Slitherine

Ghaznavid wrote:Great idea Tim, but honestly you got to much commercial crap on the page. Sorry but I can't imagine contributing to a page that virtually forces me to activate an add blocker before visiting it.

Well, hopefully the list of army-specific books, and the relevant ebay listings in the wiki are intended to be useful as well - and i do try to make them non repetitive as well, but if they are counterproductive I can turn them down a bit. Which bits do you feel are overly intrusive?

The answer is getting a bit lengthy and pretty off topic... I will mail it to you.

Hello all, new here.
I am not going to try to save the world or convince that everyone is right or wrong: I am a war-gamer "I came I saw I played"

And I try to enjoy as often as possible.
For decades I have enjoyed this role, as probably so do many, most, if not all of you. I have experienced many games and have been rather successful at most of them. These rules are a step in the right direction. I am new to this game so I am no expert: but I have spent too many years ripping apart army lists, etc. Many of the problems I have found so far have been answered in these forums. I so far have been focusing on the third army list book as I like the Greek period. One of the many things I test is creating nuances and cross-referencing them between several lists.

If you think the lists are similar then try creating identical lists using the rulebooks suggested points system. I have found from book three: Immortal Fire ( I cannot comment for the others: I have not experienced them as of yet) is that at 600 pts the lists do not create identical lists. At 800 points this is a little easier to achieve.

For those scrambling to check or invalidate this: remember create a style (theme) and try to replicate it with the similar armies.

Similar armies, same troops: not identical

Well done those of FOG

When I have read more from all of the products available my prognosis will be more informed.

One more thing about lists. For over twenty years I have been war-gaming and going to conventions, there is one over-riding discussion reoccurring more than others: these rules/lists do not represent historically...

I have never seen a convention tournament set-up for historical re-fights (partially or wholly). I guess there is a reason why points values exist, that lists need to be inclusive of variety, and that we war-gamers, the odd bunch that we are, wish, crave and necessitate that a brave select few create new ways for us to enjoy to re-sparkle our need to "charge in with the sword" from the relative safety of a few trusty dice, the sacred rule book, the trusty "lists" well mapped, and of course the diabolically fiendishly-clever never-failed (since that one time) plan.....


Play what you will, like what you want, as I said, FoG is a step in the very right direction....

....Well until it runs its course, we get bored with it and another comes up with a better system.

Two observations (no, three, four .. well, a bunch) about the replies I've gotten

One is, the defence to small BG's seems to be, ah but they are historical, which is (a) question-begging in regard to armies we have little evidence of, (b) extremely dubious when you consider medieval armies and their usual size, and (c) irrelevant anyway - what you are saying is, Classical armies get an advantage that they don't have to pay points for, without any reason why

Two, the defence to some armies having ludicrously overrestricted BGs (and I'm thinking specifically Arab Conquest here) is, well ... nothing, only a non-excuse as to why they couldn't have smaller ones (without frankly any particular sign of historical backing). I still don't see -any- reason why the Arabs are limited to 8 spear or 6 spear and 3 archers, and not (say) 10 or 12 spear, or 8 spear and 4 archers for instance (or why the Dailami in their list alone has to be a unit of 6, with no variance). This sort of over-precision seems ludicrous

Three, the reason offered to avoid some troop gradings that would actually be historically appropriate (e.g. armoured pike for Swiss/Landsknechts) is that they would be army-killers, which only says that the points system has been designed too arbitrarily and needs some revision - if the troop types are too cost-effective, push the price up until they are NOT too cost-effective: that's the whole point of -having- a points system, to balance cost to effectiveness.

Which reminds me, parenthetically, that generals would appear to still be underpriced - is there anyone who doesn't, pretty automatically, take 4 generals? or am I working in isolation here (and I'll admit that Arkansas is about as good as it gets for isolation, y'all)

I don't think I saw any particular reason why some of the other troop gradings weren't considered (e.g. there seems to be at least some evidence for Franks getting superior ratings for the chieftain's sworn men, and quite possibly armoured infantry for both them and the later visigoths, just offhand).

Last, a salute to the great Graham Briggs while I may - wish I could slip down to Reigate and get few painful lessons in FOG from you, it would improve my game immensely.

Well, now that you mention Graham, he always uses 4 generals. I believe they all died in his last game. Though I am normally happy with three now.

