Slitherine

Add a chapter with campaign rules. Special scenario rules. Siege rules. Naval rules. Night attacks. Special deployments. Multi-sided (more than 2) battles, deserting allies. Weather. River/desert/mountain crossings. Building fortifications, destroying them. Special rules for particular battles.

Or bring out a suplement.

Did the authors suggest this a long time ago? If they did its so long ago I can't remember, honest!

I voted no. I might actually buy it out of interest, but for me this is not a necessary item.

Also, has there ever been an actual historical 3 sided battle?

I totally support this idea. It could help to solve many of the problems of historical accuracy that we can see now in FoG. Indeed it can make your casual games more interesting.

Osprey published some time ago some books about modelling and I wonder how well they did in the market. I have seen FoG rulesets sold by book stores that did not sell miniatures (not hobby focused books stores). They had them because they expected to sell some, I guess. If the authors could be concerned about the sales, this kind of book can be thought in more general terms so that the public is broader.

ethan wrote:I voted no. I might actually buy it out of interest, but for me this is not a necessary item.

Also, has there ever been an actual historical 3 sided battle?

Who cares. Has there ever been a campaign where Tibetans fought Aztecs? But given some rules or ideas there will be one played.

philqw78 wrote:

ethan wrote:I voted no. I might actually buy it out of interest, but for me this is not a necessary item.

Also, has there ever been an actual historical 3 sided battle?

Who cares. Has there ever been a campaign where Tibetans fought Aztecs? But given some rules or ideas there will be one played.

Actually I think some rules about huge battles with many players per side would be more interesting. I am thinking, for example, that you talk with friends and gather 3 Republican Roman armies versus 3 Later Carthaginians with some rules for breaking every army individually and keep on with the fight until an overall army rout is achieved. It would be possible to have the old commands structure of DBM applied in huge scale battles and even some messenger rules. There are many possibilities that can improve the game experience.

My 'yes' was solely based on the assumption of support for ongoing campaign administration.

Seasons/turns/actions
Travel & access
effect of battle results on subsequent games
- losses, morale etc...
recruitment
contribution of an ally contingent to a neighbor who is being invaded or is invading
etc....

ethan wrote:I voted no. I might actually buy it out of interest, but for me this is not a necessary item.

Also, has there ever been an actual historical 3 sided battle?

Probably not truly three-sided, but some campaign scenario rules for 3-player games might be a clever way to recapture some of the unreliable ally flavor for scenarios like Manzikert, or polyglot coordination challenges for battles like the Austrian/German/Hungarian (IIRC) side of Mohi.

Strategos69 wrote:Osprey published some time ago some books about modelling and I wonder how well they did in the market.

I think their absence tells you there result.

Bosworth was 2 + 2 undecideds. I think it was Ashingdon where a Saxon ally changed sides twice during the battle. Barnet effectively becomes 3 sided because of the snow.

And all of these should have been one sided since they are all English (Well assimilated)

Hell yea!
I have always liked the Campaign thing better than a tourney. It would inspire me to build a Korean or Ming army and do a Imjin war campaign. Yea I know it is not in the "1500" but I am a smart boy and can tweak things.

Another idea connected with my game today. This afternoon I played a game but I did not prepare the list (I just provided a few BG's, my first game with Medievals) and the list and most of the troops were prepared for me. The fact is that I did not know which thing was what (especially for the grading) and I had to ask before combats. That suggested me that it could be fun to have a type of game where you don't know the quality of your troops until you make their round of combat or CT. It would give a different flavour to some games if all CMT were as average until you first try your troops in battle. For sure, that is only intended for specific scenarios.