Trying to understand Point Values table (page 149)

[andrewgr]

I'm having a hard time understanding the table on page 149.

The problem is that thre is no point value given for the Type of the unit. There is no entry that I can see that tells you what the base cost is of Heavy Foot vs. Medium Foot vs. Light Foot, for example.

As far as I can see by reading this table, I could make a Heavily Armored unit and call it Heavy Foor, or call it Medium Foot, or call it Light Foot, and it would cost the same no matter what. I would always choose to call it Light Foot, I guess, so that when fighting Elephants the Elephants would not get their POA.

I thought maybe there would be an explicity mapping between Armor and Type, but in looking at the army lists, there are examples of Heavy Infantry that are only Protected, so that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm trying to compute point values for some figures I have that I want to use that aren't covered by an existing army book. Any help understanding how to take into account a unit's Type when costing it would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[rbodleyscott]

There is no "base" cost except the costs shown in the table. Each type has its advantages and disadvantages, however, which balance out. You certainly wouldn't want to have all your infantry as LF - they only get half dice in close combat with non-skirmishers. On the other hand they are good at evading the enemy heavier infantry and peppering them with missiles - but will be ridden down by light horse in the open. You wouldnt want to armour your LF either, as it would make no significant difference to their resistance to enemy shooting (as they are dispersed and hard to hit anyway), and they shouldn't be engaging in close combat.

Of course, most historical troops clearly map to one or other type, some optionally map to one of 2 types. This mapping will be done by us in the army lists. It shouldn't be too hard, however, to extrapolate from the published army lists to get a rough approximation of what your other armies will look like when their list is published.

If you have any specific questions on classifying your troops, we should be able to answer in general terms.

[carlos]

All types of Foot cost the same irrespective of their heaviness (HF, LF, MF). The army lists then restrict your choices somewhat, so you won't find heavily armoured LF or HF w/ bows. If you are trying to come up with points values for figures that haven't got a book yet, then try comparing them to what is similar from the published books. The army book has good descriptions of all the equipment and armour available so it's not hard to figure things out.

[andrewgr]

There is no "base" cost except the costs shown in the table. Each type has its advantages and disadvantages, however, which balance out.

Okay, that makes sense and is clear.

Thanks for the quick response!

[richnz]

And of course if you use the excel army list spreadsheet it does it all for you

[irondog068]

Just get the army books. It is very easy then. I gave up trying to figure out the points for my 28mm Samurai and went back to Killer Katanas 2 leaving FOG for my soon 15mm hordes.

Irondog

[hammy]

Just get the army books. It is very easy then. I gave up trying to figure out the points for my 28mm Samurai and went back to Killer Katanas 2 leaving FOG for my soon 15mm hordes.

Irondog

If you work out what Samurai should be in FoG I would be interested to hear your thoughts. They are one of the troop types that are VERY difficult to pin down and there has been a lot of debate on how they should be represented. The Samurai are gods fans seem to want elite heavily armoured longbow impact foot skilled swordsmen for all of them

[davem]

Just get the army books. It is very easy then. I gave up trying to figure out the points for my 28mm Samurai and went back to Killer Katanas 2 leaving FOG for my soon 15mm hordes.

Irondog

If you work out what Samurai should be in FoG I would be interested to hear your thoughts. They are one of the troop types that are VERY difficult to pin down and there has been a lot of debate on how they should be represented. The Samurai are gods fans seem to want elite heavily armoured longbow impact foot skilled swordsmen for all of them

And they're not??

[ars_belli]

If you work out what Samurai should be in FoG I would be interested to hear your thoughts. They are one of the troop types that are VERY difficult to pin down and there has been a lot of debate on how they should be represented. The Samurai are gods fans seem to want elite heavily armoured longbow impact foot skilled swordsmen for all of them

Just off the top of my head, I would say that early foot bushi would be Superior, Armoured, Bow, Impact Foot, Swordsmen. "Superior" for the same reasons as Spartan hoplites, Persian Immortals, etc. "Armoured" because the samurai had no shields, and were not as completely protected as as cataphracts. "Bow, Swordsmen" would seem to best reflect their attested skills. Later bushi could be rated "Skilled Swordsmen," but their missile capabilities would then drop to "Bow*" to reflect archery as a secondary weapon. "Impact Foot" is a given, I would think.

But then, weren't most early (pre-1500) samurai actually horsemen? Given that, I would think that the most accurate rating (especially for early bushi) would be Cavalry, Superior, Armoured, Bow, Swordsmen. Let the "special pleading" begin!

Cheers,
Scott

[karakhanid]

Hello IMHO:
Pre Mongol samurai: Cv armoured(with o-yoroi) or protected superior drilled bow sword
Ji-samurai: MF Protected average or superior undrilled bow and sword or HF/MF protected average or superior
Undrilled Of. spearmen or a small amounth (1 BG every 4 of the others) Heavy waeapon (dai -katana or naginata)
lesser-samurai:as above but drilled (about 1/3 of the ji-samurai BG)
Post Mongol samurai: Cv armoured or protected superior drilled bow/bow* short spear sword
lesser-samurai: MF Protected average or superior drilled bow and sword or HF/MF protected average or superior
drilled Of. spearmen or a small amounth (1 BG every 4 of the others) Heavy waeapon (dai -katana or naginata)
ji-samurai:as above but undrilled (about 1/3 of the lesser-samurai BG)
Mikel

[irondog068]

Okay since you brought it up here is my thoughts Mind you I am fighting out of the time peroid (say 1550-1590 but nothing but troop type really change).

