Army lists

[madaxeman]

>> I do reckon the "how many small units" question may be one that in retrospect has slipped thru the gaps. But before Graham took the Famous Roman Swarm to Britcon, I'm not sure anyone really realised how big a gap it might prove to be.

Of course the Romans are an army where we very much wanted small BGs as an option ...

So they could run around independantly in a huge swarm overwhelming other armies flanks to gain their victories... or because there is available historical data showing the size of Roman formations?

This is one example where I personally feel historical-fact-based list writing has created an army capable of un-historical tactics. My admittedly limited reading often shows Romans winning by forcing larger barbarian armies to fight on narrow frontages where the one-to-one superiority of Roman troops and their ability to maintain a coherent formation could come into play - admittedly breaking down sometimes into smaller independant formations to envelop flanks.

Forcing some of them to form up into bigger units (ie having restrictions on the number of "small" units) might have done this better.

FWIW the other history/gameplay issue I think may be wrong is having all hellenistic pike as drilled. Lots of pike would be simulated better if they were undrilled, and this less able to maneuver easily IMO.

tim
www.madaxeman.com

[rbodleyscott]

Of course the Romans are an army where we very much wanted small BGs as an option ...

So they could run around independantly in a huge swarm overwhelming other armies flanks to gain their victories... or because there is available historical data showing the size of Roman formations?

Because flexible formations were used to great advantage by the Romans against their less flexible foes. (e.g. Macedonian phalanxes). We felt that the best way to represent this was to allow them to be organised in smaller BGs.

[benos]

having now seen a lot of dbm fog and wab army lists i feel that fog should be competing with wab rather than dbm. The production values are similar, however fog has avoided special-ruleitis, while wab books contain more history and better referencing, both have thier points.
Regards
Ben

[ars_belli]

So they could run around independantly in a huge swarm overwhelming other armies flanks to gain their victories... or because there is available historical data showing the size of Roman formations?

Caesar frequently reports detachments of cohorts, usually from the third line, being used independently in response to threats from the flank or rear. Examples of this practice include battles against the Helvetii at Bibracte (Gallic War I.25-26) and the Suebi under Ariovistus (Gallic War I.51-53), and of course against Pompey at Pharsalus (Civil War III.89-94). The small legionary BGs in FoG may be used to model the 'third line' detachments in these historical battles quite nicely. Without them, it would not be possible.

Cheers,
Scott

[nikgaukroger]

My admittedly limited reading often shows Romans winning by forcing larger barbarian armies to fight on narrow frontages where the one-to-one superiority of Roman troops and their ability to maintain a coherent formation could come into play - admittedly breaking down sometimes into smaller independant formations to envelop flanks.

And IMO you'd be doing pretty well in FoG to do the same given the ++ in Melee nearly all Romans will get over barbarians. Ask your mate Hannibal, he'll tell you not to over complicate and get on with winning where you have the advantage

[grahambriggs]

I'd be interested for Phil to expand on his comments

Fair enough, a snide comment doesn't really cut it as criticism. So, my general criticisms are:[/quote]

Firstly, welcome back Mr Malthus, you've been away too long

1. that the lists constrain armies far too much:where there could be multiple interpretations, too often, the list writer(s) have enforced only their own view

Sometimes, but I think this may be the flip side of your point 4. If all interpretations were listed then blandness would increase.

2. some army lists are - at least to my perception and that of those I've talked to about this f2f - being punished for having been seen as too effective previously, by being excessively downgraded.

I was surprised to read this, as it isn't my experience. Though I find that more armies are viable as the points system seems well balanced.

3. quite a few possible gradings of troops seem to be ruled out sui generis, without any actual reasoning - examples that spring to mind offhand include armoured pike, dark age superior impact foot, how bow/spear armed troop are handled, and I'm sure a bit more concentration would produce more.

I suspect the pike is a game balance thing, wrapped in a cloak of justification. bow/spear seems to work well in the rules (though the sparabara mantlet wall isn't modelled). Mine fear armoured hoplites and quality foot but will take on weaker foot. Armoured shoeck cavalry scare all but the Immortals.

4. Overall, there is a depressing 'sameness about the lists, the variations are ... well I suppose you could qualify them as subtle inflections, but, overall it seems to me that there are actually a lot fewer 'competitively viable' armies than DBM produced.

I agree on the sameness issue - perhaps an issue caused by unit basis as opped to element basis. Having said that, some of the inflections do work. For example, drilled bow sword cavalry play quite differently to undrilled so that in itself provides variation. I think the number of competitive armies has increased because of the better points system.

