "slugfest" and some
skill/finesse are
> not incompatible. George Foreman probably threw the hardest punch
of anyone
> who's ever boxed professionally, but if he had not had considerable
skill it
> wouldn't have helped him much. Napoleon may not have cared much for
the outcome
> at Borodino, but he didn't lose, and he did adapt.
>
> So no one is going to have your level of success in Warrior without
a lot of
> skill and finesse. Having said that, I do think there are certain
armies that
> have become untenable, at least in 25mm, because they require more
flank space
> and more depth in which to operate. I don't expect to be playing my
Grenadines
> any time soon, nor my Post Mongol Russians. I find myself drawn to
the Parthian
> list, but again I just don't see it as tenable as things are now.
>
> It will be interesting to see how the Mongols fare -- and I mean
Gengis Khan
> Mongols, not Timurid or Yuan, or any of those other "diluted"
flavors.
>
> And it would be very interesting if you and I met in the NICT this
year. I don't
> expect to win, but you're one of the top players I've yet to cross
swords with.
> Fun as it might be, I won't be running Northern Barbarians. But
then you
> probably won't be running Khmer either, will you?
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> There it is. Stated by one of the best players of the rules engine.
I've been playing the 25mm mini format with Dave Smith and really get
the feeling that the official table size needs a bit more depth for
Cav types. The way it is now kind of gives me that "Fast Warrior"
feeling where you are almost too close to your opponent to start out
the game. I think adding some depth and width would help rectify this
though. Any thoughts from any other players?
>
> kw
>


The table size may be small for cavalry armies with battles take took
place on the steppes, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't also be right
for most other ancient, dark age, and medieval battles.

If you look at the accounts of many classical era battles, one of the
toughest challenges for a commander was to force his opponent into a
set battle like Warrior simulates. In all of the First Punic War, I
think there was only 3 such battles. Normally a commander would
approach the enemy camp, challenge the enemy to battle, and array
themselves in battle formation waiting for the enemy to come forth to
join them. In some cases, this could be repeated over successive days.
Eventually, the enemy would either offer battle in return or withdraw.
In any case, this doesn't seem like a situation where the manuevering
and skirmishing is much different than a 1600 point game on a 5' x 8'
table.

In the European Dark Ages, was this process much different? How about
during the High Middle Ages like the battles of the HYW?

So, the table may be small if you're Mongols fighting Early Russians
out on the steps, but is it small for hoplites, Romans, or French Knights?

And isn't the macro effect of skirmishing for position simulated by
the scouting point and deployment rules?

Peter

[Mike Turner]

I "think" that table size, "offical" that is, is a tournament/NICT,
etc. issue, not a Warrior rules issue. Maybe a table size change is
needed (or not), but tournament runners, the NICT, etc. can make that
change, not the basic rules (which can be played on any size
table/battlefield)

Mike
Roman Cdr, Happy with a restricted battlefield!


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> There it is. Stated by one of the best players of the rules engine.
I've been playing the 25mm mini format with Dave Smith and really get
the feeling that the official table size needs a bit more depth for
Cav types. The way it is now kind of gives me that "Fast Warrior"
feeling where you are almost too close to your opponent to start out
the game. I think adding some depth and width would help rectify this
though. Any thoughts from any other players?
>
> kw
>
> downs_derek <darnd022263@a...> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with you. There is no room for a cav army in 25mm.
> Except maybe the SHK knight armies which tend to run over things.
> That is way I loved it way back when when we were at 1250 points.
> there were still flank battles and such. And Khmer is over I an on
to
> bigger and better things now.
>
> Derek
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > The Khmer keep getting better everyday. Check out the
changes
> made in the Burmese allies. No more spearmen! that means more
points
> for more effective alternatives when taking these guys as an ally.
By
> the way, do you need any Burmese Elephants? I may have some for
sell
> as I'm a Khmer player now. Death to the infidels (any who oppose
> me!) and moogboys.
> >
> > k
> >
> > Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> > --- On March 3 Derek Downs "decloaked" and said: ---
> >
> > > Mark if you want more finesse in ancient tournaments push for
> smaller
> > > point tournaments. When I started ancients 1000 years ago we
> played
> > > something like 1250 points on 8 foot tables. Talking about
flanks
> > > being important. Now with 1600 points it is wall to wall figs
> there
> > > are no flanks. The Aztec nearly cover the whole table. The
finesse
> > > however is there. It is by probing the opponents weak spots and
> > > breaking up his line.
> >
> > Derek, I don't think we disagree here. A "slugfest" and some
> skill/finesse are
> > not incompatible. George Foreman probably threw the hardest punch
> of anyone
> > who's ever boxed professionally, but if he had not had
considerable
> skill it
> > wouldn't have helped him much. Napoleon may not have cared much
for
> the outcome
> > at Borodino, but he didn't lose, and he did adapt.
> >
> > So no one is going to have your level of success in Warrior
without
> a lot of
> > skill and finesse. Having said that, I do think there are certain
> armies that
> > have become untenable, at least in 25mm, because they require
more
> flank space
> > and more depth in which to operate. I don't expect to be playing
my
> Grenadines
> > any time soon, nor my Post Mongol Russians. I find myself drawn
to
> the Parthian
> > list, but again I just don't see it as tenable as things are now.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see how the Mongols fare -- and I mean
> Gengis Khan
> > Mongols, not Timurid or Yuan, or any of those other "diluted"
> flavors.
> >
> > And it would be very interesting if you and I met in the NICT
this
> year. I don't
> > expect to win, but you're one of the top players I've yet to
cross
> swords with.
> > Fun as it might be, I won't be running Northern Barbarians. But
> then you
> > probably won't be running Khmer either, will you?
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Very true Mike. I'm slowly building EIR and can sympathize with your last
comment. :)

