Slitherine

More than one book is possible ... so don't be shy about sugesting

It seems to me the struggle is that there are about 1.5 books worth of armies.

If we take the 11 Chinese as given, then think about what else we need...

1-3 Korean lists (3 DBM lists)
2-3 Japenese (3 DBM list)
1-2 Mongols (2 DBM lists)
2-4 Central Asians (Tibet, CACS, Nepal?, Central Asian Turks, etc)
2-3 Other Nomad types (Hsiung-Nu etc)

Then we have Indians which are taking up 3-4 DBM lists. Then we have Burma (1), Thailand(1), Vietnam (2 DBM lists), Khmer/Cham(1), Malaysians

And you get to something like 35 lists. So if you do two books both feel pretty light (18-20 lists maybe) and if you do one you probably have to leave some things out...

If it were up to me and we HAD to leave something out I would leave out SE Asia and focus on having a solid treatment of China, India and their big main historical opponents.

The problem is really that our DBM experience is that there aren't enough Indian armies to make them a focus, otherwise you could probably have a China Book and an India Book, but there doesn't seem to be enough meat for an India book (even if you include SE Asia in it).

Just to be a tease there is always the option of 1 book but bigger than normal

BTW do people really think Vietnamese are a must have army list to include? Just because a list was in the DBM books and used occasionally usually in a theme with morphed figures doesn't mean it has to be there. Views would be interesing.

Nik

While I agree that Vietnamese would be no loss, can I suggest posting that idea on the French Speaking forum and see if it gets a response?

Just an idea.

nikgaukroger wrote:More than one book is possible ... so don't be shy about sugesting

FWIW you could break this up into two books based on the arc of Chinese history. (No doubt this has occured to you and the other members of the FoG team but it never hurts to state the obvious

The first would cover armies from the beginnings of the Shang Dynasty--traditionally around 1700B.C.--to perhaps the fall of T'ang dynasty in the 9th century A.D. The second would cover Asian armies until 1500 A.D.

The other divsion would be geographic but personally I prefer chronological division.

D

At least one Korean army and a Mohgul please.

Basically you have the Chinese and those they impacted directly - from the Hsiung-nu and other northern steppe types from the Tarim River Basin to Manchuria, then the Korean and Vietnam areas, to Tibet and Nepal. Then you have those that were impacted indirectly, like the Japanese and the Burma area. Finally you have nearly a completely separate Indian developement, who can and were impacted from both direstions - Alexander, Pan Ch'ao, Arabs et al. Exactly how you split these into 2 or 3 books will generate a lot of opinions depending on whose histories you lean to.

As an aside, I'd rather use the Oriental Warrior lists as opposed to DBM et al.

While I agree that Vietnamese would be no loss, can I suggest posting that idea on the French Speaking forum and see if it gets a response?

Why

Personnally, I think the art of warfare from india and SE asia need of army book for themself and two another book for China and Steppe warfare( with korea and Japan included ).

India were horribly treated in DBM. Rajput need a list for themselves as the many different kingdoms of South India and Ceylan 5; may be about 6 or 7 different list for the period 0 AD-1500 AD.
Thai, Burma, Khmer and Cham, vietnamese, Kampuchea, and Malay need at least 2 differents list to cover their history.

KingHassan wrote:At least one Korean army and a Mohgul please.

The latter are really outside the FoG timeframe - well the majority anyway, the bit inside may not really justify a list but we shall see how things go. It is similar to why the Italian Wars are not really covered in Storm of Arrows.

Draka wrote:
As an aside, I'd rather use the Oriental Warrior lists as opposed to DBM et al.

I'd make the point that the FoG list writing process is not a case of just transcribing DBM or whatever lists into FoG format. DBM list names, etc. may be a useful reference for many but it does not follow that this forms a framework or basis for the FoG lists.

Anyway I'd be interested to know why you'd prefer the FoG lists to follow the Warrior ones as opposed to others/. My (albeit limited) experience of the Warrior lists is that they are often somewhat behind the times and less well researched than the DBM(M) ones. However, I'm open minded on this so convince me

olivier wrote:

While I agree that Vietnamese would be no loss, can I suggest posting that idea on the French Speaking forum and see if it gets a response?

Why

Personnally, I think the art of warfare from india and SE asia need of army book for themself and two another book for China and Steppe warfare( with korea and Japan included ).

India were horribly treated in DBM. Rajput need a list for themselves as the many different kingdoms of South India and Ceylan 5; may be about 6 or 7 different list for the period 0 AD-1500 AD.
Thai, Burma, Khmer and Cham, vietnamese, Kampuchea, and Malay need at least 2 differents list to cover their history.

Olivier - can you drop me an email direct (so as not to clog this thread) about the Indian lists. I'd be interested to hear why you think there should be so many. nikgaukroger (at) blueyonder.co.uk

nikgaukroger wrote:Just to be a tease there is always the option of 1 book but bigger than normal

I would rather see two books than one large one. The extra space could be taken up by more extensive background articles along the lines of those in S&S (the bits on the Syrian states come to mind). I suspect a lot of gamers would appreciate the info, especially as China, etc. tends to be an area that we are less familiar with than Greece & Rome, and the high medieval era. One of the things that I miss in FoG about the DBM lists is that the blurb about each army tends to be much more detailed in DBM.

So I hereby call for more books, more lists, and more writing.

