Exactly a little or a even more romance in these lists would be healthy. Hell the Blood and Gold armies got superior and elite handed out by the shedload. Not picking on Graham I know your reasons.benos wrote: as to lists, I would be inclined to look at all the barbarian lists (they seem far more bland than actually needed, a BG or 2 of superior chieftains guards would probably make them more appealing without significantly changing thier historical accuracy)
v2 Army Lists
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Re: v 2.0 army lists
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
- Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain
I also think that is a good idea. If there are only minor amendments to a few lists within a book, I have seen that some others publishers have provided stickers to the ones showing up with the book so that they can stick the amended list in the book they already have. That is not something I would like to do with my books, but some people might want that option.nikgaukroger wrote:
What would people think about a single v2 list book containing a number of revised lists plus amendments for other lists for which a major revision is not deemed necessary.
In the other hand, I would not forget as a long term editorial project the mentioned possibility of broader books about wargaming Ancient times, Middle Ages, Rising Sun, etc. where the new amended lists could be included. I think that you can have a market of wargamers (not just FoG ones) buying books about how to build armies in those times, with some painting tips, a few historical articles from Osprey books, etc.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
lawrenceg wrote:Taking a closer look at your example (Pharsalus):VMadeira wrote:Don't think I agree, there are numerous references were romans moneuvred cohorts independently, (even IExcept 1 BG represents several "units" (in this case several maniples, cohorts etc.) In practice, the Romans fought in multiple continuous lines without much in the way of manoeuvre below the level of the line. While individual maniples supposedly moved back and forth and changed places in the early period, this was in the context of fighting in the line. Cases where individual maniples or cohorts moved around independently are IMO exceptional and are singled out for special mention in histories when they do happen. THe ballet of 4-base BGs that you get in FOG does not feel like a historical Roman army.can recall some of them - Caesar in Pharsalus for example). Also in Gaul, I think that at least on one occasion cohorts camped for the winter in separate camps, which led to some of them geting in serious trouble, if I am not messing up history
. The point being that cohorts did operate indendently as required.
(this is during deployment).Caesar, Civil War 3:89 wrote:he rapidly drafted a single cohort from each of the legions composing the third line, formed of them a fourth line,
Although the reserve battlegroup is made up of single cohorts from different legions, they act in the battle as a single "unit".Caesar, Civil War 3:93 wrote:When Caesar perceived this, he gave the signal to his fourth line, which he had formed of the six cohorts.[2] They instantly rushed forward and charged Pompey's horse with such fury, that not a man of them stood; but all wheeling about, not only quitted their post, but galloped forward to seek a refuge in the highest mountains. By their retreat the archers and slingers, being left destitute and defenseless, were all cut to pieces. The cohorts, pursuing their success, wheeled about upon Pompey's left wing, while his infantry still continued to make battle, and attacked them in the rear.
This is fully consistent with my view that although Cohorts were administatively separate units, which could be attached, detached or relocated for strategic or logistic purposes separately from their parent legion, in battle they were grouped together into battlegroups and it is these larger groups that were the manoeuvre elements.
IIRC there is exactly 1 case where we have a single cohort operating independently in a FoG scale battle - one of Sulla's battles I think - and a few cases of pairs of cohortes.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
- Location: Sydney
"....however roles were differentiated in battle so we do not give close combat troops sling ability" p51 "Blood and Gold"
A very questionable conclusion to draw and one I suspect is based on Oviedo's description of an Inca army (Unless there is conclusive evidence I am not aware of, which is entirely possible)
Also other sources would suggest that Inca's of all rank considered the Sling one of their primary ways of making war.
The illustrations of Poma (who had better access to actual Inca) show slingers mixed in with "assault" troops. Some of these illustrations depict kings and generals, other do not. Would a leader who wanted to show he was participating engage in the activity of a low ranking section of the army? Wouldn't other high ranking Inca be inclined to impersonate the leaders. A later source describes the Sapa Inca as having a bodyguard consisting of 5000 "Slingers".
Inca legend and ritual suggests the sling was perhaps their primary way of waging war. Again according to Poma when they wanted to wage "war" symbolically in ritual they did so mainly with slings (sometimes with incendiary missiles). In Inca legend the founding figure who was a great warrior was renowned primarily as a powerfull slinger. Inca stonework suggests that star clubs and slings were the main weapons for all members of society.
If this classification is in fact a game design one I would suggest it is an unnecessary one as giving Inca MF a sling would lift it from a third or fourth tier army to perhaps a second one. If Aztec (with all its other advantages such as IF and tons of elite/superior troops) can have a free Javelin then Inca having a sling should't be a problem.
