"Warrior and WRG 7th differences" Topic

Which one is better? Are they nearly the same?

My understanding is that the ARE the same. IIUC, WRG sold the rights to the current producers, but the title, obviously, had to be changed.

But warrior seems to be much more expensive than WRG 7th. Is it just because it's new and most WRG copies are used? Like warrior has so many army list books and WRG 7 only has a few. Are they actually the same lists just broken up into more volumes?

AFAIK, WRG 7th had only one dedicated list: Book 3. The other books used were from WRG 6th edition and gave points costs in figures rather than stands. It was just a matter of multiplying the points per figure times the number of figures on the stand/element.

The Warrior lists borrow somewhat from earlier WRG lists, but have their own viewpoints and variations.

Warrior is a going concern. Four Horsemen Enterprises bought the rights to WRG 7th and republished them in an expanded format that more fully explains the concepts and provides numerous diagrams explaining things. FHE has also cleaned up the writing and made it less "Barkerian" and more English.

If you have a mind to play the complex kind of game that WRG 7th/Warrior is, then you may want to spend the money for Warrior. Also, if you're interested in tournament play, Warrior has tournaments at most big convention in the US.

There is a yahoo group dedicated to Warrior so you might want to take a look at that as well. Four Horsemen have a website that you can find here in the manufactures pages.

David, are you contemplating a demo or tourney "Warrior" event at ENFILADE? That is to say, just curious if our go at Warrior is a first playtest for an event you might host at ENFILADE, or perhaps it's just for grins.

//Paul

While 4 Horsemen bough the rights to WRG 7th from Phil, they also wholly re-edited (less Barkerese) and also reworked the rules. Maybe it is now WRG 8.5 as a way of comparison? They also have done major work on army lists.

Is warrior the most detailed historical wargame there is?

The major improvement as far as I can see is that it is now organized and indexed. The language is now user friendly.
The authors do not intend to chase the eternal "Version X.Y" chase. The rules and intent are what they are, and will not change. They do realize that "clarifications" are necessaary, and continue to do so. Some may think that is a idstinction without a difference, but I find them sincere. Particularly since I beat one of the authors in an "official" game! Of course, he DID point out to me a good tactic I was unaware of. 8^)

One interesting theing that differs from 7th ed is the concept of "list rules". This allows them to differentiate between various "Rggular C, Medium infantry, long thrusting spear, shield" types, by giving Greek Hoplites several "Hoplite rules" that other similar types do not get. Mainly, "list rules" are exception to the norm, if it can be demonstrated that that nationality had that ability.

I like Warrior better than 7th, for the reasons above.
It is not a terrible and back breaking chore to masterit.

Is warrior the most detailed historical wargame there is?

No. There are many rules that are vastly more detailed. This question is difficult to answer, because it leaves unasked the real question you are asking.

The Warrior rules are really WRG version 8. They simplify the language and introduce some clarifications. The small battle game is new and fun.

The game itself still has some problems. All knights can now charge in wedge which helped fix the worthless knight rule. Skirmish cav and infantry can still outshoot longbows. Skirmishers can still charge magically from skirmish formation. Playing historical opponents minimizes these problems.

On the whole, however, the game is much improved. The tournament scene is smaller than before but still very healthy. I prefer Big Battle DBA or DBM, but Warrior is a good game and worth looking into.

Joe Collins

lkmjbc3, So the warrior games involve very small armies? The problem with DBA is that I find it to be too simple somewhat. Like different nations have different units but they are actually the same just with different names. I liked the george gush rules from the 70s which allows more detailed equipments. And warrior seems to be very similar to that. That's what I mean by detail.

So the normal archers can outrange longbows? And what do you mean by historical opponents? Isn't this game a historical game itself?

"Historical oppponents" is the term for rules problems that result when a medieval French host charges a Roman legion. The medieval heavy infantry cancel out the Roman legionnaires and then the knights kill anything in their path. It is an inevitable problem when you have a ruleset that covers 3000 years of warfare. Compare that with the opinion held by many that the Augustan legions could have conquered Europe through about the Renaissance (with their superior training, equipment, and logistics), and you see the problem.

