Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:25 am
I find it useful if these topics start with a problem statement. e.g. the game is a bit broken because of x; here's a suggestion to fix it. Or y effect seems counter to history, here's some battles where it happened.
I find it less promising when a topic starts "in x rules troops can do y; why cant they in FoG" - assumes x rules have it correct. Or "I think we should include the effects of war dogs" without giving context.
While this section is a bit of an open house, the authors are unlikely to pick up on ideas which are out of context.
Re this particular topic, i would imagine that FOGR is trying to reflect the fact that charging c17th cavalry would shoot during the charge and get stuck in with sword. Earlier firearms troops generally didn't do this.
I find it less promising when a topic starts "in x rules troops can do y; why cant they in FoG" - assumes x rules have it correct. Or "I think we should include the effects of war dogs" without giving context.
While this section is a bit of an open house, the authors are unlikely to pick up on ideas which are out of context.
Re this particular topic, i would imagine that FOGR is trying to reflect the fact that charging c17th cavalry would shoot during the charge and get stuck in with sword. Earlier firearms troops generally didn't do this.