Eastern Lists - market research

[peterrjohnston]

I'd vote for two books as well. We will have many books for "western" ancients and medieval. To
scrunch everything east of the Indus from 3000BC to 1500AD into one book seems a great disservice really.

To be honest, like Marc, I'd have liked to see more list notes, but the style has been set now.

Rgds,
Peter

[expendablecinc]

That mights be fine for those passionate abotu the period but for non sinophiles perhaps the famous and thier opponents is fine.

If the end result of the proposed 9 horse nomad lists is that there are essentially 9 lists with the saem composition I woudl feel rippied off and I dont think the books will sell as well.

How are there 29 lists in a book? There are only abotu 15 or so arent there, with the rest being sundry allies.

Limiting it to 15 taking the common view approach and without having the knowledge of the various dynasties I'd say perhaps:

1 chariot period chinese army
3-4 later period chinese armies
1 korean army
1 samouri army (definitely no more than one list)
1-2 south east asian elephant/MF armies
3-4 nomad armies
any significant oddball armies that are quite different to anything else (eg tibetan)

A bit of creativity with the lists may permit one list to be possible for multiple armies like the various incarnations of the early successor list and the classical greek list.

Options and different troop numbers depending on the army might be able to be used to distinguish a Thai army from a Burmese one.

I thnk a minimum of 2 books for this topic. And if only 2 they should be larger than usual - I'd consider 3 normal sized ones reasonable.
The geographic area being covered and the time period is just too diverse to make one sensible book:
Do Japanese armies really have much in common with earlier Central Asian or Indian armies that they would have to be crammed together into a single volume?
I've lised below all of the DBM armies that would fall into the scope of the book(s) and my vote as to whether each is essential, desirable or could be ignored (until Lost Scrolls?):
Pre-vedic Indian: Ignorable
Hsia & Shang Chinese: ignorable
Early Northern Barbarians: ignorable
Vedic Indian: ignorable
Western Chou, Spring & Autumn Chinese: desirable
Early Hu: ignorable
Early Vietnamese: ignorable
Mountain Indian: ignorable
Warring States & Ch'in Chinese: essential
Ch'iang & Ti: ignorable
Tien & K'un-Ming: ignorable
Hsiung-Nu: desirable
Han Chinese: essential
Tamil Indian & Sinhalese: desirable
Hsien-Pi (Xianbei) etc: desirable
3 Kingdoms & Western Ts'in Chinese: essential
Paekche & Kaya Korean: desirable
Koguryo Korean: desirable
Silla Korean: desirable
Chinese North & South Dynasties: essential
Emishi: ignorable
Pre-samurai Japanese: desirable
Central Asian City States: desirable
Burmese: desirable
Hindu Indian: essential
Central Asian Turks (not Western): essential
Early Bulgar: desirable
Tibetan: desirable
Khazar: desirable
Sui & early T'ang Chinese: essential
Khmer & Cham: ignorable
Volga Bulgar: desirable
Nan-chao: ignorable
Arab Indian: desirable
Late T'ang & 5 dynasties Chinese: essential
Sha-to Turkish: desirable
Tribal Mongolian: desirable
Early Samurai: essential
Khitan-Laio: desirable
Koryo Korean: desirable
Medieval Vietnamese: desirable
Sung Chinese: essential
Hsi-Hsia: ignorable
Ghurid: desirable
Jurchen-Chin: desirable
Qara-Khitan: desirable
Mongol Conquest: essential
Later Muslim Indian: essential
Indonesian or malay: desirable
Siamese: desirable
Islamic persian: desirable
Yuan Chinese: essential
Jalayirid: desirable
Ming Chinese: essential
Yi Korean: desirable

I've probably missed some and there may be 1 or 2 I've lised that appear in other books (apologies for errors & omissions).
Some of the DBM lists could perhaps be combined but that there are some that should be split for clarity (particularly some of the Indian ones as Ethan observed). This is just to give a framework for consideration.
So I think there are 13 ignorable, 28 desirable & 14 essential in my judgement.

I think it is essential that in dealing with most of Asia you have pretty continuous coverage of Chinese dynasties, India and Japan and that the most important Central Asian empires are included.
The ones I consider ignorable are those where I think detailed historical resources and figures are less available. Some might consider my judgement harsh in the odd case.

While if you just stick to my essentials, you could have just 1 book I think that would be incredibly disappointing especially compared to the blanket coverage of European armies. It would make for a book pretty lacking in theme (date and geograhpoy range too wide).
I'd hope that almost all of my desirables would also end up being covered which would probably make for 35-45 lists : either 2 large or 3 normal sized books. You could look at one large book covering the Mongols & their enemies which would draw in the Japanese & SE Asian lists + LMI; one large one covering the T'ang Chinese period up to the Mongols which would draw in armies like the Tibetans, Turks, Arab Indian, CACS, 3 Korean Kingdoms (+ add some Indian armies like Hindu at a stretch) (perhaps Nan Chao if you don;t want to ignore them) & a (normal sized) book covering the earlier Eastern armies such as Ch'in, Han , 3 Kindoms, North & South Dynasties, Xiong Nu, western Chou + Shang or Vedic Indian if you didn't want to ignore them.

