v2 Army Lists

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28288
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Incas

Post by rbodleyscott »

grahambriggs wrote:Have just re-entered this thread and I see there is some Inca material - many thanks Marty. This is a list that Richard took the lead on so i will need to defer the answers to him. However, I can have a stab from my recollection of the discussions at the time.

With regard to the proportions of militia slingers this is partly game balance; huge numbers of very cheap skirmisher BGs seemed to need a downside. It's also partly that the armies seemed to have a balance of missiles and close combat; so we wanted to encourage that. Inca armies are still large.

In terms of whether the slings should be carried by the MF or not, I think Richard was swayed by the 'different battle roles' argument. There was also some concern that the sling would be (IIRC) a free add on in the rules. We had agonised over the Aztec atlatl for MF, and become happy that it was both historical and limited in effect. There was a little less evidence it was felt for integral slings and the 4MU range would have had more of an impact, particularly on HF trying to close taking several volleys.

With regard to the balance of superiors in the B+G lists; it seems an advantage to have lots perhaps (discussions elsewhere) because superiors are more cost effective. A few tweaks of the rules and that could disappear.
What he said.
spikemesq
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:18 am

Post by spikemesq »

dave_r wrote: Somebody would take the LF option. That's the problem with allowing it as an option. Perhaps if we were all jolly good chaps and played the game in the right spirit then everybody would get along spiffingly. Ah, that sounds like the Ice Cream van does anybody want any Ices? They are delicious at this time of year.

Unfortunately, gamers aren't like the Famous Five so we have to take liberty's with history.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Dave Ruddock, a/k/a "Why We Cannot Have Nice Things."
dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3857
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r »

peterrjohnston wrote:
dave_r wrote: Unfortunately, gamers aren't like the Famous Five so we have to take liberty's with history.
Damn liberty and her possessive relationship with history!
If I want to take Liberty then I want to be damned sure i'm finished before history gets started.

History always muddies the waters...
Evaluator of Supremacy
marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Post by marty »

huge numbers of very cheap skirmisher BGs seemed to need a downside.
I do feel the list would work better if the "Huge numbers" were simply limited to what is present in other lists (ie 50 or 60 elements). The Inca seem to get a different (and much more restrictive) approach on this to everyone else.
There was a little less evidence it was felt for integral slings and the 4MU range would have had more of an impact, particularly on HF trying to close taking several volleys.
It is perhaps a decision that could have gone either way (although I feel it is taking a pretty unkind view of the evidence). It just seems that in every instance in B and G, but this one, the list writers went for generosity. I think perhaps you consider the sling more effective than it would actually be (perhaps recollections of 7th edition Inca supertroops). It is still only 1 dice per element front (unlikely to trouble generally large Hf battlegroups). Also from a historical point of view the interaction with HF is unimportant as the Inca never encountered any. If IF/SW, Jav is not a problem (for one point more) or looking further afield if armies that also include effective mounted arms can have troop types like Drilled average Mf BW LS (for the same point cost), then Inca MF with sling shouldn't trouble anyone.

Its a shame that one of the two great superpowers of the Americas and one of the few lists it is possible to get figures for from several manufacturers is such a dud. I know the armies of this region are never going to be the best (nor should they be) but I feel the attempt made by the list writers to make them as good as possible was the right way to go. I just dont understand why the Inca were the exception. Only 5 armies from B and G have appeared in competition and Aztec (with its free shooting capability) has been used more than all the others put together.

Thank you for taking the time to reply

Martin
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

marty wrote:
huge numbers of very cheap skirmisher BGs seemed to need a downside.
I do feel the list would work better if the "Huge numbers" were simply limited to what is present in other lists (ie 50 or 60 elements). The Inca seem to get a different (and much more restrictive) approach on this to everyone else.
There was a little less evidence it was felt for integral slings and the 4MU range would have had more of an impact, particularly on HF trying to close taking several volleys.
It is perhaps a decision that could have gone either way (although I feel it is taking a pretty unkind view of the evidence). It just seems that in every instance in B and G, but this one, the list writers went for generosity. I think perhaps you consider the sling more effective than it would actually be (perhaps recollections of 7th edition Inca supertroops). It is still only 1 dice per element front (unlikely to trouble generally large Hf battlegroups). Also from a historical point of view the interaction with HF is unimportant as the Inca never encountered any. If IF/SW, Jav is not a problem (for one point more) or looking further afield if armies that also include effective mounted arms can have troop types like Drilled average Mf BW LS (for the same point cost), then Inca MF with sling shouldn't trouble anyone.

