If drilled MF and cavalry are more manoeuvrable in the game than they were in life why not make HF as well? Rather than bring MF back to the sorry state of undrilled HF and allow mounted free rein over the battlefield, allow undrilled HF a bit more manoeuvrabililty - sauce for the goose and all ...

Part of the challenge the writers face is that if you don't allow lots of manoeuvres in FoGAM it potentially becomes a less engaging game for players using non-shooting infantry. Both sides will just amble towards each other, become locked in combat and one side will win - there would be very ...

The lack of reserves is IMO the single biggest issue with FoG.



I also find the idea that the rules are broken because certain armies are too unmanoeuverable a bit extreme (funny how I have managed to have many games with lots of HF which seemed quite enjoyable to both sides), but the further ...

This list seems to have far too many Portuguese and not enough native troops, at least for the armies in Ceylon. Is one Hindu ally the best representation?

Walter

The list seems an improvement on the existing one. I do have (still) a problem with a wholly armed musket, impact foot classification. The Iroquois can have half a unit musket impact foot swords but this classification for an entire unit is, I believe, unique in the lists.

I don't think the ...

I'm with Scrumpy and Gibby in this debate. We seem to be discussing lists that not many of us have seen but which some feel are generous in the context of other armies.

Sources that are limited to Portuguese will always incur an element of "rose-tinted glasses"

They are not limited to Portuguese ...

I also think there is a big weapons interaction problem when dealing with non-European armies.


Such as men with wooden clubs being better in melee than men with swords? In most of the colonial lists it mentions something along the lines that "pike wasn't used because it was no benefit against ...

My opponent fielded 2 bg of superior Warriors armed with musket, impact foot & swords, who also had a regimental gun attached for good measure at 100 pts a bg !


So the Portuguese colonial troops are like French but move faster, shoot better and fight better? If they move up to a pike/shot unit ...

I fought that list over here in the US today.

The Tupi option of front rank Bow* and rear rank arquebus is wrong, very, very wrong. Makes them far too powerful as they can claim the majority of shooting dice are gunpowder and not have a -2 on death rolls. They should be either all bow* or arquebus ...

Hi All,

Another pet peeve:

The dismounting for free guys. Does this seem reasonable to anyone? I mean, it does give a certain flexibility and advantage over other troops. Should they be treated like anyone else that come with an advantage - i.e. have a points cost associated to them?

If not ...

p. 36 Habsburg Austrian Imperial

German Infantry Contingents
Only from 1689, BGs are 6 bases but the maximum is 16.

p. 77 Hungarian Kuruc Rebellion Allies

Haiduks or similar foot
Medium foot maximum is 16 but the maximum for all Haiduks is 12.

Walter

david53 wrote:

quackstheking wrote: However nothing is cheap so no 18 BG 800pt armys!!

Don

I think thats great at least people can't hide behind crap foot, play bad and still not lose

Replace 'crap foot' with 'light horse' and you could be madaxeman.

Walter

david53 wrote:

waldo wrote: In FOG:R "difficult moves" have been scrapped. I hope they run with this idea in FOG:AM v2. Anyone know if this is in the list of changes?

Walter

No its not sorry

Ok, thanks. Looks like those poor undrilled will still have their feet stuck in the mud then!

Walter

My thoughts for what its worth:

The restrictions on undrilled troops within 6" of enemy seem a little harsh, to to point of being illogical.

At the very least undrilled troops should always have the option to wheel towards the neerest enemy without a CMT.

Other options could be:
Turn 90 or 180 ...

Giving soldiers impact, melee, AND shooting ability seems to go against the grain of the FoG philosophy. The idea being that troops could not be skilled at everything. The best you get in FoGAM is bow*, lance (or impact foot), sword.

Russian Streltsy in 'Clash of Empires' have Arquebus (or Musket ...

Catalan wrote: But in the end, they're just a .22 caliber army in a .357 game (to turn a phrase).

It did win a 33 player open tournament in Australia so it can't be all bad...

Walter

Therefore, the Colonial Portuguese list suffers from poor classification standards.

The troops should be classified as follows:
Until 1515: Warriors; Unarmoured; up to ½ Superior/ remaining Average; up to ½ Arquebus / remaining Crossbow; Impact Foot; Swordsmen
From 1516 to 1550: Warriors ...

The other day I saw a FOG R game between Colonial Portuguese (with an Indian ally) vs Ottoman Turk, a semi-historical match (well almost at least....)

The first thing that immediately strikes a wrong feeling, was that the Portuguese were more numerous, it is like seeing a tabletop battle, were ...

Are you assuming that a LF base represents less men than a MF one? If so it is an incorrect assumption.

If there aren't fewer men in an LF base why do they shoot with fewer dice than MF? What are the rest doing?

Running about.

I suppose that is why the LF shooting at the back of a Viking ...

Hmm - so the bog standard barbarian MF protected foot is on equal POA (in melee) and equal dice as Euzonoi even though they have more men fighting?


Are you assuming that a LF base represents less men than a MF one? If so it is an incorrect assumption.

If there aren't fewer men in an LF base ...