Slitherine

johngl wrote: This sort of thing does bother me... it seems that the DBM disease of boosting "exotic" armies (remember Makkan?) has infected FoGR.

A bit OT but I can't resist.

The Makkan were, IIRC, Wb(F) and Bw(I) - both fairly low grade troop types, so not quite sure how that is being boosted. Maybe you're thinking of the other armies in that list such as Saba with Bd(F), Ax(I) and Cm(O)? Hardly top troops really. Even then it is a bad example as both these armies were boosted in the later versions of DBM by the wall o'shite effect rather than the troop types themselves. (Although I will conceded that Cm were generally a bit too useful in DBM)

nikgaukroger wrote:

johngl wrote: This sort of thing does bother me... it seems that the DBM disease of boosting "exotic" armies (remember Makkan?) has infected FoGR.

A bit OT but I can't resist.

The Makkan were, IIRC, Wb(F) and Bw(I) - both fairly low grade troop types, so not quite sure how that is being boosted. Maybe you're thinking of the other armies in that list such as Saba with Bd(F), Ax(I) and Cm(O)? Hardly top troops really. Even then it is a bad example as both these armies were boosted in the later versions of DBM by the wall o'shite effect rather than the troop types themselves. (Although I will conceded that Cm were generally a bit too useful in DBM)

I know you know what I mean... the Makkan, Dilmun, Saba list was "boosted" by the combination of lots of terrain, masses of cheap filler and cheap but tough fighting troops. FoGR armies are differently constructed but the effects are equivalent - armies without Superior troops are likely to be outfought by those with them. The problems in DBM were cured by RBS's 3.1 rule changes.

How about answering the FoGR points in this thread?

johngl wrote:How about answering the FoGR points in this thread?

Afraid the armies in question (the American fringe ones) are not ones I feel competant to comment on - I had minimal input to them as I know little about them (and being honest have little interest).

nikgaukroger wrote:
Afraid the armies in question (the American fringe ones) are not ones I feel competant to comment on - I had minimal input to them as I know little about them (and being honest have little interest).

Yet your name is the first in the list of authors! You could comment on the points by several people about 16th/17th century English, at least.

johngl wrote:How about answering the FoGR points in this thread?

But John we really haven't seen these armies work disproportianately out of period.

The non-european armies success is probaly summarized as follows.

1) Ottomans having limited success in UK events. But run by a top player.
2) Qing Chinese romping in a US event. Run by a top player. And IMHO his opponents largely let him play the game he wanted. I would submit a "trick army" which actually isn't fair to Matt. But his opponents largely let him set the pace.
3) One Aztec army coming in 3rd.

We are a long way from declaring the weird armies triumphant.

johngl wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:
Afraid the armies in question (the American fringe ones) are not ones I feel competant to comment on - I had minimal input to them as I know little about them (and being honest have little interest).

Yet your name is the first in the list of authors!

Surprised me.

You could comment on the points by several people about 16th/17th century English, at least.

Pretty much what Timmy said above - don't think their performce justified it, and you get the right results in historical match ups with what we gave them. Grading is somewhat subjective, but I'm comfortable with what we have for those armies.

Also what Dan says above.

timmy1 wrote:I think that the Veteran status of the English troops in Tudor armiescan best be seen by the fact that in 1513 Henry got hold of as many experienced mercs as he could as soon as he landed in Europe.

And didn't he do well with them. I hardly think this argument supports your case.

Delbruck wrote:

khurasan_miniatures wrote:

hazelbark wrote: Of course we await someone actually proving the American armies are viable. Most will get ridden down by mounted rather easily in the open.

Maybe when I release the later Iroquois add-ons you can field them and hopefully not get ridden down!

Whether an army can do well in a competion has little to do with how accurate the army is historically.

The lists are primarily designed for tournament play. If you don't like them for friendly games, don't use them.

khurasan_miniatures wrote:

hazelbark wrote: Of course we await someone actually proving the American armies are viable. Most will get ridden down by mounted rather easily in the open.

