[MR] Gulf Wars - A 'Review' by a first time attendee.

[Siegfried]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>   that before Pennsic started emulating GW as far as archery, siege, 
> the fort, etc., it didn't have the variety that GW used to have.]

I agree ... but that was also part of the POV of my review.  Being the
fact that I'm a Pennsic Lover, whose heard 'great wonderful things about
Gulf Wars', and now attending, after Pennsic has done it's 'ramp up'
already ...

> [I was surprised that the staff wasn't more on top of things myself.  In 
> particular I expected to see people directing traffic on site.]

Actually that was something I think I forgot to mention, the confusion
about the roads.  At one point in the book, it stated that all roads
were 1-way, then on another page, it gave 1-way status to just a few
roads ... and then, in practice, everyone was driving any which way they
preferred.

>>   This especially fed into the battle scenarios, where combat archery
>> was removed from one battle,
> 
> [after it was announced as being in that battle?  I don't remember that 
> happening.]

Actually Jonathan, you and I had that discussion on the field :)  The
2nd field battle.  On the website, and in the handbook, it just stated
'combat archery' for the field battles.  Not that it wouldn't be
included in the 2nd battle.  And I wasn't the only combat archer taken
by surprise ... hence why the marshals started running around crying for
'archers off the field'.

> Siege was essentially removed from all
>> battles except for the last one,
> 
> ["removed" might not be the right word..."was never included" might be more 
> what you're after here.  It's never been included in anything except the 
> fort battle though.  There's just no use in any of the other battles, 
> according to popular opinion.]

Perhaps.  I know that some seige folks were disheartened, and that there
was confusion among the siege marshals on the site as well.  They didn't
know what it was included in.  It wasn't ever specifically mentioned as
being included in any battle, usually that tends to imply it follows the
combat archery ... but upon being asked, any given day 'is there siege',
the answer was always I resounding '*shrug*' from any of the marshals.

> victory conditions at the end of a
>> battle were changed, etc.
> 
> [I recall at the end of the ravine battle that the "no more res" was tossed 
> out but that's all I can think of.]

Well, again, by the handbook it had very specific conditions spelled
out, that at the end of the hour of res, 9 foot circles would be drawn
around all the flags, and those contested areas would be fought.  That's
not what happened.  Instead, at the beginning of the battle, rumors were
milling about that there was no res in the last 20 minutes, then that
changed back to 'no no, it's res the whole time, except for that end bit'.

Then, at the 1 hour mark, instead of hold being called, and the 9 foot
circles being fought ... a general 'no more res' was called, and it was
fought to the last man.

In general, people might not care that the rules were changing, but it
does change ones tactics, and the fact still remains that they were
changing.

> [agreed.  I was quite shocked to see the field battle starting while there 
> were still people putting their helmets on.  Res points are usually pretty 
> well defined though.]

No one milling around me the 'non-war-point but res' fort battles knew
what the res point was.  No one milling around me at the ravine battle
knew what the res point was.  Some people used the back line, some were
walking into the middle and using a tree, etc.

> [Again, smaller attendance, and Pennsic is now apparently a known quantity 
> as far as siege and such.  Recall that until a few years ago Pennsic didn't 
> have CA or siege at all.]

*nod*, agreed.  Though, It's been more like 5 or 6 years of CA/siege at
Pennsic (if not more)

Siegfried
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGAVogUTBVzmoxCKIRAhePAJsGbBbAI+XC9XKFDHOYRgRW1H3bWQCeJj98
nlV7lh7LNmJOKESRQZ+I+8Q=
=i93X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----