Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/23/2003 10:15:27 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
I am going to hold off on what I would consider the benefits of DBM
compared to Warrior because while I believe there are some good
features that the authors of DBM have developed in concentrating on
the general's-eye view, almost nobody on this list - which is after
all a Warrior list - wants to see it in print and it would probably
trigger entirely too much text on the group.
John, you are more than welcome to present both sides of the story here. I
myself played DBM for several years before we (FHE) purchased the WRG 7th game
engine. I think it is important to make clear the case for all game systems
and by doing so, we learn where we can best focus to make ours the best choice
available. I won't allow other games running 'ads' here, but a debate by
players on the merits of various systems is both healthy and entirely
permissible.

Warrior and DBM present two different views of the same battle. I think,
though, that the decision as to which to primarily play requires a total package
approach where everything is considered (basing, lists, supporting products,
support from the company, availability of opponents, stability of the rules,
etc.) and I think your mail covers the salient points of that approach very,
very well.

So, feel free to tell everyone here what you think is good or better about
DBM. I know I am always interested in this as I see us as very able to continue
to improve what we give the gamer without having to change any basics. And
what better way to look at what needs improving than to hear from a player what
he likes better about another system?

Jon


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

I am only just starting tod dabble in Ancients and have bought a few
sets of rules so far (DBM, Vis Bellica and Ancient Warfare). I am
not bothered about tourney play and at the moment I seem to be
favooring AW as one of the rule sets I will use.

I like to be able to play more than one however and before I take
the plung and buy another I'd be interested in what the key
differnces are between warrior and DBM.

DBM were very cheap and I have to say, while I haven't played it yet
there is something about them which seems appealing. That said,
from reading them, it does look slightly more that DBM is more of a
game that uses soldier miniatures rather than a war game. Not
wishing to offend anyone with that, it's just the way they come
across.

My main interest is in rules which perhaps reflect accuracy more and
AW seems to do that much better. Very much a case of each to their
own but clearly I'd like to be sure rules offer what I want before
getting them. Revolution and Empire are a hellish complex set of
Nap rules I use. Pig to learn and can take AGES to play, BUT it is
a rewarding game. I much prefer that to the knock a game off in two
hours approach (though of course I fully accept that many others
prefer that and time for many these days is tight).

Any thoughts welcome.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/23/2003 13:40:16 Central Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:
The main reason I always cringe when this subject comes up in this egroup is
that any critical analysis of the abstract gaming system seems to get
immediately published on other lists and done so in such a way as to make it
sound
like all we're doing is bashing "their" set of rules.


To add to this: I am encouraging an open discussion of the merits of game
systems here. It would hurt my ability to keep this discussion open if someone
did, in fact, post clips of what is being said out of context onto other
groups. I can't control what folks do off this egroup, but I would ask that
anything you take from here is placed in context - we are open to all opinions
of
game sets, ours and others, in the spirit of making Warrior better. We are not
bashing anyone's rules set.
Jon


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

[John Murphy]

I'll take a plunge and answer this. Just a note I hope this does not
turn into a big thread.

But I suspect I am in a rare position to tackle this since almost
everyone on this e-group is an avid Warrior fan and doesn't play, or
certainly like, DBM - a contention that has existed among tourney
players (which most ancients gamers are) since DBM came out, even
worse than the 6th-7th arguement I remember when 7th came out which
was also a very revolutionary change at the time. I am one of the
few I know who can actually see good points in both (or all three
WRG for that matter) rule sets.

The fundamental difference (in my opion at least) is that DBM as I
have heard it argued by its proponents is geared to a general's-eye
view of the battle and can be very abstract on the tactical level. I
certainly would agree with both parts of this statement, without
indicating a value judgement here.

Warrior beyond a doubt retains the tactical feel from the old WRG
sets of skirmishers and mounted archers shooting and troops charging
into hand-to-hand combat. In that aspect it is more akin to AW/MW,
though having played AW/MW a few times as well (not as often as
either DBM or Warrior) I was left with the perhaps mistaken
impression that Warrior does a much more carefully complete, well-
tested across various armies for decades, and clear job of this with
fewer "oddities" - with apolgies to Terry Gore.

DBM, some would say and I probably agree, begins with the premise
that this tactical nuance is insignifigant to the general's view of
the battlefield. I personally believe this to be an error on PB and
RBS's part simply because I find some armies like Byzantines based
on skirmishers and mounted firepower to become very boring to play
in DBM - without stating here my judgement on which is a better
simulation on the overal-battle level.

