Carlos, thanks for the EG link - I had missed that

However, my question wasn't about Gauls lacking hilly (I'm well aware of that recent thread), but why Britons GET hilly terrain in such an abysmally flat country, which I couldn't find in this forum

philqw78 - gee thanks for your exorbitant courtesy

A quick question - how do you use chariots? (no, I'm not being facetious, I haven't seen anyone using chariots yet, and quite curious how you get the most out of them) - both light and heavy chariots.

Just browsing through Legions Triumphant, and a couple of questions came up:

Why is it that Ancient Brits get a BG of elite warriors, whereas Ancient Germans don't? I have no problem with a BG of elite or superior warriors for the AB's, it just seems to shortchange the AG's somewhat - in fact, I ...

Want -- may not be the right word once you've looked at the (fair and accurate) list.

In my last outing against romans I managed to lose all my generals in the first hour and a half as the IF/SSw cut through my best troops like they were tissue paper.


Graham, you should have learned by now that even Superior Tissue Paper won't wipe out the Romans: Stick to BOUNTY, the only paper ...

I think you've overlooked 6 compulsory bowmen who may be LF or MF

At the Gisclair last month, I fought against a Byzantine that was (IIRC)
4 Armoured Knights
3x4 Latinikon HAK
2x6 poor LF bow
6x6 LH bow
4 TF generals

This was pretty scary, as he could screen and deliver his knights wherever he ...

Thanks, GB - that's pretty much where I had worked myself to, also.

Now to find out how to use Light Chariots effectively ..

I was tempted to use them at Warfare next weekend but didn't have the time to work an army out. The general theory being blocks of 12 hairy screamers led by generals and with rear support. Scary in the charge and enough mass to hold for a while after it against quality troops while chums destroy ...

Looking at the list of troops your legionaries fought very few of them are troops where the Roman advantages actually count for anything. As a result you are right that the Romans seemed underpowered.

If you change your opponents to Light spear/swordsmen or barbarian impact foot the whole thing ...

Thanks, I'm aware of the genesis of the Galatians, and yes, after 69BC they are downgraded to average.

But, to say that they were greatly feared and terrorised their neighbours, is also to describe the Gauls up until ... I forget the exact battle. The Romans certainly went in fear of them for long ...

Lithuanians, I'd have said .... altho it might be begging the question to call them steppe dwellers.

Just out of curiousity, how is it that the Galatians get to be 100% Superior Impact Foot, while their close cousins the Gauls appear to be given the short shrift (and the poor old Franks, Goths, Vandals and whatnot, get not a sniff of a superior infantryman)?

I wasn't aware that the Galatian ...

If that is the answer, then you haven' read the question.

Chess gives a game that works quite well, and to say it gives a good historical feeling is to say, it fits your preconceptions well, and lets win the armies you perceive as deserving to win.

None of this answers my complaints, either ...

Two observations (no, three, four .. well, a bunch) about the replies I've gotten

One is, the defence to small BG's seems to be, ah but they are historical, which is (a) question-begging in regard to armies we have little evidence of, (b) extremely dubious when you consider medieval armies and ...

Well, I'm in Little Rock, a bit far for an afternoon drive - there are a few FOG players in Oklahoma City, which might just about be reachable for you? Don't know of anyone closer, I'm afraid.

I'd be interested for Phil to expand on his comments Fair enough, a snide comment doesn't really cut it as criticism. So, my general criticisms are:

1. that the lists constrain armies far too much:where there could be multiple interpretations, too often, the list writer(s) have enforced only their ...

Who would have thought, after all the years of bitching about the unreasonableness of the Barker army lists, that we'd look back fondly on them, and compare them favourably to the current, costive, prohibitive, pinched and punitive approach to army lists, with it's absurd arbritary approach to every ...

Well, just to restrict myself to things that stand out from last Saturday's game:

1. Names of terrain pieces only seem to be on the QR sheet, leading to some confusion (to say the least)
2. Simply trying to put together the choice of terrain and what it does, required flipping back & forth numerous ...

So,
when can we expect a revised edition of FOG with a decent index, and a complete reorganisation of the rules so that it actually makes some sense, and players can find rules without having to memorise the whole bloody set?

Well, having gotten more or less settled in the brave new world, we ventured down to Dallas to participate in SKirmish'08, which included a small & very friendly FOG contingent. The umpire, Ian Buttridge, was kind enough to lend me an army, and my opponents very charitably supplied my dice in each ...