Slitherine

Don't rebase everything, if the they have bases smaller than needed for the rules. Make larger movement bases of the appropriate size for 4, 6, or 8 elements in a mix of formations. Also quite handy to speed movement even if you have figures with the correct size bases (especially when trying to get pikes across the table without too much swearing!).

I was wondering about the late Teutonic .

No allies, the knight may not dismount ...they should at least be able to ally themselves with german cities and/ or bishop armies and they have no handgunners . It seems strange that they never used handgunners .

bahdahbum wrote:I was wondering about the late Teutonic .

No allies, the knight may not dismount ...they should at least be able to ally themselves with german cities and/ or bishop armies and they have no handgunners . It seems strange that they never used handgunners .

I don't wonder about anything unless I have done some research. I assume the list writers have researched stuff.

I may however throw an opinion in, such opinions being based on no research whatsoever.

I made some research .

The Teutonic Knight helped sometimes polish dissidents ( no allies ) .

They got help from german cities and bishop's . But contrary to other armies, they got only some units as help ...wonder why not as allies ...

They used handgunners ( admittetly seems after Tannenberg but evidence is not so good ) .

Even with evidence, when we give the evidence, if some people do not like that army, the evidence seens always unconvincing to them

Strange thing is : FOG is published by Osprey and some of the evidence comes from osprey books not good enough

You should really learn to recognise that other people have just as much right to disagree with your opinions as you have to disagree with theirs.

What a statement . I never said otherwise . I just said they should also learn to listen ...IMO there was evidence enough and I am not the only one to say so and will never change opinion call me stupid, strongh headed but let's stop it here otherwise it will never end

bahdahbum wrote:What a statement . I never said otherwise . I just said they should also learn to listen ...IMO there was evidence enough and I am not the only one to say so and will never change opinion call me stupid, strongh headed but let's stop it here otherwise it will never end

You haven't provided any evidence though?

You haven't provided any evidence though?

I spoke of the byzantine army . I gave evidence enough just reread the posts about the varangians and nike armies .

End of discussion for me

bahdahbum wrote:

You haven't provided any evidence though?

I spoke of the byzantine army . I gave evidence enough just reread the posts about the varangians and nike armies .

End of discussion for me

I can't remember you posting anything other than musings and a want list. If you can't be bothered to back up your statements then why would anybody bother to listen to you?

Well, as I recall some of that discussion regarding the Byzantines there was more than musings and a want list from myself, Jacques, Delbruck and others. Anyway, let us grant that we'll never be able to give absolute proof such as photographic evidence . Byzantine chronicles and even the military manuals don't put things in stark terms like " all our heavy infantry from the Bukellarian theme wear metal armor". However, where's the evidence of proof for other armies? A good example is the way nearly every barbarian and eastern horse army can have all its CV as superior. What proof did the list authors use to allow all Gothic cavalry or Sassanid cavalry to be superior? Surely some of these troops must have been of average quality. For example, the Sassanid Clibanari were divided into Royal and regular Clibanari. Also, where is the "proof" that all Daylami wore armor and were superior but they are allowed that option. I think what Jacques is saying and I concur, is that there is a disconnect in the level of proof required between certain army lists, something we would hope 2.0 would rectify.

Paul G

dave_r wrote:

bahdahbum wrote:

You haven't provided any evidence though?

I spoke of the byzantine army . I gave evidence enough just reread the posts about the varangians and nike armies .

End of discussion for me

I can't remember you posting anything other than musings and a want list. If you can't be bothered to back up your statements then why would anybody bother to listen to you?

PaulByzan wrote:Well, as I recall some of that discussion regarding the Byzantines there was more than musings and a want list from myself, Jacques, Delbruck and others. Anyway, let us grant that we'll never be able to give absolute proof such as photographic evidence . Byzantine chronicles and even the military manuals don't put things in stark terms like " all our heavy infantry from the Bukellarian theme wear metal armor". However, where's the evidence of proof for other armies?

The having metal armour is not enough. The interaction between troop types is. So show they performed better than there grading allows.