Many of the complaints of this sort about Warrior, DBx, or whatever ancient/medieval rules really stem from this issue—the rules were written to get you quasi-historical results between semi-historical opponents, but then the mechanisms and scope of rules allow you to have anachronistic match-ups if you want (and many do in tournaments or pick-up games). Me, I like the fact that I can play the army of Ramses II against Italian Condotta, but some don't; I also like the rules for Roman Polybians against Hannibal. A lot of this is just a problem/feature of gaming in this period, and you shouldn't let it bother you too much.

Fluter, there is a provision in the main rule book, for small battles using approximately 600 points. This becomes about 5 or 6 units, regular size. This is roughly 3 times the size of a DBA army. Like DBA, the army composition is not optional, but given to you. It's a good way to try out an army at a smaller cost.

But warrior seems to be much more expensive than WRG 7th.

>>>>>>>>>>>> It is more expensive because a whole host of diagrams, pictures and counters are being added to the newest edition. This should make it a much quicker learning curve. <<<<<<<

Is it just because it's new and most WRG copies are used? Like warrior has so many army list books and WRG 7 only has a few. Are they actually the same lists just broken up into more volumes?

>>>> The lists are actually based more on the NASAMW revisions rather than the original 6th edition or the newer 7th edition lists that Barker had little to no involvement with. I can think of only 1, possibly 2 lists that aren't a vast improvement both in historical accuracy (as far as this can be determined without actually having been a general in ancient times!) and they are definitely much more playable than before (the Granadine list is the most glaring list improvement as the original 6th edition list did not allow you to field an army greater than about 1400 points or so; really difficult to play a 1600 point tournament this way!!!) IMHO the new lists have really added the best historical 'flavor' for each army with the revisions and the aforementioned list rules. Romans get some neat unit tactical improvements that really simulate rank replacement, standing up to charging cavalry and post pila throwing combat VERY WELL. Swiss have rank replacement rules to simulate the use of the intra-unit halberd and general flexible movement they manifested VERY WELL. Hypaspists stand up to charging cavalry better than before. Mongols have unit interpenetration advantages and scouting advantage rules to make them more historical too. I don't have the list in front of me but suffice it to say that the updated and improved lists and rules have really brought a new energy and excitement to this tactical/grand tactical rules system. DBA and DBM abstract combat to relegate them to more grand tactical rules. I won't knock these rules like I used to [ :-) ] but if you want to simulate an army and still have a very playable rules set, Warrior is a good choice that blends historical feel, tactical combat and still having the ability of completing a game within 4 hours (once the rules are mastered I might add).
<<<<

So the warrior games involve very small armies?

>>>> No, smaller armies are used with the Fast Warrior version of the rules that limits the amount of units you can field. The complete Warrior rules do not limit army size as you can simulate any battle with them. <<<<<

The problem with DBA is that I find it to be too simple somewhat. Like different nations have different units but they are actually the same just with different names.

>>>>>> I actually happen to like DBA very much. But you are right in that the level of abstraction may not be as satisfying to many of us. I find it to be a great "beer and pretzels" game and have played it to have a more leisurely and jovial game. I don't take it seriously as a historical simulation but it sure beats checkers! <<<<<

I liked the george gush rules from the 70s which allows more detailed equipments. And warrior seems to be very similar to that. That's what I mean by detail.

>>>>> Yes, you will get what you seem to desire with these rules. I guess I fall into the camp of wanting more detail too. It is not uber-detailed as it still lumps some weapons and armor together that really shouldn't be IMHO (such as lumping the pila and francisca as Heavy Throwing Weapon (HTW), still not allowing some Asian armies to fall into the Knight armor class (seems to be a European prejudice carried over from the Barker days; Timurid SHC/EHC should really be classed as EHK as the armor protection was actually superior to the aforementioned SHC/EHC) But I have learned to live with VERY minor gripes and play the rules as written. Another point I should make is that there is a growing library of X-rules that allow you to change minor quips to your satisfaction to try things out. Kind of a sanctioned "home rules" section if you will<<<<

So the normal archers can outrange longbows?