DBM is not cheaper than Warrior. I have spent way more on DBM with
several versions of rulebooks and even two editions of army lists.
And now there is talk of another set under development by PB to
supplant DBM. So no way on that one, you have to look beyond the
cost on the cover of one rulebook. In any event, though, the cost of
the rules and lists is nothing compared to the cost of lead.

All that understood, DBM does perhaps gain a few things by doing
this. There are those who claim that it is easier and less time-
consuming to play. I would, however, dispute this point. DBM can be
very complicated simply because it retains WRG 7th's fascination
with troop elements pivoting and lining up for combat and now,
rather than only a dozen or two units to manage, there are anywhere
from 30 to 100 individual elements to intricately move about and
microscopically line up (and since shooting is in many cases
abstracted as close combat in DBM it is an even more significant
portion of the game). I find this to be actually quite a bit more
complex mechanically to play - and believe me this is as basic to
DBM as setting the range is to Warrior - and it also means that DBM
can take just as long to Warrior to finish a game - I believe both
probably depend a lot more on the armies and players than the rules
in terms of playing time. And this is from a player who has a lot
more DBM playing time under his belt than Warrior and still
appreciates both systems.

I am going to hold off on what I would consider the benefits of DBM
compared to Warrior because while I believe there are some good
features that the authors of DBM have developed in concentrating on
the general's-eye view, almost nobody on this list - which is after
all a Warrior list - wants to see it in print and it would probably
trigger entirely too much text on the group.

But you may contact me off-list if you would like my opinion on the
subject.

BTW never heard of Vis Bellica - but a note if you want opponents to
play against it is difficult to go outside of established tourney
sets like Warrior, DBM, AW/MW and WHAB unless the rules use troops
based for one of those systems (which is one reason why MoA is
popular without a tourney base although those are also very clean
clear rules).

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "empgamer" <acpopen@n...> wrote:
> I am only just starting tod dabble in Ancients and have bought a
few
> sets of rules so far (DBM, Vis Bellica and Ancient Warfare). I am
> not bothered about tourney play and at the moment I seem to be
> favooring AW as one of the rule sets I will use.
>
> I like to be able to play more than one however and before I take
> the plung and buy another I'd be interested in what the key
> differnces are between warrior and DBM.
>
> DBM were very cheap and I have to say, while I haven't played it
yet
> there is something about them which seems appealing. That said,
> from reading them, it does look slightly more that DBM is more of
a
> game that uses soldier miniatures rather than a war game. Not
> wishing to offend anyone with that, it's just the way they come
> across.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/23/2003 15:51:17 Central Standard Time, gar@...
writes:
There are also troop types that do not exist, such as a loose order
man in armor that would historically classify him as Loose Order
Extra-Heavy Infantry.
Funny, but lizardmen in Fantasy Warrior are LEHI.....lol

Jon


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

Opened a can of worms, haven’t you?

I am about to express personal opinions and will say some things about DBM
that can be construed as negative – so if that offends any of you, don’t
read this. It isn’t meant as such, but is an attempt to explain why I left
DBM.

I too have been playing Empire for over 20 years and in my opinion still
ranks up there as one of the best playing set of rules out there – it is the
yardstick that I measure all of the other sets out there, so maybe you can
gain some insight on my personal point of view. I also started playing
Ancients around 1974 using the WRG 5th edition rules, but had left ancients
before 7th came out and spent most of my time with the 6th edition rules. I
enjoy the flavor of Empire and the color that is brought to the table with
that set – one of my fellow players actually packed his Imperial Guard in a
suitcase and took them to France and had a “Homecoming Ceremony” with them.
While wargamers are a strange breed in general, not many rules can instill
that level of fanaticism. DBM certainly will not come close – it is too
abstract on many levels, without the benefit of being any simpler.

I got back into Ancients about four years ago and started with DBM. All I
can and will say is that the more I played DBM the less I hated it, but
never really liked it. I went into Warrior with trepidation while
experimenting with other rulesets. The more I play Warrior, the more I
enjoy it (and very much like) and it is now the ancients ruleset that I now
play. One aspect that I enjoy of both are the army lists, I however get
frustrated with DBM’s abstract approach. My opinion is that DBM is DBA on
steroids – and was developed to cater to the “large battle” crowd without
working out the bugs completely on the larger scale. The DBM rules have
random complexities thrown in without the issues being resolved across the
board (or explained clearly), and maybe is the catalyst to the new release.
Warrior, while somewhat complex, (but no more so than DBM IMHO) is more
consistent across the board and, from what I can tell from following this
group, has essentially been in playtest by some of these guys since WRG 6
first came out , and it shows.

