Will there be an American list?

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:04 pm

But its ok for Border Reivers to have a list in FoGR.

A full definition of troops types and points value will be included.
It would be relatively easy to put together your own list for any army of the period that you wish to use.
We may consider putting additional lists on the web for minor counties and engagements.......

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:54 pm

Well the border reivers did fight and win Solway Moss. Seriously though FOGN is a completely different scale of game from it's earlier cousins. In the earlier games there is a clear acceptance of various scales of men per figure being represented which I do not think applies in FOGN as it currently stands.
John

CutEmUp · Post by **CutEmUp** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:03 pm

marshalney2000 wrote:Well the border reivers did fight and win Solway Moss. Seriously though FOGN is a completely different scale of game from it's earlier cousins. In the earlier games there is a clear acceptance of various scales of men per figure being represented which I do not think applies in FOGN as it currently stands.
John

Too bad, because they won't be able to take it many directions....no Wellington in India, no L'Oveture, no Simon Bolivar, no Mexican American war

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:04 am

Very true but you really need a 1 figure equals 20 men for these conflicts and the ability to manoeuvre at battalion or regimental level. For better or worse FOGN was clearly not designed at that level. Lots of other rule sets are however.
John

Baltharsar · Post by **Baltharsar** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:16 pm

hasdrubal wrote:With comments like these you do no favours to yourself or anybody else in these forums. An attitude like yours tends to lead to the stereotype, which is mostly incorrect, of Americans being loudmouthed arrogant braggarts.

jep...
@CutEmUp: Another fact is, that you still use the language of your mother country

Ich habe wenigstens eine eigene Sprache...

gdrover · Post by **gdrover** » Sun May 29, 2011 6:21 pm

War of 1812 huh? Not really a point of pride for either side:

The Americans almost declared war on the French shortly before declaring war on the British. Obviously going to war wasn't clearly thought-out or for any substantial reason. As a matter of fact, the majority of Americans were opposed, and it only happened due to war fever driven by regional opportunists.

The Americans were ridiculously unprepared for the war, and never got their act together. They were repeatedly defeated in almost every major action until New Orleans, which they should have lost if the British command had been at all competent.

The British had much bigger fish to fry, facing off a potential European hegemon, so fought with only a fraction of their potential forces.

Neither side had much to gain by fighting each other

I think the best that can be said of the war of 1812, is that after several huge foul-ups on both sides, the war sputtered out inconclusively.

MatteoPasi · Post by **MatteoPasi** » Sun May 29, 2011 7:02 pm

CutEmUp wrote:We got Florida too

I suppose that You want to say that taking Florida like Flarida was in 1812 is a victory .... I'm not sure

CutEmUp · Post by **CutEmUp** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:06 am

gdrover wrote:War of 1812 huh? Not really a point of pride for either side:
The Americans were ridiculously unprepared for the war,

OK, you got one thing right

gdrover wrote:and never got their act together

bullsheet......they got their act together quite a few times.....especially in the west and in the south, they also got their act together in baltimore, upstate new york and on the great lakes

gdrover wrote:They were repeatedly defeated in almost every major action

thats another laugher of a statement, how bout lake Erie, the most important battle of the war? how about lake champlain? Andy Jackson beating the Creeks? The battle of Chippewa? Baltimore? Battle of the Thames? Or how bout us burning Toronto to the ground? truth is the British won about half the major battles but they recovered from all those losses......the battles the Americans won were decisive, save Chippewa

gdrover wrote:until New Orleans, which they should have lost if the British command had been at all competent.

another dumb statement.........well Napoleon would have won Waterloo if he didnt get the trots in the middle of the battle....and Packenham was certainly competent enough in Spain and competent enough for Wwellington to reccomend him, problem was he caught one from a kentucky riffle Oh

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:39 am

CutEmUp wrote:Sorry Brits 0-2 for you, can't beat us and we saved your ass twice

*expletive* I hate this *expletive*.

American propaganda.

If you want to start... how about the number of times you're late for wars? You don't honour your alliances but expect others to honour theirs.

How long after 1914 and 1939 did it take for you to honour your treaty? How long did it take for the British, Canadian, Australian, Japanese, and practically everyone else to honour theirs on September 11?

Your attitude sucks CutEmUp. You and American's like you have a lot to answer for why many people decide that ramming civilian airliners into civilian targets is a good idea.

CutEmUp · Post by **CutEmUp** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:17 pm

ravenflight wrote:*expletive* I hate this *expletive*.

Yes, sometimes the truth is frustrating.

ravenflight wrote:American propaganda.

LoL, you think you're rage against the machine now

ravenflight wrote:If you want to start... how about the number of times you're late for wars? You don't honour your alliances but expect others to honour theirs.

We are late for wars because those wars were started for idiotic reasons that had nothing to do with us.....the Europeans fight over stupid things. We are the adults and step in when you kids cross the line.....somebody gets a spanking.
What alliance did we not honor?

ravenflight wrote:How long after 1914 and 1939 did it take for you to honour your treaty? How long did it take for the British, Canadian, Australian, Japanese, and practically everyone else to honour theirs on September 11?

LoL, you need to check your history books.....what treaty?

ravenflight wrote:Your attitude sucks CutEmUp. You and American's like you have a lot to answer for why many people decide that ramming civilian airliners into civilian targets is a good idea.

This statement probably made sense to you when you posted it, but it makes absolutely no sense to me right now. It probably doesn't make sense to anybody else either.

CutEmUp · Post by **CutEmUp** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:43 pm

Wait a sec, I think I got it now. I think you are trying to say 9/11 is my fault and not the fault of a bunch of crazy whacked out mohammedans.

IMO, that statement by you is just another example of how all the smart Europeans got out of Europe and came over here, thus diluting Europe in general of the good gene pool (world wars helped too) and leaving the rungs acrossed the pond to be pushed around by dictators and kings.

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:22 pm

Come on guys play nice. This site is about the rules and not slagging off each others countries and extolling your own. This sort of thing will quickly and inevitably descend into personal abuse a situation we can all do without. This topic was raised to ask a question as to whether or not the war of 1812 would be included and as far as I can see that was answered many moons ago so let us just draw a veil over the whole thing and move on.
John

Skullzgrinda · Post by **Skullzgrinda** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:49 pm

This whole thread should be clubbed in the head and left for the coyotes, IMHO.