Slitherine

Odd little animals, huh? I like the flying one...

Notice their armor looks like culottes or something? I seriously doubt the Anglo-Saxons made their scale or chain (not sure which it would have been) with cute little shorts like that. If nothing else wouldn't it chafe old John Thomas something fierce?

How about those wussy little shoes and the hose? Don't you think they likely wore something more like tall boots? Why on earth would they wear shoes and risk turning an ankle? (edit - contrary to all common sense, I may be wrong about the shoes. Whoda thunk it?)

OK, aside from disparaging one of the art treasures of the western world, what am I doing here? I'm making the point that even this record, even this one panel of the Bayeaux, has obvious inconsistencies.

Nik is correct in saying that to totally disregard a piece of historical evidence on the basis of a few obvious inconsistencies is foolish. I over-stated my case in that regard, with my usual flamboyant hyperbole.

Back to Orderic Vitalis. Vitalis' work was based on that of William of Poitiers, who wrote what amounted to a eulogy of William. In the words of E.A. Freeman, "the work is disfigured by his constant spirit of violent partisanship."

So while Nik is totally correct in saying that it is foolish to "throw out the baby with the bathwater", it seems to me that all the available accounts are flawed in one regard or another. And all we can do is try to sort things out in a manner logically consistent with the few fixed points of knowledge we do have.

Oh, and that photo is in the public domain.

It was said that the Fyrd will be Offensive Spear, either Poor or Average. What will the Huscarls be like?

It seems worth noting that the Anglo-Saxons (apparently) didn't just charge immediately, they stood fast at first. And then they charged when the Normans retreated. And, here may be the key, Harold's two brothers charged with them. In game terms, that's not the troops getting out of hand with an unordered charge, is it? That sounds more like those two TC's led their troops down that hill, in which case it would be in game terms a player mistake, no?

I really hope that makes sense...

That sounds more like those two TC's led their troops down that hill, in which case it would be in game terms a player mistake, no?

No, it sounds like the TC's were not good enough for them to pass the test not to pursue.

philqw78 wrote:

That sounds more like those two TC's led their troops down that hill, in which case it would be in game terms a player mistake, no?

No, it sounds like the TC's were not good enough for them to pass the test not to pursue.

Ahhhhh, now there's a useful insight!

Thanks, Phil; I just hadn't thought of that.

So when that happens the TC's are carried along with the charge?

If there any chance this thread can turn back to the point?

OhReally wrote:If there any chance this thread can turn back to the point?

Apologies, sir. I am indeed guilty of sidetracking things badly.

If you look at the last bit of my post, though, we actually are circling back to the original issue. We are discussing what troop types the Saxons were, and getting back to that unordered charge issue, or at least I was trying to approach that issue again

But as far as trying to convince the authors to change the game mechanics, I doubt that's going anywhere.

possum wrote:

OhReally wrote:If there any chance this thread can turn back to the point?

Apologies, sir. I am indeed guilty of sidetracking things badly.

If you look at the last bit of my post, though, we actually are circling back to the original issue. We are discussing what troop types the Saxons were, and getting back to that unordered charge issue, or at least I was trying to approach that issue again

But as far as trying to convince the authors to change the game mechanics, I doubt that's going anywhere.

All we can do to contribute to the game is offer suggestions, and discuss why we think our changes would make the game better. In the end the developers will decide what they want in and don't want in.

Like any group of people who design a product though, I'm sure they looked at the finished product and said "wow, you know it might have been a little better if we did xy or z..." If we can help them think of what xy and z are I think we have a chance of collectively making the game better in future editions.

OhReally wrote:All we can do to contribute to the game is offer suggestions, and discuss why we think our changes would make the game better. In the end the developers will decide what they want in and don't want in.

Like any group of people who design a product though, I'm sure they looked at the finished product and said "wow, you know it might have been a little better if we did xy or z..." If we can help them think of what xy and z are I think we have a chance of collectively making the game better in future editions.

A good point of view to take.

Do bear in mind however that FoG did indeed have pushbacks ala many other rules in the early days of development and after a lot of thought they were removed. The complication that pushbacks introduce into the game are as bad as or worse than the complications resulting from Roman line relief, another casualty of the development process.

hammy wrote:

OhReally wrote:All we can do to contribute to the game is offer suggestions, and discuss why we think our changes would make the game better. In the end the developers will decide what they want in and don't want in.

Like any group of people who design a product though, I'm sure they looked at the finished product and said "wow, you know it might have been a little better if we did xy or z..." If we can help them think of what xy and z are I think we have a chance of collectively making the game better in future editions.

A good point of view to take.

Do bear in mind however that FoG did indeed have pushbacks ala many other rules in the early days of development and after a lot of thought they were removed. The complication that pushbacks introduce into the game are as bad as or worse than the complications resulting from Roman line relief, another casualty of the development process.

And personally, Hammy, I'm glad those two things were dropped.