Slitherine

Think of them as commanded out musketeers after 1647 if it helps

ECW Changes.

Changes to Cornish option in Early English Civil War l.ist.

The Royalist army only had 4 Cornish regiments, I think allowing all the P&S to be Cornish is over the top, especially as in Cornwall these regiments fought with those from else where in the SW and central England. The wording should be more like:

Replace a maximum of Four Foot with Cornish Regiments. No other Foot may be used unless all four Cornish regiments are used.

Changes to all Royalist lists

Cavaliers should have the option of Impact Mounted, as well as Pistol, for Impact

benjones1211 wrote:ECW Changes.

Changes to Cornish option in Early English Civil War l.ist.

The Royalist army only had 4 Cornish regiments, I think allowing all the P&S to be Cornish is over the top, especially as in Cornwall these regiments fought with those from else where in the SW and central England. The wording should be more like:

Replace a maximum of Four Foot with Cornish Regiments. No other Foot may be used unless all four Cornish regiments are used.

IIRC when we drew up the list we were happy that there were occasions where only Cornish were involved or that it was plausible enough to not restrict. Which battles are you thinking of?

Changes to all Royalist lists

Cavaliers should have the option of Impact Mounted, as well as Pistol, for Impact

No.

Again long discussions on this when we drew up the lists. Charles was for this option but Richard and I weren't and I am still quite happy that we were right. (Pike & Shot has it but the computer game allows for other changes to be implemented that would be too complex for FoG:R but are handled automatically by the PC game)

Just as a general point we believe we have already identified the list changes that are need due to egregious errors (which is subjective I know) and/or effects of the proposed amendments* and are not looking to go further than that.

Whilst I don't want to stop people posting up on this please be aware that they are very unlikely to be considered (and may not get a reply).



* plus a couple I'm inserting as authors privilege Not all have been mentioned so there are a couple of minor treats waiting for you

* plus a couple I'm inserting as authors privilege Not all have been mentioned so there are a couple of minor treats waiting for you

Incas finally getting to use their slings!?

Martin

Or being told to sling their hook?

spedders wrote:In the Japanese list later option the firearms are classed as arquebus. I understand that although called this they were more akin to muskets in range.

There is quite a bit of variation over this period for guns that are called "arquebus" and "musket", and that's before we even get into the eastern variations. I've come to the conclusion that 2 categories really isn't sufficient... it penalizes a lot of the "late" arquebuses (which were marginally, if at all, smaller or less powerful than many late muskets) by lumping them into the same performance category as firearms used at the beginning of the Italian wars. But that's a question for a new ruleset or a major revision, IMO.

martymagnificent wrote:

Incas finally getting to use their slings!?

Hee hee... and don't I hear this one from our Inca player a lot. (Especially in light of the Aztec freebies)

Of course, one fundamental question I always had on this subject: Can a sling even actually be used in a formation that is also suitable for close combat?

One interesting thing is that the Inca actually do better in FOG R than in A. They are actually quite resilient. They still get speed-humped by armies with significant mounted but anyone running one of those "nothing but late European infantry" armies is in for a tough time.

Ever since V2 of Ancients came out they have become a complete joke in that period. At least they were manouverable in V1.

Martin

martymagnificent wrote:Ever since V2 of Ancients came out they have become a complete joke in that period. At least they were manouverable in V1.
Martin

Goes back further than that. They were garbage compared to their contemporaries in DBx too. Had some viability in WRG 7th, though...

I've come to the conclusion that there is a wargame rules imperative to insure that certain armies are always competitive, while those not on that list are a complete crapshoot. In the Bronze Age, the Assyrians will inevitably be competitive, even out of period, while the New Kingdom Egyptians will be average at best even in-period (or total crap if the author has a low enough opinion of 2-horse chariots). The Late Romans seem to generally rule the Classic period, Wars of the Roses the Late Medieval, etc. Although the Amerindian armies in general don't get a lot of benefit from this bias, it's clear that a lot more care is taken with the Aztec list than any of the others in that hemisphere.