I'd buy all 3 books gladly
Dodgy

[madmike111]

I can't see more than one Asian based army lists being a commercial success. Interest in these types of armies is very limited. Maybe put out a single book covering the main armies of interest with the others being provided free on line. I might buy a single book in this case but no way would I bother getting 2 let alone 3.

[marco]

i will buy all the books available on this area of interest


it will be interesting to know from osprey the success of their book on this subject

(i buy all of them)

and two armies with elephant /mf is not enough for me

burmese
khmer
malay
vietnamese

4 essential armies

marco

[Quintus]

I can't see more than one Asian based army lists being a commercial success. Interest in these types of armies is very limited. Maybe put out a single book covering the main armies of interest with the others being provided free on line. I might buy a single book in this case but no way would I bother getting 2 let alone 3.

As someone has raised this subject (and the heading is market research) it is fair for me to mention that I won't be buying these books because I have no interest in Asian armies. (The most Western of the "Asiatic Early Successors" is about as Eastern as I can manage.) However it's good that there should be breadth and variety.

The Army Lists that I bought (Immortal Fire, Rise of Rome and Storm of Arrows) are a bit of a disappointment, as they don't cover regions and periods too well. As a brief guide they have their uses. If lists cover the Far East then I would suggest that the introduction or guide to each particular army is more detailed since Oriental history is quite unfamiliar (assuming of course that detailed information is available).

[Intothevalley]

I agree that more than one eastern book probably won't add up to commercial success, that's probably why they left the east until near the end (or perhaps the very end) of the publication list. This is a problem with the format of the lists - very nice to look at, and with coherent themes, but also a lot of investment for the publishers, so they'll probably want a good return. Other rulesets with a more plain text and chronological approach didn't have this problem as the less popular lists could be nestled in with those that were more popular. Still, each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, but the FoG way is almost certainly more attractive to newcomers.

Also, I assume I'm not alone in that I've bought all lists published so far, even though I'm not massively interested in some of them. I just like flicking through and seeing what's out there, and occasionally think 'I'd like to try those sometime, once I've finished the other 84 projects I'm working on'. It's also useful intelligence to see what your opponents might be bringing along!

[Draka]

It's kinda like the old question of the chicken and the egg ....

The East is not covered in most Western school history classes to any great extant, and the lack of English sources is a reflection of that. Thus when it comes time for wargamers to purchase, paint and develope tactical doctrine for their armies, the East is sadly lacking. Also as a result, it is harder to actually find good figures - and at least in my case, the figures I bought (25mm from Hinchcliffe) a few years back are now totally obsolete due to the latest discoveries and the data coming out of China. My Han Dynasty figures were put on the market at the same time as the finding of the terracotta army - which has stood all guesses as to the Warring States, Ch'in and early Han on its ear.

I want and will purchase a good, recent set of lists and hopefully the miniature manufacturers will follow. But the period and the vast extant of the Eastern military developement will not be served well by only a minimalist approach.

[nikgaukroger]

I can't see more than one Asian based army lists being a commercial success. Interest in these types of armies is very limited.

Interesting. My experience varies from yours obviously as nearly every gamer I know has at least one eastern army (and no, they're not all Samurai ) and possibly the most common question on list books I get asked is when will the eastern armies be covered. I'm very much a (competation) DBM background person so as you have a different experience could I ask what your is? Ta.

[madmike111]

"Interesting. My experience varies from yours obviously as nearly every gamer I know has at least one eastern army (and no, they're not all Samurai Laughing ) and possibly the most common question on list books I get asked is when will the eastern armies be covered. I'm very much a (competation) DBM background person so as you have a different experience could I ask what your is? Ta."

I still have my copy of 2nd edition WRG rules and most there after, I always hated DBM, thought it was a plague on ancients gaming so dropped out for a number of years. Only got back into ancients with DBMM but found that after about a dozen serious games the enjoyment level dropped each time, in the end each game felt like sitting an accounting exam.

My point was that while demand for European lists is strong I can't see 3 Asian lists being a commercial success. One option is to go the DBM army list style and cover each army on a single page, that way you could cover 40 lists in a single book.

[IrishBouzouki]

more Eastern...

Polynesian

even more Eastern...

Toltec "classical"
Toltec "successor"
Aztec
Tlaxcallan
Maya
Inca pre-conquest
Inca post-conquest

all absolutely essential!

(Malay, essential, really, c'mon...)

[hammy]

more Eastern...

Polynesian

even more Eastern...

Toltec "classical"
Toltec "successor"
Aztec
Tlaxcallan
Maya
Inca pre-conquest
Inca post-conquest

all absolutely essential!

(Malay, essential, really, c'mon...)

Malay would fit in an 'Eastern' book but all the others are New World armies and I think that there may be a seperate book planned for them.

