When did the battalion guns start to appear on the battlefields ?
I thought it was only on XVIII century which is out of the Renaissance period.

No Swedes started using battion guns from mid 1600s.

Yes, he had leather guns from the wars with the Poles and early wars in Germany. These were ...

Oh no! The Ren rules have gone out? I didn't get a beta copy, does that mean I was not chosen as a beta playtester? Muskets are all primed for the late TYW, Frenchies and Bavarians itching to get at each other ....

My musket is primed. And no, that's not a double entendre. Sadly.

Those of you who confirmed entry to the Beta 2 test group will be sent the rules shortly

In advance of the rules those players should have received an aknowledgement email today
If you are expecting to receive a copy and haven't done so please email me directly.

Regards
Terry

Hi, a few weeks ...

I can see why you play it the way you do, and I agree that on some points it makes sense. For me, there are some issues with doing it that way -- IMO it's not a matter of surplus language that's missing, it's making an intuition about something that's otherwise always closely described. Until there ...

I just disagree -- I don't think it needs to say more than conforming with "enemy bases" to cover any bases of the enemy available. Also, I don't think you can extrapolate from rules relating to movement in the later Red Ti manoeuvre phase to Nubian conforming in the Nubian manoeuvre phase.

I'm ...

Contacting the other Red BG is not a problem. They are already in close combat as overlaps if aligned on their friends, and this broadens the fight just like feeding troops into melee can do.


Well, as of right now (Nubian Manouevre) the righthand Red Ti unit is not in the close combat as an ...

The Impact was 5 bases wide so the BG to the right was already involved with 1 base in Impact. In melee, after conforming, they would get an overlap as well.

Mike

Nope, that's the whole point. The unit to the right (of the Nubians) was not involved in the impact, as the Nubians had no bases in ...

Hi, here's a photo of a situation that arose:

http://img205.imagevenue.com/loc597/th_66627_fog-question_122_597lo.jpg

The unit with the desert bases is Nubian warriors who have attacked a BG of Red Ti subjects. As you can see the Red Ti were in a BL of three units when attacked -- I have crudely ...

nikgaukroger wrote:Not all lists have a starter army.

Why not?

Well, I'm very much looking forward to helping out with the playtesting when the new version is available. I'm so ready for something new for ancients.

jdm wrote:To all of you who have recently applied to join the beta test a big thank you. We will be getting to you as soon as possible but once again we have been overwhelmed with applications.

Roger that.

Overall the Swiss performed historically. They struggled against mobile armies with lots of misile power

Not necessarily historical -- the Swiss never faced a mobile army with lots of missile power. They did, however, face opponents more mobile than they were, and which had lots of firepower, and ...

However, there is no evidence of Scots using deep formations as the Swiss did. As Pikes in AoW (like most other ancients/medieval rules) are designed to fight in formations much deeper than other troops if troops like the Scots are rated as Pikes they will end up fighting in unhistoiurcally deep ...

Pikes were not introduced until the Flodden campiagn - AoW Scots will be spearmen.

A mistake, IMO. Scots spears in the pre-Flodden period were 12-14 feet long -- too long to joust with and longer than Swiss pikes were.

Probably a better way to do it is to place restrictions on undrilled pikes ...

stalins_organ wrote:Doesn't kataphractoi refer to all Byzantine cavalry of the era tho?

They were called kavallarioi.

Shouldn't the fully armoured wedges have a different designation?

They do -- kataphractoi klibanophoroi. "Klibanion-wearing cataphracts."

("Battle group" in AoW terminology - no appropriate contemporary term being available).

Vexillation?

This is contemporary for Romans but not for other armies covered by the rules (the vast majority). [/quote]

Right, I was responding to "no appropriate contemporary term being available."

I ...

but when you have 'African' and 'Indian' elephants, but not 'war' and 'riding' ones, it does suggest otherwise.

As I've suggested, it might not really be necessary to have them as different categories if you simply specify that elephants with escorts move at foot speed but elephants without ...

The two types that seem to be relevant for gaming purposes are War El and Riding El. I don't know how the rules work, but it sounds like that could be handled with one basic troop type, "Elephants," with modifiers to speed and combat strength based on crew and escorts.

babyshark wrote:

larrydunn wrote:Some suggestions:

Barritus
At Swords Crossed
Shieldline

Bad Men with Sharp Sticks?

If you are suggesting that my proposed titles are stupid, why don't you give it a go and come up with some better?