Don’t let DBM’s apparent simplicity fool you – PB should have written far
more in those rules to make them clearer than he did. The result is a
frustrating learning experience and it isn’t until you search the internet
and find those explanation websites out there that some things will finally
be made clear (or you have a full-time DBM coach on hand, which we didn’t
have) – and by the time you download them and add them to your rules then
you have something that looks like a Sears catalogue to tote around.
HOWEVER – once you understand, they aren’t very difficult to play (but isn’t
that true of about all rulesets?).

As you get into Warrior, you will see some common elements with DBM (no pun
intended), but that is where the similarities end. If you enjoy the play of
Empire, then you will enjoy the mechanics of Warrior far more than DBM. And
by the way – both sets (DBM and Warrior) take the same amount of time to
play. As you get the rules down, then you can knock off a 2000 point battle
(a fairly big Warrior battle) in about 4 hours or less. Fast Warrior (aka
DBA for Warrior fans) is very quick and a good learning tool.

I too would be glad to respond off list, if you want to talk to a fellow
Empire enthusiast who also plays ancients and have any questions.


Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: empgamer [mailto:acpopen@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:30 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Warrior and DBM - Key differences?

I am only just starting tod dabble in Ancients and have bought a few
sets of rules so far (DBM, Vis Bellica and Ancient Warfare). I am
not bothered about tourney play and at the moment I seem to be
favooring AW as one of the rule sets I will use.

I like to be able to play more than one however and before I take
the plung and buy another I'd be interested in what the key
differnces are between warrior and DBM.

DBM were very cheap and I have to say, while I haven't played it yet
there is something about them which seems appealing. That said,
from reading them, it does look slightly more that DBM is more of a
game that uses soldier miniatures rather than a war game. Not
wishing to offend anyone with that, it's just the way they come
across.

My main interest is in rules which perhaps reflect accuracy more and
AW seems to do that much better. Very much a case of each to their
own but clearly I'd like to be sure rules offer what I want before
getting them. Revolution and Empire are a hellish complex set of
Nap rules I use. Pig to learn and can take AGES to play, BUT it is
a rewarding game. I much prefer that to the knock a game off in two
hours approach (though of course I fully accept that many others
prefer that and time for many these days is tight).

Any thoughts welcome.



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




_____

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
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

DBM = 2 elements of Lh will hold up the entire main foot battleline.
Can be fun, but army and command composition account for more than
tactics. Grand tactical is more important than tactical only in so
far as your commands are configured to accomidate losses.
Warrior = cascading morale check failures can end the game quick. Can
be fun, but army and command composition account much and local
tactical punching/counterpunching is key.
DBA = just kill 4 elements...very simple yet can be complex if
players are of higher skill. Still not alot of options once game
begins.

I prefer Warrior as a 25mm game system.
Wanax

[scott holder]

I'll bite on this because I was one of the original DBM playtesters and played
this game on an equal basis with TOG for perhaps 2 years and dabbled in it up
until the formation of FHE. The main reason I always cringe when this subject
comes up in this egroup is that any critical analysis of the abstract gaming
system seems to get immediately published on other lists and done so in such a
way as to make it sound like all we're doing is bashing "their" set of rules.

So, here's my disclaimer: The following is not even remotely intended to bash
another rules set. These opinions are my own and reflect what *I* want out of
ancient/medieval gaming and I fully understand that others have different goals
and are wired differently so want different things. We are stronger in our
diversity and all of that. Seriously, if we were still a "one game" country
(the way so many other countries remain), we'd have far far far far fewer people
playing in this little subset of miniature wargaming. I've been thru massive
switches before and every time you'd see 25-50% of the active gamers either sell
their lead and move onto to some other period or store the lead and move onto
some other period. If we in the USofA had dropped TOG and said "DBM forever",
I'd be playing Patriots and Loyalists and Flames of War and just about anything
else.

My comments might be a tad bit more general in nature so I'm not sure how much
this will help.

I always liked DBM primarily as a game to fight campaign battles. Develop any
campaign system that's not too abstract (and by that I mean something along the
lines of a general DBA campaign) and you inevitably get battles that are
significantly larger than even your general friendly 4 guys on a side big
battle. TOG simply took too long to fight such battles. DBM worked incredibly
well because of the draconian break point meant battles were short and the fact
that you could usually equate one element of any given troop type to one
"strength point" or some such nomenclature for your board-game campaign system.
Plus, you did get a feel for being a general-level commander running, oh, let's
say Darius' army at Guagamela. Some of my best ancient gaming experiences have
been playing KingMaker and The Conquerors and using DBM to fight out the
tactical battles.