5. There seem to be some fairly non-rational distinctions about unit sizes (e.g. Arab conquest infantry being sized 8-9? only? oh really? ... or classical armies get small (cheap) units of skirmishers so get to bulk out their attrition point cheaply, but others don't ... this is realistic?)

Unit size seems to be a top down rules mechanic approach to give the feel of an army as much as anything. Bulking up with skirmishers is one approach but those are all points which don't do well at the crunch (as my bosporans with 9 BGs of skirmishers found ). An approach I've used is large, tough BGs all headed with generals. 32 bases of superior/elite troops fighting in a line can work well.

Please understand, I got as bored with DBM as any of y'all, and wanted a good replacement - and the FOG rules sure look good, it's the army lists that I'm carping about.

cheers
firefall[/quote]

[jre]

I like the army lists, but I dislike the army list books...

Mostly because if you take armies from the same period and the same geographical area they are bound to be similar, with a few noticeable exceptions. So in a typical book you may have three or four army "themes", plus a few oddball armies. But that is not the designers fault, it is History's, that there is little variation in tactics, or that everyone adopts what works in battle.

However that means the books end up offering only a few different styles of army, with very little historical discussion or information on tactics and actual battle reports between the armies presented in the book, which is what I was hoping for. There are a few isolated sentences offering tactical advice. Even the illustrations are in many cases almost useless from a painting point of view, as they present the troops we already have an idea how to handle (knights in Storm of Arrows, for instance) instead of those that differentiate an army from another.

Once most of Western Chronology is covered we can discuss if we have few or many choices, but I am quite happy with the available "styles" so far.

José

[footslogger]

I too dislike the army list books, but for a different reason. They are rather low in value.

It seems that rather than taking the best of the DBM lists and the WAB army books, they have the worst of them. The DBM lists were very efficient in that I got all of them in 4 books. And that was really all the info I need.

The WAB books are cool in that there is a LOT of eye candy and an attempt to provide historical or historical interest.

The FOG books fail as eye candy and are too terse to justify the pages of historical context, and I have to buy a lot of them to get all the army lists.

[Omar]

Other than the layout and wording, I have had no problems with FoG. I prefer a book where you can play a game while reading through the rules, and when you mention a special rule (or important term) its noted as such (highlighted, referenced, etc). Instead, I have to read the rules, twice. Try a game. Get confused. Read the rules again. Ask a few questions about how something works. Get told to look on pXX (the opposite side of the book from the where the rules started). Play again. Miss more stuff. Read again, ask questions again, etc.

Its better than any other wargame I have looked at (Warhammer Historicals and DBA being the exception there, Warhammer only because I played 40k/WFB and understood the basics, DBA because it was meant to be fairly simple), but you can tell it was written by a wargamer who had experience with the rules, rather than by someone who was trying to teach the game to a new player. Not very newbie friendly.

I wish the army books have more info as to why certain things were chosen. Mind you, I am not an expert on some topics, but I would like to think I am fairly well versed in the areas of history that really interest me. Some troop choices available and such really made me scratch my head and ask "what in the world is that about?" But, they are very well made, with good pictures, and very easy to use to plan out an army.

Nothing is perfect, but it seems better than what I have seen in the past, and certainly more than enough to get me into historicals.

[grahambriggs]

Of course the Romans are an army where we very much wanted small BGs as an option ...

So they could run around independantly in a huge swarm overwhelming other armies flanks to gain their victories... or because there is available historical data showing the size of Roman formations?

Because flexible formations were used to great advantage by the Romans against their less flexible foes. (e.g. Macedonian phalanxes). We felt that the best way to represent this was to allow them to be organised in smaller BGs.

Is there as much evidence for this in the Dominate period as in the earlier periods? I had thought not, but it's not an area I know very well.

It seems to be BGs of 4 quality MF with massed skirmishers that the concern centres around. It's a little early to claim the sky is falling though, as people haven't worked through the counter tactics yet.

[nikgaukroger]

Is there as much evidence for this in the Dominate period as in the earlier periods? I had thought not, but it's not an area I know very well.

Bits in Ammianus would support it IMO.

[hammy]

It seems to be BGs of 4 quality MF with massed skirmishers that the concern centres around. It's a little early to claim the sky is falling though, as people haven't worked through the counter tactics yet.

Or more likely BGs of 4 average armoured MF run by a rather competent player.....

When people who aren't quite such a competent player as Graham start dominating competitions with an army like this it will be time to worry.

FWIW I tried an army along these lines against Phil Powell's Picts as a Roll Call test game and was soundly thrashed. Lots of unprotected MF offensive spear are actually very good value against said pesky little Roman BGs.

