Warcards rant.

[Gary V. Foss]

Clayton F. Hinton wrote:

> >The same general thing comes into effect when you have a general with the
> >"Battlewise" blood ability: some of the time, the modifier which the
> >general gets actually makes the result WORSE. To resolve this we've used
> >the simple addition to the rules: the general gets the BETTER OF THE TWO
> >OPTIONS, either the modified or unmodified score, whichever he chooses
> >(and he may choose to take the hit, if he's setting up some kind of
> >gambit, but that hasn't happened in any of our games). I suspect that you
> >could use something similar in the case of a Modified Unit.
>
> Wait, are we all remembering that the Battle cards are designed for
> randomness? A +1 shift will result in a better overall average, if you
> take ALL the battle cards into account. By allowing a commander to pick
> and choose for himself which bonuses he gets to use, you are giving him
> more of an advantage than he should get. It's not a dice system we're
> using for the battles, it's a Card system. In the end, if you fiddle with
> it you are fiddling with the randomness, which is just like using weighted
> dice. This is the equivalent of allowing both a +1 to a d6 roll, AND
> allowing all 1's to be re-rolled, when the only bonus called for is the +1.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, so let me preface these remarks with a
disclaimer that this is only my opinion and that this opinion and a quarter
won't even get you a pack of bubblegum nowadays. In addition, I should
appologize for the following rant in advance. But....

I don't like the card system for birthright battles. There. I said it. I feel
better already.

I think it's a stupid, half-assed nod to the popularity of card games that have
inexplicably sprung onto the RPG scene in recent years. As a result we are
stuck with a simplistic method to determine large scale conflicts that is about
as sophisticated as a game of Go Fish.

Now, I must admit that a large part of my objection comes from the fact that I
am an "old-timer" who started playing D&D back when the rulebooks were little
tan pamphlets and every time Gygax cleared his throat it was considered an
"official" rule change, so my chagrine at the influence of card games might very
well be based on some traditionalist rigidity. But there are a bunch of things
I don't like about it.

Battle cards. Back in the days when I started playing RPGs you couldn't get
dice. Oh, you could snag six-siders from the family Monopoly game, but anything
other than the traditional cubes were as elusive as a unicorn. There were like
two stores in Southern California that sold the things and they were far outside
the reasonable travel radius of my Schwinn. Instead we had chits. Chits were
just a page of glossy, card stock paper with the various numbers printed on them
to represent dice. You cut them out, put them in a cup and drew them like
lottery numbers in order to determine hits and damage, etc. So inevitably a few
of the little things would get bent, fall onto the floor and get vacuumed up or
Mom would reclaim her cups and the whole set would get washed down the drain
with the rest of the dishes like Charybdis sucking down Argonauts.

My point is that drawing Battle Cards is no different than using chits. I mean,
I've got dice RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE, man! Just gimme a chart and a
twenty-sider. Keep the lousy card stock (that aren't even glossy, thank you
very much) cards.

Plus, I really don't like the idea of using cards in a pen & paper game.
Suddenly we have to stop one method of play and start a card game? What if the
NBA suddenly required players to stop and play out a couple of hands of
Blackjack to determine the winner? It just makes more sense to me to play
things out using dice and charts like the rest of the game rather than to
suddenly switch.

So anyway, I avoid using the card system as much as possible. I like them only
as a reference. It makes more sense to me to modify the rules to accompany
dice.

- -Gary

[The Olesen`s]

Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
> Clayton F. Hinton wrote:
>
> > >The same general thing comes into effect when you have a general with the
> > >"Battlewise" blood ability: some of the time, the modifier which the
> > >general gets actually makes the result WORSE. To resolve this we've used
> > >the simple addition to the rules: the general gets the BETTER OF THE TWO
> > >OPTIONS, either the modified or unmodified score, whichever he chooses
> > >(and he may choose to take the hit, if he's setting up some kind of
> > >gambit, but that hasn't happened in any of our games). I suspect that you
> > >could use something similar in the case of a Modified Unit.
> >
> > Wait, are we all remembering that the Battle cards are designed for
> > randomness? A +1 shift will result in a better overall average, if you
> > take ALL the battle cards into account. By allowing a commander to pick
> > and choose for himself which bonuses he gets to use, you are giving him
> > more of an advantage than he should get. It's not a dice system we're
> > using for the battles, it's a Card system. In the end, if you fiddle with
> > it you are fiddling with the randomness, which is just like using weighted
> > dice. This is the equivalent of allowing both a +1 to a d6 roll, AND
> > allowing all 1's to be re-rolled, when the only bonus called for is the +1.
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb here, so let me preface these remarks with a
> disclaimer that this is only my opinion and that this opinion and a quarter
> won't even get you a pack of bubblegum nowadays. In addition, I should
> appologize for the following rant in advance. But....
>
> I don't like the card system for birthright battles. There. I said it. I feel
> better already.
>
> I think it's a stupid, half-assed nod to the popularity of card games that have
> inexplicably sprung onto the RPG scene in recent years. As a result we are
> stuck with a simplistic method to determine large scale conflicts that is about
> as sophisticated as a game of Go Fish.
>
> Now, I must admit that a large part of my objection comes from the fact that I
> am an "old-timer" who started playing D&D back when the rulebooks were little
> tan pamphlets and every time Gygax cleared his throat it was considered an
> "official" rule change, so my chagrine at the influence of card games might very
> well be based on some traditionalist rigidity. But there are a bunch of things
> I don't like about it.
>
> Battle cards. Back in the days when I started playing RPGs you couldn't get
> dice. Oh, you could snag six-siders from the family Monopoly game, but anything
> other than the traditional cubes were as elusive as a unicorn. There were like
> two stores in Southern California that sold the things and they were far outside
> the reasonable travel radius of my Schwinn. Instead we had chits. Chits were
> just a page of glossy, card stock paper with the various numbers printed on them
> to represent dice. You cut them out, put them in a cup and drew them like
> lottery numbers in order to determine hits and damage, etc. So inevitably a few
> of the little things would get bent, fall onto the floor and get vacuumed up or
> Mom would reclaim her cups and the whole set would get washed down the drain
> with the rest of the dishes like Charybdis sucking down Argonauts.
>
> My point is that drawing Battle Cards is no different than using chits. I mean,
> I've got dice RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE, man! Just gimme a chart and a
> twenty-sider. Keep the lousy card stock (that aren't even glossy, thank you
> very much) cards.
>
> Plus, I really don't like the idea of using cards in a pen & paper game.
> Suddenly we have to stop one method of play and start a card game? What if the
> NBA suddenly required players to stop and play out a couple of hands of
> Blackjack to determine the winner? It just makes more sense to me to play
> things out using dice and charts like the rest of the game rather than to
> suddenly switch.
>
> So anyway, I avoid using the card system as much as possible. I like them only
> as a reference. It makes more sense to me to modify the rules to accompany
> dice.
>
> -Gary

You do have a point. The cards are nice for seeing what units move
where and where hills are, etc. (like miniatures) but why not just make
a table for the results? Its not like it is that hard. If I felt like
it (which I may) I could make a nice chart up on Excel that would do the
same as the battle result cards but with dice.

[Alain Pouliot]