Polynesian is a bit of an oddball one and I might propose it gets left out just to annoy Dave Madigan

[babyshark]

I can't see more than one Asian based army lists being a commercial success. Interest in these types of armies is very limited. Maybe put out a single book covering the main armies of interest with the others being provided free on line. I might buy a single book in this case but no way would I bother getting 2 let alone 3.

I disagree with the proposition that interest in eastern armies is limited. Even setting aside the question of interest, I expect that most of the FoG base will buy whatever books are published, if only to have a complete set for tournaments, etc. We can debate that all day, however, and get nowhere. I can say, with no fear of contradiction, that I will buy as many eastern army list books as are published.

Another point to consider is that FoG has set out to be a definitive game system for ancient and medieval warfare. To be credible that requires a detailed treatment of the eastern armies.

Marc

[Stuart]

Heian to Houjou shikken era (aka "Early") Samurai please.

[ethan]

Whatver route is chosen I think it is important to make sure you have solid lists for whatever armies are included. I would hope we would avoid having unnecessarily generic lists (when better could be done if only there was space) for armies that would preclude publishing "good" future lists.

[marty]

Are eastern armies really so unpopular that you couldn't sell enough copies of two books?Warrior comps in OZ have seen no shortage of a fair range of eastern armies. What I have read on line suggests they have also been popular in the US. Particularly popular have been samurai, Ming and Tang/10 independant states.

I field chin in 25mm and Shang in 15mm (i'm a chariot lover, the shang is normally fielded with 24 heavy chariots). I would personally be disappointed if Shang was considered "ignorable" (although I suppose I could alway filed it as Zhou).

I personally intend to but all the books that come out just for interests sake (although I probably have at least one army from every book anyway)

Martin

[philqw78]

disappointed if Shang was considered "ignorable"

...although I probably have at least one army from every book anyway

not nearly enough to be noticed

[timmy1]

I will be making a longer post about what should be in the 2 volumes (yes 2 volumes) and why at a later date. For the moment I will stick to commercial interests. Yes, these two volumes will probably sell less well than those to date, or, at least, less people who have purchased one or more of the 5 volumes to date will purchase these two volumes. At my club, for example, of the 20 or so WRG 6th/DBM/FoG players, all but 2 actively use one or more armies that would be covered by these lists.

If Slitherine/Osprey want to have a long term viable product, they need to reach out to a market that is wider than just DBM players, no matter the roots of the set. To do that will need as wide a possible series of entry points into FoG. Even if they only ship half as many units of these 2 volumes as they have for other books, someone whose interest is just covered by these might then pick up, say, Immortal Fire to get Classical Indian and on it goes. If my favourite army is Cham and it is excluded will I buy Fog? No, and a potential sale gone and no chance that they will ever pick up the other volumes to see what the themed opponents might be. Wargaming tends to be a hobby for well educated, middle class, English Speaking males, with some spare cash and leasure time. While historically these groups of people have been concentrated in Europe, North America, and the Antipodes (with some in Latin America), the past 15 years or so have seen dramatic cultural shifts. There are probably more English speaking graduates who hold Indian passports than the population of England, and many of them have worked in the west. If just 1% of the graduates have an interest in history, and just 1% of those buy the FoG rules and 2 army lists, we are talking about 5,000-7,500 new gamers and over 20,000 units shipped. China has less English speakers but probably a greater awareness of its own history. If FoG covers the whole of the far east in 1 volume, it risks missing out on this VERY potential market that may become significant in the longer term.

[nikgaukroger]

Whatver route is chosen I think it is important to make sure you have solid lists for whatever armies are included. I would hope we would avoid having unnecessarily generic lists (when better could be done if only there was space) for armies that would preclude publishing "good" future lists.

Ethan I think you are safe on that one. Whilst we're certainly trying to avoid unnecessary multiple lists - for example I never understood why DBM had separate Xiongnu and Xianbei lists as a combined list would work - we are also trying to make sure that necessary distinctions are made.

Doubt we'll always get it right (well I know we don't from existing books) but it gets our best shot.

[OhReally]

Ancient Thai and Burmese would make me a happy boy. Want to see the Indochina area see some love.

[IrishBouzouki]

I recognize the following is all just my own opinion, but I might not be the only one who thinks this way and, without getting into any flame wars or anything, it is a viewpoint that should be mentioned.

My honest and real opinion is that the "ancient and medieval wargames" world should end at the Volga, Indus and Sahara and anything outside that should be covered by a seperate set of rules with its own tournaments and not be mixed together.
And, actually, you could say the same for the era before (pick a data) c. 700-500 BC and again after (pick a date) c. 500-900 AD.

I think as a hobby we lost something all those years ago when the 6th ed lists came out and suddenly we had this plethora of armies from all over the world covering three thousand years of history and the Pharoahs started fighting the Yorkists and Lancastrians, or the Japanese fighting the Moors.

All that breadth is fine played on its own, but the comprimises made to fit it all in under one rule set and worse yet into the same open tournament environment are just a big turn off for me, and truthfully for a lot of people who are into those historical eras and play miniatures but look at ancients as something of a pariah for that very reason.