I also liked the army lists. They more than anything else made the system work.
And that's because PB generally took time to make sure the weapons designations
and where they appear with what troops types in the lists was balanced.
Otherwise, the game could have become a simplified end-result version of 6th Ed
in that 6 armies dominated the game. I feel the game has veered dangerously
close to this at one or two points during the many follow up versions of DBM but
always pulled back from the brink.

I also liked the way that LTS matched up vis a vis everything else in the game
(keeping in mind I'm talking about older versions of DBM, I couldn't tell you
how/if that's changed since). That's been soooo hard to really do in almost any
other gaming system.

I also liked how some of the specialty troop types that had a historical record
better than their detailed equipment played on the table could have some
semblance of their historical record. The emphasis on "end result" as opposed
to getting lost in the process (and having the parts of the process lead you
astray) was also appealing.

I didn't like the terrain placement rules. Actually, the very first iteration
were okay--all the rest were awful imo. Reason #1 I never got hooked on the
system.

I didn't like sameness of battles after mastering the basics and then the
quirks. Some games, I want ease of play, push lead around, throw dice. Other
games, I want an endless intellectual challenge. DBM didn't provide the latter
over time and I got tired of the same lines pushing into each other or endless
time trying to move your folks so as to get those perfect matchups. Or the
break-up of the lines which resulted in myriad little rugby scrums going on
everywhere with any developing advantage based solely on PIP rolls and/or your
ability to throw 6s to your opponent's 1s. There was just too much reliance on
random factors, heh heh, this is ironic coming from me who often uses the
tactical approach "move Troop Type A to Point X and roll up 4". Again, some
folks like this level of abstraction, more power to em. After 2 years, I found
all the battles were looking the same--that's never happened in Warrior. Reason
#2 I never got hooked on the system.

I didn't like the goofy little movement quirks (that others have suggested)
which struck me again as something that typified 6th Ed. That's only gotten
worse over the years and really shoved me out of the system and attempting to
find a way to preserve TOG in one form or another. Every system has goofy
movement quirks. I just hated 6th Ed so much and found the DBM ones remarably
similar in their outcome that I broke out into a facial tic again:):)

I didn't like the break point level---waaay to draconian imo and that was
something I voiced repeatedly during the original playtest. Over time, that was
probably incorrect given how I now see players play. I always felt that TOG's
break point had the pendulum waaaaay in one direction while DBM took it
waaaaaaay in the other. Warrior's break point level sort of split the
difference.

I didn't like the PIP-driven command control. That being said, I do find the
"uncontrolled" advance mechanics of the game very elegant, assuming all the
movement quirks could be ironed out.

I didn't like the seemingly endless major changes to the fundamental weapons
characteristics of the game. Having said that, I'm certainly not so "change
adverse" as let's say Jon is, but......changing to correct some oversights in
the basic mechanics or changing to correct some egregious play balance issues is
one thing. However, I would have thought that once one had "set" on the
interprative approach to simulating the battles, that that one approach would
remain more or less constant in further tweaking of the basic system. Instead,
we've seen armies "popularity" wax and wane NOT because of the nice little
player cycle/loop that we all see in Warrior (yunno, if I think everybody's
gonna bring elephants this year, I'll bring missiles--oh, you're bringing
missiles, I'll bring LIR or Seleucids or Aztecs--oh you're bringing them, I'll
bring knights---oh, you're bringing knights, I'll bring elephants, and so on and
so on) but because the "new rules" completely change the basic army dynamics vis
a vis each other, yestereday's "power list" is worthless today. I think that's
one MAJOR reason why the game never took off in 25mm despite endless attempts
here to promote that scale. Who wants to invest that kind of money and time to
develop an army and the skill to play it well only to find out it's worthless in
a year's time and NOT because other folks have figured out innovative ways to
beat it up?

I liken the iterative process of DBM to something PB has done before, 1-5th Ed.
Those gaming systems were more or less the same and what you've seen in DBM 1-3
isn't all that different in its approach. 6th Ed was probably the apotheosis of
the 1-5th Ed mechanics but sufficiently different (because of the inclusion of
medieval stuff) to not be a direct descendent of 1-5th Ed. 7th went in a new
direction entirely. I jokingly refer to DBM as WRG 8th Edition because that's
precisely what it is. DBM 2.0 is 9th Ed and DBM 3.0 is 10th Ed.

I think what scares folks off from Warrior is that the combat factor
interaction, at first glance, seems much more complex that DBM. And the
movement *basics* also appear much easier in DBM. But, if we layed out a table
of, oh, how a Sp interacts with all the other DBM troop types, you get a row and
column that's not all that far off from how Warrior's LTS line on the combat
table looks. And the movement? One of the reasons Warrior is so large is that
we go to great pains to explain all the movement nuances, DBM has not....unless
you troll online as was mentioned or go thru the painful "apprenticeship"
program which is not at all unlike TOG.