This is something that should particulalry be considered for FOG R where the Inca are likely to be even worse due to their sudden total loss of manouverablility and inability to deply on flanks.
Martin
A very questionable conclusion to draw and one I suspect is based on Oviedo's description of an Inca army (Unless there is conclusive evidence I am not aware of, which is entirely possible)
If we followed the same logic with other weapons wouldn't there be Inca MF with sw only and others with LS not both. Are the "Pikemen" Canar warriors? Ovieda is a source from the time who actually travelled to the new world but he never saw an Inca army. What he says does not imply the slingers were formed up differently to the rest of the army (as LF).The weapons that were found, with which these people make war, and their way of fighting are these. At the front, come the slingers, who throw pebble stones with their slings, smooth, carved by hand, the shape of eggs and about as big, and these slingers carry shields that they make of thick wooden boards, very strong. They wear vests padded with cotton. Behind these come others armed with clubs and axes. The handles of the clubs are as long as an arm and a half and as thick as a horseman’s spear; the head that is set at the end of the club is of metal and is as thick as a fist, with five or six sharp points, each point as thick as a thumb; they wield them with two hands. The axes are of the same size and greater….Some of these axes and clubs are of gold and silver, carried by the leaders.
Behind these come others with small spears, which can be thrown like darts. In the rear guard come the pikemen…
Also other sources would suggest that Inca's of all rank considered the Sling one of their primary ways of making war.
The illustrations of Poma (who had better access to actual Inca) show slingers mixed in with "assault" troops. Some of these illustrations depict kings and generals, other do not. Would a leader who wanted to show he was participating engage in the activity of a low ranking section of the army? Wouldn't other high ranking Inca be inclined to impersonate the leaders. A later source describes the Sapa Inca as having a bodyguard consisting of 5000 "Slingers".
Inca legend and ritual suggests the sling was perhaps their primary way of waging war. Again according to Poma when they wanted to wage "war" symbolically in ritual they did so mainly with slings (sometimes with incendiary missiles). In Inca legend the founding figure who was a great warrior was renowned primarily as a powerfull slinger. Inca stonework suggests that star clubs and slings were the main weapons for all members of society.
If this classification is in fact a game design one I would suggest it is an unnecessary one as giving Inca MF a sling would lift it from a third or fourth tier army to perhaps a second one. If Aztec (with all its other advantages such as IF and tons of elite/superior troops) can have a free Javelin then Inca having a sling should't be a problem.
This is something that should particulalry be considered for FOG R where the Inca are likely to be even worse due to their sudden total loss of manouverablility and inability to deply on flanks.
Martin
-
- Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
- Location: Sydney
so nobody elso cares about the plight of the poor Inca? Sigh....
I'll just continue a conversation with myself then (too much time on my hands)
It is worth noting that if anything Oviedo seems to emphasise the "Heaviness" of the slingers eqipment. They are the only troops he specifically mentions as having strong shields and armour.
another source (Father Bernabé Cobo) says
Martin
I'll just continue a conversation with myself then (too much time on my hands)
It is worth noting that if anything Oviedo seems to emphasise the "Heaviness" of the slingers eqipment. They are the only troops he specifically mentions as having strong shields and armour.
another source (Father Bernabé Cobo) says
If it is too late for FOG A (and I hope it isn't) having sling in FOG R could perhaps be further justified by suggesting that Inca warriors who became reluctant to close with steel equipped, horse riding Spaniards reverted to slinging.They fought at a distance with slings made from wool or cabuya (hemp of that country), with which they were great marksmen. Almost everyone in the kingdom used them
Martin
-
- Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
- Location: Sydney
so for the current interpretation of slingers in the Inca list to be correct we would have to accept that:
1) A large proportion of those who carried sling in an Inca army made little to no use of it
2) Inca from Cuzco ("Veterans", ie superior) included no slingers at all
3) Those who did use sling in an Inca army all used a different formation to the rest of the army (ie LF rather than MF)
4) Those who used sling did not carry the same shields or wear the same padded armour that grants protected status to the rest of the army.
The evidence I have been able to find either contradicts these ideas or has nothing to say on them. No one else, either in the list or on-line, has suggested any evidence to support the lists interpretation.
There is perhaps some anachronistic thinking going on, ie when sling was used in earlier periods in european or asiatic armies it was generally in the hands of low grade LI skirmishers so the Inca's should be the same.
If there is some set of sources which supports the lists view on this I would love to hear about it.
Martin
1) A large proportion of those who carried sling in an Inca army made little to no use of it
2) Inca from Cuzco ("Veterans", ie superior) included no slingers at all
3) Those who did use sling in an Inca army all used a different formation to the rest of the army (ie LF rather than MF)
4) Those who used sling did not carry the same shields or wear the same padded armour that grants protected status to the rest of the army.
