Blood and Gold Rating Philosophy

[hazelbark]

One of the things that surprised.

Well first, I was surprised that I was more interested in the content in general than I suspected.

But the real surprise is how much superior foot is in there. (Of course not much superior mounted )

A large number of the armies can have shedloads of superior foot.

I figure the authors rightfully said no Armour, so to create variety injected a lot of superior. I am ok with that. The superior designation was handed out for hunting parties, veterans.

Over 170 bases for Mayans of superior troops!

But when I compare this generous usage of Superior to some of the early books I kind of would have like to see a touch more variety back then. I mean the Germans, Gauls, etc had to have at least as many foot "veterans" that should have been an eligible BG or 2 for upgrade.

Then compared with the Dragon armies, where Superior for foot is an extremely rare designation. It almost seems as if the rule authors had a different philosophy in creating these.

Again I am not arguing that Blood and Gold is "wrong" or that there are any super armies there. But there seems to be more of injecting a "fun" factor to make things interestings that perhaps should have been in the earlier books too.

[grahambriggs]

It wasn't a conscious decision to allow more superiors in some lists, it just seemed to work out that way.

For example in a lot of the early societies war seemed to be primarily a pursui of the nobles, and that was the reasoning that led to the early Mayan having a high percentage of superiors. Combine that with the fact that the bases are cheap points wise and the fact that you need enough bases in the maxima to make well over 1000 points and there you go.

The other thing to bear in mind is logistics. Many armies here relied on porters to move the supplies - some estimates suggest a third of the men in an army would be porters. So all those people aren't available to fight - hence thepercentage of lower grade warriors may be less in suh armies when compared to European armies with more efficient transport.

Graham

[timmy1]

Would have thought that the booty transport was quite easy - don't you make the sacrifice walk to the temple?

[eldiablito]

So, I am not a good player but I do love the local and time period.

If you are talking about the classical mayans, then we can besomewhat kind to them. After all they DIDsubjigate a healthy plot of land without too much trouble. Also, I do appreciate the fact that Aztecs are differentiated with more impact foot and TONS of Elites (gotta love those cuacheq berserkers).

I think that the main reason behind multiple superior options is to make the armies more distinct and varied. While my predictions of tons of impact foot/ light spear and javilins feels proper to me. Also, the addition of swordsmen make the lists more competative... I guess my big question is, "Are tons of medium foot with protected, javilins, swordsmen, and light spear (or impact) enough to play in an open environment?"

just adding to the discussion...

[hazelbark]

It wasn't a conscious decision to allow more superiors in some lists, it just seemed to work out that way.

I can see that but it points in my mind to a diffeent standard compared to the other rule books. More in seeing they FoG Lords allowed more imagination here, which is a good thing, but could have been used in some other rule books.

[PaulByzan]

And wy pray tell then are the Inca's who really had a serious army that was organized to fight real battles and win wars, so under represented in Superior troops as opposed to unserious armies out for "flower wars" and capturing captives for sacrifice? Just another example of unbalanced list development. The Byzantine Basileus sends a sympathy note to the Inca Monarch.

Paul G.

It wasn't a conscious decision to allow more superiors in some lists, it just seemed to work out that way.

For example in a lot of the early societies war seemed to be primarily a pursui of the nobles, and that was the reasoning that led to the early Mayan having a high percentage of superiors. Combine that with the fact that the bases are cheap points wise and the fact that you need enough bases in the maxima to make well over 1000 points and there you go.

The other thing to bear in mind is logistics. Many armies here relied on porters to move the supplies - some estimates suggest a third of the men in an army would be porters. So all those people aren't available to fight - hence thepercentage of lower grade warriors may be less in suh armies when compared to European armies with more efficient transport.

Graham

[rbodleyscott]

And why pray tell then are the Inca's who really had a serious army that was organized to fight real battles and win wars so under represented in Superior troops?

Because of their militia system and their amazingly poor record against tiny numbers of conquistadors.

(And before you compare them to the Aztecs, the Aztecs also had to contend with 10,000 allied Tlaxcalans).

Just another example of unbalanced list development.

There you go again Paul. Any chance you could adopt a less confrontational approach to list comments this time round?