TheeMadone wrote:Hello all, new here.
I have never seen a convention tournament set-up for historical re-fights (partially or wholly). I guess there is a reason why points values exist, that lists need to be inclusive of variety, and that we war-gamers, the odd bunch that we are, wish, crave and necessitate that a brave select few create new ways for us to enjoy to re-sparkle our need to "charge in with the sword" from the relative safety of a few trusty dice, the sacred rule book, the trusty "lists" well mapped, and of course the diabolically fiendishly-clever never-failed (since that one time) plan.....

You may be interestred to know that it is possible to run a tournament based on historical refights and that this has been done in the past.

Essentially pick a number of historical battles, set the historical terrain, and provide the armies (or arrange for the relevant armies to be provided by the players). The battles need not be even points affairs and infact are better if they are not.

Players then play different battles against different opponents and you calculate a tournament score based on the relative performance of players in each battle.

To keep things as fair as possible you need to split your players into two groups so each group play the same opponents as it is nigh on impossible to run a tournament like this as a "Swiss" draw.

Having remembered this format again I might even see if I can arrange for one of the comps I run at either Games Expo or Game to be done along these lines.

Ghaznavid wrote:Great idea Tim, but honestly you got to much commercial crap on the page. Sorry but I can't imagine contributing to a page that virtually forces me to activate an add blocker before visiting it.

I have to agree here.

Sorry, bro, but a wiki is supposed to be a venue for sharing information freely, not a venue for one man to make money off the contributions of others. Your site is just too rampantly commercial for me to visit often or contribute to at all.

I know times are hard and money is tight. I lost my job 7 months ago and still haven't found another. Trust me, living on Top Ramen and peanutbutter sandwiches gets really freaking old after several months!!

But the ads need to go, I fear, before your site will gain wider acceptance.

firefalluk wrote:Two observations (no, three, four .. well, a bunch) about the replies I've gotten

One is, the defence to small BG's seems to be, ah but they are historical, which is (a) question-begging in regard to armies we have little evidence of, (b) extremely dubious when you consider medieval armies and their usual size, and (c) irrelevant anyway - what you are saying is, Classical armies get an advantage that they don't have to pay points for, without any reason why

Two, the defence to some armies having ludicrously overrestricted BGs (and I'm thinking specifically Arab Conquest here) is, well ... nothing, only a non-excuse as to why they couldn't have smaller ones (without frankly any particular sign of historical backing). I still don't see -any- reason why the Arabs are limited to 8 spear or 6 spear and 3 archers, and not (say) 10 or 12 spear, or 8 spear and 4 archers for instance (or why the Dailami in their list alone has to be a unit of 6, with no variance). This sort of over-precision seems ludicrous

Three, the reason offered to avoid some troop gradings that would actually be historically appropriate (e.g. armoured pike for Swiss/Landsknechts) is that they would be army-killers, which only says that the points system has been designed too arbitrarily and needs some revision - if the troop types are too cost-effective, push the price up until they are NOT too cost-effective: that's the whole point of -having- a points system, to balance cost to effectiveness.

Which reminds me, parenthetically, that generals would appear to still be underpriced - is there anyone who doesn't, pretty automatically, take 4 generals? or am I working in isolation here (and I'll admit that Arkansas is about as good as it gets for isolation, y'all)

I don't think I saw any particular reason why some of the other troop gradings weren't considered (e.g. there seems to be at least some evidence for Franks getting superior ratings for the chieftain's sworn men, and quite possibly armoured infantry for both them and the later visigoths, just offhand).

Last, a salute to the great Graham Briggs while I may - wish I could slip down to Reigate and get few painful lessons in FOG from you, it would improve my game immensely.

Mr Malthus you are, as ever, too kind.

Re all the battle group size stuff. I believe there is some historical justification for some armies - republican Roman for example - having small battle groups. However in the main I think battle groups have been done that way to give the right effect on the table, rather than a strictly arithmetic approach. It seems to produce a game that works well and gives a good historical feel.

In terms of generals it seems that either 3 or 4 are taken at 800 points. I take 4 as then I can put them with units of 8 bases and hence improve 32 bases. It all went wrong last time as 6 groups of 4 legionaries killed all my generals

possum wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote:Great idea Tim, but honestly you got to much commercial crap on the page. Sorry but I can't imagine contributing to a page that virtually forces me to activate an add blocker before visiting it.

I have to agree here.

Sorry, bro, but a wiki is supposed to be a venue for sharing information freely, not a venue for one man to make money off the contributions of others. Your site is just too rampantly commercial for me to visit often or contribute to at all.