Maybe when I release the later Iroquois add-ons you can field them and hopefully not get ridden down!

My mocked-up Iroquois got ridden down by cavaliers in a plantation.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Delbruck wrote:

khurasan_miniatures wrote: Maybe when I release the later Iroquois add-ons you can field them and hopefully not get ridden down!

Whether an army can do well in a competion has little to do with how accurate the army is historically.

The lists are primarily designed for tournament play. If you don't like them for friendly games, don't use them.

Can I quote you on this

rbodleyscott wrote:

khurasan_miniatures wrote:

hazelbark wrote: Of course we await someone actually proving the American armies are viable. Most will get ridden down by mounted rather easily in the open.

Maybe when I release the later Iroquois add-ons you can field them and hopefully not get ridden down!

My mocked-up Iroquois got ridden down by cavaliers in a plantation.

I think this happened a lot in King Philip' War.

Delbruck wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Delbruck wrote: Whether an army can do well in a competion has little to do with how accurate the army is historically.

The lists are primarily designed for tournament play. If you don't like them for friendly games, don't use them.

Can I quote you on this

Of course, but your (friendly) opponent would have to agree.

rbodleyscott wrote: My mocked-up Iroquois got ridden down by cavaliers in a plantation.

Finally, the perfect quote to use in marketing the new range!

'I admit I could have done things a little better, but it is tough to be Medium Foot in the open against mounted.'

Hunter did not find that at Britcon with the Later Danish. Jon's Later Russian also coped ok.

Richard

I don't think Henry actually did that well and sure don't read that any success he had was due to veteran English troops.

timmy1 wrote:Richard

I don't think Henry actually did that well and sure don't read that any success he had was due to veteran English troops.

The point is that many other lists allow "veteran troops" to be graded as Superior just because they're veterans, with little or no evidence of any battles at all, successful or otherwise. Here we have a whole series of armies (Early and Late Henrician, Elizabethan) which certainly included large numbers of veterans and/or expensive mercenaries but are not allowed the option of grading those troops Superior. For some reason English armies are generally not accorded the options that other contemporary armies are allowed. This looks illogical.

johngl wrote:

timmy1 wrote:Richard

I don't think Henry actually did that well and sure don't read that any success he had was due to veteran English troops.

The point is that many other lists allow "veteran troops" to be graded as Superior just because they're veterans, with little or no evidence of any battles at all, successful or otherwise. Here we have a whole series of armies (Early and Late Henrician, Elizabethan) which certainly included large numbers of veterans and/or expensive mercenaries but are not allowed the option of grading those troops Superior. For some reason English armies are generally not accorded the options that other contemporary armies are allowed. This looks illogical.

Exactly! What makes for superior? Did the Hawaiian Islanders fight so much that they had these tough, resolute, expert veterans handy? For Henry's army the border with Scotland was very active yet his Staves do not get the same options as the Border Reivers and yet these are the same guys right? The main army could be raw militia, but a portion were Good Militia and some portion of these should be veterans and hence by Hawaiian standards, superior. As to their record, the English fought well at Flodden, Pinkie, on several invasions of France, and put down several insurrections like the March of Grace. Just because they aren't Eagle Knights or something doesn't mean you didn't have some portion of really good men. And why did he buy Landsknects from his pal Max without the option for superior like Max has? Even revolting peasants can have superior Landsknects, why not the most profligate prince in Christendom?

Simpleton wrote:Did the Hawaiian Islanders fight so much that they had these tough, resolute, expert veterans handy?

Yes.

http://www.mythichawaii.com/hawaiian-warriors.htm
http://www.ancientmilitary.com/hawaiian-military.htm

The first author is slightly confused about the warrior status but he gives a good overview of the endemic warfare in the islands. The second author gives the correct description of the pikemen -- they were a hardened elite, a guard of sorts, not massed militiamen.

Eureka makes very nice models for these, by the way.