The evidence I have been able to find either contradicts these ideas or has nothing to say on them. No one else, either in the list or on-line, has suggested any evidence to support the lists interpretation.
There is perhaps some anachronistic thinking going on, ie when sling was used in earlier periods in european or asiatic armies it was generally in the hands of low grade LI skirmishers so the Inca's should be the same.
If there is some set of sources which supports the lists view on this I would love to hear about it.
Martin
-
- Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
- Location: Sydney
I dont know Mr Briggs but given his number of posts on here I assume he is probably following the forum (although with the number of FOG publications in the pipeline he may be too busy to reply).
On a slightly different topic...
Clearly this is not a "Historical" limit or there would be a connection between the number of spearmen and slingers in general, not just the poor ones. It is a restriction intended to prevent the Inca from padding out their army with numerous battlegroups of poor LF.
It was not felt necessary to do this to other armies in the same book (Mixtec can have 54 elements of poor LF without restriction) or armies in other books (Bosporan, a much stronger army in general, can also have 60 elements of poor LF). Only the Inca are apparently so powerfull they needs to have any "padding" taken away from them.
I can understand that 80 elements of poor Lf sling might be taking things too far but the current restriction makes it very unpaletable to have any at all (ie your already pretty bad militia speramen become even worse). Why not 16-80 elements of sling of which up to 48 can be poor or something similiar. This would be more consistent with what is allowed in other lists. If it was felt some connection needed to be maintained between the quality of the spearmen and the slingers something like "The number of BG of Ave LS can not exceed the number od AVE SL BG" would be more reasonable.
None of the changes I have suggested to the Inca list (giving the MF sl or removing/changing the limit on poor lf) would require a new list, just a mention in the amendments sheet. I hope both will be considered for FOG V2 and Fog R.
Martin
On a slightly different topic...
Why did the Inca need to cop this pretty uniquely restrictive limit on its poor LF?The number of battle groups of poor militia slingers cannot exceed the number of battle groups of poor militia spearmen
Clearly this is not a "Historical" limit or there would be a connection between the number of spearmen and slingers in general, not just the poor ones. It is a restriction intended to prevent the Inca from padding out their army with numerous battlegroups of poor LF.
It was not felt necessary to do this to other armies in the same book (Mixtec can have 54 elements of poor LF without restriction) or armies in other books (Bosporan, a much stronger army in general, can also have 60 elements of poor LF). Only the Inca are apparently so powerfull they needs to have any "padding" taken away from them.
I can understand that 80 elements of poor Lf sling might be taking things too far but the current restriction makes it very unpaletable to have any at all (ie your already pretty bad militia speramen become even worse). Why not 16-80 elements of sling of which up to 48 can be poor or something similiar. This would be more consistent with what is allowed in other lists. If it was felt some connection needed to be maintained between the quality of the spearmen and the slingers something like "The number of BG of Ave LS can not exceed the number od AVE SL BG" would be more reasonable.
None of the changes I have suggested to the Inca list (giving the MF sl or removing/changing the limit on poor lf) would require a new list, just a mention in the amendments sheet. I hope both will be considered for FOG V2 and Fog R.
Martin
FWIW I believe there is a growing concensus that poor LF are generally an issue and that we are likely to see some either go away, become much less valuable as padding or make this a non-issue in some other way. I would argue that restrictions like the one in the Inca list are the "right" way and that the other lists are the ones that are likely to get fixed.marty wrote:It was not felt necessary to do this to other armies in the same book (Mixtec can have 54 elements of poor LF without restriction) or armies in other books (Bosporan, a much stronger army in general, can also have 60 elements of poor LF). Only the Inca are apparently so powerfull they needs to have any "padding" taken away from them.
For the life of me I can't see why 84 BG's of Poor LF weren't allowed for the Inca's....ethan wrote:FWIW I believe there is a growing concensus that poor LF are generally an issue and that we are likely to see some either go away, become much less valuable as padding or make this a non-issue in some other way. I would argue that restrictions like the one in the Inca list are the "right" way and that the other lists are the ones that are likely to get fixed.marty wrote:It was not felt necessary to do this to other armies in the same book (Mixtec can have 54 elements of poor LF without restriction) or armies in other books (Bosporan, a much stronger army in general, can also have 60 elements of poor LF). Only the Inca are apparently so powerfull they needs to have any "padding" taken away from them.