I know times are hard and money is tight. I lost my job 7 months ago and still haven't found another. Trust me, living on Top Ramen and peanutbutter sandwiches gets really freaking old after several months!!

But the ads need to go, I fear, before your site will gain wider acceptance.

Well, I guess if my site appears to be "rampantly commercial" I must be doing something right .

Unfortunately there is no evil Madaxeman Lair where I sit in a bunker on a secret Carribean island stroking a fluffy white cat counting piles of cash (anyway, I'm allergic to cats ) Sorry to dissappoint you, but the FoG universe just doesn't generate enough traffic to give anyone a living out of online advertising! All the ads on my site only just about manage to cover my annual website hosting costs (lots of pictures = lots of bandwidth = reasonably high spec hosting package) and if there is any left, to maybe buy me a beer or two over the course of a year. To give you an idea, if I was using the ad revenue to pay myself for the time I put into the site I reckon I'd have to do the whole site in about 2 hours a year!

I recently added in the Amazon "Bestsellers" and the "whats on eBay now" bits into the site because I was worried that I wasn't updating the site that often - so now they are there it does mean there is always "new" content on the site every time someone visits, as the listings update automatically. To be honest, not many people are clicking the Amazon bestsellers links so I might well ditch them - and maybe if they dissappear it might be a good thing ?

EBay links are different - I know not everyone buys through it or uses it, but currently around 1 in 10 of all my visitors click an eBay link to go and look at something on eBay after visiting my site, and there are a number of people who have told me they have eBay blocked at work but who can access the listings on madaxeman.com, so those links at least seem to be appreciated by a good chunk of the visitors.

tim
www.madaxeman.com

grahambriggs wrote:
Re all the battle group size stuff. I believe there is some historical justification for some armies - republican Roman for example - having small battle groups. However in the main I think battle groups have been done that way to give the right effect on the table, rather than a strictly arithmetic approach. It seems to produce a game that works well and gives a good historical feel.

Nicely sums it up IMO.

If that is the answer, then you haven' read the question.

Chess gives a game that works quite well, and to say it gives a good historical feeling is to say, it fits your preconceptions well, and lets win the armies you perceive as deserving to win.

None of this answers my complaints, either specific nor generic.

I've given you answers - if you don't accept them there isn't a lot I can do about it.

I rather suspect that the concept/philosphy just doesn't match the approach you would have taken; which is fair enough - you can't please all of the people and all that.

Firefalluk stated:
Which reminds me, parenthetically, that generals would appear to still be underpriced - is there anyone who doesn't, pretty automatically, take 4 generals? or am I working in isolation here (and I'll admit that Arkansas is about as good as it gets for isolation, y'all)

I agree with Firefalluk, but in total disagreement.

Let me explain: Generals are an arbitary function of the game!!!

Therefore:

My first "thingy"

The first three generals should be FREE troop commanders as they seem to be the most common "basic"denominator

To upgrade them would cost the points differential to purchase them: 15 pts to make the CnC a field commander.

To purchase a fourth commander would cost its normal full points value.

what blasphamy I hear??

My second "thingy"

Historically (Oh gawd I've fallen into that nasty trap! Sorry!!) regardless of period, most armies had more than three or four generals on the field: Every troop type had 'em in some cases until communications improved in the modern era.
errk!! Digression!! Oh crap!!

Generals are the same for every one in FoG so there is no need to "charge" for the basic design (three) concept. These points are in truth "dead-zone points sinks"

Varying from this normalised view point will have a cost associated with it as it has an effect on the outcome

WHAT!!? There must be some foaming now from the traditionalists (haha)

My third "thingy"

What about only using two generals.

Wake up! stop being absurd!! You don't get points back with this idea. the game was designed with 3 or 4 generals in mind for a 600-800 point game!!

You want only two generals: use the same rule and play with 300-400 points instead!!

Or!!!

show that you are 'Alexander Reborn' and use only two free troop commanders and win every time!!

fourth "Thingy"

for the clever lawyer types with loop holes on their minds:

If you use only two generals and upgrade one, you still pay for the upgrade ( the lost general is lost)

No cross-dimensional discounting here!! its a real game!!

fifth "thingy"

its a repeat really, but really worth doing so.

Generals are the same in the game, regardless of army list, composition, design, type, etc.
The differences in the generals should be paid for above the most basic type.

