Slitherine

nikgaukroger wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote:
Tsk, tsk, tsk Nik, you aren't trying to distract us with jokes, are you?

Its the best you're going to get on this I'm afraid.

What the best joke? Jesus we are in trouble then.

If however you mean it is the best justification for treating the two lists in sepeate ways then that is quite weak. It seems the British get some Elites on the basis of adding flavour - wheras the Germans don't, despite good a good historic excuse for the herbs and spices to come out.

Personally I think an all average German army has a flavour of its own but it does seem that there is a bit of inconsistency between lists - which I thought doing away with such things was one of the aims of FOG lists.

nikgaukroger wrote:Its the best you're going to get on this I'm afraid.

Why would that be?

I mean, I wouldn't want to delve into production secrets, but discussing decisions based on public domain (ie historical) information shouldn't breach an NDA?

Or do I overlook something?

Ghaznavid wrote:@ars belli: Interesting interpretation although maybe a bit to harsh on the Gauls. I'm not sure they were that disadvantaged usually. They do seem to have had a knack for underestimating the germanic cavalry on their usually smaller horses though.

I am still experimenting with my Gallic War scenarios using FoG. If I find that the special 'German cavalry rule' unfairly disadvantages the Gallic horse, I will certainly drop it.

Ghaznavid wrote:I think that giving the Early Germans the option to field their cavalry as elite would fit it better though and be more in tone with the attitude they had.

IMHO, the attested inferiority of the German horses would appear to argue against an Elite rating in FoG. However, if that seems to fit better with your conception of Early German cavalry, then by all means give it a try.

For what it's worth, I do agree that the Early German army list appears to somewhat lacking in flavor, particularly in comparison with the Gallic and Ancient British ones.

Cheers,
Scott

Looking at the list I quite fancy an Early German army with Gallic allies. Not unlike the Visigoths I used at the first Usk playtest but with javelin rather than lancer cavalry (a bonus IMO), the only think it looses is the BG of Hunnic LH but overall I think there is a decent army in there.

My last word on this thread (possibly ) - don't assume that because I assisted with the production of the lists that I agree with everything in them

nikgaukroger wrote:My last word on this thread (possibly ) - don't assume that because I assisted with the production of the lists that I agree with everything in them

Now we all want to know which ones you disagreed with and why !

ars_belli wrote: IMHO, the attested inferiority of the German horses would appear to argue against an Elite rating in FoG. However, if that seems to fit better with your conception of Early German cavalry, then by all means give it a try.

Not sure the size of the horses is that much of a factor, given that we are not talking lancer cavalry. Elite would fit with their tendency to hang on no matter how things go and it would reflect that they were closely supported by light infantry, giving them the little extra 'oomph'. However the latter could also be simulated by allowing them a 3rd rank of Javelin armed LF that can support shoot during an attack vs. other mounted only. (Basically the inverted option for Bow armed LF in foot units.) This would make them a little bit better vs. other mounted as long as they are as aggressive as they seem to have been, make them a tad more resilient due to the higher '1hit per...' and make them ever so slightly less manoeuvrable, which is also not inappropriate for mounted working that closely with infantry IMO.
This might actually be the more interesting option then 'just' making them Elite, even though it's technically not within the rules. I guess we will have to test this one sometime soon.

Got the L.T. companion two days ago and been drooling over it since then. But after a thourogh reading session yesterday i must say that the arguments in this thread regarding the E. germans and the, shall we say, hesitant/doubtfull approach to them seems very odd compared with the lax attidtude and overabundant choises regardning the two later roman lists.

In the same companion there is both "we cant give them anything since its not clearly stated by several souces that we like" and "we open up for all possibilities regarding interpretation of all sources and allow you to pick and choose whaterver you desire".
Theese double standards vexes me and is a proof, imho, of an unequal handling of the lists. Above all it shows a tendency to "pump up" the Romans which has been observed by others in this forum on erlier occations (romans and englishmen that is). It is odd tough that the Principate Romans in contrast to the two latter lists and the Late rep. Romans are handled a bit harcher (different author of that list?).

I realize that this critique is to late and wont have any effect at all on current lists but see it as a plea to make the coming lists, those still open for adjustments, more even regardning standards. By this i dont meen "make them equal", i mean that sources should be handled equal, that effort put in research should be equal and the same level of doubt should be used when constructing the lists.

A list of references for each list would be much appriciated - will we ever see one?

Hi

I will start this by saying overall that Legions Triumphant excited me heaps more than anything produced to date. These are the armies I cut my teeth on.

Having bought LT I feel I have a brief licence to express disappointment with how Early Germans "fared". Having played Ancients for nearly 25 years I instinctively "know" (rightly or wrongly) that Chatti are hard men. There being no option for hard men for Chatti was a bit of a blow given the chrome elite unit given to both Ancient British and Gauls and the feeling that every conceivable real or possible permutation of anything Roman has been ticked off.

"The Other Game" currently treats EG warbands in *5* different ways. That seems to be the other extreme.

Would the option for some superior warband for Chatti have been too much to ask? [/Rhetorical]

Yeah - I know this is pointless

cheers
Nick

All those that are disapointed with the Early German list will I think just have to get used to the idea that list writing is a subjective thing. It seems the Early Germans are seen as a mass of Barbarians from across the Rhine and are treated as such. The writers could have treated the Gauls the same - a mass of barbarians from the cold North but the list writers seem to have more of an affinity with them so they get some troops that are 'elite'.

