Blood and Gold Rating Philosophy

[guthroth]

Thanks for replying.

I know I sometimes come across as confrontational, but unlike some all I am really looking for is an answer explaining the logic behind some of the decisions.

I do feel however it's a pity that B&G went so far with the armies of the Americas, and then stopped short and excluded their final nemesis because of a couple of 10's of years. Especially when the weapons and tactics of 1499 differ so little from those of the 1520s's.

Pete

[eldiablito]

On the FOG Yahoo list I asked whether the B&G lists included Conquistadors. The reply was that they didn't because they came after 1500 = fair enough so far.

Now I see a reply here justifying a poor rating for Inca's based on their performance against these same 'Out Of Period' opponants.

This doesn't seem quite fair. Surely the Incas should have been rated against their period opponents ONLY when writing B&G ?

If their performance against Conquistadors is valid for B&G, then surely it would have been much better (fairer ?) to include the earliest Conquistadors in the B&G book

If we had ignored evidence from post-1500 B&G would have been a thin book indeed. It would have been insane not to extrapolate backwards when earlier evidence is so thin.

This really isn't an argument for including a Conquistador list.

The rules system ends in 1500, full stop. It really wouldn't be logical to include a list from a later period. (Which will, in any case, be covered by FOGR).

If you want to use FOGAM after 1500 there is nothing stopping you. You just have to work out your own Conquistador list. The points values are in the rule book.

Thank you!

I completely understand and agree with your decision to extrapolate backwards.

I have one TINY hope; that when you complete your FOG-R rules, you'll be able to do some cross-over games to represent Francisco Pizarro or Hernando Cortez. Perhaps, in you FOG-R rule set, you will address this and create a quick patch for FOG/FOG-R cross overs. I do not need this to be tournament level balanced nor do I need it to be well game tested; just some way to address how Conquistadores could ally with Tabascans and go to war against the Aztecs or Inca (for example).

[rbodleyscott]

I have one TINY hope; that when you complete your FOG-R rules, you'll be able to do some cross-over games to represent Francisco Pizarro or Hernando Cortez. Perhaps, in you FOG-R rule set, you will address this and create a quick patch for FOG/FOG-R cross overs. I do not need this to be tournament level balanced nor do I need it to be well game tested; just some way to address how Conquistadores could ally with Tabascans and go to war against the Aztecs or Inca (for example).

FOGR will of course have lists for this confrontation, which should be better simulated in FOGR than it would have been in FOGAM, because arquebuses are (naturally) more effective in FOGR than primitive Medieval handguns were in FOGAM. (Not that Cortez will have very many)

[marty]

ah.. perhaps there is a remaining shred of hope for my Incas as a FOGR army! There sure to perform much better in that context

Martin

[Skullzgrinda]

ah.. perhaps there is a remaining shred of hope for my Incas as a FOGR army! There sure to perform much better in that context

Martin

I will wait to see if the Chichimecs in FOGR have a morale spike as well. As a FOGAM list they make the STE Nubians look viable.

[caliban66]

But when I compare this generous usage of Superior to some of the early books I kind of would have like to see a touch more variety back then. I mean the Germans, Gauls, etc had to have at least as many foot "veterans" that should have been an eligible BG or 2 for upgrade.

Then compared with the Dragon armies, where Superior for foot is an extremely rare designation. It almost seems as if the rule authors had a different philosophy in creating these.

I see some kind of criteria. I don´t know any evidence about germans or gauls making a lot veteran separate infantry units, but making battlelines with a tribal organization, that is, all together clan by clan and tribe by tribe, thus mixing veteran and rookie warriors. Gauls still have Bondii, but the core is the average tribe. Noblemen and bondii are the ones that are superior, since their way of life allows them to fight and train more often, and are profesionally dedicated to war. I think authors consider that militias and non-profesional troops are average (hoplites, hellenistic greeks, gauls, germans), making exceptions only for few people or tribes that showed special skills, such as cretans, tribal dailami, balearic slingers, arab conquest warriors, etc.

[grahambriggs]

Thanks for replying.

I know I sometimes come across as confrontational, but unlike some all I am really looking for is an answer explaining the logic behind some of the decisions.

I do feel however it's a pity that B&G went so far with the armies of the Americas, and then stopped short and excluded their final nemesis because of a couple of 10's of years. Especially when the weapons and tactics of 1499 differ so little from those of the 1520s's.

Pete

While the rule set finishes at 1500AD, we were aware that in open competitions the American armies will come up against European armies. One thing we wanted to avoid was a result on the table where, say, Aztecs could fight 1499AD Spanish head to head in the open and do well when it is clear that they didn't do well against conquistadors in the open.

Spanish accounts suggest that is was not so much the new fangled gunpowder weapons that gave the spanish the advantage, but steel and cavalry.

Regards

Graham

[Skullzgrinda]

Thanks for replying.

I know I sometimes come across as confrontational, but unlike some all I am really looking for is an answer explaining the logic behind some of the decisions.

I do feel however it's a pity that B&G went so far with the armies of the Americas, and then stopped short and excluded their final nemesis because of a couple of 10's of years. Especially when the weapons and tactics of 1499 differ so little from those of the 1520s's.

Pete

While the rule set finishes at 1500AD, we were aware that in open competitions the American armies will come up against European armies. One thing we wanted to avoid was a result on the table where, say, Aztecs could fight 1499AD Spanish head to head in the open and do well when it is clear that they didn't do well against conquistadors in the open.

Spanish accounts suggest that is was not so much the new fangled gunpowder weapons that gave the spanish the advantage, but steel and cavalry.

Regards

Graham

And religious confusion and anxiety.

And a few Tlaxcalan frineds . . .