- ----------
> From: The Olesen's
> To: birthright@MPGN.COM
> Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Warcards rant.
> Date: 25 mai, 1998 18:57
>
> Gary V. Foss wrote:
> >
> > Clayton F. Hinton wrote:
> >
> > > >The same general thing comes into effect when you have a general
with the
> > > >"Battlewise" blood ability: some of the time, the modifier which the
> > > >general gets actually makes the result WORSE. To resolve this we've
used
> > > >the simple addition to the rules: the general gets the BETTER OF THE
TWO
> > > >OPTIONS, either the modified or unmodified score, whichever he
chooses
> > > >(and he may choose to take the hit, if he's setting up some kind of
> > > >gambit, but that hasn't happened in any of our games). I suspect
that you
> > > >could use something similar in the case of a Modified Unit.
> > >
> > > Wait, are we all remembering that the Battle cards are designed for
> > > randomness? A +1 shift will result in a better overall average, if
you
> > > take ALL the battle cards into account. By allowing a commander to
pick
> > > and choose for himself which bonuses he gets to use, you are giving
him
> > > more of an advantage than he should get. It's not a dice system
we're
> > > using for the battles, it's a Card system. In the end, if you fiddle
with
> > > it you are fiddling with the randomness, which is just like using
weighted
> > > dice. This is the equivalent of allowing both a +1 to a d6 roll, AND
> > > allowing all 1's to be re-rolled, when the only bonus called for is
the +1.
> >
> > I'm going to go out on a limb here, so let me preface these remarks
with a
> > disclaimer that this is only my opinion and that this opinion and a
quarter
> > won't even get you a pack of bubblegum nowadays. In addition, I should
> > appologize for the following rant in advance. But....
> >
> > I don't like the card system for birthright battles. There. I said
it. I feel
> > better already.
> >
> > I think it's a stupid, half-assed nod to the popularity of card games
that have
> > inexplicably sprung onto the RPG scene in recent years. As a result we
are
> > stuck with a simplistic method to determine large scale conflicts that
is about
> > as sophisticated as a game of Go Fish.
> >
> > Now, I must admit that a large part of my objection comes from the fact
that I
> > am an "old-timer" who started playing D&D back when the rulebooks were
little
> > tan pamphlets and every time Gygax cleared his throat it was considered
an
> > "official" rule change, so my chagrine at the influence of card games
might very
> > well be based on some traditionalist rigidity. But there are a bunch
of things
> > I don't like about it.
> >
> > Battle cards. Back in the days when I started playing RPGs you
couldn't get
> > dice. Oh, you could snag six-siders from the family Monopoly game, but
anything
> > other than the traditional cubes were as elusive as a unicorn. There
were like
> > two stores in Southern California that sold the things and they were
far outside
> > the reasonable travel radius of my Schwinn. Instead we had chits.
Chits were
> > just a page of glossy, card stock paper with the various numbers
printed on them
> > to represent dice. You cut them out, put them in a cup and drew them
like
> > lottery numbers in order to determine hits and damage, etc. So
inevitably a few
> > of the little things would get bent, fall onto the floor and get
vacuumed up or
> > Mom would reclaim her cups and the whole set would get washed down the
drain
> > with the rest of the dishes like Charybdis sucking down Argonauts.
> >
> > My point is that drawing Battle Cards is no different than using chits.
I mean,
> > I've got dice RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE, man! Just gimme a chart and a
> > twenty-sider. Keep the lousy card stock (that aren't even glossy,
thank you
> > very much) cards.
> >
> > Plus, I really don't like the idea of using cards in a pen & paper
game.
> > Suddenly we have to stop one method of play and start a card game?
What if the
> > NBA suddenly required players to stop and play out a couple of hands of
> > Blackjack to determine the winner? It just makes more sense to me to
play
> > things out using dice and charts like the rest of the game rather than
to
> > suddenly switch.
> >
> > So anyway, I avoid using the card system as much as possible. I like
them only
> > as a reference. It makes more sense to me to modify the rules to
accompany
> > dice.
> >
> > -Gary
>
> You do have a point. The cards are nice for seeing what units move
> where and where hills are, etc. (like miniatures) but why not just make
> a table for the results? Its not like it is that hard. If I felt like
> it (which I may) I could make a nice chart up on Excel that would do the
> same as the battle result cards but with dice.

Well... We are waiting for your table :-)

Snag
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

[DKEvermore]

In a message dated 98-05-25 18:31:18 EDT, you write:

> So anyway, I avoid using the card system as much as possible. I like them
> only
> as a reference. It makes more sense to me to modify the rules to accompany
> dice.
>
> -Gary
>
I think the warcards themselves are okay. After all, if you're used to using
cardboard, paper, and miniatures with your roleplaying, then using cards to
represent units on a battlefield is also acceptable (and far less tedious than
hauling out the entire miniature army every other game session).