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
- Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
- Location: Sydney
This may be but still leaves the Incas screwed compared to everyone else. The only list in 13 books where it was realised this could be a problem! It will take a lot of work to go through and "fix" all the other lists that have a lot of poor LF. Changes to the scoring and army break system could make it less of an issue but the Inca would still need to have the option of some poor slingers without making the rest of the army even worse than it already is.I would argue that restrictions like the one in the Inca list are the "right" way and that the other lists are the ones that are likely to get fixed.
Hyperbole and sarcasm aside if the rules and scoring system create a problem with having poor LF I'm sure the best solution is not to just pick out one (already really unappealing) list that has a lot of them and create an purely artificial restriction that only applies to it.For the life of me I can't see why 84 BG's of Poor LF weren't allowed for the Inca's....
Players would also be less tempted to stock up on masses of LF sling if the MF had a sling. What an elegant solution that would be

Martin
Why is it hyperbole? 4xTC, 84 x 4 Poor, LF, Sling. Exactly 800 pts.marty wrote:Hyperbole and sarcasm aside if the rules and scoring system create a problem with having poor LF I'm sure the best solution is not to just pick out one (already really unappealing) list that has a lot of them and create an purely artificial restriction that only applies to it.For the life of me I can't see why 84 BG's of Poor LF weren't allowed for the Inca's....
Somebody would take the LF option. That's the problem with allowing it as an option. Perhaps if we were all jolly good chaps and played the game in the right spirit then everybody would get along spiffingly. Ah, that sounds like the Ice Cream van does anybody want any Ices? They are delicious at this time of year.Players would also be less tempted to stock up on masses of LF sling if the MF had a sling. What an elegant solution that would beMartin
Unfortunately, gamers aren't like the Famous Five so we have to take liberty's with history.
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am
-
- Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
- Location: Sydney
I would be thrilled if the tons of LF sling option (poor or average) disappeared and the more usual (every other set of lists I've ever seen except DBM but who knows what they had there) Inca MF having sling option was brought in to play.
If any liberties are taken with history in "Blood and Gold" they are generally more of the "My thats a quite large shell necklace, protected I reckon" Variety. Except in Inca which cops two really brutally unfortunate "Interpretations". Was one of the list designers wronged By a Quecha speaking native of Peru?
Martin
If any liberties are taken with history in "Blood and Gold" they are generally more of the "My thats a quite large shell necklace, protected I reckon" Variety. Except in Inca which cops two really brutally unfortunate "Interpretations". Was one of the list designers wronged By a Quecha speaking native of Peru?
Martin
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Mehrunes wrote:@nikgaukroger
According to your proposed list, you think the Early German list doesn't need attention?
There is a really good thread in the PDL section in these forums about Early Germans, did you missed that one or do you disagree with the content?
The list is far from exhaustive - it was a quick and dirty exercise. We will look at all the stuff in the PDL forum.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3070
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
Incas
Have just re-entered this thread and I see there is some Inca material - many thanks Marty. This is a list that Richard took the lead on so i will need to defer the answers to him. However, I can have a stab from my recollection of the discussions at the time.
With regard to the proportions of militia slingers this is partly game balance; huge numbers of very cheap skirmisher BGs seemed to need a downside. It's also partly that the armies seemed to have a balance of missiles and close combat; so we wanted to encourage that. Inca armies are still large.
In terms of whether the slings should be carried by the MF or not, I think Richard was swayed by the 'different battle roles' argument. There was also some concern that the sling would be (IIRC) a free add on in the rules. We had agonised over the Aztec atlatl for MF, and become happy that it was both historical and limited in effect. There was a little less evidence it was felt for integral slings and the 4MU range would have had more of an impact, particularly on HF trying to close taking several volleys.
With regard to the balance of superiors in the B+G lists; it seems an advantage to have lots perhaps (discussions elsewhere) because superiors are more cost effective. A few tweaks of the rules and that could disappear.
With regard to the proportions of militia slingers this is partly game balance; huge numbers of very cheap skirmisher BGs seemed to need a downside. It's also partly that the armies seemed to have a balance of missiles and close combat; so we wanted to encourage that. Inca armies are still large.
In terms of whether the slings should be carried by the MF or not, I think Richard was swayed by the 'different battle roles' argument. There was also some concern that the sling would be (IIRC) a free add on in the rules. We had agonised over the Aztec atlatl for MF, and become happy that it was both historical and limited in effect. There was a little less evidence it was felt for integral slings and the 4MU range would have had more of an impact, particularly on HF trying to close taking several volleys.
With regard to the balance of superiors in the B+G lists; it seems an advantage to have lots perhaps (discussions elsewhere) because superiors are more cost effective. A few tweaks of the rules and that could disappear.