turner1118 <Turnerm@...> wrote:
I "think" that table size, "offical" that is, is a tournament/NICT,
etc. issue, not a Warrior rules issue. Maybe a table size change is
needed (or not), but tournament runners, the NICT, etc. can make that
change, not the basic rules (which can be played on any size
table/battlefield)

Mike
Roman Cdr, Happy with a restricted battlefield!


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> There it is. Stated by one of the best players of the rules engine.
I've been playing the 25mm mini format with Dave Smith and really get
the feeling that the official table size needs a bit more depth for
Cav types. The way it is now kind of gives me that "Fast Warrior"
feeling where you are almost too close to your opponent to start out
the game. I think adding some depth and width would help rectify this
though. Any thoughts from any other players?
>
> kw
>
> downs_derek <darnd022263@a...> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with you. There is no room for a cav army in 25mm.
> Except maybe the SHK knight armies which tend to run over things.
> That is way I loved it way back when when we were at 1250 points.
> there were still flank battles and such. And Khmer is over I an on
to
> bigger and better things now.
>
> Derek
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > The Khmer keep getting better everyday. Check out the
changes
> made in the Burmese allies. No more spearmen! that means more
points
> for more effective alternatives when taking these guys as an ally.
By
> the way, do you need any Burmese Elephants? I may have some for
sell
> as I'm a Khmer player now. Death to the infidels (any who oppose
> me!) and moogboys.
> >
> > k
> >
> > Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> > --- On March 3 Derek Downs "decloaked" and said: ---
> >
> > > Mark if you want more finesse in ancient tournaments push for
> smaller
> > > point tournaments. When I started ancients 1000 years ago we
> played
> > > something like 1250 points on 8 foot tables. Talking about
flanks
> > > being important. Now with 1600 points it is wall to wall figs
> there
> > > are no flanks. The Aztec nearly cover the whole table. The
finesse
> > > however is there. It is by probing the opponents weak spots and
> > > breaking up his line.
> >
> > Derek, I don't think we disagree here. A "slugfest" and some
> skill/finesse are
> > not incompatible. George Foreman probably threw the hardest punch
> of anyone
> > who's ever boxed professionally, but if he had not had
considerable
> skill it
> > wouldn't have helped him much. Napoleon may not have cared much
for
> the outcome
> > at Borodino, but he didn't lose, and he did adapt.
> >
> > So no one is going to have your level of success in Warrior
without
> a lot of
> > skill and finesse. Having said that, I do think there are certain
> armies that
> > have become untenable, at least in 25mm, because they require
more
> flank space
> > and more depth in which to operate. I don't expect to be playing
my
> Grenadines
> > any time soon, nor my Post Mongol Russians. I find myself drawn
to
> the Parthian
> > list, but again I just don't see it as tenable as things are now.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see how the Mongols fare -- and I mean
> Gengis Khan
> > Mongols, not Timurid or Yuan, or any of those other "diluted"
> flavors.
> >
> > And it would be very interesting if you and I met in the NICT
this
> year. I don't
> > expect to win, but you're one of the top players I've yet to
cross
> swords with.
> > Fun as it might be, I won't be running Northern Barbarians. But
> then you
> > probably won't be running Khmer either, will you?
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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




---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Peter,

Play a game in the 25mm mini format and get back with me.

kw

Peter Celella <pcelella@...> wrote:

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> There it is. Stated by one of the best players of the rules engine.
I've been playing the 25mm mini format with Dave Smith and really get
the feeling that the official table size needs a bit more depth for
Cav types. The way it is now kind of gives me that "Fast Warrior"
feeling where you are almost too close to your opponent to start out
the game. I think adding some depth and width would help rectify this
though. Any thoughts from any other players?
>
> kw
>


The table size may be small for cavalry armies with battles take took
place on the steppes, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't also be right
for most other ancient, dark age, and medieval battles.

