Slitherine

As a newcomer I would be interested in attitudes to this.....

I think my attitude to ahistorical games is different with FoG than it was with DBM. In DBM I would happily play anyhting against anything, it was after all just a game. With FoG I prefer at the very least contemporary opponents and have actually considered not attending some tournaments because they are open rather than themed.

Could depend on what you mean by the same time period ...

I would vote for all three.

I end up fighting Roman armies that are from later time periods than my own armies a lot of times, even did Indo-Greek versus Ancient Spanish today. Not sure who invaded whom but it appears there was a massive earthquake and much of Europe sank into the Med... and black sea... and

Blathergut and I play against each other he has Spanish and Romans and I have Selucid, Bactrians, Indo-Greek and soon Kushan with Classic Indian under way. Suppose I could have picked a more Romanish type of enemy army to build but these are what caught my eye.

I'll run Mid-Republicans next time! Elite spears mit der Pergamene ally!!!

Though given the Bactrian-Greek, Indo-Greek, Kushan dates, they could have fought just about any period Roman army!!

I prefer playing within a theme but, if I've got the chance, I'll play anything rather than nothing.

I have no problems with facing orcs or skeletons, this hobby is small enough without being exclusive.

I would vote for the first and third option. Historically matched games are always the most interesting. However, just playing FoG as a game without historical context works for me too.

We always pick a book and each bring an army from that book, so we generally get games that are more or less historically feasible. If we were going to use the Far East book I think we'd pick a date also, as this covers a much wider time period than the other books. In a tournament I'd prefer themed games, but I realise that sometimes this isn't possible and you then get ahistorical match-ups. But I prefer historical, or at least historically feasible match-ups.

Any of them are fine for me really. I don't view 2 and 3 as all that different as for one of the great things about wargaming is the "what if?" type scenarios. What if Alex the Pretty Good didn't die and instead tried to conquer Rome? That sort of thing.

I think FoG is less attractice for the "anything goes" type fights than DBM - largely because of a greater dispersion in toop types, but that can be fun as well.

As I presume you are working on a points basis, then the whole situation is already rather artificial in any case. Arguably one of the biggest problems can exist within historical matchups, where an army of cheap troops (Medieval Irish or Welsh, say) can legitmately be fielded against something like Ilkhanid Mongol or Burgundian, which is of course a problem given that historically Mongol/Burgundian armies were invariably much larger than Welsh or Irish (which won't be the case on your table).

Please note that I'm not criticising games like the above, just noting that even your 'Pure' game isn't that close to reality, unless you happen to have quite equal armies/economies etc. Widening the field to Nubian vs WoTR just exacerbates the problem, as does having most classical or Chinese armies against tupi, east coast iroquis or Teutonic order.

So any points-based game is just that, it isn't a simulation, though it may be close in a few instances.

In general I prefer games between historical opponents and I voted for that option, but that doesn't mean I won't play or enjoy the other cases as well.

Chris

azrael86 wrote: Arguably one of the biggest problems can exist within historical matchups, where an army of cheap troops (Medieval Irish or Welsh, say) can legitmately be fielded against something like Ilkhanid Mongol or Burgundian, which is of course a problem given that historically Mongol/Burgundian armies were invariably much larger than Welsh or Irish (which won't be the case on your table).

How is Medieval Welsh vs Mongols a historical match-up ? My history knowledge isn't as good as a lot of peoples on here, but I'm sure I'd remember reading if the Mongols made it that far west !

azrael86 wrote:So any points-based game is just that, it isn't a simulation, though it may be close in a few instances.

Actually a historical equal points game should give a battle very close to reality. Opposing generals would not give battle if they were heavily outnumbered (unless forced to by the circumstances) so most ancient battles would be between similar "points" armies. As we don't know the exact OOBs for many ancient battles, an equal points match-up is as good as any way of determining the make-up of the opposing armies.

