What books are next?

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:52 pm

Be grateful we decimalized way back in 1971, other wise you would be worrying what guineas, pounds, shilling & pence were with UK prices.

12 pennies = 1 shilling
20 shillings = 1 pound
21 shillings = 1 guinea.

To quote an ex-pat dbmer..."One paid one's lawyers in guineas, and tradesmen in pounds."

My US wife thinks the Queen speaks his English.

Will the Papal Italian lists still need 2-3 ally generals in FoG ?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:45 pm

Scrumpy wrote: Will the Papal Italian lists still need 2-3 ally generals in FoG ?

Nope

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:49 pm

hammy wrote:
Scrumpy wrote: Will the Papal Italian lists still need 2-3 ally generals in FoG ?
Nope

We have been very careful not to nobble any lists by giving them hopeless command structures.

The Papal States list gets somewhat less total maxima of troops than most - to field a very big army they need a foreign ally.

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:29 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Be grateful we decimalized way back in 1971, other wise you would be worrying what guineas, pounds, shilling & pence were with UK prices.

12 pennies = 1 shilling
20 shillings = 1 pound
21 shillings = 1 guinea.

To quote an ex-pat dbmer..."One paid one's lawyers in guineas, and tradesmen in pounds."

My US wife thinks the Queen speaks his English.

Will the Papal Italian lists still need 2-3 ally generals in FoG ?

I was there in '77, during Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee, and many of the old coins were still floating around, but valued at the new denominations, which made it all horribly confusing for a young American. I remember thinking at first that european paper money (this was long before the euro, of course) looked silly with all the bright colors. Then when I finally got back to The World a few years later, thinking US bills looked so drab and boring by contrast.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:22 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
hammy wrote:
Scrumpy wrote: Will the Papal Italian lists still need 2-3 ally generals in FoG ?
Nope
We have been very careful not to nobble any lists by giving them hopeless command structures.

The Papal States list gets somewhat less total maxima of troops than most - to field a very big army they need a foreign ally.

Also 2 allies are not as risky as in some other rules.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:05 am

hazelbark wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote: The Papal States list gets somewhat less total maxima of troops than most - to field a very big army they need a foreign ally.
Also 2 allies are not as risky as in some other rules.

Not as risky but allied commanders are still an issue, especially when the die

Let me see, I have three BGs with no commander who can influence them... hmmm, that could be a problem then

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:16 am

Differently risky I think is the way to look at it.

As Hammy says commander death is very bad news but so can only 1 commander able to affect all the allied BGs in a contingent at times and it can limit where it is sensible to move allied BGs to.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:59 pm

hammy wrote: Not as risky but allied commanders are still an issue, especially when the die Let me see, I have three BGs with no commander who can influence them... hmmm, that could be a problem then

Simple don't get them killed.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:08 pm

Considering the record of losses from the rank of commander in chief of your nation (not all of them quite at the FEBA), I would suggest that it might not be quite that simple Dan...

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:34 am

FEBA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:54 am

Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area. 1970's US (possibly NATO) term.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:55 am

Oh, I know what it is I just thought I'd heard the last of it

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:58 am

Phil, sorry, did not intend to teach grandmother to suck eggs. I just thought it fitted the bill. Also I am a wargamer, why use English when a meaningless appreviation is available.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:10 am

I'm sure others may have wanted to know. But FEBA, FIBUA (OBUA/DIBUA/FiSH), FPF, FRG, FRT are things I had, nearly, forgotten

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:37 pm

timmy1 wrote:Phil, sorry, did not intend to teach grandmother to suck eggs. I just thought it fitted the bill. Also I am a wargamer, why use English when a meaningless appreviation is available.

Too true--CRT, ZOC, TEC etc etc

Cheers,

Dale

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:36 pm

Yes, all those terms are obsolete now. Unfortunately, the term "rules lawyer" remains as freshly relevant as ever

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:36 pm

Possum

'Unfortunately, the term "rules lawyer" remains as freshly relevant as ever'. Why the prejorative here? Us rules lawyers enjoy the game as much as anyone else.

menard · Post by **menard** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:24 pm

It also looks like a book entitled Blood and Gold: Armies of the Americas is set to come out at some point.

Based on the request for pictures threads, armies included may be the following:

AZTEC
INCA
OLMEC
TEOTIHUACAN
WEST MEXICAN
ZAPOTEC OR MIXTEC
TOLTEC
CHINANTEC
TARASCAN
TLAXCALAN CONFEDERACY
MOCHICA
CHANCA
CHIMU
HATUN-COLLA
CAÑARI
MAPUCHE OR ARAUCANIAN
AMAZONIAN FOREST TRIBES
TUPI
PUEBLO CULTURE
CHICHIMEC
SOUTH-EASTERN WOODLAND CULTURE
TIMUCUAN
EASTERN WOODLAND CULTURE
PLAINS TRIBE CULTURE
PACIFIC NORTH-WEST CULTURE

viewtopic.php?t=9175

Probert · Post by **Probert** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:06 pm

Should they throw in a CARIB or other islander army? How about ancient Hawaiians, or other Polynesian/Melanesians, or is that considered old instead of new world?

menard · Post by **menard** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:59 pm

As I understand it, the problem with many of these islander armies lies in the representational scale of FoG. These armies simply were not large enough to be represented by a whole army of the size and scale of other armies. In game terms the entire force would be only one or two BGs.

That said, I have no idea how true that claim is and whether or not it also holds for the armies already proposed for the Blood and Gold book.