If you look at the accounts of many classical era battles, one of the
toughest challenges for a commander was to force his opponent into a
set battle like Warrior simulates. In all of the First Punic War, I
think there was only 3 such battles. Normally a commander would
approach the enemy camp, challenge the enemy to battle, and array
themselves in battle formation waiting for the enemy to come forth to
join them. In some cases, this could be repeated over successive days.
Eventually, the enemy would either offer battle in return or withdraw.
In any case, this doesn't seem like a situation where the manuevering
and skirmishing is much different than a 1600 point game on a 5' x 8'
table.

In the European Dark Ages, was this process much different? How about
during the High Middle Ages like the battles of the HYW?

So, the table may be small if you're Mongols fighting Early Russians
out on the steps, but is it small for hoplites, Romans, or French Knights?

And isn't the macro effect of skirmishing for position simulated by
the scouting point and deployment rules?

Peter





Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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

Kelly:

I'm not sure what you mean. That I would enjoy a 25mm mini format more
than the normal 1600 game, or that it would more closely resemble an
ancient battle?

I would agree that if it is a cavalry battle, the greater space would
make for more flank actions, ebb and flow, etc. Those kinds of actions
typical of steppe warfare - and would probably be more enjoyable for
both opponents playing that type of army. But I'm not sure that this
would be a better representation of all ancient warfare in all cases,
or even more enjoyable for a player with an army that has a core
component of close order infantry.

Did I misinterpret you?

Peter

p.s. All my opinions of course need to be taken in the light of my
relative inexperience as a Warrior player. I plan on playing several
1200 point 15mm games at Pointcon later in March. This will probably
feel ridiculously open to me - playing for the first time in 15mm at
Bill's was definitely edifying.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Play a game in the 25mm mini format and get back with me.
>
> kw
>
> Peter Celella <pcelella@c...> wrote:
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > There it is. Stated by one of the best players of the rules engine.
> I've been playing the 25mm mini format with Dave Smith and really get
> the feeling that the official table size needs a bit more depth for
> Cav types. The way it is now kind of gives me that "Fast Warrior"
> feeling where you are almost too close to your opponent to start out
> the game. I think adding some depth and width would help rectify this
> though. Any thoughts from any other players?
> >
> > kw
> >
>
>
> The table size may be small for cavalry armies with battles take took
> place on the steppes, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't also be right
> for most other ancient, dark age, and medieval battles.
>
> If you look at the accounts of many classical era battles, one of the
> toughest challenges for a commander was to force his opponent into a
> set battle like Warrior simulates. In all of the First Punic War, I
> think there was only 3 such battles. Normally a commander would
> approach the enemy camp, challenge the enemy to battle, and array
> themselves in battle formation waiting for the enemy to come forth to
> join them. In some cases, this could be repeated over successive days.
> Eventually, the enemy would either offer battle in return or withdraw.
> In any case, this doesn't seem like a situation where the manuevering
> and skirmishing is much different than a 1600 point game on a 5' x 8'
> table.
>
> In the European Dark Ages, was this process much different? How about
> during the High Middle Ages like the battles of the HYW?
>
> So, the table may be small if you're Mongols fighting Early Russians
> out on the steps, but is it small for hoplites, Romans, or French
Knights?
>
> And isn't the macro effect of skirmishing for position simulated by
> the scouting point and deployment rules?
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Doug]

A deeper question might be whether or not it is too easy for a player
to shut down the flanks with terrain.

I've always thought it would be interesting to have "make the table a
foot wider" as a terrain choice; but of course that won't work in
tournaments that are limited to the tables lined up in a hall.

>The table size may be small for cavalry armies with battles take took
>place on the steppes, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't also be right
>for most other ancient, dark age, and medieval battles.
>
>So, the table may be small if you're Mongols fighting Early Russians
>out on the steps, but is it small for hoplites, Romans, or French Knights?