Polkovnik wrote:
How is Medieval Welsh vs Mongols a historical match-up ? My history knowledge isn't as good as a lot of peoples on here, but I'm sure I'd remember reading if the Mongols made it that far west !

That would be the alternate reality where the Khan didn't die....

Anyway, the point is just as valid for Medieval French, who made it to Britain....

Polkovnik wrote: Actually a historical equal points game should give a battle very close to reality. Opposing generals would not give battle if they were heavily outnumbered (unless forced to by the circumstances) so most ancient battles would be between similar "points" armies.

You mean like Poitiers and Agincourt? Or perhaps Mohi?

Polkovnik wrote: As we don't know the exact OOBs for many ancient battles, an equal points match-up is as good as any way of determining the make-up of the opposing armies.

Because we don't know everything we should make it all up?

I'm with Chris, Lawrence and (to a lsser extent) Graham. All my games of FoG have been with armies that were roughly of the same time historically +- 150 years and most cases actual opponents but more interested in gatting a game than being focussed on the narrow historical bounds.

That said I can be purist about piping and lace on Seven Years War Prussian Infantry...

I have voted for historical oponents that actually did fight one against each other. To me it is very disapointing watching games between Chinese and Aztecs, for example. When we get to that point I wonder if we are playing a game of simulation of historical battles or a new evolution of chess. Obviously, I don't mind if people do and I welcome the idea of new tournaments that spread the game, but I wouldn't. And I think that the main problem of DBM (DBA) and maybe FoG in the future is that it is a game that evolves more (in my opinion DBM did) to fulfill the demands from people playing it actively in tournaments than people trying to recreate historical battles.

Strategos69 wrote:I have voted for historical oponents that actually did fight one against each other. To me it is very disapointing watching games between Chinese and Aztecs, for example. When we get to that point I wonder if we are playing a game of simulation of historical battles or a new evolution of chess. Obviously, I don't mind if people do and I welcome the idea of new tournaments that spread the game, but I wouldn't. And I think that the main problem of DBM (DBA) and maybe FoG in the future is that it is a game that evolves more (in my opinion DBM did) to fulfill the demands from people playing it actively in tournaments than people trying to recreate historical battles.

The market, let me show you it.

Spike

Although the rules will support the likes of Sumerian vs Ottomann et al, IIRC it has been explicitly stated (in this forum) that soem listing decisions have been taken on classifications based upon performance within a book. That is to say that, unlike previous rulesets troop classifications AREN'T global.

For example, it has already been noted that 'Heavily Armoured Knights' are generally available from 1150, and the rules don't give an advantage that you might expect to 15th century knights (in plate, with barding) fighting 12th century ones (in chain).

Similarly an early Greek Hoplite wearing a cuirass with a large shield and helmet is defined as Armoured, but a medieval footsoldier with far better armour (say a swiss halberdier in half-plate, or a mercenary crossbowman in light chain with pavise) is often classed as protected.

I find playing historical opponents is the most fun. In fact, I prefer to pick a date and stick to it.
The results are more meaningful, and you can often use historical tactics.

Alexander the Great vs Vlad Dracul does it really matter what the end result is? If you win or lose can you really claim anything? They lived almost 2000 years apart!
Often with ahistorical opponents one side or the other will not have appropriate troop types to deal with the opponent. The fighting systems won't "jive" and battles can get a little "gamey".
When in period -- you may not always get a good match up -- but the enemy won't be way out of your league and generally one has a counter for the other.
However some contemporary lists span large areas of time and geography and may have many options.
For example Mid republican roman covers more time than Pyrrhos's list so the army a roman player is most likely to take is not like the army Pyrrhos faced 3 times in Italy (all those armoured veteran Legions and elephants?)
So the Pyrrhos player has to face different problems than the real Pyrrhos did and it feels ahistorical.

But really, a game is a game ... I'll take what I can get.


(When I say "gamey" I mean players using the charts and tables to find a win, as opposed to players using the rulebook to resolve the battles they are playing -- nothing morally wrong with that, but it takes you out of the generals shoes)