Slitherine

I'd be looking for something that would make them a little better than their standard historical opponents in a straight one-on-one fight ?

If Vikings are essentially the same as every other army, why call the book "Wolves from The Sea" - Why not "Generic Unwashed European Men with Pointy Sticks"

madaxeman wrote:
I'd be looking for something that would make them a little better than their standard historical opponents in a straight one-on-one fight ?

A lot of their opponents will be worse than them - the foot at least, dismounted nobs will be able to match them. The Saxon infantry will be their toughest opponents.

theboyporter wrote:
If Vikings are essentially the same as every other army, why call the book "Wolves from The Sea" - Why not "Generic Unwashed European Men with Pointy Sticks"

I'd have been happy with that - I find the period desperately dull. However, Osprey have a department that thinks up silly titles so they have to be used

nikgaukroger wrote:
I'd have been happy with that - I find the period desperately dull. However, Osprey have a department that thinks up silly titles so they have to be used

Man, you got that right. And not just silly, also unimaginative, unoriginal, and painfully cliché. As in "We think everyone in our target demographic has the sensibilities of a randy 14-year old".

Not that there's anything wrong with being 14 and randy

Great period in my view although perhaps not tactically speaking (and FoG is about tactics and nothing else).

BTW possum my log hall isn't a draughty one, the food is good, the poetry passes the time and the mead and ale are excellent.

These fancy troop types like Norse beserkers (the famous tax collecting roving warbands of crazy norsemen) add far too much flavour and fun. Please remove them any army list, as accounts of battles where chieftains kept them in reserve and sent them into the weakest part of the shieldwall, are unfounded and obviously boring hollywood history, and don't mention it actually being fun. Because the whole dark age period is just plain boring compared to trolling message boards and arguing why there shouldn't be any mention of Thebans, or Pretorians for that matter, because we prefer vanilla wargaming.

They are probably intended for the last list book supplement - "Chrome Wars - All The Interesting, arguably ahistorical or too-small-to-represent bits We Left Out of All The Previous Lists But Which Wargamers Love"

Lycanthropic wrote:These fancy troop types like Norse beserkers (the famous tax collecting roving warbands of crazy norsemen) add far too much flavour and fun. Please remove them any army list, as accounts of battles where chieftains kept them in reserve and sent them into the weakest part of the shieldwall, are unfounded and obviously boring hollywood history, and don't mention it actually being fun.

The question is were the berserkers a significant body of troops or were they more like a small group of nutters? My understanding is that they were small in numbers and 20 was a large number of them.

To look at the example you give I would consier that as a general, possibly inspirational moving along with a small group of berserkers to a part of the shieldwall that is wavering (disrupted) and steadying it (bolstering).

Perhaps the place for berserker figures is on the same base as the generals?

In a much older st of rule you used to see Viking armies led in by tiny 6 figure wedges of berserkers wielding two swords and with no regard for their life. The problem was that these tiny wedges still represented a group of 120 berserkers.

Sad as it is I can't see a place for complete BGs of them

hammy wrote:
The question is were the berserkers a significant body of troops or were they more like a small group of nutters? My understanding is that they were small in numbers and 20 was a large number of them.

To look at the example you give I would consier that as a general, possibly inspirational moving along with a small group of berserkers to a part of the shieldwall that is wavering (disrupted) and steadying it (bolstering).

Perhaps the place for berserker figures is on the same base as the generals?

In a much older st of rule you used to see Viking armies led in by tiny 6 figure wedges of berserkers wielding two swords and with no regard for their life. The problem was that these tiny wedges still represented a group of 120 berserkers.

Sad as it is I can't see a place for complete BGs of them

I tend to agree that they can only be reasonably represented as part of a general's bodyguard on his base.

One approach I would consider doing for a scenario would be to allow 2 base groups of berserkers to operate similarly to scythe chariots. Maybe move as MF and use scythe chariot combat factors and die modifiers. I think this would add the right psychological factor that a small group of berserkers might have in a battle. I'd allow them to interpenetrate with friendly HF in order to represent them possibly detaching from a shield wall to irresistably charge in. I could see allowing one group per general or maybe one per IC or FC (on the assumption that TC's are too low a level to merit their own following of berserkers).

batesmotel wrote:I could see allowing one group per general or maybe one per IC or FC (on the assumption that TC's are too low a level to merit their own following of berserkers).

I thought a TC could also represent a very prestigious general (a CiC, in fact) who was a bit of a schlemiel.

I knew a Randy in basic training way back when, but probably not the same thing
.

possum wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:
I'd have been happy with that - I find the period desperately dull. However, Osprey have a department that thinks up silly titles so they have to be used

Man, you got that right. And not just silly, also unimaginative, unoriginal, and painfully cliché. As in "We think everyone in our target demographic has the sensibilities of a randy 14-year old".

Not that there's anything wrong with being 14 and randy

possum wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:
I'd have been happy with that - I find the period desperately dull. However, Osprey have a department that thinks up silly titles so they have to be used

Man, you got that right. And not just silly, also unimaginative, unoriginal, and painfully cliché. As in "We think everyone in our target demographic has the sensibilities of a randy 14-year old".

Not that there's anything wrong with being 14 and randy

I dunno "Wolves from the Sea" sounds a bit Robert E Howard-ish, and I still have a soft spot for that sort of thing. That's one of the better titles.

Smackyderm wrote:

batesmotel wrote:I could see allowing one group per general or maybe one per IC or FC (on the assumption that TC's are too low a level to merit their own following of berserkers).

I thought a TC could also represent a very prestigious general (a CiC, in fact) who was a bit of a schlemiel.

Good point. Since I'd be treating berserkers this way for a scenario only, then I would really decide how many groups of expendable berserkers to include based on what I wanted to achieve in the scenario overall.

Hello all,

As I wait patiently to rebase all of my Vikings and Normans for the new book, I have been reading this forum. I found this link while looking for pictures.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/skyelander/intro15.html

It is a very good online read. Not sure if the Viling part is going to be finished but, if you go to this websites home page there is a very good Celtic online book which appears to be complete.

Enjoy

<BRIAN>

possum wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with being 14 and randy

Reminds me of the owner of Aston Villa & the Cleveland Browns, the superbly named Randy Learner !

I vote the book is renamed "Spartans from the Sea".
Madness? THIS IS NORSCA!!

Lycanthropic wrote:I vote the book is renamed "Spartans from the Sea".
Madness? THIS IS NORSCA!!

Right and you can have him jump kicking some guy off the boat and onto the horn of a narwhal.

Actually, that would be a great way to model your camp.

Hope to get some answers of some question about the Viking list...

Huscarls: are they Armourd and Supperior? Off. Spears or Heavy Weapon? BG zize? How many BG

Are they any separatly deployd archers? MF/LF or just the option to support Huscarls/bondi units with LF

Any Woulfnaherds?

any Mercenary Jormsvikings? if so are they MF/HF, Supperior/Elit Drilled/undrilled etc?

Thanks for your help

Dalauppror

could some of the infantry be classed as MF off spears ? just a question

tamerlane wrote:

marty wrote: I would be interested to hear what those with a more detailed knowledge of the Vikings think about this (I used the because they seemed sorta cool, rather than because I had any great knowledge in the area)

Martin

Brother dear, I know that you use them because you look more like a viking than anyone else I know. But then I come second.

Well, this pretty much answers who YOU two are!

Ian