I sympathize with you on the card resoluction side though. My players asked
me why they couldn't just roll dice to resolve the fights instead of trying to
draw from a mere 9 card (18 card in my case ;) stack of combat resolution
card. They have to roll dice already for magic saves anyway. So I agreed and
did a fairly precise (+ or -1% accurate) conversion. Now, the players can
roll percentiles and look on a quick chart I created, but still get to use the
war cards themselves.

Maybe this is something that might relieve your mental pain from the warcards?
:)

- -DKE

[Shade]

At 03:25 PM 5/25/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Clayton F. Hinton wrote:
>
>> >The same general thing comes into effect when you have a general with the
>> >"Battlewise" blood ability: some of the time, the modifier which the
>> >general gets actually makes the result WORSE. To resolve this we've used
>> >the simple addition to the rules: the general gets the BETTER OF THE TWO
>> >OPTIONS, either the modified or unmodified score, whichever he chooses
>> >(and he may choose to take the hit, if he's setting up some kind of
>> >gambit, but that hasn't happened in any of our games). I suspect that you
>> >could use something similar in the case of a Modified Unit.
>>
>> Wait, are we all remembering that the Battle cards are designed for
>> randomness? A +1 shift will result in a better overall average, if you
>> take ALL the battle cards into account. By allowing a commander to pick
>> and choose for himself which bonuses he gets to use, you are giving him
>> more of an advantage than he should get. It's not a dice system we're
>> using for the battles, it's a Card system. In the end, if you fiddle with
>> it you are fiddling with the randomness, which is just like using weighted
>> dice. This is the equivalent of allowing both a +1 to a d6 roll, AND
>> allowing all 1's to be re-rolled, when the only bonus called for is the +1.
>
>I'm going to go out on a limb here, so let me preface these remarks with a
>disclaimer that this is only my opinion and that this opinion and a quarter
>won't even get you a pack of bubblegum nowadays. In addition, I should
>appologize for the following rant in advance. But....
>
>I don't like the card system for birthright battles. There. I said it.
I feel
>better already.
>
>I think it's a stupid, half-assed nod to the popularity of card games that
have
>inexplicably sprung onto the RPG scene in recent years. As a result we are
>stuck with a simplistic method to determine large scale conflicts that is
about
>as sophisticated as a game of Go Fish.
>
>Now, I must admit that a large part of my objection comes from the fact
that I
>am an "old-timer" who started playing D&D back when the rulebooks were little
>tan pamphlets and every time Gygax cleared his throat it was considered an
>"official" rule change, so my chagrine at the influence of card games
might very
>well be based on some traditionalist rigidity. But there are a bunch of
things
>I don't like about it.
>
>Battle cards. Back in the days when I started playing RPGs you couldn't get
>dice. Oh, you could snag six-siders from the family Monopoly game, but
anything
>other than the traditional cubes were as elusive as a unicorn. There were
like
>two stores in Southern California that sold the things and they were far
outside
>the reasonable travel radius of my Schwinn. Instead we had chits. Chits
were
>just a page of glossy, card stock paper with the various numbers printed
on them
>to represent dice. You cut them out, put them in a cup and drew them like
>lottery numbers in order to determine hits and damage, etc. So inevitably
a few
>of the little things would get bent, fall onto the floor and get vacuumed
up or
>Mom would reclaim her cups and the whole set would get washed down the drain
>with the rest of the dishes like Charybdis sucking down Argonauts.
>
>My point is that drawing Battle Cards is no different than using chits. I
mean,
>I've got dice RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE, man! Just gimme a chart and a
>twenty-sider. Keep the lousy card stock (that aren't even glossy, thank you
>very much) cards.
>
>Plus, I really don't like the idea of using cards in a pen & paper game.
>Suddenly we have to stop one method of play and start a card game? What
if the
>NBA suddenly required players to stop and play out a couple of hands of
>Blackjack to determine the winner? It just makes more sense to me to play
>things out using dice and charts like the rest of the game rather than to
>suddenly switch.
>
>So anyway, I avoid using the card system as much as possible. I like them
only
>as a reference. It makes more sense to me to modify the rules to accompany
>dice.