Its a shame that one of the two great superpowers of the Americas and one of the few lists it is possible to get figures for from several manufacturers is such a dud. I know the armies of this region are never going to be the best (nor should they be) but I feel the attempt made by the list writers to make them as good as possible was the right way to go. I just dont understand why the Inca were the exception. Only 5 armies from B and G have appeared in competition and Aztec (with its free shooting capability) has been used more than all the others put together.

Thank you for taking the time to reply

Martin
On the first point, there are not that many armies that can have 80 bases of cost effective 2 point troops. and even with the restriction, Inca armies are large.

The argument of some MF get "javelins" so why can't Incas have slings looks a close one. However, in shooting terms it is the same as LH with Javelins vs LH with bow. The latter is significantly more effective as it can shoot HF without being charged and can concentrate shooting more effectively.

I think part of the reason Aztec has been used more is that a number of people (myself included) had the army from DBM times - when it was a lovable dog. It is a decent army in FoG. There are a number of other B+G armies that are playable, including Inca (which I've played against) and the big Irregular mobs (I've played against Tupi and NW American). I'm a bit surprised that no-one has taken later Maya (decent army, figures avaiable) or Timucuan (good manouver army but would need to use other figures).
marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Post by marty »

Yeah the Mayan's and Timucuans both look good unfortunately I only have figures for Inca (as I suspect do quite a few others given how often it turned up under 7th edition and Warrior). Also the Inca's are rather more compelling from a historical interest point of view (apologies to any Floridians out there)

In fact the Timucuans are a good example of the classification gulf between Inca and everyone else in B and G (not just the Aztecs and their Javelin). An unknown number of Timucuans wore Pectorals=virtually unlimited numbers of protected troops. There are pictures of them stabbing people with arrows=LS for their archers. The list says
This may possibly justify Light Spear capability
And there are 48 elements of Bow/LS! Every single Inca Male never leaving home without a sling doesn't justify Sling capability though :roll: Its like there was a generous classification party and everyone got invited but the Inca!

I can handle using an army without much hope, I just bought almost 200 more Inca so I would be certain to have enough to be able to use the army in FOG R (and I shudder to think what that will be like). I just believe the current classification is most probably inconsistent with the way they actually fought and it is certainly inconsistent with the approach taken to handing out capabilities in the rest of the book.

Martin
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

You might imagine that there were some significant debates in the list writing team on such issues :)
lawrenceg
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Former British Empire

Post by lawrenceg »

marty wrote:
I would argue that restrictions like the one in the Inca list are the "right" way and that the other lists are the ones that are likely to get fixed.
This may be but still leaves the Incas screwed compared to everyone else. The only list in 13 books where it was realised this could be a problem! It will take a lot of work to go through and "fix" all the other lists that have a lot of poor LF. Changes to the scoring and army break system could make it less of an issue but the Inca would still need to have the option of some poor slingers without making the rest of the army even worse than it already is.
For the life of me I can't see why 84 BG's of Poor LF weren't allowed for the Inca's....
Hyperbole and sarcasm aside if the rules and scoring system create a problem with having poor LF I'm sure the best solution is not to just pick out one (already really unappealing) list that has a lot of them and create an purely artificial restriction that only applies to it.

Players would also be less tempted to stock up on masses of LF sling if the MF had a sling. What an elegant solution that would be :D

Martin
If you want to limit the number of BGs of poor LF then just force them to be in big BGs (8+).

On the question of giving slings to MF, perhaps if you made a rule change in FOG 2.0 so that it cost a point if a base has two or more "free" capabilities then that might make them less of a "super-troop".
Lawrence Greaves
rpayne
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:57 pm

Post by rpayne »

The points changes suggestion I posed in viewtopic.php?t=20976 would make slings cost a point, and sling-lightspear-sword cost one more point than current lightspear-sword, which could potentially fix your Inca issue.

Supposing you really do want them to shoot and just feel it's too cost effective. Slings are currently amazingly cost effective.
marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Post by marty »

On the question of giving slings to MF, perhaps if you made a rule change in FOG 2.0 so that it cost a point if a base has two or more "free" capabilities then that might make them less of a "super-troop".
An interesting proposal (perhaps an improvement on the current situation) but I feel it is probably unecessary. Even with sling they are certainly not super troops. After all we are talking about grafting a shooting capability less effective than bow* on to a troop classification (protected LS/SW) so unpopular (rightly so) that even though it appears in many lists it is virtually never seen. The 2 or 3 people in the world who are (fool?)hardy enough to select these guys have got bigger problems than worrying about some other LS/SW guys getting a sling for free.
You might imagine that there were some significant debates in the list writing team on such issues Smile
Perhaps these debates could be revisited for V2 and FOG R?

Martin
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

Way too late for FoG:R :o
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Post by marty »

Way too late for FoG:R Surprised
Oh crap, really, An errata perhaps? I'd hate to see the FOG R Incas as a "cant fight, cant shoot, cant manouver" army. At least they can manouver in FOG A!