Yeah they were stupidly good in WRG 7th. Played against them many time but didn't yet have the army myself.

I've come to the conclusion that there is a wargame rules imperative to insure that certain armies are always competitive, while those not on that list are a complete crapshoot. In the Bronze Age, the Assyrians will inevitably be competitive, even out of period, while the New Kingdom Egyptians will be average at best even in-period (or total crap if the author has a low enough opinion of 2-horse chariots). The Late Romans seem to generally rule the Classic period, Wars of the Roses the Late Medieval, etc. Although the Amerindian armies in general don't get a lot of benefit from this bias, it's clear that a lot more care is taken with the Aztec list than any of the others in that hemisphere.

It was hard not to come to the conclusion that there was some strange imperative to make them as uncompetitive in FOGA as possible. Still don't actually play it anymore so not really an issue. Now I just have to worry about how bad they are in ADLG (really bad) and FOGR (where it pretty much depends on how much mounted your opponent has)

Martin

martymagnificent wrote: It was hard not to come to the conclusion that there was some strange imperative to make them as uncompetitive in FOGA as possible.

Oh, I don't know. "Possible" covers quite a bit of damage... FOG-AM's treatment of the Incas smells more of "not giving a rat's arse" than actual malice. You want a ruleset where the list author must have actively detested the Incas (because I'm not certain it would have been possible to make them worse without actively trying), try DBR.

Still don't actually play it anymore so not really an issue.

This always seems sad to me. Given the time and effort it takes me to paint and prepare an army... there must be some set where they could find a home.

Now I just have to worry about how bad they are in ADLG (really bad) and FOGR (where it pretty much depends on how much mounted your opponent has)

In ADG, they may not be completely horrible in their own element (fighting Canari, Chanca, Chimu, Amazonians, or even Aztecs). IIRC, in FOG-R, they are marginally worse head to head against most of their neighbors.

Oh, I don't know. "Possible" covers quite a bit of damage... FOG-AM's treatment of the Incas smells more of "not giving a rat's arse" than actual malice. You want a ruleset where the list author must have actively detested the Incas (because I'm not certain it would have been possible to make them worse without actively trying), try DBR.

Possibly true but they really went out of their way to make the other armies in the book better than anyone reasonable would expect and in that context the classification of the Inca was very strange.

This always seems sad to me. Given the time and effort it takes me to paint and prepare an army... there must be some set where they could find a home

I was saying I have given up on FOGA for the moment, not the Inca. Although it doesn't really matter if they see the table much either, I have many, many armies. My disappointment with the classification of the Inca in FOGA plays no part of my current preference for ADLG. After all they don't get to use their slings there either and the list has nothing to recommend it even if you managed to find an "Americas" theme comp.

In ADG, they may not be completely horrible in their own element (fighting Canari, Chanca, Chimu, Amazonians, or even Aztecs). IIRC, in FOG-R, they are marginally worse head to head against most of their neighbors.

The closest I am likely to ever get to a historical match up in any set is Aztecs and most sets seem to make them similar to Inca but slightly better in a range of ways. I have found using Inca in FOGR against unhistorical opponents not too bad as long as they don't have much in the way of mounted with an impact ability.

Martin

So if sling range is dropping to 3", one less reason not to let Inca Warriors use their slings in FOGR! 1 dice per 2 at 3" range is not going to break anything. Even more galling if those armies with bow* on similar sorts of troops start getting it for free! BW* is even better than sling!!

Martin

At last we have sense on the Polish Hussars! Their battlefield behaviour should now reflect performance. The change for the French DH also seems highly reasonable. These both get my support.

One small change that doesn't seem to have been included - after 1686, Bavarians should also be allowed "Swedish feathers" @ 3 points a pop (there was a thread about this on here, in which I cited a contemporary German source describing them and how they were used in the field). Given that we have a 1688-1698 theme at Devizes, this could be important.