League of Very Ordinary Gentlemen

[keyth]

Hi there,

I mostly play FoG with what I consider to be 'interesting' armies with a view to getting a more historical feel, rather than those you can stack with Superior pike or lances. Please note that I am not knocking that playing style - it is competitive after all I am also most certainly not one of the better players out there!

So to get to the point: I am looking for like-minded players who play in a similar fashion (though you don't have to be as bad as I am ) for regular casual games. Depending on how it goes, maybe a simple mini-campaign could be set-up.

Sign up here if you are interested!

[rexhurley]

Anything is possible mate, also looking at a possible of a Mighty Empires type game if you nterested have alook at it the campaign section

[petergarnett]

I'm happy to join in this too

[omarquatar]

more historical flavour and less competition sounds great to me; when are we going to begin?

[batesmotel]

Please add me as well. Sounds like this should be fun.

Chris

[tofman04]

Add me in too.

Cheers

[Archie]

Put me down too...

[keyth]

Thanks for the interest all. I've got a bit of a hectic weekend but will cobble something together in the next day or two. What format are people interested in? My thoughts in no particular order:

1. Post an invite here with the army list and points. Games are played for commentary in this thread (or a new one) and bragging rights - let's see what the underdog armies can do!
2. Everyone picks a list and plays everyone else. 1 point for a win, ½ point for a draw (open to suggestions for scoring).
3. Discuss some historical match-ups and use those as a basis for a mini-tourney as above.
4. A possible option would be to use some of the voluntary out of command ideas discussed on other threads (-1 MP when out of command unless charging for example) to encourage a more historical approach.

Let's give some love to the 'lesser' lists and see some truly Average armies take to the field

Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

Keyth

[omarquatar]

who is going to decide which are the underdog armies in each list?

[keyth]

I think that we can decide on the percentage of an army (in points) that can be spent on better than Average troops?

[batesmotel]

I think that we can decide on the percentage of an army (in points) that can be spent on better than Average troops?

Would a percentage in points or a percentage in BGs make more sense? (Thinking about armies like Parthians or Armenians where there aren't very many better than average BGs but they tend to be the really expensive ones like cataphracts.)

Chris

[keyth]

I think that we can decide on the percentage of an army (in points) that can be spent on better than Average troops?

Would a percentage in points or a percentage in BGs make more sense? (Thinking about armies like Parthians or Armenians where there aren't very many better than average BGs but they tend to be the really expensive ones like cataphracts.)

Chris

Again, I'm happy to take a consensus on this one - whichever method makes most sense and provides playable and entertaining armies.


Keyth

[petergarnett]

I agree with Chris in that a limit to BG's is better that points.

I'd also suggest narrowing the choice of army lists by spliting them into contemporary groups. We can then play each other using historical opponents for a couple of games, then move to another groups. So for instance punic wars, sucessors, gallic wars.

Real shame you cannot use each others DAG armies for matched pair of games!

[keyth]

I agree with Chris in that a limit to BG's is better that points.

I'd also suggest narrowing the choice of army lists by spliting them into contemporary groups. We can then play each other using historical opponents for a couple of games, then move to another groups. So for instance punic wars, sucessors, gallic wars.

Real shame you cannot use each others DAG armies for matched pair of games!

All good stuff - I should have been more explicit about using contemporary lists, this is very much the idea behind LVOG!

Matched pair with DAG armies would be most excellent.

[keyth]

For a warm-up, I've put up 400 points of Caledonians, 15% above Average, password 'ordinary'.

Cheers,

Keyth

[FedeM]

Count me in for this one.

Thanks!!

[keyth]

For a warm-up, I've put up 400 points of Caledonians, 15% above Average, password 'ordinary'.

Cheers,

Keyth

I'll keep you posted with details of the warm-up game. Peter has taken me on with an Early Principate Roman force, very kindly only selecting two superior units (legionary commanders).

I am fielding:

26 Warriors (Protected Average MF, Impact foot, Swordsmen)
12 Skirmishers (Average LF, Light spear, Javelins)
6 Chariots (Superior LC, Light spear)

Game on!

[petergarnett]

I'll list my forces shortly.

Perhaps we should also specify, before a battle commences, who should be the attacker. This I feel would add an extra dimension to play.

Equally if we list the army selection we can play doubles.

[petergarnett]

My 400 points Early Principate:-

Inspired Leader - superior legion HF
Field Leader - ditto
10 average Legion HF
6 Aux Foot MF
2 Average Aux Cav
4 Allied Archers LF
1 Stone Thrower
1 Moorish Cav LH
2 Equites Sag LH
2 Javelinmen LF
2 Symmachiarii MF

[keyth]

I'll list my forces shortly.

Perhaps we should also specify, before a battle commences, who should be the attacker. This I feel would add an extra dimension to play.

Equally if we list the army selection we can play doubles.

Another good idea.