I don't like the cards either. Does anyone have rules to use for dice
instead?

[The Olesen`s]

Someone said that they didn't like the fact that all the units were the
same from kingdom to kingdom. Well that is only 1/2 right.

First of all, all the kingdoms were once under a common rule, not
nessesarily in resent times but back in the days of the six tribes they
were, so the kingdom's have common likes and dislikes when in comes to
war and thus common unit types.

Now, who says all knights are the same? That is the regent's decion. In
Roesone the knights could wear green tunics and carry lances, an ax, and
a long sword. Now over in Diemed the knights mihgt wear red tunics
carry langes, a warhammer, and a hand ax.
Same effectiveness (thus the same combat values) but diffrent in small
ways.
Now making something out of the ordinary takes extra cash simply because
knights aren't trained with longbows and need to be trained as part of
the modify unit actions cost (50 longbows might cost around 1 GB but
what about RP? It is for training them! And the time? Training too.)
Teaching knights how to effectivly use longbows takes a new approach and
will be more expensive the first time around just to learn how to do
things. Afterwards it is a known thing and the unit will only cost more
to muster and maintain becuase of the additonal equipment and training
time.

Is thier that much diffrence between a Soveit Union tank and an Iraqi
tank of the same type? Nope. Same concept.

[James Ruhland]

> >>
> Is thier that much diffrence between a Soveit Union tank and an Iraqi
> tank of the same type? Nope. Same concept.
> >>
> Actually, the T64 and T72 tank models used by the Iraqi's are
> Soviet/Russian made.
> The tanks are the very same type.
>
Well, there are some rumors that the Russians, not being stupid, sell
"stripped down" versions of their equipment to their "allies", taking out
most of the neato electronic junk, and thus making versions found in the
hands of a variety of 3rd world armies very effective for crushing street
demonstrators and pesant revolts, but less effective in battle with real
armies. Now, this is just a "rumor", not confirmed, but it would help to
explain the uniformly abysmall performance of such equipment in the hands
of, Hmmmmn. . .no way to put that politely, is there?
There's also the considerable fact that these guys just aint up to snuff,
training and technical-wise. Which is another thing that is somewhat
lacking in BR: dudes with the same equipment perform roughly the same/have
roughly the same effectiveness, but equipment is far from the most
important determining factor when you are considering combat efficiency (cf
the excellent "How to Make War" books by Dunnigan and. . .darn, the
co-author is sliping my mind, and I ain't got time to go dig up the books.
Sorry).
But now we're getting *way* off BR topic here.

[craig@finance.econ.usyd.]

At 11:32 AM 27/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> >>
>> Is thier that much diffrence between a Soveit Union tank and an Iraqi
>> tank of the same type? Nope. Same concept.
>> >>
>> Actually, the T64 and T72 tank models used by the Iraqi's are
>> Soviet/Russian made.
>> The tanks are the very same type.
>>
>Well, there are some rumors that the Russians, not being stupid, sell
>"stripped down" versions of their equipment to their "allies", taking out
>most of the neato electronic junk, and thus making versions found in the
>hands of a variety of 3rd world armies very effective for crushing street
>demonstrators and pesant revolts, but less effective in battle with real
>armies. Now, this is just a "rumor", not confirmed, but it would help to
>explain the uniformly abysmall performance of such equipment in the hands
>of, Hmmmmn. . .no way to put that politely, is there?
Both the US and Russia do this.
> There's also the considerable fact that these guys just aint up to snuff,
>training and technical-wise. Which is another thing that is somewhat
>lacking in BR: dudes with the same equipment perform roughly the same/have
>roughly the same effectiveness, but equipment is far from the most
>important determining factor when you are considering combat efficiency (cf
>the excellent "How to Make War" books by Dunnigan and. . .darn, the
>co-author is sliping my mind, and I ain't got time to go dig up the books.
>Sorry).
> But now we're getting *way* off BR topic here.
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>
>