As a final demonstration Inca with SL would not be a game balance issue in FOG A consider biblical mixed LS,SW/BW. These guys are identical in cost to Inca MF and operate almost exactly the same to how the Inca would be if they had SL. They have a very slight disadvantage in combat if they lose bases but this is more than compensated for by the extra range of their shooting and its ability to add dice at impact.

There have been no howls of outrage about these game breaking "super troops". In fact they are pretty thin on the ground.

Martin
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

I think they should get slings at a cost of 1pt per base for MF. Not a difficult change.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Post by marty »

I think they should get slings at a cost of 1pt per base for MF
BW only costs 1 point. For MF sling to be worth a point it would have to be much better than 1 per 2 bases at 4". If I continued the comparison with the biblical LS,SW/Bw units from my previous post Inca would now (with your proposal) cost more than them and produce an identical effect in most circumstances (if anything slightly worse).

If Inca could have SL but it cost a point I would perhaps take it because I feel it is the correct classification. It would, however, probably make it an even worse army. People aren't exactly queing up to spend a point giving foot BW* for example and sling is even more limited than that.
Not a difficult change.
Even easier to leave the points cost of SL alone and just modify two troops types in 1 list.

Martin
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

But they get a combination of impact, melee and missile weapon. Such a combination only Bw* and javelin armed BG get. They have a greater range than javelins and exactly the same effect as Bw*. 1 die per 2 bases and range of 4 MU. Mixed rank troops you refer to in biblical armies end up much worse in melee once the front ranks start to die, and their firepower is effectively little more as at long range they only get one dice per 2 bases, and only shoot with their rear rank. So your slingers have the same firepower up to 4 MU, but on an 4 base frontage the rear rank bow types will get 2 dice. Not a lot, as on an 8 base BG they cannot cause a test.
I would rather have the MF, Sl, LtSp, Sw than a mixed unit.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Post by marty »

Mixed rank troops you refer to in biblical armies end up much worse in melee once the front ranks start to die,
I did mention this but the loss of 1 POA in a single file of a unit already losing bases is really not that big a deal
I would rather have the MF, Sl, LtSp, Sw than a mixed unit.
I think you are forgetting the ability of the rear rank bw to chip in dice at impact. The Sl cant do this and it is this ability, more than the extra long range shooting, that makes the mixed unit at least an equal, and I would suggest better, buy.

Martin
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

So you think an ability exactly the same as Bw* should be free?
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

In fact it would be easier to change the definition of Bw* to include MF using slings and let the Incas be Bw*.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Lycanthropic
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:48 pm

Post by Lycanthropic »

Please consider a few things when you decide to make your sweeping nerfs to the FoG Lists.

Can you reasonably claim historical accuracy in one hand while claiming game balance in the other?

Incan Drilled MF Protected Sling, Light Spear, Swordsmen? Sounds accurate, looks broken, looks cheap and effective, looks a little too good. In BGs of 4? Now you're talking......and dreaming.

Avar cavalry Bw/Sw? The same cavalry that introduced the stirrup to the western world, that charged down Byzantines all the way home?

Viking shield walls that can withstand Knight charges in the open, the very troop type that signalled the end of the shieldwall?

Roman armies fielded by poor generals getting slaughtered to the man, and Roman armies fielded by brilliant generals conquering the world? Sounds accurate to me, better get your pens out and do something about that, how about Roman BGs in 6s? That'll stop them!

Teutonic Order lists with "no evidence to support light horse archers" - in an army that fought in the homeland of light horse, that was fighting light horse, conquering light horse tribes and running around chasing light horse? Not a single BG of coerced tribesmen? Mercenaries? Stinks. English and French Balkans crusaders anyone? Because in my spare time I like making up unfounded comments about Burgundian Pikemen fighting in Livonia.

I'm also sick of seeing "Not enough numbers to warrant a single BG", comments like this are right up there with "working as intended".
So what if there weren't enough Viking beserkers to warrant a BG in proportion to the Viking army, there weren't enough troops in some lists to warrant a single BG in the Viking horde.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

Lycanthropic wrote:Incan Drilled MF Protected Sling, Light Spear, Swordsmen? Sounds accurate, looks broken, looks cheap and effective, looks a little too good. In BGs of 4? Now you're talking......and dreaming.
Where did you get the BG of 4 from? Also how do the look so good. As Marty posted earlier the sling is only as good as Bw*, and nobody is rushing to buy Bw* to conquer the world with.

I agree with the bit about Vikings. They should have the chance of a BG of 2 bases MF Elite Undrilled Unprotected Hvy Wpn or Impact foot skilled sword
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”