Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

WRONG (was:Maurikian Army(formerly Mr. G))

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 5:11 am    Post subject: WRONG (was:Re: Maurikian Army(formerly Re: Mr. G))


> <<Absolutely correct and were Warrior a set of rules that was primarily
> aimed
> at simulating historical battles, using troops that would have been
> customarily available to the ordinary field commander, that's the list that
>
> would have been done. Warrior is not that kind of rules of set. >>

Mr Georgian is absolutely NOT speaking for FHE here. Warrior is exactly that
kind of rules set, and I will be reviewing the Byzantine lists with Scott to
make sure significant errors were not made using this 'philosophy'.

List authors and reviewers take note: Warrior simulates historical reality
first and supports out-of-period tournament gaming second. If anyone else is
operating under any other assumption while working on Holy Warrior, please
desist at this time.

Thanks for your support.
Jon



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


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Paul Georgian
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 95
Location: Waltham, MA

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 7:50 pm    Post subject: WRONG (was:Re: Maurikian Army(formerly Re: Mr. G))


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> > <<Absolutely correct and were Warrior a set of rules that was
primarily
> > aimed
> > at simulating historical battles, using troops that would have
been
> > customarily available to the ordinary field commander, that's the
list that
> >
Regards,
> > would have been done. Warrior is not that kind of rules of set.
>>
>
> Mr Georgian is absolutely NOT speaking for FHE here. Warrior is
exactly that
> kind of rules set, and I will be reviewing the Byzantine lists with
Scott to
> make sure significant errors were not made using this 'philosophy'.
> the other lists submitted List authors and reviewers take note:
>Warrior simulates historical reality
> first and supports out-of-period tournament gaming second.

Wow Jon, Tom M. was correct about your sensitivity to anything
smacking of criticism of Warrior. But let me agree with your initial
premise. My statement was absolutely my personal opinion and not
related to any of the 4 Horsemen. I disagree with you on what kind
of rules set Warrior is, of course, but that's my privilege. If it's
not, and such disagreements are not allowed here, please let me know,
and I will withdraw from this newsgroup. I'll be happy to add IMHO
to any such future pronouncements to avoid any misunderstandings and
hope you will stop shouting (electronically that is). Also, please do
review any of the Byzantine lists with an eye to your concerns. I'll
be happy to provide you with a list of the source books, modern
histories and historical articles of the Byzantine military that you
might need. (BTW, the changes suggested by jjmurphy would make the
Maurikian list better and more flexible in Warrior terms than it is
now. I actually erred mostly on the conservative side and perhaps
slighted the list. For example I failed to include the very effective
(in Warrior game terms)bolt shooters mounted on carts that are
specifically mentioned in the Strategicon.) However, it would be
nice if you would do this check with all the other army lists, as
well. You might be surprised by how many abuses have crept in or
remained. I certainly noticed it in just the three games of Warrior
I played at Cold Wars.

Regards,

Paul G.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Kelly Wilkinson
Dictator
Dictator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4172
Location: Raytown, MO

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 8:19 pm    Post subject: Re: WRONG (was:Re: Maurikian Army(formerly Re: Mr. G))


--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> Mr Georgian is absolutely NOT speaking for FHE here.
> Warrior is exactly that
> kind of rules set, and I will be reviewing the
> Byzantine lists with Scott to
> make sure significant errors were not made using
> this 'philosophy'.
>
> List authors and reviewers take note: Warrior
> simulates historical reality
> first and supports out-of-period tournament gaming
> second. If anyone else is
> operating under any other assumption while working
> on Holy Warrior, please
> desist at this time.
>
> Thanks for your support.
> Jon