>>>> No, the short range (thus more effective range) of longbows and crossbows is 120 paces. Bows have a short range of 80 paces. All three have a long (extreme effective) range of 240 paces.<<<<<

And what do you mean by historical opponents? Isn't this game a historical game itself?

>>>> Seriously :-) ; did Babylonians ever fight 100 YW English?!! Whenever you field armies from different areas or time periods, you really don't have an 'historical' match up. Historical opponents actually fought each other. You can actually take this one step further and state that they "could" have fought each other as they had the possibility of actually fighting but never did i.e. 100 YW English and 14th Century Poles, Turks, etc. <<<<<

Is warrior the most detailed historical wargame there is?

>>>>> Hmmm, in some contexts yes, in others I would say that Ancient Empires may be the most detailed. There is a second edition that I think is free (check Yahoo Groups). You will have problems playing a-historical games with AE2 though. The success of WRG (et. al.), DBA, DBM, Warrior and Might of Arms (and some others) is that you CAN play a-historical games but still have an "historical" outcome. In other words, as best as we can simulate and to the extent of what is generally known, we 'believe' that the outcome would be 'this' if say New Kingdom Egyptians fought 3rd Crusader armies.<<<<

>>>> Hope this helps some. I do recommend you trying the rules out with someone that currently plays. It will shorten your learning curve tremendously. I keep a second copy of the rules with me to lend out to new players so that they can learn without having to invest right away. I actually have the older Warrior rules and not the newly revised and expanded rules set but they work just fine as the authors are kind enough to have clarrifications posted on their forum. Oh, by the way, I believe the forum is moving away from Yahoo Groups soon but go here to get the lastest messages for now:

link <<<<<

Chris Tebo
San Antonio, TX

What does it mean by skrimishers can outshoot longbows?

From what you all have said does this game have game balance or historical accuracy problems? Like are the nations balanced or are some stronger so people will almost always choose them during play?

Every single Ancients rule set I have ever played works marvelously within period. Thus, they all handle Egyptians vs Hittites, Carthaginians vs Republican Rome, HYW Feench vs English well. When you have Sumerians versus Burgunians, you have to take it on faith that the pikes are equivalent to each other, and other factors will work. All rules require a willing suspension of disbelief in this case.

Your question about longbows was answered above. However, again the word "outshoot" is not quite correct. Skirmishers armed with what? The interactions are a function of weapon, training, formation, armor, etc.

Chris is right about having a mentor. It is a complicated game, and there are areas where you can wander from authors' intent, but not many. If you paly consistently, and do nto care for the tournament scene, that should nto be a problem.

What does it mean by skrimishers can outshoot longbows?

>>>> Not true and I am not sure why the person made the statement. I think he was talking about the 'number of figures that fire'. Bows and crossbows fire two complete ranks of figures. Longbow and slings fire 1.5 ranks of figures; this is one of the things I don't agree with in the rules but live with as the net effects seem to be historical. 2 full ranks of slings or longbows may be overkill with the existing mechanics of the game. 'Defensively' units in skirmish are better as they don't receive as much missle damage.<<<<<

>>>>>>>To bring up another point mentioned earlier. Charging out of skirmish is historical which is why it is included in the rules. An arguement can be made that certain nationalities didn't do this but the overall evidence and battle accounts do say that it happened. What is interesting about the charging from skirmish rule is that it does have negatives. If the enemy evades and is not contacted, the skirmishing unit is disordered and is 'stuck' without being able to maneuver and is therefore very vulnerable in many circumstances. So, while at first it appears to be a great thing, it may be more advantageous to a savvy opponent. Anyway, these nuances are really one of the parts that I love about the rules as they not only simulate historical accuracy but also accuracy of tactical disadvantage.<<<<<<<<

From what you all have said does this game have game balance or historical accuracy problems?

