New Book
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
hazelbark
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
You know people said that about Wolves and I have thoroughly enjoy the book. It has more variety than one suspects. I think it goes back to whether you like period or open match ups.madaxeman wrote:
Its a nice looking book (fat, lots of pictures, good value from Amazon compared to the others) but there seems an awful lot of very similar lists in it.
has anyone spotted anything that is genuinely interesting and unique to this book?
Viva la History. Kill the open, more themes!
-
babyshark
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 1336
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
- Location: Government; and I'm here to help.
I agree with Dan, at least as far as saying that I like this book.hazelbark wrote:You know people said that about Wolves and I have thoroughly enjoy the book. It has more variety than one suspects. I think it goes back to whether you like period or open match ups.madaxeman wrote:
Its a nice looking book (fat, lots of pictures, good value from Amazon compared to the others) but there seems an awful lot of very similar lists in it.
has anyone spotted anything that is genuinely interesting and unique to this book?
Viva la History. Kill the open, more themes!
I think that the army notes are pretty well done, on the whole. Perhaps the best yet. As far as variety goes, well, the European armies of the period were pretty similar, just as the Arab armies in S&S are pretty similar. There are some interesting, nuanced differences in the lists.
More importantly, there are quite a few armies that will do well in an open event.
Marc
Viva la History. Kill the open, more themes!
Yes, let's do another dark ages theme, and we can make sure it's all byzantines and Magyars........
........It's funny how ancients players consider an "historical theme" over 100 years of history. Any different than using my ACW confederate versus you Nappy French? History my foot. Kill the Whale!!
Yes, let's do another dark ages theme, and we can make sure it's all byzantines and Magyars........
........It's funny how ancients players consider an "historical theme" over 100 years of history. Any different than using my ACW confederate versus you Nappy French? History my foot. Kill the Whale!! -
babyshark
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 1336
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
- Location: Government; and I'm here to help.
That does bring us back to the old problem of army availability. A tightly-structured theme is far more historical, but far fewer players will have armies to use in it. Also, it may end up being less fun, as everyone brings the same army, or close to it.IanB3406 wrote:Viva la History. Kill the open, more themes!
Yes, let's do another dark ages theme, and we can make sure it's all byzantines and Magyars........
Marc
-
daleivan
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Now that I have my copy in hand, I have to agree with Marc--Oath of Fealty may have the best army list notes of any of the FoG titles, and that's high praise indeed. I'm really pleased with the quality of this book. Bravo!babyshark wrote: I agree with Dan, at least as far as saying that I like this book.
I think that the army notes are pretty well done, on the whole. Perhaps the best yet. As far as variety goes, well, the European armies of the period were pretty similar, just as the Arab armies in S&S are pretty similar. There are some interesting, nuanced differences in the lists.
More importantly, there are quite a few armies that will do well in an open event.
Marc
Dale
-
paulburton
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:37 pm
Finally arrived yesterday and got devoured in one sitting.
There is the Albigensian option (cane be made from the Feudal Aragones or French lists). The one I will almost certainly end up doing is the Italo-Normans (Robert Guiscard, Bohemond, Roger, Sichelgaita et al) as I love the story and will be able to mix in a few Arab and Greek types as well so would be an easy morph into Spanish, Crusader or Byzantine variants. Given generic heraldry it is easy to mix and match Feudal/Medieval armies as long as the knights are roughly the right century (can't use Norman figures beyond the 12th century for instance but knights of the same period look very similar). But then the specific heraldry is part of the fun.
The 'El Cid' Andalusians look fun but I suspect there will be a major performance difference between Armoured and Heavily Armoured Knight armies so I suspect themes will need an 1150 cut off either way.
On the subject of theme competitions - they are fun, especially if you are really careful to cut the available lists down to a point where all appear evenly balanced. You might need to be a little flexible with figures used (though most gamers can produce something close to most European army types). In the late 7th days I ran tight themes at Warfare (Dark Ages, Crusades and Romano-British) with some success. Ayyubids and Byzantines dominated the crusades period but the others were much more spread with their army types - in the last one half the entries were Romano-Britons (which never made appearances in any other competition) but all very different from each other.
This is the trick. Open the theme choice and there is often an obviously superior army in the mix. However it does give the wargames romantics a chance to start without a sizeable handicap.
There is the Albigensian option (cane be made from the Feudal Aragones or French lists). The one I will almost certainly end up doing is the Italo-Normans (Robert Guiscard, Bohemond, Roger, Sichelgaita et al) as I love the story and will be able to mix in a few Arab and Greek types as well so would be an easy morph into Spanish, Crusader or Byzantine variants. Given generic heraldry it is easy to mix and match Feudal/Medieval armies as long as the knights are roughly the right century (can't use Norman figures beyond the 12th century for instance but knights of the same period look very similar). But then the specific heraldry is part of the fun.
The 'El Cid' Andalusians look fun but I suspect there will be a major performance difference between Armoured and Heavily Armoured Knight armies so I suspect themes will need an 1150 cut off either way.
On the subject of theme competitions - they are fun, especially if you are really careful to cut the available lists down to a point where all appear evenly balanced. You might need to be a little flexible with figures used (though most gamers can produce something close to most European army types). In the late 7th days I ran tight themes at Warfare (Dark Ages, Crusades and Romano-British) with some success. Ayyubids and Byzantines dominated the crusades period but the others were much more spread with their army types - in the last one half the entries were Romano-Britons (which never made appearances in any other competition) but all very different from each other.
This is the trick. Open the theme choice and there is often an obviously superior army in the mix. However it does give the wargames romantics a chance to start without a sizeable handicap.
I think this is a very important cut-off. Armored knights are IMO very different from heavily armored.paulburton wrote: The 'El Cid' Andalusians look fun but I suspect there will be a major performance difference between Armoured and Heavily Armoured Knight armies so I suspect themes will need an 1150 cut off either way.
-
paulburton
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:37 pm
Something else I noticed.
In the Papal Italian list there is no option for the 'Swabian Swordsmen' for 1053 (The Battle of Civitate against the Normans). These can be found in one of the German lists ('Swabian Schwerknechte').
These were very important in the battle as they were one of the few units in the Papal army that didn't run away at the first charge.
Is this something which should go into the errata or are the numbers (around 700) too small in the scale of the battle (I don't have a reference to hand but I don't think this is an inconsequential number).
Any comments.
In the Papal Italian list there is no option for the 'Swabian Swordsmen' for 1053 (The Battle of Civitate against the Normans). These can be found in one of the German lists ('Swabian Schwerknechte').
These were very important in the battle as they were one of the few units in the Papal army that didn't run away at the first charge.
Is this something which should go into the errata or are the numbers (around 700) too small in the scale of the battle (I don't have a reference to hand but I don't think this is an inconsequential number).
Any comments.