Upon reading the rantings on the Medieval Warfare Yahoo User Group about what armies are better because of "Technology" I began wondering did that really stop generals of years gone by? What I mean to say is 'stop whining'!! At Cold Wars earlier this year my Later Medieval Polish Army (Full Plate Cavalry) came in second to Ian's Scots, maybe armored with blue woad!?!?!?!

Technology on the battlefield is a good question. Today on real battlefields we are still having that argument. However in MedievalWarfare that question is a moot point. About a year ago the question of "Technology" came up again and Paul Dobbins attempted to rationalize that argument with a "Weight of Arms" calculation. WOA gave longer ranged weapons and heavily armored cavalry armies higher ratings. I supplied Paul with the WOA numbers for the armies I had and their records. The only real conclusion that Paul came up with is that there must be other factors that influence the outcomes!

I agree with Paul and maintain that the missing factor in large part is the 'Generalship" of the commander. Take a look at a chess game. Both armies start out with the same number and type of pieces (units), the terrain is constant and known (chessboard) and yet there are some players that are 'Masters' of the Game and others hacks. I know because I am a USCF rated player and have played many 'Masters' including several Soviet Grand Masters.

So how does this relate to Medieval Warfare Player Ratings? Well throughout history armies were rated by their leaders not what they were made up of. When they talk about commanders, they speak of how Henry IV was a "competent soldier" not the "guy who had longbows". Some commanders purchased their commission like the Duke of Wellington who Napoleon. We would not know about him, like the other hundreds of British officers that did the same, if he did not win that fateful day at Waterloo!

But nobody rates the players, right? DBM groups around the world have listings of most used armies and player ratings. Looking at July's issue of Slingshot #229 under the recent version of DBM the Patrician Roman Army is the most popular!? The Later Hungarians are third while the Turks with all their firepower are fifth. The Vikings are eighth ahead of the heavily armored and mounted Medieval Germans. My beloved Later Medieval Polish Army did not even make the list!!!!

Looking at the Australian DBM Ratings, I was completely blown away as to which were the most successful armies. I was in total shock and will leave it say that one of the early pagan Baltic tribes was at the top! I will report that the French Ordonnance was only 110th and the Mongols were 115th on the list!!! Again my beloved Later Medieval Polish Army were not even on the list!!??? Can no one use them but me?

So, I propose a Medieval Warfare Player Rating System that is a cross between the one used by the DBM groups, the USFC and the Golf Handicap, more on that later. Using the regular scoring that we currently use in tournaments and expanding on that we can come up with a valid rating system for the players no matter what army they use. A good general is a good general hopefully winning more often than losing.

Explaining the formula is relatively easy. Four elements go into the calculation: the current ratings of both players and their scores. Say Player A wins a game with the score 5 to 2 and both players have the same rating, say 1000. Player A would get 5 rating points for scoring 5 in the game and an additional 3 for beating his opponent by 3 points.

So, his Rating would increase by a total of 8 to 1008. Player B would get 2 rating points for scoring 2 points in the game and would lose 3 points for losing by 3. This would bring his rating down by one point to 999. If their initial ratings were not the same a ratio of the ratings would be added to the formula.

As you can see from the formula, the better generals would gain points and lesser generals would lose points or gain them at a slower rate. With the ratio in the formula "picking on" lesser rated generals would gain you very little but defeating a higher ranked general could help your rating!

But how to make the games fairer? Handicapping! Just like in golf. Using the handicap the playing field could become level once again. Lower rated players could be given the difference in rating (or a ratio there of) in additional points to spend on their army! Say I was playing someone who had a low enough rating to gain an extra 10 points they could use an additional supply wagon or maybe upgrade the armor or morale of one unit. Again to level the playing field.

Sub generals could be worked into the formula. After all was it not Pompey who grabbed the honor of putting down Spartacus' Rebellion while Crassus did the hard work?

We will be testing the formula during Allen Kaplan's new Dark Age Campaign here at the Jersey Shore and report the results. Any comments can be addressed to me directly at richard@lonekeep.com.