Slitherine

If I can add my measly $0.02. I'm not a tournament player; I'm interested in a game that plays relatively quickly but if it takes 4-6 hours to play out, I'm ok with that. My interest lies in mashing the miniatures game with a campaign system. In that light, I want the units that the game represents to behave in a manner in which they did historically.

If players are using skirmishers in a way that is ahistorical to avoid losing a game, that isn't a problem with the game or the skirmish units, that is a problem with the player. I wouldn't like the rules to change to make these skirmish units operate ahistorically just to appease players who rules-lawyer their way out of a justified loss. Because, the reality is, if a player's main fighting force has been eliminated and they are just running the remaining units around to run out the clock, they've lost the battle. I don't know if that's an issue where the rules itself needs a caveat written into the victory conditions, or if its something that needs to be dealt with by tournament organizers, but changing how the individual units operate would be an unfortunate way to deal with it.

but changing how the individual units operate would be an unfortunate way to deal with it.

Skirmishers will still operate in the same way as they do in V2. The big difference is in their overall value in determining whether or not you win or lose the game.

terrys wrote:Skirmishers will still operate in the same way as they do in V2. The big difference is in their overall value in determining whether or not you win or lose the game.

Cool! Looking forward to taking the new rules for a spin.

Is the intent to produce new army books, or will the old ones be reprinted?

On a minor point it would be nice to see something that stops people fielding 100 Years War English consisting almost entirely of archers. I've never considered this to be correct historically. And now reading Jonathan Sumpters latest volume on the 100YW he makes the point that very few battles in the entire war were won solely by archers, the most significant being Humbleton Hil (1402).

Terry I send you a MP

AlanCutner wrote:On a minor point it would be nice to see something that stops people fielding 100 Years War English consisting almost entirely of archers. I've never considered this to be correct historically. And now reading Jonathan Sumpters latest volume on the 100YW he makes the point that very few battles in the entire war were won solely by archers, the most significant being Humbleton Hil (1402).

Was Humbleton Hill a HYW battle? It was against the Scots (or the English depending which side of the border you live, free England and Wales or the EU thralls of Scotland and Ireland). HYW was against proper Europeans.

LEmpereur wrote:Terry I send you a MP

Europeans still meddling in our politics





I'll stop now

philqw78 wrote:

LEmpereur wrote:Terry I send you a MP

Europeans still meddling in our politics

I'll stop now

May be before Our FoGAM ...

Was Humbleton Hill a HYW battle? It was against the Scots (or the English depending which side of the border you live, free England and Wales or the EU thralls of Scotland and Ireland). HYW was against proper Europeans.

Definitely HYW. There were even a few French knights at the battle. All of them killed or captured.

My day hasn't been wasted.

For the fact that I learnt soemthing not that I had a go at europe

AlanCutner wrote:

Definitely HYW. There were even a few French knights at the battle. All of them killed or captured.

what a surprise ! they were stupid! they were consanguinous by intermarriage! of course they died! one hundred year war and they learnt nothing from their reccurrent defeats, a natural selection ???

be seeing you

thefrenchjester "a voice from the crowd "

terrys wrote: There are a lot of subtle changes being planned for V3 that on their own don't look to be significant, but add them together and the game does resolve much quicker.

Roll on V3, then!

I'd like to propose one relatively simple change: The terrain system can produce very crowded battlefields, more so when playing on a 5' wide table (often used in comps) than with a 6'. What about allowing 2-3 additional pieces with narrower tables (5' or less) instead of 2-4?

On a positive note, I see that FOG-AM is by far the most popular ancient period being played in Britcon next month. Let's hope V3 hammers the nail in even more...

I'd like to propose one relatively simple change: The terrain system can produce very crowded battlefields, more so when playing on a 5' wide table (often used in comps) than with a 6'. What about allowing 2-3 additional pieces with narrower tables (5' or less) instead of 2-4?

This is already the rule for Scottish League games.

ChrisTofalos wrote: On a positive note, I see that FOG-AM is by far the most popular ancient period being played in Britcon next month. Let's hope V3 hammers the nail in even more...

Historical gaming is growing overall again at Britcon this year, and especially Ancients.