Super! Piggybacking on Jon's elequent comments, I have
found a passage refering to the Strategicon that
pretty much states how cavalry are armed all the way
up to the battle of Manzikert. This comes from "A
Military History of the Western World." Volume I by
John Frederick Charles Fuller. This passage is
describing the Byzantine cavalry and infantry armament
and later details their use as is stated in Maurice's
Strategicon.
"The combatant forces were divided into cavalry,
infantry and artillery. The first wore steel caps and
mail shirts, carried circular shields, and were armed
with bow, lance, sword, axe or mace. The infantry were
organized in sections of sixteen men, called a
"decury" ; ten of these formed a "century" ; and three
centuries a "band" or battallion. Bands were divided
into heavy and light men of the former were clothed in
mail and carried a shield, lance, sword, and axe, and
the latter consisted almost entirely of archers,
equipped with a bow, a quiver of forty arrows, and an
axe.
This passage is referring to Byzantine forces
equipment leading up to the battle of Manzikert in the
year of 1071. It makes a middle school history teacher
like me wonder... Why not allow all heavy cavalry
types in all of the Byzantine lists the option to have
bows in addition to lances as is described in the
Strategicon? Further, I must agree with Paul Georgian,
that not allowing regular cavalry to charge impetuous
without a general present seems somewhat silly and a
hold over from the days of that other set of rules.
What sort of magic does a general posess to get
cavalry to charge that their captain does not? Since
when did regular pay and training mean that martial
fury does not exist among regular mounted troops? This
is not an attack on the four horsemen merely opinions
that I've held for the past 12 years regarding 7th
edition and it's little friends .1 through .6. This is
merely grist for the mill to be mulled over by the
readership. I would appreciate any response to this
post regardless of your leanings!

Sincerely,
Kelly Wilkinson

PS I posted a while back asking if there was a Warrior
Event at Nashcon. No one answered. Was there one? And
if so, does anyone have a report on it? I always enjoy
a good after action report on Warrior! Would anyone be
so kind to inform me in this regard.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com


_________________
Roll down and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 8:47 pm    Post subject: Re: WRONG (was:Re: Maurikian Army(formerly Re: Mr. G))


It is my opinion, Paul, that Warrior list authors take on a unique
responsibility when they are asked to help us. That specifically includes
making their lists according to the FHE research and list philosophies and not
their own.

If the list isn't historically accurate as the author understands the history
(however imperfect that knowledge is)it is wrong to submit it in that state. If
Scott did not make that clear to his list authors, I will.

Bottom line: I for one trusted you and I feel let down.

And you are right. I am very sensitive to criticism of the rules on this site.
This is a Warrior support site, not a Warrior bashing site. Disagreements over
how something should be in the BASE RULES at this point are too late. This is
different from pointing out where base rules need to be clarified or typos fixed
which are extremely welcome.
Disagreements over EMERGING lists and rules supplements are also totally
welcome.

Evereyone knows I am a competitive player. For two years I put that aside to
make sure I was focused on making Warrior the most historically accurate
simulation of ancient and medeival warfare I could. Is it perfect? Hell no.
Is it a 'tournament player's set' that ignores history and deliberately balances
troop types out of period? I for one do not think so, but I can certainly say
it was not in any way DESIGNED that way.

List authors: we want historically accurate lists that fight against their
historical opponents the way they should. Please have no other agenda. Thank
you.

Jon


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Bill Low
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 330

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2002 1:28 am    Post subject: Re: WRONG (was:Re: Maurikian Army(formerly Re: Mr. G))


Kelly?? I can't believe that you are seriously trying to challenge the
considered views of someone who has a library full of original source
material and has spent a lifetime on this stuff with a couple of lines from
a survey history of western warfare. Sheesh, man ... get a grip!