[Ryan B. Caveney]

On Wed, 27 May 1998, James Ruhland wrote:

> training and technical-wise. Which is another thing that is somewhat
> lacking in BR: dudes with the same equipment perform roughly the
> same/have roughly the same effectiveness, but equipment is far from the
> most important determining factor when you are considering combat
> efficiency

Not necessarily. If we adopt the war card = 100 HD/hit rather
than 200 soldiers, as does the oft-mentioned "Cry Havoc" article from
Dragon Annual #2, then skill is indeed a major factor. For example, that
means orog infantry equals human infantry, even though outnumbered 3-1.

> the excellent "How to Make War" books by Dunnigan and. . .darn, the
> co-author is sliping my mind, and I ain't got time to go dig up the books.

My copy (1983 revised ed.) lists only Jim Dunnigan (Mr. SPI). But
yeah, it's a good book, though not really relevant to the topic at hand
(too much emphasis on modern (i.e., tanks'n'planes'n'nukes) warfare). If
you want a serious (perhaps *too* mathematical) numerical analysis of war
in general, try a book Dunnigan recommends, Trevor Dupuy's "Numbers,
Predictions and War". If you are seriously interested in the history and
theory of war, I cannot too-highly recommend Hans Delbrueck. Clausewitz
and Sun Tzu are also very cogent and relevant, but it can be hard to pick
the best translation for your needs: both suffer from having become a bit
too popular lately. =)

- --Ryan

[James Ruhland]

>
> Not necessarily. If we adopt the war card = 100 HD/hit rather
> than 200 soldiers, as does the oft-mentioned "Cry Havoc" article from
> Dragon Annual #2, then skill is indeed a major factor. For example, that
> means orog infantry equals human infantry, even though outnumbered 3-1.
>
That's true, but just "tougher" individuals isn't even the sole component.

.
>
> My copy (1983 revised ed.) lists only Jim Dunnigan (Mr. SPI). But
> yeah, it's a good book, though not really relevant to the topic at hand
> (too much emphasis on modern (i.e., tanks'n'planes'n'nukes) warfare).
>
True, but some of the discussions of what makes for combat effectiveness
certainly have some bearing. I.E. the German (FedRep) and American armies
have roughly the same quality equipment, I'd hardly argue that Germans are
more "tough" (indidually experienced/higher "level") than Americans, but
the German army is/was considered more effective. Why? Lots of other
factors (esp. leadership/training; though with the NTC that gap started to
close).
Btw, I'm thinking of doing something like the NTC in the future in this
PBeM (since straight ModUnit has been outlawed), and am wondering what kind
of effect vigourous, ongoing training excersises/wargames might have in BR
terms on unit quality.

> If
> you want a serious (perhaps *too* mathematical) numerical analysis of war
> in general, try a book Dunnigan recommends, Trevor Dupuy's "Numbers,
> Predictions and War".
>
I have yet to read that specific work but I know and respect the author so
I should go pick it up.

> If you are seriously interested in the history and
> theory of war, I cannot too-highly recommend Hans Delbrueck.
>
Already made some use of "History of the Art of War vol. 1: Warfare in
Antiquity" in this debate. Unfortunately that's the only volume of that
work that I actually own. Have to find the rest.

> Clausewitz
> and Sun Tzu are also very cogent and relevant, but it can be hard to pick
> the best translation for your needs: both suffer from having become a bit
> too popular lately. =)
>
As for something that ya'll could learn a bit from but probably haven't
heard of, Maurice*'s Strategikon is very useful in several areas.

*Emperor of the Romans, late 6th century.

[Brett Lang]

Heres a QUERY ?

What happens when a wizard summons a 12HD hydra into the middle of a fray ?

How would you represent such a monster in a warcard/battle scenerio ?


- -----Original Message-----
From: Ryan B. Caveney
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Thursday, 28 May 1998 19:03
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Warcards rant.


