Can we have more 'Poor' troops please?
As an example, the Late Republican Roman list allows legionaries to be anything from Elite to Poor with everything in between. So plenty of flexibility.
But in other lists all / most of the troop types are 'Average'.
Can we have a default option to downgrade any troops by at least one level to show unenthusiastic / unwilling troops please?
Pete
In Praise of Poor Troops
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
thefrenchjester
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D

- Posts: 1376
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:23 pm
- Location: the wilderness of mirrors
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator

- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
We're including Poor troops where we can identify that they are reasonable, but we aren't putting them in if we don't think that. I'd suggest that if Average troops are common in the lists we are doing something right
Have you spotted any cases where you think Poor troops are justified based on the historical record but are not available? We are more than open to suggestions, we know we aren't infallible.
Have you spotted any cases where you think Poor troops are justified based on the historical record but are not available? We are more than open to suggestions, we know we aren't infallible.
-
petedalby
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E

- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
- Location: Fareham, UK
Hi Nick,
Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently well read to be able to provide specific examples.
But I keep looking at the Later Jewish list and all those LF - all of whom are Average. Army sizes seemed to grow and shrink remarkably - suggesting a high degree of desertion?
Contrast that with say Seleucid or Ottoman where most Light Foot can be downgraded to Poor.
I think it would add more flavour and give more flexibility on army choice.
Peter
Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently well read to be able to provide specific examples.
But I keep looking at the Later Jewish list and all those LF - all of whom are Average. Army sizes seemed to grow and shrink remarkably - suggesting a high degree of desertion?
Contrast that with say Seleucid or Ottoman where most Light Foot can be downgraded to Poor.
I think it would add more flavour and give more flexibility on army choice.
Peter
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator

- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
As far as I can see the troops that did fight were OK and as the desertion happened pre-battle it is not really within the scope of the lists as that would mean representing troops who weren't therepetedalby wrote:
But I keep looking at the Later Jewish list and all those LF - all of whom are Average. Army sizes seemed to grow and shrink remarkably - suggesting a high degree of desertion?
It would indeed add flexibility but, in the opinion of those contributing to the lists, it would be spurious to have such troops without some evidence - in the case of seleukid and Ottoman we believe that at times these troops justify Poor.petedalby wrote:
Contrast that with say Seleucid or Ottoman where most Light Foot can be downgraded to Poor.
I think it would add more flavour and give more flexibility on army choice.
However, as I said if anyone can supply info we're all ears.