How Purist Are You?

[philqw78]

I have voted for historical oponents that actually did fight one against each other. To me it is very disapointing watching games between Chinese and Aztecs, for example. When we get to that point I wonder if we are playing a game of simulation of historical battles or a new evolution of chess. Obviously, I don't mind if people do and I welcome the idea of new tournaments that spread the game, but I wouldn't. And I think that the main problem of DBM (DBA) and maybe FoG in the future is that it is a game that evolves more (in my opinion DBM did) to fulfill the demands from people playing it actively in tournaments than people trying to recreate historical battles.

Unfortunately not many people can afford or have the room for lots of armies. Fortunately I have a very forgiving wife.

If we only played hsitorical battles the game would be massively fragmented as different clubs had different favourites, You'd have the classical greeks, helleneistic greeks, roman republic, roman empire, HYW, china. And each of those would be further split. Rules writers would not as it would not be profitable. Figure makers would stick to the same ranges above.

I certainly would not have bought a lot of my armies if they were only going to be played against historical opponents, as they would have no one to fight in my local area. And I'm from a very big club.

[Eques]

as someone hoping to get into the game I would be very discouraged to think that I would be forced to fight lots of ahistorical opponents.

I got interested as a history enthusiast and would think, to go through the process of designing, researching, buying, painting and basing armies, you would have to be.

would therefore personally be less than thrilled at the prospect of a game between, say, seleucids and crusaders.

I do like the idea of "what if" matches, though, eg alexander vs early rome (or "the roman tribe" as colin farrell put it in the movie!).

have to say i'm not all that interested in playing in tournaments, which I can imagine as a bit hectic and constrained. would prefer the idea of a really leisurely, well prepared, in-depth game at home.

[hammy]

as someone hoping to get into the game I would be very discouraged to think that I would be forced to fight lots of ahistorical opponents.

I got interested as a history enthusiast and would think, to go through the process of designing, researching, buying, painting and basing armies, you would have to be.

would therefore personally be less than thrilled at the prospect of a game between, say, seleucids and crusaders.

I do like the idea of "what if" matches, though, eg alexander vs early rome (or "the roman tribe" as colin farrell put it in the movie!).

have to say i'm not all that interested in playing in tournaments, which I can imagine as a bit hectic and constrained. would prefer the idea of a really leisurely, well prepared, in-depth game at home.

Ahistorical matchups are not uncommon in Ancients gaming in general. The problem is that there are many hundreds of different armies and each of them probably fought only half a dozen others at most. If for example you had 10 different armies and I also had 10 then there would be a reasonable chance that if we decided to play a game we would not be able to produce a pair that actually fought

The great thing about Ancients is the variety of armies, the bad thing about historical matchups is ....

Themed tournaments are IMO a good compromise but they can shut out new players. If for example you decide that you really want to make an 11th century German army because you love the history you may well have to wait a long time to use it in a themed tournaments.

Playing at home you can build both armies or get your opponents to pick armies such that you have a groups between you that can all fight historical battles. That isn't a bad thing but it is not the norm.

FWIW tournament play is great fun, it gives you an opportunity to play people you would not ordinarily play and to spend a whole day or weekend playing games which for me is a really good thing. I like to play, I like to have an excuse to travel and get drunk

[Strategos69]

Unfortunately not many people can afford or have the room for lots of armies. Fortunately I have a very forgiving wife.

If we only played hsitorical battles the game would be massively fragmented as different clubs had different favourites, You'd have the classical greeks, helleneistic greeks, roman republic, roman empire, HYW, china.

Well, it is true that I am mostly interested in Ancients and I have a Carthaginian army. I chose it (way before FoG was released) because I could use its various mercenaries in different allied contingents, besides the fact that I am very interested in Hannibal's life. And if you think it closely, you can try a core of pikes with different lists, the same with the hoplites, most of the psiloi, the cavalry, and so on. Even in medieval armies, archers, knights and men-at-arms can be used in different armies too, so it is true that you might be forced to have a wider collection, but not really buying so many different armies to fight historical oponents. I enjoy from time to time the idea of what if the Carthaginians would have fought Alexander or so, but I would played those for fun and rather fight Pyrrhus against them.

Another problem is that people might like to use armies from very different times. In our club, when I used to be in one, we picked the time frame (for DBM) before starting and we did all at the same time. We saved money and we had more options available that way because people could "lend" allied contingents that way (and multiplayer games are much funnier!).

[Polkovnik]

If for example you had 10 different armies and I also had 10 then there would be a reasonable chance that if we decided to play a game we would not be able to produce a pair that actually fought

Not sure I agree with that Hammy. If two players have 10 armies each across a range of periods (say one from each book) I think it would be very unlikely that they couldn't find a historical match-up.
Also in my experience, most players that have a lot of armies have some like Romans and Successors that fought a lot of different opponents, so it is even more likely that a historic match-up is possible.
There are four of us in our group that play regularly, all with quite a few armies (although none of the very obscure ones as far as I know). I think we could find a historical match-up for every army we have between us.