>>>> As a general answer, no. There has been discussion about repointing as certain weapons DO perform better and yet are costed the same as inferior weapons. But if you look closer at the overall army list level, it is apparent that game balance is handled at the army list level and looking at individual unit weapons in an isolated manner does not give a complete picture. The cost of morale upgrades may also not be sufficient as a 1-point cost to upgrade from morale class to morale class may have a greater cost : benefit ratio. Having said this, the game seems to balance fairly well. However, no one is going to say an army composed of many D morale troops is going to overpower a smaller army with better morale. It can be done, but tactics play an extreme part in making this happen <<<<

Like are the nations balanced or are some stronger so people will almost always choose them during play?

>>>>>This used to be the case under WRG 7th edition. The game has been balanced to where this isn't really the case anymore. I won't misguide you and tell you that there aren't certain armies that are 'better' than others but this comes down to personal playing style and army flexability. Let me give you an example. Late Romans were considered one of the 'uber' armies. This was based not on the army composition but the flexability of the army. Your only really bad matchup was knights but you could get light troops aplenty to mitigate even this unfavorable matchup. Many tournaments now only allow one list. This makes flexable armies 'less' flexable as you can only have one army list for the competition. Don't get me wrong, there are still some lists that are considered 'top-tier' but for every army that seems to excell, there is another army that will give it problems. We like to call this "rock, paper, scissors" in that there is no dominant army as I can find another army in the lists that will give it problems and rightly so.<<<<

>>>>Getting back to your question at hand, we have seen a greater variety of armies in competition because of the new list rules and improved game balance in both lists and rules. You will still see some armies that are familiar but this has as much to do with the player having the figures painted up as anything else. I am happy to say that armies that I did not think viable under 7th edition are very much viable under Warrior. You will still see armies that really aren't 'that great' but they weren't great historically either ;-) <<<<<

Chris
San Antonio, TX

If an ancient army encounters a medieval army, are the rules incompatible or is it just kind of strange? And what will the likely outcome of he battle be?

ancientsgamer, In the old WRG games how was it unbalanced and how was it fixed in warrior?

And about the Knight armour thing, so the nations that don't have are going to have weaker units because calvary armour is weaker than knight armour?

The rules are not incompatible if a Carthaginian army should happen to come across a Viking, or a Teutonic Knights army. Just "strange", as you suggested. It is something that ancients players have long learned to live with.

Knights do have better armor, but they are very expensive. Players without knights usually outnumber knight armies in both figures and units, and can go after the knights' support units and whack them. When outnumbered, knights that get far ahead of their supports can usually be outflanked and murdered, too.
It boils down to tactics, which is what should matter, correct?

There is no way to predict the "likely" outcome when two armies meet. It all depends on how each player selected his force, how he deploys them, how he arranges his tactical matchups, and how he rolls the dice.

Theoretically, ALL armies in an equal points match stand an even chance.

What about the historical accuracy of the game?

Jeez, you keep asking the questions that require definitions of terms…

Look. Bad morale troops run away when bad things happen to them. Heavily armored troops are harder to damage than lightly armored troops. Dense formations take missile fire more damagingly, move slower, but concentrate their power better.

That is a loaded question, and will be answered differently by people who have a different opinion of the game. I think it's fine, others may not think so. For me, it works. One can say the same thing about every single set of rules out there. Some think DBA and DBM are accurate. I do not. Big deal, that is just my opinion. When you come right down to it, no game rules are historically accurate. They are just games. Period.

I thought these games are historical simulations.

Games are historical right up to the first roll of the dice, then its every man for himself. You can attempt to fight within historical tactics and do historical things but the luck of the die will always change your outcome.

There is no such thing as a game that is an accurate historical simulation. Never has been, never will be. The closest that a game can come is to give tables with military situations randomized by die rolls. These tables and random factors cannot "simulate" reality, they only reflect the author's prejudices. We fool ourselves into thinking that this is an "accurate simulation".

Then what are organizations like WRG actually doing? Aren't they researching to make the game historically accurate?

Then what are organizations like WRG actually doing? Aren't they researching to make the game historically accurate?

There isn't enough of a payoff. Rule writing is a labour of love, its not a commercial concern. Inertia seems to inevitably build into the presumptions used in many rule-families.

