Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

In a message dated 13/11/2003 20:45:50 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

> ...lists would be a tool used to make people drool over fielding armies,
> >rather tham more of the same - something you had to wade
> >through to find an army you can live with.>>
>

Speaking personally, I find lists a Pandora's box of temptation! So many
armies I'd like to do, so little time.

Also, having just had my all-time favourite army 'redesigned' by the
compilers of a certain list I was told "sadly we are only the servants of
history, not
its masters. If all our best efforts and diligent research are proved wrong
what can we do but change (and sell you another army containing the 'correct'
figures until version 3.1.1.1 of the list appears).

I think I would be more suspicious if the people producing the lists were
also producing the figures i.e. a certain large fantasy based company...

Finally, if my opponent came at me with shielded Galloglaich or whatever I'd
let him use them as is, or just ignore the shields. Rest assured, if you rip
all the shields off, no sooner will you have finished than some compelling new
research will find evidence of shielded Galloglaich.

Steve


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

[Greg Regets]

As an opening statement to this post, please understand that in my
opinion a wonderful job was done on the army lists published so far.
The historical portions are great, and when one considers the copy in
question, very few typo's were made. Hats off the the FHE for the
current lists.

That said, the missed opportunity is glaring. Lists are still a tool
of limiting, rather than a tool used to excite players to play by
going out of the way to make armies EASY TO BUY.

Consider a few small points.

Quantities - Why not be more flexible, while maintaining historical
accuracy? It is true that in many historical examples we have exact
numbers of troops present at a given battle. It is also true that
many times history gives us examples like, "That lot of guys from the
village over the hill were on the left." or, "The tribes of the Alan
came; the thunder of their horses shook the ground, and scattered
dust as far as the eye can see." Can raw numbers be put on that?

Lets look at the other side of the coin, where accurate numbers are
available to us. At a hypothetical battle, there were 600
hypothetical warriors. At the average strength of fifty, as presented
in 1.24, this would give us a dozen figures. At the extreme range of
38-85, also presented in 1.24, this could also be an eight figure
body or even a sixteen figure body. In all three examples a player
would be historically compliant.

It is unfortunate that rigid quantities, 6-18, or 0-6, will not allow
players to field units they find, "convenient but still historically
accurate."

Ally-Generals - OUCH! I used to get a dozen light infantry without
buying a General, now they just gather dust in my box. We used to see
this on so many lists - the majority in fact. It is now largely gone.
I do not question anyone's history on this, but will tell you it is a
pain in the butt, and in my book does not pass the acid test
of "Helping the game, without harming the players."

Missing Troops - We have lost players over this issue. The lack of
Trapezitoi was particularly difficult to understand.

Moral, Shields, & Armor - If the point system is good, why not be
more liberal when evidence is questionable? Why not understand than
with many armies, Joe Warrior was a "D" moral guy in one battle and
a "A" moral guy in another.


All of this is workable, and rest assured we are all buying the game
and the lists and playing every week. Warrior is still the best game
going, by far. I suppose that speaking for myself, as a person that
works in the marketing department of a large company, I had hoped the
lists would be a tool used to make people drool over fielding armies,
rather tham more of the same - something you had to wade through to
find an army you can live with.

Take care, and happy gaming ... g

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/13/2003 3:04:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> I suppose that speaking for myself, as a person that
> works in the marketing department of a large company, >>

As a person who works in the marketing dept of a large company you should be
well aware of two things. 1, that you can't possibly please everyone with every
decision you make and 2, that your marketing strategy should generally target
the majority, especially the majority that is loyal and has and will continue to
purchase and use your product.

With respect to 1 above, while we will continue to try and please everyone,
there will always be those who just don't agree with this decision or that. In
those cases we go to 2 above, which we have. The vast majority of our players
want our lists the way they are and the way they are headed. Forced with the
choice between 1+2 we choose 2 and attempt to mitigate that choice with the
minority, no matter how individually vocal...lol, as best we can. I am
genuinely sorry you feel we have let you down somewhat with our lists, Greg, but
we sure as heck aren't changing course against the wishes of the balance of our
current and future players. If you are saying that the statements about lists
in your mail represent the wishes of the majority of our players, we will just
have to agree to disagree, as that is certainly not the case.

> ...lists would be a tool used to make people drool over fielding armies,
> rather tham more of the same - something you had to wade
> through to find an army you can live with.>>

False dilemma. Those are not the only two choices....lol

Jon

[Chris Bump]

I do not agree with Greg's post.
I am not diminishing his perception of what the game should be, but am not
interested in a game where players can have "liberal" amounts of troop types
that they want or have sway over morale ranging from D to A. The more of this we
allow the closer to fantasy the game becomes-in my opinion. If this were merely
a game of pretty figures on bases that we assigned whatever weapons, morale and
training level we desired along with capabilities of our choosing, then we might
help sell more figures and we might actually have more players, but it would not
be a game that we could a. call historical or b. that I would be interested in
playing.

I am a purist with regards to this game. I think that the new lists make too
many armies too strong but, alas, am obligated to live with it given the amount
of research put into the effort. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
put forward the effort in digging up the data necessary to create all of the
lists produced to date. I am therfore obliged out of my own sense of courtesy,
if not awe, to defer to whatever lists are being produced. I think that there
is inconsistency in your postion Greg- although I understand the sentiment.
Chris

In a message dated 11/13/2003 3:04:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> That said, the missed opportunity is glaring. Lists are still a tool
> of limiting, rather than a tool used to excite players to play by
> going out of the way to make armies EASY TO BUY.
>
> Consider a few small points.
>
> Quantities - Why not be more flexible, while maintaining historical
> accuracy? It is true that in many historical examples we have exact
> numbers of troops present at a given battle. It is also true that
> many times history gives us examples like, "That lot of guys from the
> village over the hill were on the left." or, "The tribes of the Alan
> came; the thunder of their horses shook the ground, and scattered
> dust as far as the eye can see." Can raw numbers be put on that?
>
> Lets look at the other side of the coin, where accurate numbers are
> available to us. At a hypothetical battle, there were 600
> hypothetical warriors. At the average strength of fifty, as presented
> in 1.24, this would give us a dozen figures. At the extreme range of
> 38-85, also presented in 1.24, this could also be an eight figure
> body or even a sixteen figure body. In all three examples a player
> would be historically compliant.
>
> It is unfortunate that rigid quantities, 6-18, or 0-6, will not allow
> players to field units they find, "convenient but still historically
> accurate."
>
> Ally-Generals - OUCH! I used to get a dozen light infantry without
> buying a General, now they just gather dust in my box. We used to see
> this on so many lists - the majority in fact. It is now largely gone.
> I do not question anyone's history on this, but will tell you it is a
> pain in the butt, and in my book does not pass the acid test
> of "Helping the game, without harming the players."
>
> Missing Troops - We have lost players over this issue. The lack of
> Trapezitoi was particularly difficult to understand.
>
> Moral, Shields, & Armor - If the point system is good, why not be
> more liberal when evidence is questionable? Why not understand than
> with many armies, Joe Warrior was a "D" moral guy in one battle and
> a "A" moral guy in another.
>
>
> All of this is workable, and rest assured we are all buying the game
> and the lists and playing every week. Warrior is still the best game
> going, by far. I suppose that speaking for myself, as a person that
> works in the marketing department of a large company, I had hoped the
> lists would be a tool used to make people drool over fielding armies,
> rather tham more of the same - something you had to wade
> through to
> find an army you can live with.
>
> Take care, and happy gaming ... g