Slitherine

I was looking in the FoG:LT module under the DAC listings for the Sassanid Persians and noted that for the period of Khosrau I reign is listed as 550-550. This in fact was 550-579 according to the army book for the minis rules. During this time the LT book says that they had a standing army. That it probably didn't outlast his reign.

So ...

1. Was his name really Khosrau as the mini rules LT book says or Khusrau as the FoG:Digital LT module says?

2. Could the dates be changed?

3. Could some text be added that tells us what was different about this particular army?

You have to remember that not everyone owns the books. Thus they have no idea of what the different breakdowns in the army lists mean. Unique text could be added in as such:

"As per the earlier list but during this period ...."

Would not even need as much text too. Just say what is different about the subsequent periods for the particular nation/tribe group.

There are a number of translations used for Khusrau if you look on Wikipedia. including these two. On the other hand. Slitherine should probably choose one and use it consistently. The dates should be changed and it would be nice to have more detailed description for each army variant.

Chris

The LT book is Khusrau on page 51 and thats what I think we have throughout the game system.

Can you be specific on what you disagree with on the dates.

At the moment we are not planning to edit the army texts between sub-versions.

Thanks
Keith

Keith

The Khusrau army is listed as 550-550 - that is the same year. See my original post for his END year. I think it should be updated to include that date.

In the game Khusrau is Khosrau. Just noting this in case it is incorrect.

The need for unique text for the different armies is valid - not everyone is going to lay out the money for the paper books so that they know the difference. I would think that updating the various armies could be done by any of us if agreed on. Just go with my idea of having the subsequent armies point to the first army as the meat of the text and then the subsequent listings would just point out what is different.

It is a minor thing I guess but adds to the history of the game.

I get the idea that the digital game sometimes is just an extension of the miniature game but you must remember that some people do not even know of the miniature game's existence. Some just see "Ancients for the PC" and skip over any text that relates it to a minis game.