Slitherine

OK, I've been a bit slow spotting this one.... I can't believe that no one else spotted it either

The Macedonian Thorakitai are classed as HF, even though they are normally MF and they have the MF icon.

IN DAG, they can be either MF or HF, but the icon should reflect your choice.

Deeter

OK, I know I'm going to regret this, and look stupid.....


I've checked most of the Greek-based DAG armies and I can't find any HF Theurakitai, only MF.

Go on, embarrass me, which army has the HF ones?

and just to try and salvage some pride.... the Macedonian's don't (which are the army in Cynoscephalae).... and it's not a DAG army

In the TT lists that have Thureophoroi and Thorakatai, there is always the option to get them as HF or MF, but they must all be classified the same in the army. This represents alternative interpretations of how the troops were used. I'm not sure why this option is not present in the DAG equivalents of the TT lists.

Chris

I have looked through the DAG database can find no HF Thorokitai or any such MF with a HF image.

It was a design decision to not allow HF Thorokitai in the DAG. In the printed lists where there is an all or none option, particularly across multiple troop types, then we have some times made a choice on the all or none to rationalize this. The idea is to keep the DAG simple and fun. So you can build an army quickly and get to playing quickly. We could not come up with a practical UI for all of the combinations in the lists so there are a small number of compromises between the TT lists and the DAG lists.

Keith
p.s. I have never wanted to buy HF Thorokitai so maybe I let that influence the decision!!!

keithmartinsmith wrote:I have looked through the DAG database can find no HF Thorokitai or any such MF with a HF image.

It was a design decision to not allow HF Thorokitai in the DAG. In the printed lists where there is an all or none option, particularly across multiple troop types, then we have some times made a choice on the all or none to rationalize this. The idea is to keep the DAG simple and fun. So you can build an army quickly and get to playing quickly. We could not come up with a practical UI for all of the combinations in the lists so there are a small number of compromises between the TT lists and the DAG lists.

Keith
p.s. I have never wanted to buy HF Thorokitai so maybe I let that influence the decision!!!

I generally prefer them as MF as well although could see HF being preferable for armies like Pergamene or Pontic that don't get a lot of other HF. Simplifying the DAG seems like a good reason to exclude them unless you can come up with a simple UI to do it. On the other hand, armoured drilled offensive spear armed HF are quite an effective troop type on the table top and on the PC.

Chris

So, can you confirm that the HF Thorokitai in Cynoscephalae is indeed an error and will be fixed in the next release?

Morbio wrote:So, can you confirm that the HF Thorokitai in Cynoscephalae is indeed an error and will be fixed in the next release?

I do not know Keith's intent for this. I believe there are also Pergamene HF Thureophoroi in the scenario, I would expect that these should be changed as well if the Macedonian Thorakatai is. Historically it is arguable whether HF or MF is a more accurate representation of how these troops actually fought. See viewtopic.php?t=15936 for more discussion of this issue from the FoG TT forums.

Chris

Please so not mix up the Historical battles and the DAG. When I create a historical battle I try to make it fit within the TT and DAG lists. At the same time the scenario creator tries to follow the troop type indicated in the source, so you can and will see all sorts of troops in the battles that are not in any DAG armies. Keith

I'm still slightly confused here, I don't understand if you are saying that it was meant to be HF even though there is no HF in the DAG lists?

If you are, don't have a problem with this, but I do think the icon should reflect the type of unit used. i.e. 3 soldiers for MF and 6(?) soldiers for HF.

Is the unit type/icon mismatch going to be corrected?

[quote="keithmartinsmith"]I have looked through the DAG database can find no HF Thorokitai or any such MF with a HF image.

Just to let you know keith I posted a couple of weeks ago about The Gallic Hill Tribes Lists (Early and Late) and got no reply.

The Gallic Lowland Allies in both lists say that the warriors are HF (Which is correct) but the icon shows them as MF.

batesmotel wrote:

Keith wrote:P.S. I have never wanted to buy HF Thorokitai so maybe I let that influence the decision!!!

I generally prefer them as MF as well although could see HF being preferable for armies like Pergamene or Pontic that don't get a lot of other HF. Simplifying the DAG seems like a good reason to exclude them unless you can come up with a simple UI to do it. On the other hand, armoured drilled offensive spear armed HF are quite an effective troop type on the table top and on the PC.

I must say that I was planning to use thureophoroi as HF in the TT Pontic army if I ever got around to painting it up in 15mm, and I probably would in FOG PC if given the option.

From a historical point of view, the TT list writers believe that HF is probably the more accurate representation for thureophoroi and thorakitoi, so I was rather sad not to have the option in the PC lists. Their battlefield role was to replace hoplites. When they needed to act as skirmishers, they went the whole hog and replaced (not supplemented) their thrusting spears with javelins, then acting as Protected LF (Euzonoi) for the whole of that battle.

This view is not universally held amongst experts in the field - Duncan Head still (I think) clings to the old interpretation of them as armed with both thrusting spears and javelins at the same time. Nik Gaukroger and I, who are ultimately responsible for the lists, are sold on Luke Ueda-Sarson's interpretation, as expounded in the following links:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... ates1.html

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... ates2.html