[ethan]

I agree with hazelbark and also feel that the lists in B&G have a different feel. Many troops got not one but two freebies (light spear and javelins) and I believe a conscious effort to not make them "pants."

We appreciate that Javelins capability is free, but consider that that merely goes some way towards compensating for the disadvantages of an army list containing no mounted troops, no heavy foot and no Armour. This is particularly important as "Blood and Gold" theme tournaments are unlikely to occur very often (if at all), so they need to be viable in Open tournaments.

I just wish it had been extended to some other armies and periods, it has been done occasionally - the Ancient British getting a unit of Elite impact foot for example. I think things like Old or Middle Kingdom Egyptian (which might have been an interesting match-up with Aztecs, Incas, etc) have not much chance given how they were graded. Old Kingdom, Early Nubian, etc also have no armour, no heavy , and no mounted troops...Might have made for an interesting "Chariots of the Gods" tournament featuring the Armericans vs. Ancient Near East (and possibly Anicent China), but as it stands the Near Easterners will be slaughtered.

[nikgaukroger]

I just wish it had been extended to some other armies and periods, it has been done occasionally - the Ancient British getting a unit of Elite impact foot for example. I think things like Old or Middle Kingdom Egyptian (which might have been an interesting match-up with Aztecs, Incas, etc) have not much chance given how they were graded. Old Kingdom, Early Nubian, etc also have no armour, no heavy , and no mounted troops...Might have made for an interesting "Chariots of the Gods" tournament featuring the Armericans vs. Ancient Near East (and possibly Anicent China), but as it stands the Near Easterners will be slaughtered.

Old Kingdom came 6th= at Warfare in the Softer than Beagles comp turning over a Neo-Assyrian on the way. That along with the Ancient Brits coming 2nd in the IF/RoR comp and the Gauls doing fairly well (IIRC) reinforces my view that in FoG a lot of armies that appear outclassed on the face of it can actually be used effectively against the armies that should run them over. IMO in FoG most of the mis-matches are actually in the players minds.

[hammy]

Might have made for an interesting "Chariots of the Gods" tournament featuring the Armericans vs. Ancient Near East (and possibly Anicent China), but as it stands the Near Easterners will be slaughtered.

Well having taken a DBM style Early Libyan (LF javelin, MF bow and MF impact foot) to a tournament the other week and managed 1 losing draw , 3 good wining draws and 2 outright wins against 4 medieval armies, 1 Samurai and a Mongol I am not totally sure that it will be as one sided as you think.

I took this form of Libyans fully expecting to be battered senseless with 6 BGs of undrilled unprotected average MF but by the end of the weekend the army was really kicking butt.

[ethan]

Old Kingdom came 6th= at Warfare in the Softer than Beagles comp turning over a Neo-Assyrian on the way. That along with the Ancient Brits coming 2nd in the IF/RoR comp and the Gauls doing fairly well (IIRC) reinforces my view that in FoG a lot of armies that appear outclassed on the face of it can actually be used effectively against the armies that should run them over. IMO in FoG most of the mis-matches are actually in the players minds.

I don't want to denigrate anyone's performance, but we all know 6th can just as easily be a submarine spectacular...Also worth noting that the goal of B&G was to make them viable in an open, anyone fancy the OKE vs. Thracians?

[rbodleyscott]

I don't want to denigrate anyone's performance, but we all know 6th can just as easily be a submarine spectacular...

But in this case it wasn't.

Also worth noting that the goal of B&G was to make them viable in an open

Because they are unlikely to get many (any?) theme tournaments. The same is not true of StE which has had several theme tournaments in UK already. (Even if one of them did unaccountably include Alexandrian Macedonians).

, anyone fancy the OKE vs. Thracians?

Quite frankly, if OKE could hold their own on equal terms in open tournaments, it would merely bring Ancient wargaming into further disrepute amongst that large majority of (non-Ancient) wargamers who cannot abide the anachronism that has been the norm in Ancient Wargaming in the past.

[nikgaukroger]

I don't want to denigrate anyone's performance, but we all know 6th can just as easily be a submarine spectacular

That role was fulfilled by Mr Briggs (and his fine new hat ) who submarined his Akkadians into 4th place.

Greg Mann told me that submarining was known as "the Zorick manoeuvre" in Colchester ...

