At some time it was spoken that there would be the possibility to introduce the rule change in respect os the Armoured Knights movement. Can you confirm if this will happen or not?

Thanks

Our discussion is getting very complicated beacuse we are addressing several issues at the time, so I will try to clarify my position.
1) You say that Portuguese faced larger enemy armies and defeat them regularly, so that feature should be in the game. My answer is that the sources for those ...

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 ...

Thanks for the reference links pippohispano.
Do you also know of any sources regarding the Colonial Portuguese in Malacca and/or South East Asia?

I have forwarded your request for a bibliography to a friend who works in the history book business, and he came up with this list (I wasn’t aware ...

Try to read the descriptions of Castanhoso and Ribeiro. They seem to have no trouble with numbers, particularly Ribeiro, who puts allied Sinhalese numbers in much higher figures than the Portuguese.

The Portuguese Expedition to Abyssinia in 1541-1543 As Narrated by [Miguel de] Castanhoso
http ...

As far as I know (which admittedly is not much), romans never lost an important battle against phalanxes, except for the first 2 against Pyrrhus, which can be atributed more to the novelty of facing elephants, than fighting pikes.

The point that several powers started to change pikemen to ...

Yes the colonial troops may have defeated the massed hordes of the 'barbarians' but giving them superior would result in them being considered the equal of the best of the line troops in Europe. Is this really the case? Why weren't the Portuguese in high demand as mercenaries in Europe that being ...

I agree with the comment about numbers. Because of a lack of cavalry these colonial armies tend to be on the large side. I think that average is an exaggeration of the capabilities of the usual opponents of the colonial powers. Surely most should be poor, judging from their repeated defeats ...

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 ...

Thanks for the update!
These changes without any testing on my side, seem very positive.

There's already 4 Books out and a lot of variety of armies.

It is in Lisbon again.

Great

Since you ask I think the correct way to incentivise the use of unpopular troops is the points system.
I am also relatively neutral on this from an army viewpoint I have Dom Roms as well as Ghaznavid and Seleucid so am not defending my favourite troop type. Incidently I never use the Ghaznavids as ...

Currently HF or MF IF are evens vs El at impact. Superior legionaries would therefore have a good chance of autobreaking an El BG at impact. If they dont they are at - in melee.
At v1 El are not widely played due to their fragility.
At v2 with 3 dice at impact EL would be slight favorites vs ...

Yes IF is even at impact :oops:

Nevertheless they still fight worse than spearmen and pike against elephants (because of the melee), which i still don't think is historical.

We should remember that the romans after the initial shock, learned to beat elephants with stratagems that cannot be ...

I may be wrong but pillum, darts and javelins seems to me a much better way to deal with elephants than a spear or a pike (as it happened in Magnesia).

In Zama and indeed in other batlles simple stratagems like opening ranks and letting the elephants pass and then attacking them with missile ...

I agree that romans should not be worst off against elephants than pikes or spearmen.

In impact and in Melee:

Pikes: +1 POA
Spearmen: 0 POA
Romans: -1 POA

Is there any historical support for this? Don't think so!

Even with the 3 dice only at impact, the new rules make it easier to lose cohesion ...

not a bad idea
1 bg with good poa (++) can destroy many bg while outnumbered
for example 1bg/4 knight against 2 bg /16 bowmen protected without sword
knight will laugh will bieng outnumered 1/4
is it normal ?
in this case i regret dbm where the mass was useful, the flanks were exposed and deadly ...

Seems good to me!

Actually I think that the Auxilia were many times deployed on the flanks of the legions, where is more likely that they will meet cavalry. Hvy foot being better against cavalry than MF, so it seems to me that this change encourages players to adopt realistic deployments, which is positive.


Pity ...

Is there a decision on this year's competition format? Wether will include FOG R or not? Pools by periods or books, etc?