[Polkovnik]

as someone hoping to get into the game I would be very discouraged to think that I would be forced to fight lots of ahistorical opponents.

I can't see how you are going to be "forced" to do anything. It's your choice whether you play or not. If there is an open tournament you can choose whether to enter or not, knowing that if you do so you will play ahistorical games. If you only want to enter themed tournaments you will get more historic games but probably less oppurtunity to play.
If you only play games at a club or with friends, then it depends what armies you have. If you only have Romans and your friend only has Mongols, then you either play an ahistoric game or you don't play at all.
The best way to ensure you only play historic games is to build two opposing armies and then you can provide both sides if necessary.

[Eques]

well obviously I didn't mean forced in the sense of physically compelled. I meant being left without options as to what type of game I could play.

[rbodleyscott]

well obviously I didn't mean forced in the sense of physically compelled. I meant being left without options as to what type of game I could play.

The best thing to do is to find out what your likely local opponents have and pick an army that historically fought them - or plausibly could have done so.

If no such army takes your fancy, then you may need to build both sides of a historical matchup. If you do this, it is probably better not to make the matchup too obscure, so that you have plenty of history on which to base your games - ideally you can then refight a series of actual historical battles.

[marioslaz]

I'm very happy to see the group of historical match-up fan is growing. Since a couple of months ago I feared to be the only one.

About the presumed limitation of historical game, I can say I play FOG since a little more than a year and I started to play FOG with an old friend of mine with whom I didn't play since over 20 years (we didn't meet for a long time due to causes not related to game). We bought 15mm armies in this years without to know nothing about the other one (formerly we played with 25mm). With FOG we played over 20 games, all historical match-up, all different and we didn't use 10 armies for each one. Sometimes a BG or two weren't exactly what their minis represented, but who care about? Most troops were right and our armies looked fine on the table.

Another big advantage to play historical game with friends is you are not tied to official army list. If you think that a classification of a troop are not correct to play it as you aspect, you can change it (you must only agree with your opponent, not with all people who play FOG worldwide).

I suspect problems to play historical game arose between players who are used to play predominantly in tournament, because it seems they haven't a favourite historical period, but favourite type of armies. For example, I own a Republican Roman army even if I don't like to play with Romans, but I like Mediterranean history in the period between V-III century BC. And if you want to know... yes, I own also a Samnite army (never won a game with them )

[hammy]

If for example you had 10 different armies and I also had 10 then there would be a reasonable chance that if we decided to play a game we would not be able to produce a pair that actually fought

Not sure I agree with that Hammy. If two players have 10 armies each across a range of periods (say one from each book) I think it would be very unlikely that they couldn't find a historical match-up.
Also in my experience, most players that have a lot of armies have some like Romans and Successors that fought a lot of different opponents, so it is even more likely that a historic match-up is possible.
There are four of us in our group that play regularly, all with quite a few armies (although none of the very obscure ones as far as I know). I think we could find a historical match-up for every army we have between us.

Possible but as a starting player if I want to do the army of Henry V and you want to do Scipio we are going to be a bit stuck.

As for being able to find pairs it is by no means automatic. Take for example the comment about Carthaginians. I don't actually have an army that can hisorically fight Carthaginians despite having 25-30 different armies. OK I could probably bodge together a republican Roman using my Slave Revolt army as a core but it would have some compromises or simply some plain wrong stuff.

The fundamental thing is that because of the variety of the period it can be very difficult for players to find accurate opponents.

Consider one of the new members of my club. He only has an Early Achamenid Persian army. I don't think I have a truly historical opponent although I suppose my Neo Assyrians could morph to later Assyrians and just about be OK. Finding 10 armies that I can't provide opponents for would be hard but I have 25 or more amries and can morph to get perhaps 100.

[Strategos69]

As for being able to find pairs it is by no means automatic. Take for example the comment about Carthaginians. I don't actually have an army that can hisorically fight Carthaginians despite having 25-30 different armies. OK I could probably bodge together a republican Roman using my Slave Revolt army as a core but it would have some compromises or simply some plain wrong stuff.

I guess that from that list of 25 you have preferred more specific armies than the most common ones (I am referring to Ancient times). I usually go for the most common and then I add some specific things to it if I want a particular campaign, like some Lybian veterans for Hannibal.