If you find this a bit harsh of feel that the troop density (on the table) to points ratio is geeting too high (condensed) then try 3 free "troop" generals + 700pts (thats 805pts to the accountants)

I have tried 800 pts with this method and it works fine. It makes for much better playing when general (opps! pun) consistency is base lined to a minimum expected (reasonably practical) standard (sorry pun)

I still tend to use only three generals: its up to preference really

Last "thingy"

Humour

I have written this in a style to be some what light-hearted.
There is no attempt or intention for sarcasism, be-littlement, or disrespect

I felt that some jolliness needed to be represented more in this forum

Hehe, I hope some of youz raise the standard (opps another pun) also!!

Cheerz

I came I saw I Played

TheeMadone wrote: Humour

I have written this in a style to be some what light-hearted.
There is no attempt or intention for sarcasm, be-littlement, or disrespect

I felt that some jolliness needed to be represented more in this forum

Hehe, I hope some of youz raise the standard (opps another pun) also!!

Cheerz

I came I saw I Played

Props to ya, bro, mad props to ya!

I try to interject a little light-hearted humor around here from time to time, but I guess what passes for humor here in California just doesn't translate or something

I agree the discussion here gets waaaaaaaay too serious sometimes. The obsession with detail is hysterical; I laughed for a good 5 minutes over "the bowcase is wrong"

possum wrote:
I laughed for a good 5 minutes over "the bowcase is wrong"

They all do until they realise that the figures with the correct bowcases win ...

On the number of generals question I don't always take 4 generals. If I am playing doubles so 900 or 1000 points I always take 4. At 800 points I take 4 most but not all the time. At 650 points there is an argument to taking only 2, I haven't done it yet but I would consider it for the right army.

I often end up with a 'spare' general, I can't remember many games where I have had a 'spare' general all game but I can see how the game can be managed with fewer generals.

I tried using just 2 Generals in a 650 pt game a few weeks ago. I was using Navaresse, maxing the Knights. Plan was to just push a strong battle line. While 2 Generals worked well for the attack, I was really hurt not having a General to rally troops when needed.

Bill

Hey guys great to see such interest.......

Im not really THAT mad.....

Do parents lie?? (apart from santa?)

truth be known Im probably even crazier!!

I like all of your fief-backs!!! (puns are great!!)

Of course Nikgaukroger is right!! the most correct always wins: except for those all too frequent unfortunate times....

I have not seen "the bowcase is wrong" I'm a little busy (& lazy) to go hunting for it!! could someone be so kind to point me in the right direction????!?


I try to interject a little light-hearted humor around here from time to time, but I guess what passes for humor here in California just doesn't translate or something Razz

Hey 'possum:' two "thingys"

Im not sure where you are coming from with this: As far as I knew the rest of the world understood about California and humour all too well!!

Bahaha!!! With all of the entertainment (that passes for) news that comes from there most people I know have a good giggle over it regularly -all my best intents to you (big-as grin). welcome to the unofficial glee-club

I'm a Kiwi (that's from New Zealand rather than a small hairy fruit) -Hmm maybe both descriptions apply haha.

Just to let you know that Possums are a bit of a joke here in New Zealand: but more so in Australia where they are protected. In NZ we can't get rid of them. You can tell when there is a Kiwi staying in a Aussie hotel, possums start falling "all accident-like" off 7 story windows...

Now I'm telling you this for humour, by no means do you represent our most beloved of pests in NZ.

Hope to hear lots more from you matey!!


Back to the forum:

I expected a little more comments about the generals issue I proposed?

I was wondering what other people had to think about the points I raised?

Especially if they are exactly the same for all armies, why should anyone need to pay for their first three generals???

I considerate identical lost points in all lists!!

Opinions guys/ gals/ peoples??

I believe all three of my opponents at Fall In took 3 generals in their 800 point armies. I also had three.

I think the price for Field Commanders might be a little off. They seem to be very rarely ever taken.

TheeMadone wrote:I expected a little more comments about the generals issue I proposed?

I was wondering what other people had to think about the points I raised?

Especially if they are exactly the same for all armies, why should anyone need to pay for their first three generals???

I considerate identical lost points in all lists!!

Opinions guys/ gals/ peoples??

Greetings

The minimum required is two generals, of which one can be an ally general. The common base points are therefore actually 60 (CinC TC @35 and an ally TC @25). You could make these two 'free' but then to retain the same 'balance' as at present you would have to reduce the point total by the same amount so I am not sure there is any gain. If you don't reduce the point cost you probably have one additional BG in the force.

There is nothing to say that in a friendly game you need to use 650 or 800 etc points anyway and historical games will generally not use points in any event. So I am not sure this is all such a significant point.

Regards