Again, since this post will most likely find it's way onto other egroups let me
reiterate, I love all the diversity in ancients/medieval systems we now have
here in the USofA. If a certain system doesn't appeal to how I want to play,
there's a good chance I can now find one that will. The fact that I play one
doesn't mean I think the others "suck", far from it. When both DBA and DBM
first came out, I really pushed their tourney play at NASAMW tournaments.
They're been integral in keeping people in the hobby and bringing new ones in.

scott

<big snip >

Scott I agree with you in regards to DBM completely. I attend
tournies for it ect but it does seem really, really bland to me. I
think at my February dbm tourney I am going to run a warrior demo
game. Once I get the rules, I will just get a couple armies together
and let people see how it works. I would love to see both systems at
tournies instead of just one or the other. Seems like it would be
fun anyway.

Brad

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> So, feel free to tell everyone here what you think is good or
better about
> DBM. I know I am always interested in this as I see us as very
able to continue
> to improve what we give the gamer without having to change any
basics.

Well, okay then, but let's try not to let this become a big debate
thread about "my dog's better than your dog". Not that you would,
but I have seen this very topic degenerate quickly into that kind of
thing - so I tread very carefully here.

First off, the single real reason why I think DBM _appears_ so
simple is that you can actually resolve shooting and close combat
without looking up the charts, handy for a "grand-tactical" game.
Now, it is true that this takes a few games of DBM to have the
factors in your head (and they sometimes get tweaked in small ways
between revisions) but the people I know who can do this for Warrior
have I expect taken a much longer time to do it - I am not there
yet - because you need to know the weapons table and the casualty
table both. That said, the overall game simplicity is not as it
seems because the mechanics of movement and such, as stated earlier,
are much worse in DBM and that eats up any time and energy saved in
combat resolution.

The single best feature of DBM is the command control system, also a
good thing for a "general's-eye" orientation. There are no orders to
interpret (or forget to interpret at critical moments). This is not
necessarily good - if orders were always played correctly (and I am
as much or more at fault there as anyone) that would be much better.
DBM has the advantage of working in command control into the very
basics of troop movement so you never forget to apply it. Command
control literally is what lets you move troops in DBM rather
than "just a bunch of restrictions". That is a revolutionary plus
for the rules in my book. DBM maybe makes it a bit too easy to pull
troops out of line and re-deploy them, because Warrior's orders when
followed are very much directed towards how to engage what is in
front of you and therefore make it very difficult to do this, which
is good for an ancients rule set.

Another good thing about DBM command control is the whole regular
versus irregular thing. Warrior is better at simulating the slowness
irregulars experience in performing a particular manuever (in DBM
you can always do this if you have enough PiPs) but DBM is better at
punishing you in terms of command effort for trying to get too fancy
with irregular troops - the effect is much more severe than the
extra minutes taken for prompting irregulars in Warrior (which it is
not often you have to do). You can see the difference in emphasis
here as well I guess.

And what I like best of all, just because that is how I am, is that
impetuous troops in DBM make spontaneous advances unless you are
constantly expending command effort holding them in check - and
being irregulars this is difficult to do sometimes. I don't know if
you see the French knights at Crecy riding herd over their own
crossbowmen to charge the English, over the ineffectual objections
of their King, in Warrior. One problem with the Warrior orders
system in this regard might be that once orders get intepreted one
way they stay that way.

DBM's sequential system is very basic and plays well if that is what
you are into. Warrior is a sequential system as well (except
marches) but the importance of setting ranges for shooting and
charges make the initiative die-roll, the means by which the
sequence (sequential but more inter-woven rather than strictly Igo-
Hugo) is balanced between players, very important.

On that note, and maybe a bit further off-topic, both rules suffer I
think from placing movement before simultaneous shooting - DBM
slightly less so because the weapons generally all have the same
range (or none). Take a look at the old WRG 1685-1845 rules if you
want to see what (I think) is a good way of handling the actual
mechanics of this sequential fire/move/charge relationship,
regardless of how good a rule set they are overall.

That is about all I can think of for now.

Have a Merry Christmas everyone.

Not at all concerned with what other people think of my thoughts--
probably because no one gives them any thought--I will simply state
that Scott has spent a great deal of time explaining EXACTLY the
variation of Warrior and DBM.

IMO, I didn't see 7th as that much different than 6th mainly because
I had only a year of 6th before 7th emerged. I do see quite a bit of
7th in DBM, unlike Scott, as every time i attempt to boil down 7th
factors for ease of play I end up with something looking like DBM
factors.

