Slitherine

Must be the ones captured from Bahram Chobin.

nikgaukroger wrote:

PaulByzan wrote: I have no issue with an interpretation allowing Anglo Saxon Select Fyrd or Daylamis to have armoured units based on idealilzed documents that may or may not have a basis in reality, so long as other lists (Yes the Byantines) also benefit.

This amused me mightily. So you are happy that the Fyrd are classified according to "idealised documents" but are not happy that we also do the same for the Byzantines as we have based them on "idealised documents", to wit the Praecepta and the Taktika

This topic is still missing much in the way of useful evidence.

Frankly Nik, I'm amused by how you keep deliberately missing the point I and others are trying to make. I believe Thomas has expressed it most eloquently on this thread. Our main concern is that the list writers did not treat the evidence for each list even handedly.

Some lists were allowed wholesale flexibility on their evidence, whlle others (IMO notably the Byzantines) suffer rigid inflexibility based on their evidence. Is the evidence for armored Daylami armies more convincing than that for Byzantine outflanker cavalry possibly operating as LH under the rules? I asked for your evidence on armoured Daylami units. Is it possible there is no real evidence used to give the Daylami armour? And BTW IMHO an idealized interpretation of the the Praecepta would allow for some armored Byzantine infantry units.

I far more appreciated Richard's comment that the criteria used were flexible and the writers were concerned about getting the effects right. That's an honest response and I can respect it, however much I disagree with it.

Paul G

nikgaukroger wrote:Must be the ones captured from Bahram Chobin.

Egad, I actually agree with something Nik wrote. Also, likely defectors from Bahram's army could have brought some as well.

Paul G

I far more appreciated Richard's comment that the criteria used were flexible and the writers were concerned about getting the effects right. That's an honest response and I can respect it, however much I disagree with it.

Me too

I must admit that many player's I met feel the same and feel that "flexibility" was not the same depending on what army was the object of that same flexibility .

You all did a great work , but sometimes people think you are too "rigid" in the way of treating some subjects ( mainly army lists ). But now you also have to make decisions and you make them , OK ! but what we want to know is the "how and why" of a decision . Why do we need to bring so many proofs for a byzantine army and not for another ... and wanting to know , wanting an answer that's human .

PaulByzan wrote:
And BTW IMHO an idealized interpretation of the the Praecepta would allow for some armored Byzantine infantry units.

Then make a case for it - it is what this forum was set up for after all.

for general interest

http://books.google.be/books?id=r9gfY-- ... 1-PA123,M1

If I understand Nik and Richard correctly, the individual lists are adjusted to get them to fit with historical opponents. being primarily an historical gamer, I appreciate this. The continuing attempts to lobby for, say, apples, because oranges were treated a certain way misses this point. No amount of additional evidence about the apples will change the relationships among various oranges.

To use another analogy for the entire body of lists: It's like tuning a piano: if every string is at perfect pitch the instrument cannot be in tune.

I is great but ...that poses a major problem for open tournaments

MarkSieber wrote:If I understand Nik and Richard correctly, the individual lists are adjusted to get them to fit with historical opponents. being primarily an historical gamer, I appreciate this. The continuing attempts to lobby for, say, apples, because oranges were treated a certain way misses this point. No amount of additional evidence about the apples will change the relationships among various oranges.

To use another analogy for the entire body of lists: It's like tuning a piano: if every string is at perfect pitch the instrument cannot be in tune.

Adjust to historical opponents is also a lost battle for any generalized rule, so can at best be approximative. We all know and have to accept that when you make standard rules for such a wide period, many historical battles cannot be simulated correctly anymore... Should you need examples just let me know

tom wrote:when you make standard rules for such a wide period, many historical battles cannot be simulated correctly anymore.

(Taking the hot-button term simulated as meaning something like fairly represented) In a full battle-level top down game, is the problem with representing particular historical battles any different when you make general rules for multiple narrow periods, rather than rules developed to represent the specific battle, as some wargamers still do?

Mike