introducing new troop types in the game

[Moro]

I do not know if the "FOW 2.0 Project" will be busy with a revision of the armiy lists.
If yes, why not thinking about introducing new troop types, such as MF Pks, Unprotected PKs, poor KNs, superior/inferior Els, etc?

[hazelbark]

I think you mean FOG 2.0


I thought about these but many of these have little value or rather too much.

MF Pike. Who would qualify historically? 2nd they would be rules of terrain in many places.
Unprotected Pike. So they would mostly always be down a POA on armour class. Maybe if MF, then they woudl ahve a harder go clearing terrain.
But The above outside some early biblical types, I am not sure who this really qualifies for?
Poor Knights. Egads aren't average bad enough?

OK on Elephants there is a sentiment for some change.

Of course we know not what evils have been thought up by the authors

[rpayne]

I've always wondered about the Sumerian and Mycenaean dudes, who were classed as Pike in DBM and changed to Spear for FOG.

Who knows which is more accurate.

[GHGAustin]

I think something like warriors seems most likely. It exists in FOG-R and could address some issues. For example, it could move like MF in terrain, but not suffer the minus for fighting HF in the open. Also, particular bonuses could be applied based on this rather than weapon.

[countadam]

I am not sure the game needs more troop types. I think mob could be removed. I cannot see any difference between Mob and MF, apart from figures per base.

Instead more effort should be made getting the current troops right. Elephants need to be better or cheaper or both. At the moment there is no incentive to take them. Elephant's should be the rock to Knight's scissors.

Something needs to be done about the difference between MF and HF. MF is much more usable in the game than HF. See one of the many threads about this topic for the relevent arguments.

Cheers
Paul.

[Moro]

It is not only a question about playability of the game. Yes, poor Kns are bad (but maybe a cheap unit of poor KNs is better than a costly unit of average KN, who knows?), but historically speaking not all knights were famous for their courage and cunning! So, why don'y thinking about consider them in the game?

If I do not remember bad, in DBMM Scots are Pk I. Now, DBMM is not the Bible, but it could be feasable classify a rather undiscipiled mass of men as Poor PK or Unprotected PK, trther than Average OS.

Moreover, It would introduce more variety in the game.

[rbodleyscott]

I've always wondered about the Sumerian and Mycenaean dudes, who were classed as Pike in DBM and changed to Spear for FOG.

Unlike DBM, FOG does not classify troops as pike just because they have long weapons - they also have to have fought in deep formations.

So not classifying troops as Pike even though they were so classified in DBM is not some dreadful omission caused by senile dementia (for heaven's sake I co-wrote DBM too), it was a deliberate decision. It isn't going to be reversed.

[nikgaukroger]

I've always wondered about the Sumerian and Mycenaean dudes, who were classed as Pike in DBM and changed to Spear for FOG.

Unlike DBM, FOG does not classify troops as pike just because they have long weapons - they also have to have fought in deep formations.

So not classifying troops as Pike even though they were so classified in DBM is not some dreadful omission caused by senile dementia (for heaven's sake I co-wrote DBM too), it was a deliberate decision. It isn't going to be reversed.

Also DBM(M) classify troops who would otherwise be Sp as Pk(I) because they lack large enough shields regardless of formation depths. We believe FoG allows us to better represent these guys, hence the classification of Scots for example.

[philqw78]

Instead more effort should be made getting the current troops right. Elephants need to be better or cheaper or both. At the moment there is no incentive to take them. Elephant's should be the rock to Knight's scissors.

How often Elephants fight Knights?

[grahambriggs]

I am not sure the game needs more troop types. I think mob could be removed. I cannot see any difference between Mob and MF, apart from figures per base.

Instead more effort should be made getting the current troops right. Elephants need to be better or cheaper or both. At the moment there is no incentive to take them. Elephant's should be the rock to Knight's scissors.

Something needs to be done about the difference between MF and HF. MF is much more usable in the game than HF. See one of the many threads about this topic for the relevent arguments.

Cheers
Paul.

I think Mob is fine. It's MF and acts as such, it's just a bit deeper bases so allowing people who have troops based for other rule sets to use it.

I'm hoping elephants will be strengthened a bit in v2. I'm not sure why you think they should be really good against knights though. I don't know that they ever faced them. Our wargames supposition that they are knightsbane is an inference from their effect on classical cavalry.

[grahambriggs]

I've always wondered about the Sumerian and Mycenaean dudes, who were classed as Pike in DBM and changed to Spear for FOG.

Unlike DBM, FOG does not classify troops as pike just because they have long weapons - they also have to have fought in deep formations.

So not classifying troops as Pike even though they were so classified in DBM is not some dreadful omission caused by senile dementia (for heaven's sake I co-wrote DBM too), it was a deliberate decision. It isn't going to be reversed.

well, at least you remember writing it, the dementia can't be that advanced

In terms of the Sumerians we're almost completely in the dark about how the foot were used. The vulture stele shows a body of men. Big broad shields are to the front, some spears (6 per shield) point forwards, held in two hands. The length of the spear is about two shield widths.

I think from the big oblong shields (neck to ankle) that says the troop are trying to form a solid barrier of shields - so presumably HF. The front rank are presumably holding the shields; they are not shown with weapons.

Frankly, how this was used in battle is guesswork. DBM guessed that it was closest to later pike (presumably because the spear look longish and are held in two hands), FoG that it is closest to later defensive spear (presumably the big shield and that the spears look a bit short for pikes. Either could be correct. Or they might be light spears.

