Page 1 of 1

Swordsmen vs. Swordsmen +

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:13 pm
by TJD
I'm not clear on the differences between Swordsmen and Swordsmen +. Can someone help me out?

Thanks!

Tim

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:25 pm
by CheAhn
SW+ are at an advantage versus foot SW and HW, otherwise no difference

cheers

Re: Swordsmen vs. Swordsmen +

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:38 pm
by stockwellpete
TJD wrote:I'm not clear on the differences between Swordsmen and Swordsmen +. Can someone help me out?

Thanks!

Tim
You reminded me of this, TJD . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEtPluUi0_U

Definitely swordsmen+ versus swordsmen in this clip . . . but I think they might have been using the current FOG melee casualty calculations to come up with the result! :lol:

Re: Swordsmen vs. Swordsmen +

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:14 pm
by TJD
stockwellpete wrote: You reminded me of this, TJD . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEtPluUi0_U

Definitely swordsmen+ versus swordsmen in this clip . . . but I think they might have been using the current FOG melee casualty calculations to come up with the result! :lol:
Aha! I get the point now, Stockwellpete, just like Tim Roth did in that clip (though I guess he got more than just the point; he took the whole slicing edge as well.) What a great scene that is.

Thx,

Tim

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:18 pm
by deeter
Most likely, FOG 2.0 will do away with SW+, something I applaud. It make Romans too powerfull against Gauls, etc, and costs an extra useless point against everyone else.

Deeter