Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
And I think that
> > contrast -- open vs. closed -- is a big part of the reason why
Warrior is
> > gaining momentum and DBM seems to have stalled.>>

My experience to this statement is somewhat departed from the above.
Namely, the reason DBM seems to have stalled is that there are a very
limited number of variables tactically, all have been explored, and
they have thus become the standard competency mark by which DBM
players game. Similarly, chess is so well documented that to not be
familiar with an opening into the 10-15 move range often hurts in the
mid/end game. DBM is facing just such a state. Not that everyone
can or will master DBM, but the variables are narrowed and known.

Warrior retains much interest, IMO because the variables available
are far more complex. Not that either is a historical simulation by
any means, but troop combination, troop grading variations, weapons
factoring, tactical limitations--all make Warrior much more difficult
to learn and thus more captivating long term.

A simple example is the use of Marian Romans in DBA (similar to DBM
but more reduced in variation) vs. in Warrior. In DBA a player is
told what the army will contain mostly, and these static elements
have a very narrow window of competence. In Warrior, the same army
has options far beyond anything any one Roman general could or would
imagine. Thus while in DBA the Marian is a far better army as a game
competitor, it ultimately is also much easier to learn
(strength/weakness) and be turned against it. In Warrior this army
is on the surface a non-competitor, yet it has enough options to
present a completely different face every game.

Wanax

[Ewan McNay]

We can count on Boyd to deviate.

Or something .

[Incidentally, you noted that it is just you and Ambrose - is it
true that Derek has given up on the game? I just heard that this
weekend.]

No, nothing to actually add to your post except 'that's why I
play Warrior, too.'