Ultimately there are troop types that will limit you in both
similarly. In both anything relying upon close order spear will fail
for lack of manuver and/or punch and/or missile fire. Elephants are
ahistorically strong in both systems. Knights are brittle yet
powerful in both. Archers and light infantry can be strong or a
liability depending upon enemy. Regular cavalry (Irr Cv(O) or Irr
MC) are almost worthless except in massive numbers. Light cavalry
(LH or LC) are better in 15mm than 25mm. LHI (Ax(S)) are very
versitile in both.

They are unlike in many ways as well, but these are due mainly to
the "feel" of the scale. DBM seems to be more men for the same
number of figures, while Warrior seems like a smaller battle for the
same figs. This is basically because of the "unit" approach of
Warrior where units of element manuver much as individual elements
can manuver in DBM. DBM looks like an ancient battle only well after
the midgame, while Warrior looks more like one in the beginning to
mid game.


I don't prefer DBM (like DBA more actually) mainly because it has
become a very liniar thinking group. As indicated before, in DBM
once you discover how to organize your army to optimize commands, you
can make numerous tactical mistakes and the army will forgive you.
This is just what happens. Most middle skill players figure out how
not to loose rather than how to win, and many many games end up as
ties. I prefer a game where if I corner sit, I will get beaten,
shot, and end up routing. "Either general that army or die trying";
this is my gaming moto.
Wanax

btw, excellent analogy Scott.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> I'll bite on this because I was one of the original DBM playtesters
and played this game on an equal basis with TOG for perhaps 2 years
and dabbled in it up until the formation of FHE. The main reason I
always cringe when this subject comes up in this egroup is that any
critical analysis of the abstract gaming system seems to get
immediately published on other lists and done so in such a way as to
make it sound like all we're doing is bashing "their" set of rules.
>
> I think what scares folks off from Warrior is that the combat
factor interaction, at first glance, seems much more complex that
DBM. And the movement *basics* also appear much easier in DBM. But,
if we layed out a table of, oh, how a Sp interacts with all the other
DBM troop types, you get a row and column that's not all that far off
from how Warrior's LTS line on the combat table looks. And the
movement? One of the reasons Warrior is so large is that we go to
great pains to explain all the movement nuances, DBM has
not....unless you troll online as was mentioned or go thru the
painful "apprenticeship" program which is not at all unlike TOG.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I play both Terry Gore's ruleset and that of the Four Horse Enterprises
"Warrior" as well.

Some of the salient diferences between those two sets are that AW and MW seems
to not reward a player for taking big units. What I mean to say is that when a
unit loses a stand of figures, it takes a morale check regardless of the size of
the unit. For example, a unit made up of two elements that loses one takes the
same waiver test as a twelve element unit that loses 1 element. It seems crazy
to me that a unit that takes 1/12 casualties would have to check morale at the
same factor as that of it's 2 element cousin that just took 50% casualties. This
is why when you go back East to play, you notice an over abundance of 2 element
units! In Warrior the bigger the unit (depending on how well supported it is!)
the harder it is to damage. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Terry's game especially
his orders phase which is very cool. I just wish the combat system were more
streamlined like Warrior's system. AW/MW just seems a bit clunky for lack of a
better word in my honest opinion. My main
beefs.

DBM on the other hand is definitely an epic style game. Sort of like Axis and
Allies. Where the charging/evading./shooting/battle decision-making is ruled by
the PIP(Player Initiative Points and the combat die roll). When I play a typical
steppe "horse archer" army, I want to be able to shoot my opponents into
disorder and then open my ranks of light horse to allow my Heavier mounted types
to give the coup de grace! To me, Warrior's mechanics allow me to do this where
DBM is just too vanilla. Also, morale to me is very important. If a unit dies,
it's friendly units nearby should and would react. This does not happen in DBM.
There are a host of reasons to like Warrior including that fact that Jon Cleaves
and company have written the rules in "American English" and have attempted to
get rid of much of Phil Barker's overly wordy and confusing writing. Heck, I
remember back in old 7th edition reading almost half a page and then realizing
that it was ONE SENTENCE! You don't get that with
Jon. Also, Jon has indexed the rules for ease of play. I recall my last
tournament and how easy it was to find answers to rules questions which is a
definite improvement over any WRG product I've ever played. Game-wise, based on
morale factors and orders, the player gets to make decisions whether to counter,
retire, charge, evade, recall, and a host of other options that you just don't
get with DBM! Also IMNSHO, I think most of the not so nice people went over to
play DBM while the majority of the gentlemen stayed in Warrior. Ask Scott when
the last Knock Down drag-out argument was in a Warrior game at Historicon or
Cold Wars! Sportsmanship seems to be at an all time high.

