This game is just like .........

[shall]

While tha above is the origin of the BG concept I don't think one needs to limit an army size much. Up to 20 BGs is fine. I have played up to 1400 points a side in testing and the mechanisms are fine. In fact I am contemplating a 1200 points triples format for a comp where you play 3 a side with a wing/centre/wing set up and an overiding C-in-C. Might be fun.

Usually if an army has lots of Bg many of them are relatively minor BGs that play a limited part in a battle and wouldn;t show up much. E.g. I have a Parthian army with 16 Bgs but several of these are poor LF troops who sit at the back playing little or no part which porbably would have been nundled into the camp in any such diagram or historical report. If drawn yo would probably see the 10 or so primary BGs shown and the rest would be a support mob. Also in lots of desriptions the 8-15 in practice probably excludes skirmishers except where they are mainstream to the army such as Parthian LH.

So all in all it set some principles of desing which are fialry stretchable I feel.

Si

[benny]

While tha above is the origin of the BG concept I don't think one needs to limit an army size much. Up to 20 BGs is fine. I have played up to 1400 points a side in testing and the mechanisms are fine. In fact I am contemplating a 1200 points triples format for a comp where you play 3 a side with a wing/centre/wing set up and an overiding C-in-C. Might be fun.

Thanks for the reply but surely if, as you stated earlier, the 8-15 BG model is applicable to most historical armies, whether numerically small or historically large, then surely this means FoG armies with significantly more than 15 BGs are 'breaking' the model?

Usually if an army has lots of Bg many of them are relatively minor BGs that play a limited part in a battle and wouldn;t show up much. E.g. I have a Parthian army with 16 Bgs but several of these are poor LF troops who sit at the back playing little or no part which porbably would have been nundled into the camp in any such diagram or historical report. If drawn yo would probably see the 10 or so primary BGs shown and the rest would be a support mob. Also in lots of desriptions the 8-15 in practice probably excludes skirmishers except where they are mainstream to the army such as Parthian LH.

But isn't this then saying that they should either not be included at all or be combined into larger BGs? Having them as additional BGs just raises attrition strengths of the army and provides additional options for manouvering which, as you say, weren't there. I mean if the 8-15 BG model is really often excluding skirmishers why does FOG include them as full BGs?

So all in all it set some principles of desing which are fialry stretchable I feel.

Si

Rather more confused than illuminated by this reply, sorry

[rbodleyscott]

Benny - the rules are designed to give an appropriate simulation between 600 and 1,000 points per side with a representational scale of 200 men per base (15mm) or 300 men per base (28mm).

If you choose to use the rules outside these parameters, yes, it will stretch the simulation aspects but will still give a very good game. The resulting distortions will not be noticeable to most players.

If the accuracy of the simulation is of paramount importance to you, stick within the above parameters.

[benny]

Benny - the rules are designed to give an appropriate simulation between 600 and 1,000 points per side with a representational scale of 200 men per base (15mm) or 300 men per base (28mm).

If you choose to use the rules outside these parameters, yes, it will stretch the simulation aspects but will still give a very good game. The resulting distortions will not be noticeable to most players.

If the accuracy of the simulation is of paramount importance to you, stick within the above parameters.

Thanks Richard, that makes better sense.

Much appreciated

Benny

[shall]

Seems I may have caused confusion by trying to ver explain thinking in a short note

Indeed Richard summarises the bottom line I was trying and failing to get acroos quite nicely. In essence the "origin of the species" comes from history but I don't think anything material will break in the game by stretching the boundaries a fair degree. But that's just an empirical answr from having tried bigger battles.

Historical data is a bit vague at times so what we drew from them was the general pattern of command shapes and building blocks. This I feel is a definite conclusion and "correct" in shape and form. Alas for details beyond that is a bit hard to say on the basis of something firm and historically documented.

In practice it then gets pretty stretchable otuside thse boundaries but the proof for this is merely in the playing of the game.

Cheers

Si

[Kineas1]

I enjoyed 6th edition and 7th edition--and DBM and Warrior and Shock of Impact and WAB (and Newbury and... well, I digress). They all have a unique feel, and like many other rules, each emphasizes some aspect of reality (or perceived reality or whatever gaming is) while generalizing another aspect. Is that bad?

I look forward to playing FoG, without dissing all the other rules that I enjoy...

[Spotter]

Look folks...what other set of rules in the recent past has got you out there buying new figures and even starting to paint them. Great work,,,Romans on order and the dust has been blown off my pikes.

Cheers all involved.

[tors]

Some ways its not like 6th.

No rally cured disorder.
No recoils so No Cannae or pushing over the hill or into impassable terrain.

Kingo