The OFM is partly correct, all rules are filtered through their author's understanding of ancient/medieval combat to generate the tabeltop results. The nature of historical method, and the paucity of information we have on historical battles, means identifying the property of "historical accuracy" is problematic. Rather than trying to identify which rules are the most accurate, it is perhaps more appropriate to set out what it is you want in a set of rules. Some rules are better at different scales of battles (skirmish, small battle, large battle?).

Some of these filters are reasonably objective- we would expect 'heavier troops', all things equal, to defeat other 'lighter troops'. I think all rules deliver this.

Some are partly subjective- they may reflect one of a number of possible interpretations of the historical records. You have to 'buy into' this interpretation to use the rules.

Some of these are biased- they reflect (often) familiarity with some source material (say, classical Greek or Latin sources) at the expense of other sources (medieval Arabic or Chinese say).

Some 'funny' tabletop results are a product of the gaming mechanisms used. Rule-writing demands two basic skills. Knowledge of the source material, and some familiarity with 'game theory'. Rule writers often make fairly timid use of game mechanisms.

Chthonic regards

B

The problem is that I can't buy all of the rules and see which one I like.

"Rather than trying to identify which rules are the most accurate, it is perhaps more appropriate to set out what it is you want in a set of rules."

Like I said about DBA that it's overly simple and all nations being very similar with minute differences, which rule(s) has the sides being very different? Like warrior has the equipment, training, armour and list rules so that kind of differs the sides from each other. I don't like to end up playing a game of chess with the sides being nearly identical.

DBA is more sophisticated than you suggest Fluter and I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that all armies are pretty much the same. Romans play quite differently than do Normans or Gauls.

As to question of having enough money to buy multiple sets of rules I'd suggest that this is one of the hobbies givens. I have countless rules sets that I've never ultimately used. So when you do find a set that you like, fall on your knees and thank God (and the writer!) Depending on the period your interested in you should give Brendan's Shattered Lances a try and certainly Warrior is worth a serious look.

That was just an exaggeration to clairfy my point on what I want. Except warrior and WRG 7 which other ones are complicated and medieval?

The problem is that I can't buy all of the rules and see which one I like.

It's not necessary to buy them all :-), but narrowing the field of inquiry would help.

Are you after rules that are centred on the Medieval period- or generic (Sumerians-to-Swiss)? Are you after something more 'akin' to a skirmish game, or do you want a broader-brush feel- something with higher command-level decisions emphasised?

Does the macro-look of the game matter? Do you expect to deploy your medieval army in multiple "battles" in 'depth' (e.g. French at Poitiers)? Or, will it be okay to stretch across the table as a single "line"?

Does the popularity of the rules "locally" matter?

In my opinion, neither WRG 7th nor Warrior are particularly good at representing medieval warfare. The basic rationale is they are 'centered' on the classical period. Some of the extrapolations don't really work in the medieval age OTOH, if this is a 'cost' you are willing to bear to have something 'more generic', that's fine.

OTOH, if you want something more medieval, then your options include Chipco's Day of Knights, Might of Arms, EHQ's Revenge and of course, Shattered Lances :-).

Chthonic regards

B

Chthoniid, After looking at them, shattered lances seem very interesting and it's just one book right (ie no additional list expansions)? What is it exactly like? The website said that units are the main focus, so how detailed are the units? And the armies of the latin west only have the normans and crusaders listed. Are those the only two armies available for the latin west? Thanks a lot for your help.

Chthoniid, After looking at them, shattered lances seem very interesting and it's just one book right (ie no additional list expansions)?

They're a set that seems to be getting a lot of traction at the moment :-).

The rules are intended to be 'pick-up-and-play'. In this sense, the rules give you some armylists from the 1st Crusade. The rules have been published for less than a year, and the additional lists are being generated. Drafts are appearing on the shattered lances wiki.

What is it exactly like? The website said that units are the main focus, so how detailed are the units?

I've uploaded the Slingshot article I wrote to my website 'De Bellis In Terra Sancta'. That may give you more detail.

The units are described in primarily in terms of general function. They are also given an initiative rating, which reflects their ability to respond to local threats and opportunities. They are also split by armour/weight (light, medium, heavy, armoured).