To me, of the three systems, Warrior offers more options and is a more ELEGANT
system. If you would like to discuss this in further detail, my tele is
816-737-1447. And yes, I do play in MW tournaments when I go to
Historicon---Heck, Terry's a great guy and so are the guys that play his system!
Dave Smith included! LOL!

kelly

empgamer <acpopen@...> wrote:
I am only just starting tod dabble in Ancients and have bought a few
sets of rules so far (DBM, Vis Bellica and Ancient Warfare). I am
not bothered about tourney play and at the moment I seem to be
favooring AW as one of the rule sets I will use.

I like to be able to play more than one however and before I take
the plung and buy another I'd be interested in what the key
differnces are between warrior and DBM.

DBM were very cheap and I have to say, while I haven't played it yet
there is something about them which seems appealing. That said,
from reading them, it does look slightly more that DBM is more of a
game that uses soldier miniatures rather than a war game. Not
wishing to offend anyone with that, it's just the way they come
across.

My main interest is in rules which perhaps reflect accuracy more and
AW seems to do that much better. Very much a case of each to their
own but clearly I'd like to be sure rules offer what I want before
getting them. Revolution and Empire are a hellish complex set of
Nap rules I use. Pig to learn and can take AGES to play, BUT it is
a rewarding game. I much prefer that to the knock a game off in two
hours approach (though of course I fully accept that many others
prefer that and time for many these days is tight).

Any thoughts welcome.



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





---------------------------------
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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

[John Murphy]

Interesting post by Scott, and he thought of several good points I
missed.

I had not mentioned that DBM makes terrain feature selection depend
on the defending army list which I personally think is a great idea
on the surface. How it actually plays out is unfortunate in that the
competitive realities tend to still keep terrain selection in
limited channels. But I would also say that way back when I started
playing 7th terrain was just that stuff on the edge of the
battlefield I didn't pay much attention to. DBM has its problems in
terrain rules but the system absolutely forces you to make terrain
part of your plan from the get go and I think I am personally a
better Warrior player now (though still not very good) for having
gone through that experience.

On terrain in general both produce in a competitive environment way
too few simple gentle hill type features on the table in my opinion
(which is to say they are not common at all in tournaments) but that
is just my personal taste on a soapbox and totally off-topic.

I also read wanax's comment on DBM LH (light cavalry) holding up a
heavy infantry line forever. It is absolutely true if taken at face
value and there are no other extenuating circumstances, but not
always an indication of a rules problem if the heavy foot don't have
a way of dealing with it. In other words it might also be
historically accurate ragardless of how much it sucks.

But on that note I will also say that (when not put alone against
horse archers in the open) your Roman legions in DBM not only get
into the battle but kick butt outright on a whole bunch of stuff and
depend which way the dice go for a bunch more. So they get held up
by Parthian horse archers in either system but as it stands until IW
comes out they fare much better, I think, in DBM than against either
impetuous barbarian trash that runs over them (more of a dice roll
in DBM) or loose order missile foot that they can never close with.

In fact I would echo Scott's comment (if I am not mis-reading) that
in general the results of combat - which DBM emphasizes - tend to be
about what most folks might find historically correct, I would go
further to say maybe more so than Warrior even. But I personally
find after a lot of years that the DBM rules are just way too boring
for some armies like Byzantines which I really like and now I mostly
only play them to run my Dark Age trash spontaneously-advancing
knights and warbands all over the board which, I admit, the DBM
rules handle in a very fun way - though even that gets soiled to
some degree by the lack of clarity and resultant complication.

[Greg Regets]

I obviously very much enjoy the Warrior game and TOG before it, since
I tend to play at least one game a week, but do see some things that
in my opinion are shortcomings. I'm only posting this, so is can't be
said that only DBM got the rough treatment. :-)

Please note that these are only my opinion.

Warrior attempts to use the small differences between weapons and
armor to add variety to the various types of units. This is a
strength of the system, but in my opinion the entire effort has
fallen well short of the mark, primarily because there are just not
enough weapons and armor catagories. The simple fact is that a naked
light infantryman with a sharpened stick is not the same as a light
infantryman wearing leather armor with an iron tip weapon ... and yet
Warrior would classify both as the same thing. Another good examples
of this would be the "Other Infantry/Cavalry" weapons catagories that
lumps a very high quality longsword (a truly elite weapon) in with
any number of inferior products that would mostly bend on contact
with armor.

There are also troop types that do not exist, such as a loose order
man in armor that would historically classify him as Loose Order
Extra-Heavy Infantry.