What does seem unlikely is that such a formation would hold up against any of the better known classical infantry. Aside from the cumbersome shield they are protected by the sturdy loveliness of wool, and essentially have a copper letter opener on a stick to fight with.

[philqw78]

protected by the sturdy loveliness of wool,.

[rpayne]

I've always wondered about the Sumerian and Mycenaean dudes, who were classed as Pike in DBM and changed to Spear for FOG.

Unlike DBM, FOG does not classify troops as pike just because they have long weapons - they also have to have fought in deep formations.

So not classifying troops as Pike even though they were so classified in DBM is not some dreadful omission caused by senile dementia (for heaven's sake I co-wrote DBM too), it was a deliberate decision. It isn't going to be reversed.

well, at least you remember writing it, the dementia can't be that advanced

In terms of the Sumerians we're almost completely in the dark about how the foot were used. The vulture stele shows a body of men. Big broad shields are to the front, some spears (6 per shield) point forwards, held in two hands. The length of the spear is about two shield widths.

I think from the big oblong shields (neck to ankle) that says the troop are trying to form a solid barrier of shields - so presumably HF. The front rank are presumably holding the shields; they are not shown with weapons.

Frankly, how this was used in battle is guesswork. DBM guessed that it was closest to later pike (presumably because the spear look longish and are held in two hands), FoG that it is closest to later defensive spear (presumably the big shield and that the spears look a bit short for pikes. Either could be correct. Or they might be light spears.

What does seem unlikely is that such a formation would hold up against any of the better known classical infantry. Aside from the cumbersome shield they are protected by the sturdy loveliness of wool, and essentially have a copper letter opener on a stick to fight with.

This is more what I was getting at. Some things I'm sure we just do not have enough data to make a definite conclusion as to what they should be.

[hazelbark]

I'm hoping elephants will be strengthened a bit in v2. I'm not sure why you think they should be really good against knights though. I don't know that they ever faced them. Our wargames supposition that they are knightsbane is an inference from their effect on classical cavalry.

And perhaps DBM classifing the companions as Knights. But then i dont' remember the companions dying to elephants either. Perhaps it is a successor cataphract vs Elephant thing.

[nikgaukroger]

I'm hoping elephants will be strengthened a bit in v2. I'm not sure why you think they should be really good against knights though. I don't know that they ever faced them. Our wargames supposition that they are knightsbane is an inference from their effect on classical cavalry.

And perhaps DBM classifing the companions as Knights. But then i dont' remember the companions dying to elephants either. Perhaps it is a successor cataphract vs Elephant thing.

More likely Ipsos where Demetrios' cavalry were prevented from returning to the battle by Seleukos' 400 nellies.

[rpayne]

To be fair, in this ruleset the Elite companions actually don't do too terribly vs. the current elephants. Sure they are down, but they are not likely to break very quickly.

[Strategos69]

To be fair, in this ruleset the Elite companions actually don't do too terribly vs. the current elephants. Sure they are down, but they are not likely to break very quickly.

Indeed it is likely that sooner or later they will inflict morale tests that the elephants are more likely to fail.

It is not only a question about playability of the game. Yes, poor Kns are bad (but maybe a cheap unit of poor KNs is better than a costly unit of average KN, who knows?), but historically speaking not all knights were famous for their courage and cunning! So, why don'y thinking about consider them in the game?

I am not certain but looking at book 2 it seems that inferior knights have been regraded as cavalry. And that way cavalry has been modeled as inferior knights in the overall game (better than it should be). The problem I see with that decision is the unbalancing of cavalry in certain periods compared to its historical performance. I would rather put cavalry where it should be and experience with armoured-protected knights, poor knights and alike. At least in book 2, all knights are heavily armoured (as cataphracts), thus their PoA's could be comprised in one. In fact armour PoA could be renamed to make people clear that it is not just the armour which has been taken into account.

[philqw78]

I think there is some heresy above. I would not let the authors know that you believe they simply copied DBM lists changing names.

[Polkovnik]

Yes, poor Kns are bad (but maybe a cheap unit of poor KNs is better than a costly unit of average KN, who knows?), but historically speaking not all knights were famous for their courage and cunning! So, why don'y thinking about consider them in the game?

What you are missing is that troop quality is not relative to other troops of that type - it is relative to all other troops. So even if certain knights were not as good as others, they would still normally be better quailty than the other troops in the army.
So knights that were not very good historically are rated as average.
Or do you really think that there are some knights that were as badly trained, badly led and with as poor motivation and morale as peasant mobs or juvenile skirmishers ?

[Strategos69]

What you are missing is that troop quality is not relative to other troops of that type - it is relative to all other troops. So even if certain knights were not as good as others, they would still normally be better quailty than the other troops in the army.
So knights that were not very good historically are rated as average.

You can change the armour, and make them armoured instead of heavily armoured to depict lower performance, instead of making them cavalry. The problem is the equation knights/cataphracts= heavily armoured+average/superior.

Or do you really think that there are some knights that were as badly trained, badly led and with as poor motivation and morale as peasant mobs or juvenile skirmishers ?

Instead of thinking only in knights themselves, look at valets de guerre, sergeants and others fighting in the rear ranks of knights and deployed in certain circumstances separately. In the other hand poor knights can represent reluctant allied nobles, not really willing to fight (it is not that they are bad, but they don't want to be there).