At 10:19 AM 6/2/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>
> --- JonCleaves@... wrote:
>>
>> Mr Georgian is absolutely NOT speaking for FHE here.
>> Warrior is exactly that
>> kind of rules set, and I will be reviewing the
>> Byzantine lists with Scott to
>> make sure significant errors were not made using
>> this 'philosophy'.
>>
>> List authors and reviewers take note: Warrior
>> simulates historical reality
>> first and supports out-of-period tournament gaming
>> If anyone else is
>> operating under any other assumption while working
>> on Holy Warrior, please
>> desist at this time.
>>
>> Thanks for your support.
>> Jon
>
>
>
>
> Super! Piggybacking on Jon's elequent comments, I have
> found a passage refering to the Strategicon that
> pretty much states how cavalry are armed all the way
>"A
>" Volume I by
> John Frederick Charles Fuller. This passage is
> describing the Byzantine cavalry and infantry armament
> and later details their use as is stated in Maurice's
> Strategicon.
> "The combatant forces were divided into cavalry,
> infantry and artillery. The first wore steel caps and
> mail shirts, carried circular shields, and were armed
> with bow, lance, sword, axe or mace. The infantry were
> organized in sections of sixteen men, called a
>"""" ; and three
>"" or battallion. Bands were divided
> into heavy and light men of the former were clothed in
> mail and carried a shield, lance, sword, and axe, and
> the latter consisted almost entirely of archers,
> equipped with a bow, a quiver of forty arrows, and an
> axe.
> This passage is referring to Byzantine forces
> equipment leading up to the battle of Manzikert in the
> year of 1071. It makes a middle school history teacher
> like me wonder... Why not allow all heavy cavalry
> types in all of the Byzantine lists the option to have
> bows in addition to lances as is described in the
> Strategicon? Further, I must agree with Paul Georgian,
> that not allowing regular cavalry to charge impetuous
> without a general present seems somewhat silly and a
> hold over from the days of that other set of rules.
> What sort of magic does a general posess to get
> cavalry to charge that their captain does not? Since
> when did regular pay and training mean that martial
> fury does not exist among regular mounted troops? This
> is not an attack on the four horsemen merely opinions
> that I've held for the past 12 years regarding 7th
> edition and it's little friends .1 through .6. This is
> merely grist for the mill to be mulled over by the
> readership. I would appreciate any response to this
> post regardless of your leanings!
>
> Sincerely,
> Kelly Wilkinson
>
> PS I posted a while back asking if there was a Warrior
> Event at Nashcon. No one answered. Was there one? And
> if so, does anyone have a report on it? I always enjoy
> a good after action report on Warrior! Would anyone be
> so kind to inform me in this regard.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Kelly Wilkinson
Dictator
Dictator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4172
Location: Raytown, MO

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2002 1:44 am    Post subject: Re: WRONG (was:Re: Maurikian Army(formerly Re: Mr. G))


Not a challenge Bill, just bringing up a point with
evidence. It seems that many on the group want books
as a reference and I am merely providing one such. Who
do you assert that I'm challenging? Paul? He has
already stated more or less that the Maurikian list
in the period of Maurice, should perhaps be allowed to
have bows with their heavier cavalry. No challenge
here. The Regular charging cavalry thing is merely an
opinon bro, and I was just looking for some discussion
on the point. I really love to see discussion such as
the great Roman stuff that we've seen lately. I just
prefer to see points backed up with historical
evidence. Sure, mine comes from an overview from a
secondary source, but what the heck, it's better than
an assertion with no evidence at all. I understand
that the rules will not change, but I think Paul does
have a valid point about the cav thing.

Respectfully yours,

Kelly
PS Thanks for your comments they are always
appreciated! :)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com


_________________
Roll down and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  

Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 111

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2002 4:59 pm    Post subject: RE: WRONG (was:Re: Maurikian Army(formerly Re: Mr. G))


It seems like a simple enough thing to make the requirements of an army
'real historical' minimums and then have the option to include 'the good
stuff'. Being required to field your best troops (unless they were
historically always present) makes no sense IMHO.




-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 1:11 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] WRONG (was:Re: Maurikian Army(formerly Re: Mr.
G))




> <<Absolutely correct and were Warrior a set of rules that was primarily
> aimed
> at simulating historical battles, using troops that would have been
> customarily available to the ordinary field commander, that's the list
that
>
> would have been done. Warrior is not that kind of rules of set. >>

Mr Georgian is absolutely NOT speaking for FHE here. Warrior is exactly
that
kind of rules set, and I will be reviewing the Byzantine lists with Scott to

make sure significant errors were not made using this 'philosophy'.

List authors and reviewers take note: Warrior simulates historical reality
first and supports out-of-period tournament gaming second. If anyone else
is
operating under any other assumption while working on Holy Warrior, please
desist at this time.

Thanks for your support.
Jon



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



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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group