Romans are treated as highly interesting and worthy of most possibilities being allowed. The later Germans are also seen as worthy of more diversification and get loads of lists, which is nice.

All this shows the bias towards what the list writers want to focus on. I have seen lists for other rules where a nations cav has to be deployed in a deep formation no matter what the tatical situation is, even though they may count as some of the most flexible mounted troops in the period. Other rules where some troops are armed with HTW, JLS, D, AK47 RPG7 making them uber. I suppose if people want it to be their choices that are the most important you will have to write your own set of rules and get to be the list author.

So it may appear that there is a lack of consistancy on how lists are written to some. Equally the list authors from their perspective probably feel that they are being fair and consistent across all lists. It only really matters if you want to attend competitions where your army list has to be 'legal' to be fair to all playing the game, peoples differing views of history being unimportant in such a situation. Outside a tournament you can do what you want - if you want some German tribes to be Elite, or so feel that some part of each tribe should rate as superior then you can do it, who is going to stop you?

The other side of the coin as to lists is the amount of actual historical record available. In this case, the extensive amount of records on all things Roman allows justification for many periods and a sense of transition from Servius to Theodosius I and beyond. In the case of the early Germans, only a handful of records, and those from the enemy side, exist - and thus are very subjective as a basis to write authoritive army lists. Those armies and peoples who don't have an extensive written history, and a lack of archeological data to base things on (and military archeology is nearly non-existant) tend to get generic, short shift.

Wait until we get to my favorite periods on the other side of the world!

Hi
I was hoping that the list design process would be guided by the same level of pragmatism which shows through with FOG basing conventions - ie use what is trad and also be as flexible as possible so as not to annoy anybody.

I could live easier with Ancient British and Gauls having chrome as long as someone threw me a bone as well

As Durrati says - outside conventions who cares. If my opponents are happy with my Germans having Dalek allies thats cool


cheers
Nick

Sorry to hear that some of you are unhappy with the Early German list.

On the matter of consistency, however, I would have to say that if any list is out of sync with policy it is the Ancient Brits/Gauls, not the Germans. In general we have tried to avoid probably spurious distinctions between troops based on scanty evidence.

With regards to the Principate Roman list, it has less options than the others because this is the period of maximum consistency and homogeneity in the Roman Army.

The Dominate Roman lists offer more options not because it is "favoured" but because the quality of troops in the Roman army became far less consistent as the Empire declined. This needs to be reflected in the list, which inevitably therefore gives more options. However many of these additonal options are hardly desirable - anyone for Poor Cataphracts? The overall quality of the army is also restricted (at least half its BGs must be Average or Poor), which is not the case in the Principate period.

rbodleyscott wrote:On the matter of consistency, however, I would have to say that if any list is out of sync with policy it is the Ancient Brits/Gauls, not the Germans. In general we have tried to avoid probably spurious distinctions between troops based on scanty evidence.

And I for one applaud that approach - not every ancient army could or should have large numbers of optional troops. I also agree that it is the Gallic and Ancient British lists that appear to have been given more optional troop types than necessary, rather than the Early Germans that have been given too few. All in all, it is a relatively minor quibble IMHO, since I can always opt to forgo the elite foot warriors, solduri, etc. for the Celts.

Cheers,
Scott

But adding them in small numbers gives a bit of extra flavour to the army, makes the lists a more interesting read and improves the GAME. Though maybe not the historical content

philqw78 wrote:But adding them in small numbers gives a bit of extra flavour to the army, makes the lists a more interesting read and improves the GAME. Though maybe not the historical content

I take your point. However, I have to admit that I am not a big fan of variety for its own sake. Personally, I find it much more rewarding to develop ways to win by using the troops, tactics and terrain for which we have solid historical evidence, rather than add 'chrome' troop types for which the evidence may be scant or nonexistent. For me at least, the former makes for a better, more satisfying game.

Besides, in my own personal gaming, I can always choose to add as much (or as little) chrome as I like. For example, I use Old Gaulish and Proto-Germanic names for all of my troop types and commanders, and over time I develop special names for individual BGs, based on their tabletop performance. This provides me with a great deal of period flavor and a very satisfying game, without the need to add 'special' optional units that are based on shaky or hypothetical grounds.

Naturally, your mileage may vary.

Cheers,
Scott

Thanks for your reply Richard.

Of all the possible replies, what you said gave me the most confidence going forward - namely that (unless I have misread what you meant) the Gallic and Ancient British chrome uber-units may in hindsight not have been the best of moves and presumably are unlikely to be duplicated.

I will be able to maintain the moral high ground if a Gallic or Ancient British opponent carves their way through one of my emasculated Chatti warbands with scornful comments such as "So you had to bring a Fantasy unit to an Ancients game then?"

No disrespect intended to the Fantasy community - I play that as well.

cheers
Nick

FWIW I would balk a bit at facing masses of HF impact foot. The Early Germans may be graded average, but there will be a lot of them on the table. Being able to field multiple tribes via allies also helps--several battle groups could be MF as allies while the rest are HF. And they have a decent sprinkling of skirmishers, including skirmisher cav if they want to go with that tribe. Their historical opponents-- Mid to Late Republican to Principate Romans would be heavily outnumbered.

Quality has a quality all its own

cheers
Nick

bignic wrote:Quality has a quality all its own

cheers
Nick

Quantity has a quality all its own.