We are currently on 170 entries overall (6 less than 2015, but in 2015 we had a 16-player 2-day Guildball event which isn't returning, so the historical gamer numbers are up a small amount year on year).
FoGAM is the most popular set being played, with 23+10 = 33 entries. Overall ancients/medieval numbers are also strong with 11 in Saga, 8 in DBA, 20 in ADLG, 17 in DBMM and 14 in MeG for a grand total of 103 (so far!).

In 2015 AM was at 27+19=46, MM was on 24 and Saga was at 11 for a grand total of 81.
In 2014 the numbers were AM on 39+20=59, Saga on 7 and MM on 22 for a total of 86.
In 2013 numbers were AM on 30+29=59, MM on 32, and Saga on 12 for a total of 103.
In 2012 AM on 24+32+8=64 (the 8 was a 25mm event), MM on 32, and WAB on 6 for a total of 102
In 2011 AM was on 26+36+12 =74, MM was 30, Armati was 10 and WAB on 6 for 120 all in.
In 2010 AM was 8+30+38=76, MM was 22, Armati was 8 for 106

AlanCutner wrote:On a minor point it would be nice to see something that stops people fielding 100 Years War English consisting almost entirely of archers. I've never considered this to be correct historically. And now reading Jonathan Sumpters latest volume on the 100YW he makes the point that very few battles in the entire war were won solely by archers, the most significant being Humbleton Hil (1402).

List issue?

The proportion of archers in English armies changed over time, with a higher proportion of archers as time went on. So in the last quarter of the C14th the numbers were roughly 1:2 men-at-arms to archers, by Agincourt it is about 1:3, and after that 1:5 or even more is not unusual in the retinues recruited for service in Normandy. By 1475 Edward IV had something like 1:8 for his French expedition.

I agree a list issue. Unless th rules encourage a higher proportion of men-at-arms to longbowman.

The proportion of archers in English armies changed over time, with a higher proportion of archers as time went on. So in the last quarter of the C14th the numbers were roughly 1:2 men-at-arms to archers, by Agincourt it is about 1:3, and after that 1:5 or even more is not unusual in the retinues recruited for service in Normandy. By 1475 Edward IV had something like 1:8 for his French expedition.

A typical army in FoG has 8BG of 8 longbowman and 4 of 4 men-at-arms. So a ratio of 4:1, and I've seen higher (rarely lower). I bow to your greater knowledge, but I wouldn't consider the 1475 operations to fall within the date ranges for 100YW, so I'll exclude those ratios. So, on your statement, a typical FoG army would have to represent a fairly specific late war force. But most of these operations were very small scale and not really worth considering as field battles rather than skirmishes.

I simply don't see a FoG army being a reasonable representation of the English armies in battle.

I don't think many armies fielded on table would be much of a historical representation

AlanCutner wrote:I agree a list issue. Unless th rules encourage a higher proportion of men-at-arms to longbowman.

The proportion of archers in English armies changed over time, with a higher proportion of archers as time went on. So in the last quarter of the C14th the numbers were roughly 1:2 men-at-arms to archers, by Agincourt it is about 1:3, and after that 1:5 or even more is not unusual in the retinues recruited for service in Normandy. By 1475 Edward IV had something like 1:8 for his French expedition.

A typical army in FoG has 8BG of 8 longbowman and 4 of 4 men-at-arms. So a ratio of 4:1, and I've seen higher (rarely lower). I bow to your greater knowledge, but I wouldn't consider the 1475 operations to fall within the date ranges for 100YW, so I'll exclude those ratios. So, on your statement, a typical FoG army would have to represent a fairly specific late war force. But most of these operations were very small scale and not really worth considering as field battles rather than skirmishes.

I simply don't see a FoG army being a reasonable representation of the English armies in battle.

The English at Agincourt were approximately 900 men at arms and 5000 longbowmen according to the Gesta Henrici; a ratio above 1:5.

Is the V3 have the only virtue to rule on the number of english longbowmen in an english army ?

Thanks We are reassured !

Ok We

Is the V3 have the only virtue to rule on the number of english longbowmen in an english army ?

Thanks We are reassured !

There may well be a side effect of changes that persuades players to use a higher proportion of men-at-arms in an English army.
Certainly there's nothing specific being done that makes it a requirement.

As usual we head off at a tangent ...... much like my attempts at archery have always done.