Marc

I would agree generally with ethan (above) but the more lists the better eastern Indians have gotten a bit of a shaft by dbm . personally rise of rome was a bit of a disappointment ( no Samnites , the bland pyrrhic list with no syracusian allies? ,Eumenid in early successors list not possbile no indian allies? ) so I would encourage you to take your time with your lists and the more the better !!! your rules are less susceptible to the whims of troop classification than other sets so although other list exsist for the other rules no one played those armys because they had little or no chance of wining in an open competition so hence the I never play Samnite's sindrom its not for lack of players wanting to play with the army . no offense intended patrick

babyshark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Just to be a tease there is always the option of 1 book but bigger than normal

I would rather see two books than one large one. The extra space could be taken up by more extensive background articles along the lines of those in S&S (the bits on the Syrian states come to mind). I suspect a lot of gamers would appreciate the info, especially as China, etc. tends to be an area that we are less familiar with than Greece & Rome, and the high medieval era. One of the things that I miss in FoG about the DBM lists is that the blurb about each army tends to be much more detailed in DBM.

So I hereby call for more books, more lists, and more writing.

Marc

FWIW I agree with Marc
I always appreciate the writing and info about each army list.

Dale

Known for its superior longbowmen, knights, armoured impact swordsmen, elephants, hy chariots, pikes ....

I thnk a minimum of 2 books for this topic. And if only 2 they should be larger than usual - I'd consider 3 normal sized ones reasonable.
The geographic area being covered and the time period is just too diverse to make one sensible book:
Do Japanese armies really have much in common with earlier Central Asian or Indian armies that they would have to be crammed together into a single volume?
I've lised below all of the DBM armies that would fall into the scope of the book(s) and my vote as to whether each is essential, desirable or could be ignored (until Lost Scrolls?):
Pre-vedic Indian: Ignorable
Hsia & Shang Chinese: ignorable
Early Northern Barbarians: ignorable
Vedic Indian: ignorable
Western Chou, Spring & Autumn Chinese: desirable
Early Hu: ignorable
Early Vietnamese: ignorable
Mountain Indian: ignorable
Warring States & Ch'in Chinese: essential
Ch'iang & Ti: ignorable
Tien & K'un-Ming: ignorable
Hsiung-Nu: desirable
Han Chinese: essential
Tamil Indian & Sinhalese: desirable
Hsien-Pi (Xianbei) etc: desirable
3 Kingdoms & Western Ts'in Chinese: essential
Paekche & Kaya Korean: desirable
Koguryo Korean: desirable
Silla Korean: desirable
Chinese North & South Dynasties: essential
Emishi: ignorable
Pre-samurai Japanese: desirable
Central Asian City States: desirable
Burmese: desirable
Hindu Indian: essential
Central Asian Turks (not Western): essential
Early Bulgar: desirable
Tibetan: desirable
Khazar: desirable
Sui & early T'ang Chinese: essential
Khmer & Cham: ignorable
Volga Bulgar: desirable
Nan-chao: ignorable
Arab Indian: desirable
Late T'ang & 5 dynasties Chinese: essential
Sha-to Turkish: desirable
Tribal Mongolian: desirable
Early Samurai: essential
Khitan-Laio: desirable
Koryo Korean: desirable
Medieval Vietnamese: desirable
Sung Chinese: essential
Hsi-Hsia: ignorable
Ghurid: desirable
Jurchen-Chin: desirable
Qara-Khitan: desirable
Mongol Conquest: essential
Later Muslim Indian: essential
Indonesian or malay: desirable
Siamese: desirable
Islamic persian: desirable
Yuan Chinese: essential
Jalayirid: desirable
Ming Chinese: essential
Yi Korean: desirable

I've probably missed some and there may be 1 or 2 I've lised that appear in other books (apologies for errors & omissions).
Some of the DBM lists could perhaps be combined but that there are some that should be split for clarity (particularly some of the Indian ones as Ethan observed). This is just to give a framework for consideration.
So I think there are 13 ignorable, 28 desirable & 14 essential in my judgement.

I think it is essential that in dealing with most of Asia you have pretty continuous coverage of Chinese dynasties, India and Japan and that the most important Central Asian empires are included.
The ones I consider ignorable are those where I think detailed historical resources and figures are less available. Some might consider my judgement harsh in the odd case.

While if you just stick to my essentials, you could have just 1 book I think that would be incredibly disappointing especially compared to the blanket coverage of European armies. It would make for a book pretty lacking in theme (date and geograhpoy range too wide).
I'd hope that almost all of my desirables would also end up being covered which would probably make for 35-45 lists : either 2 large or 3 normal sized books. You could look at one large book covering the Mongols & their enemies which would draw in the Japanese & SE Asian lists + LMI; one large one covering the T'ang Chinese period up to the Mongols which would draw in armies like the Tibetans, Turks, Arab Indian, CACS, 3 Korean Kingdoms (+ add some Indian armies like Hindu at a stretch) (perhaps Nan Chao if you don;t want to ignore them) & a (normal sized) book covering the earlier Eastern armies such as Ch'in, Han , 3 Kindoms, North & South Dynasties, Xiong Nu, western Chou + Shang or Vedic Indian if you didn't want to ignore them.

I'd buy all 3 books gladly
Dodgy

Khmer & Cham: ignorable

Khmer were a major actor in SE Asia! Ignoring them is "criminal" as their culture and warfare technique are the cradle for all the medieval non sinized SE asia culture

Hindu Indian: essential

You must separate Rajput army and other aryans armies. They are definitively different

Early Samurai: essential

Why? except for their lucky skirmich against a Korean-mongolian army what did the early samurai do to us?

Dodgy - splendid, just the sort of opinion I was looking for

Of course there will be differences of what is needed and optional (e.g. I consider the Xixia very important because of the 3 way political situation during the Northern Song period) but the more views we can get from real gamers the better informed we can be about what is in and what is out.

I vote for anything with interesting combinations of troops and cool figures

paulcummins wrote:I vote for anything with interesting combinations of troops and cool figures

You will probably be happy then