In Praise of Poor Troops

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

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

Post Reply
petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3118
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

In Praise of Poor Troops

Post by petedalby »

Can we have more 'Poor' troops please?

As an example, the Late Republican Roman list allows legionaries to be anything from Elite to Poor with everything in between. So plenty of flexibility.

But in other lists all / most of the troop types are 'Average'.

Can we have a default option to downgrade any troops by at least one level to show unenthusiastic / unwilling troops please?
Pete
thefrenchjester
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1376
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:23 pm
Location: the wilderness of mirrors

Post by thefrenchjester »

they will come soon :wink:
with the sumerian armies and associates , asian eastern armies of the song , the biblical armies ( super chariots and poor followers ) , the period will surely give you all you wish 8) ( I wait also that's sure )

thefrenchjester " average but enthusiatic :) "
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

We're including Poor troops where we can identify that they are reasonable, but we aren't putting them in if we don't think that. I'd suggest that if Average troops are common in the lists we are doing something right :D

Have you spotted any cases where you think Poor troops are justified based on the historical record but are not available? We are more than open to suggestions, we know we aren't infallible.
petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3118
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Post by petedalby »

Hi Nick,

Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently well read to be able to provide specific examples.

But I keep looking at the Later Jewish list and all those LF - all of whom are Average. Army sizes seemed to grow and shrink remarkably - suggesting a high degree of desertion?

Contrast that with say Seleucid or Ottoman where most Light Foot can be downgraded to Poor.

I think it would add more flavour and give more flexibility on army choice.

Peter
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

petedalby wrote:
But I keep looking at the Later Jewish list and all those LF - all of whom are Average. Army sizes seemed to grow and shrink remarkably - suggesting a high degree of desertion?
As far as I can see the troops that did fight were OK and as the desertion happened pre-battle it is not really within the scope of the lists as that would mean representing troops who weren't there :shock:


petedalby wrote:
Contrast that with say Seleucid or Ottoman where most Light Foot can be downgraded to Poor.

I think it would add more flavour and give more flexibility on army choice.
It would indeed add flexibility but, in the opinion of those contributing to the lists, it would be spurious to have such troops without some evidence - in the case of seleukid and Ottoman we believe that at times these troops justify Poor.

However, as I said if anyone can supply info we're all ears.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”