Peltasts as variable fighting types

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Post Reply
GHGAustin
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:42 pm
Location: Austin, Texas USA
Contact:

Peltasts as variable fighting types

Post by GHGAustin »

I would like to see Peltasts and allowed to be deployed either as LF or MF at the beginning of the battle, similar to the decision that you can make with regard to Makedonian Hypaspists. So, as long as you pay for the most expensive type, then after you have seen the terrain you can declare at the time of deployment whether they are acting in the LF or MF role. One might argue a similar thing for Thureophoroi and MF vs. HF.

Also, I wonder about making LF Peltasts protected, similar to Velites. This would give them an advantage over other javelinmen.
Rob Smith
Great Hall Games
Austin, TX
www.greathallminis.com
Fluffy
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Fluffy »

The same for some bow.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Peltasts as variable fighting types

Post by nikgaukroger »

GHGAustin wrote:I would like to see Peltasts and allowed to be deployed either as LF or MF at the beginning of the battle, similar to the decision that you can make with regard to Makedonian Hypaspists. So, as long as you pay for the most expensive type, then after you have seen the terrain you can declare at the time of deployment whether they are acting in the LF or MF role. One might argue a similar thing for Thureophoroi and MF vs. HF.
For peltasts to have a MF option there would have to be evidence of MF behaviour - are you aware of any?

It would be an inappropriate option for thyreoforoi as the MF/HF option is really about backward compatability for existing figure collections rather than a belief they fought in 2 different ways. The writers actually think that HF is correct, but did not want to worry players with rebasing which might have proved a barrier to playing FoG.


Also, I wonder about making LF Peltasts protected, similar to Velites. This would give them an advantage over other javelinmen.

They are Average compared to the general Greek javelinman who is Poor - seems advantage enough against the troops they were superior to historically.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Post by gozerius »

Well, Thracian "peltasts" are graded as MF with anything from light spear, to light spear w/sword, offensive spear or heavy weapon. The LF are simply "javelinmen".
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3081
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

gozerius wrote:Well, Thracian "peltasts" are graded as MF with anything from light spear, to light spear w/sword, offensive spear or heavy weapon. The LF are simply "javelinmen".
I imagine calling the Thracians "peltasts" ccame about because that was the nearest Greek troop type. Is there any information that these fierce Thracian warriors with close combat weapons would act as light skirmishers? In tribal societies that seems to have often been a role given to the youths.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28411
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

grahambriggs wrote:
gozerius wrote:Well, Thracian "peltasts" are graded as MF with anything from light spear, to light spear w/sword, offensive spear or heavy weapon. The LF are simply "javelinmen".
I imagine calling the Thracians "peltasts" ccame about because that was the nearest Greek troop type.
Or more likely because they carried the pelta. :wink:
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3081
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

rbodleyscott wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:
gozerius wrote:Well, Thracian "peltasts" are graded as MF with anything from light spear, to light spear w/sword, offensive spear or heavy weapon. The LF are simply "javelinmen".
I imagine calling the Thracians "peltasts" ccame about because that was the nearest Greek troop type.
Or more likely because they carried the pelta. :wink:
Surely "pelta" is a Greek word, not Thracian? (desperate attempt at recovery...)
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28411
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

grahambriggs wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:
grahambriggs wrote: I imagine calling the Thracians "peltasts" ccame about because that was the nearest Greek troop type.
Or more likely because they carried the pelta. :wink:
Surely "pelta" is a Greek word, not Thracian? (desperate attempt at recovery...)
Indeed and so is peltastoi - it means "men carrying the shield called a pelta". i.e. the crescent shaped thingy in the 5th century BC.

Of course in Hellenistic times it came to have a somewhat different meaning, being used even for pikemen, and in any case Thracians by then used the thureos.
madaxeman
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3002
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Peltasts as variable fighting types

Post by madaxeman »

GHGAustin wrote:Also, I wonder about making LF Peltasts protected, similar to Velites. This would give them an advantage over other javelinmen.
nikgaukroger wrote:They are Average compared to the general Greek javelinman who is Poor - seems advantage enough against the troops they were superior to historically.
Isn't there a Superior Cavalry thread where RBS says this isn't the rationale for grading troops in FoG though ?
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Peltasts as variable fighting types

Post by nikgaukroger »

madaxeman wrote:
GHGAustin wrote:Also, I wonder about making LF Peltasts protected, similar to Velites. This would give them an advantage over other javelinmen.
nikgaukroger wrote:They are Average compared to the general Greek javelinman who is Poor - seems advantage enough against the troops they were superior to historically.
Isn't there a Superior Cavalry thread where RBS says this isn't the rationale for grading troops in FoG though ?
Quite possibly, however, I can't be held responsible for what he says :lol: I also know there is a topic where he says what I said above 8)
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark »

I think a lot of this idea being able to detach convert MF into LF goes to what are you trying to design in the game.

For me that rings of the napoleonic forces trying to deploy units in extended skirmisher order and not. A very common discussion in that period.

But for me that moves FOG AM down a rung to a more tactical level that has repeatedly been eschewed.

Heck I bet even in a pinch you can shake some of your phalanx into some LF worthless unit. But that is not the big picutre scale of the game. That is rung closer to more specailty rules all over.
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”