I do agree with you, they don't perform well enough. But I'm just a gamer with opinions.

bahdahbum wrote:What a statement . I never said otherwise . I just said they should also learn to listen ...IMO there was evidence enough and I am not the only one to say so and will never change opinion call me stupid, strongh headed but let's stop it here otherwise it will never end

Precisely my point. Basically, you have made your mind up, you are obviously correct, anyone that disagrees with you is either prejudiced or not listening. But somehow nobody is allowed to say exactly the same things about you

Now...suppose people do listen to you, consider your arguments, and still disagree? Is that not allowed?

By all means state your opinions, and argue for them, but please don't start insulting people just because you don't get what you want.

As the late German Feudal and Civic armies have been split off into there own lists in Lost Scrolls, I suspect that the original Later Medieval German list in Storm of Arrows could benefit from being rejigged to better fit the Imperial armies that are now the only ones it represents.

philqw78 wrote:The having metal armour is not enough. The interaction between troop types is. So show they performed better than there grading allows.

I do agree with you, they don't perform well enough.

So put your money where your mouth is and show that they should perform better as you are asking others to do

nikgaukroger wrote:So put your money where your mouth is and show that they should perform better as you are asking others to do

If you ever bothered to read anything other than those boring books about how the byzantines etc performed you will have noticed earlier in the thread that I have lots of opinions, but can't be arsed to back them up.

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:So put your money where your mouth is and show that they should perform better as you are asking others to do

If you ever bothered to read anything other than those boring books about how the byzantines etc performed you will have noticed earlier in the thread that I have lots of opinions, but can't be arsed to back them up.

An honest approach at least

philqw78 wrote:

bahdahbum wrote:I was wondering about the late Teutonic .

No allies, the knight may not dismount ...they should at least be able to ally themselves with german cities and/ or bishop armies and they have no handgunners . It seems strange that they never used handgunners .

I don't wonder about anything unless I have done some research. I assume the list writers have researched stuff.

I may however throw an opinion in, such opinions being based on no research whatsoever.

Where I come from they call that 'wondering'

Actually I think there was some misunderstanding as to what I was saying. I'd never claim that Byzantine skutatoi should be superior in morale and indeed my other point is that we're unlikely to have what the list writers consider sufficient proof that there were armored units of them. My point rather was that other lists allow similar troops to have a choice of being superior (and armored) such as Daylami without providing the same proof as is demanded to improve Byzantine troops such as Basil II's Varangians. That's where the disconnect is. To allow Daylami tribesment to be superior and armored and not allow the same options for Basil II's favored shock troops is completely mystifying to me. When the time is right for coming up with proof, I'll have a pretty extensive and reasoned argument that the Varangians should be both armored and superior from 988 AD.

BTW, Nik are you going to the US Team Tournament or just the list checker? If the former, I'm going to kick myself for not going, so we could bend a few elbows debating the merits of Byzantine vs Moslem armies.

Paul G.

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:The having metal armour is not enough. The interaction between troop types is. So show they performed better than there grading allows.

I do agree with you, they don't perform well enough.

So put your money where your mouth is and show that they should perform better as you are asking others to do

PaulByzan wrote: When the time is right for coming up with proof, I'll have a pretty extensive and reasoned argument that the Varangians should be both armored and superior from 988 AD.

Post now IMO (in the Player designed Lists forum) as it may help indicate to Slitherine whether v2 lists should be considered in some form or other. Same for anyone else who is sitting on info for other lists.

BTW, Nik are you going to the US Team Tournament or just the list checker?

Just list checking.

Now...suppose people do listen to you, consider your arguments, and still disagree? Is that not allowed?

It is allowed, it is what I asked for and just got : no evidence enough .

What was my poor evidence : some written things from that period describing how , for exemple Basile trained witth his body guard ( 10 980, the famous varangians ) , arab writters describing in 1000 AD the varangians , bristling with mails, spears and axes and so on ...but it is never enough . So I was willing to discuss but the answer was : no evidence enough .

So I got another question : what is evidence enough . Got no answer .

So I do listen, I do argue, I can exchange information but do not like a stalinist answer such as : no good enough . Is it my right or not ?

But it is a game , only a game so let's keep playing .