Hatamato: Elite, armored, drilled, impact, Skilled swordsman, Medium infantry.
Samurai: Superior, armored, drilled, impact, skilled swordsman, Medium infantry.
Ashigaru: Average, protected (or armored still up for a debate), drilled, defensive spear, Medium infantry
Ashigaru: missile troops: Same as above but all Muskets and bow all shoot as longbow.
"Bullet Tested armor" on Samurai Heavy armor

Some of my thoughts:
The Japanese fought in looser formations the the old world which is why they are all rated as Medium. I would easily be convinced that the Samurai should be heavy. The bow was falling out of favor at this time and I have not read much about Samurai bowmen out shooting Ashigaru.

If you are talking about the Gempi or Onin war (Which are in the peroid) I do not know that much. But, The weapon of the Samurai in that Gempi war was the bow and single man combat was common. I guess you would need extra leaders for challanges.

Irondog

[ars_belli]

I agree that Medium Infantry would be a good fit, but what would be the historical rationale for rating any samurai, much less cavalry, as Drilled? And I believe that no troops in FoG receive POAs for Bow, Sword and Spear - one or two, to reflect their primary weapon types, but not all three.

Cheers,
Scott

[hammy]

I agree that Medium Infantry would be a good fit, but what would be the historical rationale for rating any samurai, much less cavalry, as Drilled? And I believe that no troops in FoG receive POAs for Bow, Sword and Spear - one or two, to reflect their primary weapon types, but not all three.

Cheers,
Scott

At the moment only one of the published lists include troops with capabilities in all three areas but there are such troops in other lists.

If troops get capabilities in all three areas then they will have bow* rather than bow as they are not primarily archers.

The question is which published list has such troops??

[irondog068]

During the peroid I am talking the Samurai were not armed with 3 weapons. They would almost to the man armed with a Yari (spear) and there Katana (sword). The bow fell out of disfavor. A bow armed Samurai would not carry a yari. My reason for giving them drilled is to make them eaiser to move. But as I was driving from Home Depot I had a diffrent thought.
Hatamato: Elite, armored, drilled heavy foot, impact, skilled swordsman (5 to 10% of army)
Samurai: Superior, armored, drilled heavy foot, imact, skilled swordsman
Ashigaru: Average, protected, drilled heavy foot defensive spear
Ashigaru missile troops: average, protected, drilled medium foot, Musket (shoots as longbow) or Longbow.

Things that could be added: upgrade Ashigaru to superior/armored or down grade poor/unarmored/undrilled
Bullet tested armor: Heavy armor
Warrior Monks: as Samurai or Hatamato but with heavy cutting weapon.
Ronin: Average, protected, undrilled, skilled swordsman
Ikko Ikki: Mob bith no real benifits but for fun and games allow 5 to 10% elite or superior (Fanatics)

Okay, Shoot away.

Irondog

[nikgaukroger]

For those who are interested I would expect that Duncan Head's Slingshot articles on the Pre-Samurai through to the end of the Kamakura shogunate armies will be quite influental on thinking so they might wish to look them up.

[andrewgr]

I've only read a couple of books about pre-gunpowder warfare in Japan, but I certainly got the very strong impression that the combat was much more individualistic than is portrayed by a game like FoG, which is designed mostly to reflect Ancients era blocks of troops marching and fighting in formation.

I can't think of a single account of any battle from Feudal Japan that read to me as if is should be modeled with rectangular blocks of uniform troops wheeling and advancing in formation, turning 90 degrees, etc. This is in contrast to many accounts of battles featuring Greeks or Romans, which often did read just like that.

I would not presume to instruct, since I am quite certain my knowledge in this area is dwarfed by many members of this forum. But FoG (or DBM or WRG for that matter) just doesn't seem like a very natural fit for a Samurai army to me.

[ars_belli]

During the peroid I am talking the Samurai were not armed with 3 weapons. They would almost to the man armed with a Yari (spear) and there Katana (sword). The bow fell out of disfavor. A bow armed Samurai would not carry a yari. My reason for giving them drilled is to make them eaiser to move.

Irondog,

With all due respect, there are some pretty significant differences between the samurai of 1200, 1400 and 1550, both in terms of individual warriors and army organization. And while every ancient general would no doubt have liked for his troops to be easier to move, a designation of Drilled really ought to require a more substantial historical reason than that.

Cheers,
Scott

[ars_belli]

I can't think of a single account of any battle from Feudal Japan that read to me as if is should be modeled with rectangular blocks of uniform troops wheeling and advancing in formation, turning 90 degrees, etc. This is in contrast to many accounts of battles featuring Greeks or Romans, which often did read just like that.

Armies of ancient Celts and Gauls likewise didn't consist of "rectangular blocks of uniform troops wheeling and advancing in formation, turning 90 degrees, etc." And yet Field of Glory represents them quite well, IMHO.

cheers,
Scott

[irondog068]

There is not enough space for me to list the diffrences between the Gempi, Onin and Age of Country at War (Which is what I am talking about).

The term Ashigaru was not used until the 1400. What I meant was the game mechanics. during the peroid I am talking the Ashigaru were indeed drilled did fight in blocks and used rotation fire before europe. So yes by this peroid they did fight and manuver in blocks. The age of single combat was no more. Funny thing is the Yari were as long (sometimes) as normal pike but they never really formed pike blocks. Which is why they are listed as defensive spear.

For a eailer period the Ashigaru would be Bushi: average, Medium infantry, undrilled, protected, heavy cutting weapon or defensive spear.

[ars_belli]

And the historical justification for rating Hatamoto and Samurai as Drilled would be... ?

Cheers,
Scott