Units also have some formation types they can adopt, which increases 'variation'.

In game design terms, I've tried to emphasise 'player decisions' during the game, rather than 'equipment bought before the game begins'.

In terms of game mechanics, I've eschewed paper records.
For instance, even in WRG 7th, the combat drivers are relative combat scores (casualties per figure) and unit state (tired, exhausted). There are analogous states in SL, but with 'random walks' replacing casualty records…

And the armies of the latin west only have the normans and crusaders listed. Are those the only two armies available for the latin west? Thanks a lot for your help.

The intention is to have comprehensive lists for the entire SL period :-). If you have specific interests, these can be prioritised.

Chthonic regards

B

The unit detail in shattered lances somewhat seem kind of simple to me. Or is there more to it? I perfer the warrior level of detail.

The unit detail in shattered lances somewhat seem kind of simple to me. Or is there more to it? I perfer the warrior level of detail.

There is exactly enough detail in SL to represent the units employed.

Consider an Ayyubid tawashi. In WRG 7th Edition, this would be described as a Reg B, HC, L, Bw, Sh.

In Shattered Lances, this is a heavy Horse Archer, Initiative 7.

Reg B is roughly analogous to Initiative 7.
The Heavy Horse Archer classification embodies both the HC class, and the primary usage of the bow.

The WRG 7th Edition classification has a number of further gaming errors. First, it has 'invented' the shield, as there is no specific evidence that this was normal (certainly, it is absent from both a number of Latin and Arabic accounts).

Second, the equipment based classification generates two further errors. First, all troops armed with a lance have the same effect on an opponent, all things equal. The Islamic usage of the lance differed from the Latin. It was commonly used in a 2-handed grip, with the rider in a low saddle and riding in short-stirrup. If a tawashi tried to couch a lance, he'd be on his backside on the ground after impact, wondering what the heck had happened. Knights rode in a long-stirrup with a bucket saddle, often in a much more compact mass.

Second, all cavalry armed with the bow have the same effect on an opponent- all other things equal. This would surprise a number of generals of the era. For example, the Bedouin general al-Jarrah tried to get some of his Bedouins fighting like Altaic horse-archers (yuqatilun qital a-Turk) without success. Giving a bunch of guys a 'bow', doesn't turn them into Mongols or Mamluks.

Behavioural classifications (ie separate troops according to battlefield function) allow a clearer separation of doctrines, accentuating troop-differences. Equipment-based classifications tend to homogenise troops, with the result that Islamic troops behave more like 'Byzantines in funny clothes'.

Chthonic regards

B

So if classifying by equipment can't separate the troops how would SL do it? How are behavioural classifications carried out? And how does armati compare to SL?

Our group is trying both SL and Armati. SL gives players far more interesting choices to make than Armati (which I have to admit I find a bit bland.) Armati forces players to deploy in classical constructs which doesn't seem to lend well to Dark Ages/Medievals. Armati is probably more thoroughly developed than SL. There is very little left to chance by Arty Conliffe. SL seems to still be a work in progress, not so much the system (which is first rate) but in the supporting rules. Brendan has proven very good at supporting the rules (his thorough responses above are proof in that) so any questions are quickly answered. The army lists are a work in progress but it doesn't seem like he is intent on enriching himself at this point by publishing books of lists. Both play fairly quickly.

So the Brendan said that his unit descriptions reflect the different cultures much more diversely, I'm interested in knowing how did he exactly do that. Like the arab calvary can't charge like the knight so just giving them all lances like in WRG isn't accurate enough. So how are the different fighting styles simulated to differentiate the culture circles? There are 3 in total right?

I can't take the time to let you know exactly how the different philosophies are represented. And it would assume a certain knowledge of the game that you don't have. The system is surprisingly subtle even though it is relatively simple. If Dark Ages/Medieval are your interest they are a good risk. Can't promise you'll like them though. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think Warrior is a good risk too if you can handle a certain amount of micro management. I like SL because, like Armati, it can produce a good game in an evening. Unlike Armati, I get a certain feel for the period.