I note that Scott mentioned earlier the difficulties in establishing
the LTS vs. other types, equation. This could have been solved with
more variety of weapons, in my opinion. Likewise the current, lance
is a lance is a lance is a bit too all inclusive for my tastes.

All of this could have been accomplished without any additional
complexity. It would have just been a larger factor chart.

The other thing that bothers me a bit is the way that all archers
basically shoot the same way, without dice benefit given to higher
quality troops. When buying archers, most experienced players look
for the low moral guys that do the same job for considerably less
points.

Charging out of skirmish should have been a tactic to be used by
cavalry only. The effect on the game of allowing infantry to use it,
is just not realistic in my opinion.

Lastly, it seems to me that moral should have been a unit point
system, rather than by individual stands. When you compare two
similarly costed units, 32 C moral infantrymen, with 6 C moral
mounted knights ... the upgrade to B moral for the knights is costed
at 6 points, while the infantry upgrade will cost you 32 points.
Since waver is tested per unit, it is only logical that the major
factor that impacts waver, that being moral grades, be costed by unit.

The good points ...

With all that said, the close approximation to simultanious movement
that Warriors gives, just can't be beat from a realism point of view.

The person that plays the best, will win 90% (or more) of the games,
in spite of the dice. There is a premium in Warrior on avoiding
situations where you "NEED" the dice to win. If you do a good job in
this area, bad die rolls will only prolong the inevitable, rather
than change it's outcome.

The rules are exceedingly well written. It is not a coincidence that
most "rules" disputes on this board have more to do with actual
player errors than any fundemental problem with the rules copy.

Also, the effort of Jon and Scott to monitor this board and give
timely and accurate responses is a major plus for the rules set. You
may not always like what they have to tell you, but the response you
get is given quickly, professionally and decisively (which is both
the most annoying and also the best part! *HUGE GRIN*).

The last plug I will give, is that I have been playing this engine
from the time the first WRG 7th rule books were available in the USA,
and it's still as much fun today as it was when I first got it. FHE's
efforts have been nothing short is HUGE improvements to an already
great game.

Thanks ... g

[John Murphy]

Sorry, folks, this is absolutely my last on this subject. Promise.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Regets" <gar@t...> wrote:
> With all that said, the close approximation to simultanious
movement
> that Warriors gives, just can't be beat from a realism point of
view.

In overly gross terms Warrior players toss dice and the die roll
decides who moves first and therefore which player determines who
will be in which shooting or charge range. I do not see either
the 'close approximation to simultaneous movement' nor the inherent
realism versus any other method here. But without the die roll or
some other way of sharing out 'initiative' the system is unbalanced.

As simply one instance of this (and there are a few) skirmishers
facing slower enemy should 'realistically' be at a chosen distance.
In Warrior this depends on the initiative die and wether the
skirmishers are forced to move prior to their enemy.

Even worse is the whole "I lost the initiative roll and started from
121p out so you have to take my charge at the halt".

A more realistic and more simultaneous way of doing it might be to
have approaches be done like marches, with shorter segements (ie
40p) and a way for skirmishers who started the bound approaching to
begin retrograding as required when they got close enough. But that
would probably be unplayable.

The relationship of movement and fire/charge ranges and the sequence
of those events within the context of discrete turns is very tricky,
maybe impossible, thing to model in a playable rules set without
resorting to playing on a computer. But I think the TOG/Warrior
approach to it is often oversold. On this particaulr point I would
still have to rate Warrior "different but not better". And maybe
that is all that can be done.

> The person that plays the best, will win 90% (or more) of the
games,
> in spite of the dice.

I believe this is probably the case in Warrior, although thank
goodness I have been in that fortunate other 10% position myself of
benefiting from good luck (initiative rolls and a 1 on a waver test
is just that) and winning against folks who I absolutely am certain
are better Warrior players than myself. But I'm not sure this is
either more true of Warrior than DBM (ever try to beat Ethan Zorick
at DBM) or necessarily a good or historically accuracte thing. Just
from an enjoyability standpoint there is a balance between learning
a system able to take satisfaction from being rewarded by better
play versus the misery of getting your butt tromped by "bunny rules"
while you are starting out. As for historical realism there are two
issues with this - is it better generalship or better knowledge of
the rules mechanics that is being rewarded (in the case of Warrior I
certainly think one could say at least a bit of both)? And didn't
some famous general say something about it being better to be lucky
than to be good/smart/whatever.

But I agree with Greg's other points and most especially that FHE
has done a superb job, both with the cleaning up and clarification
of the rulebook and with the excellent new army lists. I obviously
enjoy the rules, the support the company gives them, and the
sportsmanship of the players or I wouldn't be playing Warrior.