Well, if you have only one partner, I get to the following compromise. I make two opposing armies and he does so too for his period (or one each, depending on our interests). When I started playing historical miniatures I stated buying a Carthaginian army and my friend a Polybian one. Then we grew into the allies: I got some Syracusan, which could be used as Athenians or mercenary hoplites, and he got some Spartans because he was appealed by them. It is true that we did not own any very specific armies like slave revolts, but we planned from the very beginning having the most famous. With some Greeks, Romans, Macedonians, Gauls or Spaniards you can fight most of the enemies covered by FoG in Rise of Rome and Immortal Fire. And, as Mario said, you can always add from here and there some BG and complete many armies.

[grahambriggs]

The fundamental thing is that because of the variety of the period it can be very difficult for players to find accurate opponents.

Consider one of the new members of my club. He only has an Early Achamenid Persian army. I don't think I have a truly historical opponent although I suppose my Neo Assyrians could morph to later Assyrians and just about be OK. Finding 10 armies that I can't provide opponents for would be hard but I have 25 or more amries and can morph to get perhaps 100.

Unfortunately not. Unless he is able to morph has early persians into Medes. Surely though, your club must possess the sort of low, rat-like beings that use Skythians?

[hammy]

My figure collection was built over years of playing DBM at a very serious tournament level. As such I bought armies that were effective and suited my style of play plus a few that were pretty and cheap.

I have lots of Biblical armies, a reasonably morphable hellenistic force but not one that can do the hoplite based armies, lots of 3rd to 5th century Western stuff, plenty of Arabs, more than enough feudals, a decent chunk of late medievals and then the oddball armies, specifically Slave Revolt, Han Chinese, Classical Indian and Tibetan. By pulling together bits from various armies and allied commands bought for DBM I can make quite a few more armies but what I can't really do is field anything with distinctive troops.

As a result New Kingdom Egyptian, Principate Roman, Samurai, anything American etc. are not possible for me to field. To be honest I can't really field a Mongol army either and they are hardly unusual.

Pick a European army from 700-1100 AD and I will struggle to find an opponent for it, ditto any Asian armies that didn't fight the Han, Classical Indians (who are all DBM double based Bow ) or Tibetans.

As I said earlier the great thing about Ancients is the breadth of the subject matter but it comes at a price.

[Skullzgrinda]

I'm very happy to see the group of historical match-up fan is growing. Since a couple of months ago I feared to be the only one.<snip>
Another big advantage to play historical game with friends is you are not tied to official army list. If you think that a classification of a troop are not correct to play it as you aspect, you can change it (you must only agree with your opponent, not with all people who play FOG worldwide).

I agree with you. Once I had the project of every army which fought in 10th - 11th C. Britain. Saxons, Welsh, Scots, Irish, Vikings, Normans. Had about half of them done and had to sell. Then started to branch conceptually, to do most of the major peoples mentioned by Herodotus, if they offered a different tactical system. Historically certain or historically plausible armies are my personal preference. Nevertheless, I enjoy tournaments and there are armies that I wish to build without reference to their historical enemies. The 'historicals' are - or were - pet projects.

At this time, I am inclined to shoot for an army I like out of each book, and just build from most to least favorite of those, as it takes me a long time to finish an army. Practically, I am expanding on what I have. My glorious Skythians have morphed in Alans, Kushan, and soon Bosporans.

Personally, I feel that the theme solution is an outstanding and practical compromise. Selection of a dominant, morphable troop type makes it even more flexible.

[philqw78]

Unfortunately not. Unless he is able to morph his early persians into Medes. Surely though your club must possess the sort of low, rat-like, beings that use Skythians?

ROTFLMAO


I proper laughed then

and corrected your crap spelling and grammar.

We have 2.

[mohawk]

But really, a game is a game ... I'll take what I can get.

My feelings exactly.

To me a historical match up is a bonus!

[hammy]

Unfortunately not. Unless he is able to morph his early persians into Medes. Surely though your club must possess the sort of low, rat-like, beings that use Skythians?

ROTFLMAO


I proper laughed then

and corrected your crap spelling and grammar.

We have 2.

Well we have two players who use 'Skythian' armies. I would be surprised if more than 40% of either army are actually Skythian figures.

After my seper morphing last night I can probably field any army in any of the books if you don't actually care what it looks like

[philqw78]

After my super morphing last night I can probably field any army in any of the books if you don't actually care what it looks like

I'll do the foot you do the mounted Hammy.

[grahambriggs]

Unfortunately not. Unless he is able to morph his early persians into Medes. Surely though your club must possess the sort of low, rat-like, beings that use Skythians?

ROTFLMAO


I proper laughed then

and corrected your crap spelling and grammar.

We have 2.

I would have corrected those myself. Then I thought "Meh, pearls before swine"

[JCgoose]

But really, a game is a game ... I'll take what I can get.

My feelings exactly.

To me a historical match up is a bonus!

+1 ATM I only play against 2 others and none of our armies match up well bar my turks against some what could pass as crusaders