Does SL focus on historical accuracy or game balance? Those two almost always conflict with each other.

So the Brendan said that his unit descriptions reflect the different cultures much more diversely, I'm interested in knowing how did he exactly do that.

A difficult question to answer in depth. Basically troops are first, classed in terms of their battlefield function. This is partly a research question, noting that there are several possible combinations that 'might work'. Equipment is implicit to many of these categories, rather than explicit. I know that a heavy horse archer has more melee weapons than a light horse archer. In combat terms, the heavy horse archer gets a combat advantage- the precise permutation of weapons used is irrelvant for a tabletop game at the scale of SL games.

One of the goals of SL is to be able to finish games inside 3 hours. This constrains the details that can be included- so I've focused on what could be termed the 'main drivers'. Drivers need to be well-detailed, lesser issues can be abstracted. For instance, casualty-recording is something I abstract into a 'random-walk'.

Does SL focus on historical accuracy or game balance? Those two almost always conflict with each other.

Generally the conflict is almost always produced by trying to reconcile a variety of different army doctrines from a wide geographical area and time scope.

SL has a narrower focus, and noting that my PhD is in game theory, I'm reasonably satisfied that there are enough 'gaming elements' to make it interesting. I tend to reward decisions made during a game, than a menu-approach to equipment made _prior_ to the game. Other people have already commented that the rules are 'well researched' with an 'excellenet feel for the period'.

For instance, you may win a melee in SL, because your unit adopted "karr wa farr" tactics at the right time. Your decision to go into 'wave' (an SL-formation), counts for more than 'buying' shields for your unit when your opponent did not. The decision _during_ the game is more important. That's what makes it a 'game'.

Chthonic regards

B

@Marcus
The system is surprisingly subtle even though it is relatively simple. If Dark Ages/Medieval are your interest they are a good risk. Can't promise you'll like them though. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

A good point. And largely why I didn't recommend SL at the outset. Without knowing more about your 'preferences', it is hard to specify what will suit you most.

Chthonic regards

B

I'm more interested in army compositions and complicated unit stats so there are many different combinations. Seems like WRG and warrior has many options to choose. It's like that computer game Legion where you build your army and determine your strategy before the battle and when the battle starts you can't control anything and just watch. I don't mean for a game to be like that but I like to take the time to build and design my army.

Are there any of these types of war games in electronic format for the computer?

Are there any of these types of war games in electronic format for the computer?

There is a computer version of Strategos, which is sold through the Society of Ancients. I'm afraid it may not be what you are after, as it is a specific ancient set. Strategos also uses fairly abstract troop classes.

Chthonic regards

B

so do you think that wrg and warrior are the closest to what I'm looking for?

so do you think that wrg and warrior are the closest to what I'm looking for?

Probably, if your priority 'aspiration' is for rules whose army-lists lend itself to an explicit, shopping-list approach to equipment.

Revenge however, has an even more detailed equipment-based system, and if you were restricting yourself to the High Medieval period, may be better suited to medieval wargaming.

Plus, there are no army-lists to buy as you have to make them up yourself ;-).

Chthonic regards

B

So how does revenge describe it's troops? It has the Normans expansion. Is it even more detialed than warrior? Do you think that it's historically accurate? And what do you mean by shopping-list approach? Thanks.

So how does revenge describe it's troops? It has the Normans expansion. Is it even more detialed than warrior?

Yes, you get light lances and heavy lances, not just the common garden variety ordinary-types. There are even more bow types, with the composite bow making a special appearance.

It's so detailed, you need a pocket calculator to work out casualties.

Do you think that it's historically accurate?

It's marginally more accurate for medieval warfare than Warrior/WRG 7th, assuming you believe that casualties in medieval melee accumulate as quickly as troops subject to an modern howitzer-barrage.

So, if historical accuracy is important then maybe it's not exactly what you're after.

If historical accuracy is the most important 'aspiration' you want in medieval rules, then something like Shattered Lances needs to be considered. If explicit troop detail is more important, then Revenge or Warrior will suit you better.

Chthonic regards

B

Chthonic regards

B