[hammy]

The list was:
<snip>

Interesting. Thanks.

I have played this list a couple of times in practice games against Pete (actually possibly about the only practice games he gets) and it is not a bad army. Very mobile with enough threats even if they are individually not that big that in the end it can overwhelm its opponents if they are not careful or decisive enough.

The fight on a 7' frontage is a good basis.

[ethan]

Greg Mann told me that submarining was known as "the Zorick manoeuvre" in Colchester ...

Better than thte Mann maneuver which just left your sub on the ocean floor...

[hazelbark]

Because they are unlikely to get many (any?) theme tournaments. The same is not true of StE which has had several theme tournaments in UK already. (Even if one of them did unaccountably include Alexandrian Macedonians).

, anyone fancy the OKE vs. Thracians?

Quite frankly, if OKE could hold their own on equal terms in open tournaments, it would merely bring Ancient wargaming into further disrepute amongst that large majority of (non-Ancient) wargamers who cannot abide the anachronism that has been the norm in Ancient Wargaming in the past.

I get your points. I am not arguing that B&G is wrong. It actually achieved the goal of being interesting, which may yield more events than you fear.

But I think it points out you perhaps were too constrained in adding spice to other army lists. I think it is a fair point and you should reflect on it when engineering the renaissance lists.

[PaulByzan]

Because of their militia system and their amazingly poor record against tiny numbers of conquistadors.

(And before you compare them to the Aztecs, the Aztecs also had to contend with 10,000 allied Tlaxcalans).

Granted, although the Inca problems may have been more a product of their inept leadership at the top, at least initially. In some sense the mid-Republican Romans were technically a militia system as well. But it's also true that the Aztecs had the same leadership problem at the beginning. And one might add had to contend with 10,000 highly motivated Tlaxcalans. I'm sure they had no illusions about what their fate would have been had the Aztecs won.

Just another example of unbalanced list development.

There you go again Paul. Any chance you could adopt a less confrontational approach to list comments this time round?

Hey, I used a smiley face. Anyway, I kind of liked the originality of a lot of the B&G lists, so wasn't really trying to be confrontational. I've always had a soft spot for the Incas vs the Aztecs (Never had much use for empires that are big on human sacrifice.) Despite this I think the Aztecs may be underrepresented with Superior compared to the Mayan list, but not a big deal.

Paul G.

[tupiboy]

Hi all,

I find it weird that there are 3 lists that apperently we know did not deploy veterens seperately
Am I the only one amused by the Timucuan list?
After the early talk are the Huaxtecs only in B & G as Central American allies for Aztecs & Tlaxcallens?

Cheers

Jason

[guthroth]

I don't like to be excessively picky, but an early reply in this discussion has me intrigued.

On the FOG Yahoo list I asked whether the B&G lists included Conquistadors. The reply was that they didn't because they came after 1500 = fair enough so far.

Now I see a rely here justifying a poor rating for Inca's based on their performance against these same 'Out Of Period' opponants.

This doesn't seem quite fair. Surely the Incas should have been rated against their period opponents ONLY when writing B&G ?

If their performance against Conquistadors is valid for B&G, then surely it would have been much better (fairer ?) to include the earliest Conquistadors in the B&G book



Pete

[rbodleyscott]

On the FOG Yahoo list I asked whether the B&G lists included Conquistadors. The reply was that they didn't because they came after 1500 = fair enough so far.

Now I see a reply here justifying a poor rating for Inca's based on their performance against these same 'Out Of Period' opponants.

This doesn't seem quite fair. Surely the Incas should have been rated against their period opponents ONLY when writing B&G ?

If their performance against Conquistadors is valid for B&G, then surely it would have been much better (fairer ?) to include the earliest Conquistadors in the B&G book

If we had ignored evidence from post-1500 B&G would have been a thin book indeed. It would have been insane not to extrapolate backwards when earlier evidence is so thin.

This really isn't an argument for including a Conquistador list.

The rules system ends in 1500, full stop. It really wouldn't be logical to include a list from a later period. (Which will, in any case, be covered by FOGR).

If you want to use FOGAM after 1500 there is nothing stopping you. You just have to work out your own Conquistador list. The points values are in the rule book.