[hazelbark]

I'd be interested for Phil to expand on his comments

4. Overall, there is a depressing 'sameness about the lists, the variations are ... well I suppose you could qualify them as subtle inflections, but, overall it seems to me that there are actually a lot fewer 'competitively viable' armies than DBM produced.

I think this from time to time and then I actually look at the lists and disagree,

I think the best case for same-ness is the barbarian armies in legions triumphant. But you know that was the same in DBM and every system that didn't try and create fake differences.

I just finished Decline and Fall and the armies are all different and have a tremendous variety I want to play them all. Even within the 4 byzantine lists.

I think the two roman books were a bit of a distortion.
You had the roman tactical doctrine, 1-2 other "civilized" tactical doctrine opponents then barbarians. Just not a bunch of variety.
Legion, Pike, Horse Archer, Horse shock, Hoplite, wild charging savages.
which is the same problem in DBx family too.

I think the one excellent thing is the rules cleaned up the fantasy of choice by ending the pretense of choice in some lists.

Is for what they mean in "competition" terms. Well we shall see. But there were a lot of dog armies in other rules that were pretty pointless except from being anal for the sake of anal listings.

[carlos]

I did feel them as very samey too, especially with Legions Triumphant, but the designers can't be faulted for that, can they? Honestly how different are barbarian armies of that time? Either they used horses and charged or they didn't and charged on foot. There wasn't a lot of variation, to be honest.

OTOH, holding all 7 books and going through them actually does bring out the variety in the lists.

I for one am happy I can now field a Timurid army that not only has a decent chance to win, but actually does "look and feel" like the real thing. Lots of drilled very good cavalry who fight mainly by shooting and can now actually shoot, and none of the DBM madness of stampeding camels, and so on. I also like the fact that there aren't many dogs in the lists. There are armies that are a bit more challenging, but no desperate cases I think, especially if playing within the same book/theme.

[Mithridates]

I suppose what I like about the FOG lists (and WAB for that matter) is that they give you flexibility with your troop types unlike DBMM which has a certain sameness about it.

Thus under DBMM Companions are the same as Sarmatians/Goths/Normans and so on (albeit regular of course), I do worry about being unable to highlight the elite nature of Hypaspists under DBMM and even FOG. This is especially so when deployed in 'loose' order.

I also appreciate the fact that foggers do not stick the knife into other rule sets and lists - I would have thought there is room enough in the hobby for variety. Indeed in years gone by in Australian competitions we did allow a number of lists as well as WRG, I recall Milgamex (I think) as well as Anabasis which would be checked by the umpires before they were allowed - using say WRG 5th edition rules for the game.

[SirGarnet]

Designer notes would be great. There may be a little room for key issues in list reissues by reducing the repetitive structural filler and prolix historical recap, but I think it needs to be online. The Army Design forum does it on a haphazard basis - but we can get it done here.

P.S. I kind of like fantasy and pretense of choice in the lists.

[madaxeman]

Designer notes would be great. There may be a little room for key issues in list reissues by reducing the repetitive structural filler and prolix historical recap, but I think it needs to be online. The Army Design forum does it on a haphazard basis - but we can get it done here.

This is sort of what I'm hoping to do with my "FoGipedia" on madaxeman.com - which is potentially a bit more "permanent" than having to dig thru multiple postings, as it has a page for each list. I'm graually working thru to set up the basic structure, but if anyone has any notes, recommended links or "used" army lists etc for specific armies - maybe even stuff they've already posted here - please feel free to add them to the Fogipedia as well.

tim
www.madaxeman.com

[SirGarnet]

Nice. In addition to links will there be a blog/wiki/review etc. section for direct contributions or are you going to edit it?

[madaxeman]

Nice. In addition to links will there be a blog/wiki/review etc. section for direct contributions or are you going to edit it?

The entire thing is set up as a wiki, so pretty much every part of evry single page can be edited or added to directly, without my intervention - once you complete a very, very simple registration process. Its almost exactly the same editing process as you use when writing messages on this forum - you can even add smilies !

The only bits that are not editable are the main navigation pages - so for example the Storm of Arrows page with links to all the army pages is locked, but the Santa Nueva Hermendad Castilian page can be edited.

Alternatively if you don't fancy editing it yourself, you can send me stuff by email - but its obviously better (for me!) if you edit the wiki directly.

tim

[Ghaznavid]

Great idea Tim, but honestly you got to much commercial crap on the page. Sorry but I can't imagine contributing to a page that virtually forces me to activate an add blocker before visiting it.