>
>
>On Wed, 27 May 1998, James Ruhland wrote:
>
>> training and technical-wise. Which is another thing that is somewhat
>> lacking in BR: dudes with the same equipment perform roughly the
>> same/have roughly the same effectiveness, but equipment is far from the
>> most important determining factor when you are considering combat
>> efficiency
>
> Not necessarily. If we adopt the war card = 100 HD/hit rather
>than 200 soldiers, as does the oft-mentioned "Cry Havoc" article from
>Dragon Annual #2, then skill is indeed a major factor. For example, that
>means orog infantry equals human infantry, even though outnumbered 3-1.
>
>> the excellent "How to Make War" books by Dunnigan and. . .darn, the
>> co-author is sliping my mind, and I ain't got time to go dig up the
books.
>
> My copy (1983 revised ed.) lists only Jim Dunnigan (Mr. SPI). But
>yeah, it's a good book, though not really relevant to the topic at hand
>(too much emphasis on modern (i.e., tanks'n'planes'n'nukes) warfare). If
>you want a serious (perhaps *too* mathematical) numerical analysis of war
>in general, try a book Dunnigan recommends, Trevor Dupuy's "Numbers,
>Predictions and War". If you are seriously interested in the history and
>theory of war, I cannot too-highly recommend Hans Delbrueck. Clausewitz
>and Sun Tzu are also very cogent and relevant, but it can be hard to pick
>the best translation for your needs: both suffer from having become a bit
>too popular lately. =)
>
>--Ryan
>
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

[bloebick@juno.com (Benja]

On Fri, 29 May 1998 09:57:53 +0800 "Brett Lang"
writes:
>Heres a QUERY ?
>
>What happens when a wizard summons a 12HD hydra into the middle of a
>fray ?
>
>How would you represent such a monster in a warcard/battle scenerio ?
>

I'd represent it with a sudden retreat of all my forces so the enemy gets
eaten, then come back after its summoning period has expired and it has
gone away. ;)

Benjamin

__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[craig@finance.econ.usyd.]

At 06:17 AM 29/5/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>On Fri, 29 May 1998 09:57:53 +0800 "Brett Lang"
> writes:
>>Heres a QUERY ?
>>
>>What happens when a wizard summons a 12HD hydra into the middle of a
>>fray ?
>>
>>How would you represent such a monster in a warcard/battle scenerio ?
>>
>
>I'd represent it with a sudden retreat of all my forces so the enemy gets
>eaten, then come back after its summoning period has expired and it has
>gone away. ;)
>
A wise response I'd say although I Hope that your forces are mostly cavalry
to enable such a strategic withdrawal (retreat).

Craig

[The Olesen`s]

On the subject of what wrong with warcards:

The DM sucks at being a general, the PC regent seems born for it.

The DM is playing Prince Avan. The PC is your "average" regent


In game "real life" who would win (based soley on gerneralship)?

Avan

In this warcard battle who wins?

the average regent



Is this a problem?

Ouch!

Okay, if the DM is really good general, he can try to do worse to meet
his NPC's skill level.
But when a PC's domain is invaded by the Gorgon what player will tone
down his skills to be like his charachter is gerneralship skills?

- --Yet another comment from a DM who still uses that warccard stytem
'casue he's too lazy to try anything else and is a good general.


|________________
()--|________________>
|


What a lovely sword!!!!

Ouch!

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

In a message dated 98-05-31 21:48:33 EDT, you write:

> On the subject of what wrong with warcards:
>
> The DM sucks at being a general, the PC regent seems born for it.
>
> The DM is playing Prince Avan. The PC is your "average" regent
>
>
> In game "real life" who would win (based soley on gerneralship)?
>
> Avan
>
Prince Avan would win every time with or without the war cards because Prince
Avan knows that only a fool would attack without outnumbering the enemy
(preferably at 3 to 1).

- -DKE

[MANTA]

|________________
()==|________________>
|

>
> What a lovely sword!!!!
>

I´ve improved the hilt.
(Sorry about that Sepsis! Just couldn´t resist.)

MANTA
ip209007@ip.pt

> Ouch!
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.