Slitherine

RBS et al...

Having had a bit of time to digest the contents of the army books I've seen so more, there's a few questions that I'd like to ask to eliminate some assumptions I'm making at this time, allowing for more informed discussion in this venue and others.

First, some big picture questions:

Is there some estimation being taken into account to grade armies against non-historical opponents to take into account relative ability and effectiveness of equipment? There are several reasons I ask: most historical games seem to be a-historical (or SciFi ;) matchups, it seems that people are interested in relative army performance.

For the last there seem to be expressions of this in the army lists. For instance; no Elite hoplites or knights, although there would have those who would have been the best relative to their historical opponent. Am I reading something in that isn't there, or was this your intent?

Next up, I'm paraphrasing here, but you state in the design philosophy section that there's scaling of a sort to allow nations that fielded smaller forces to try out equal matchups. However, it does seem that there is a cutoff for inclusion indicated by: the abscence of some lists, relatively small counts requiring allies (Scots in Europe), or only appearing as ally lists (many in Rise of Rome).

My suspicion is that this is based on a couple of factors: a population large enough to generate an army of at least mdoerate size, evidence that the nation or culture did produce armies that fought in the manner modelled in the rules, and some sort of date cutoff for having done so (1500 AD?). Is this correct?

Finally, BGs seem to be modelled on a primary purpose, and then may mave some modifying abilities (i.e. you're impact foot + some stuff, or you're lancers plus some stuff). There seem to be some hard and fast divisions: you can be lancers and have Bow*, but not bow, similarly impact foot or heavy weapon seem to have some relative ability limitations (it appears you can be impact foot or heavy weapon, not both). Are these hard and fast rules, and would you be willing to list them?

I hope you're willing to give us a little peek under the hood (or would that be bonnet to you? :)

Thanks
Cole

korvus wrote:
Is there some estimation being taken into account to grade armies against non-historical opponents to take into account relative ability and effectiveness of equipment? There are several reasons I ask: most historical games seem to be a-historical (or SciFi matchups, it seems that people are interested in relative army performance.

For the last there seem to be expressions of this in the army lists. For instance; no Elite hoplites or knights, although there would have those who would have been the best relative to their historical opponent. Am I reading something in that isn't there, or was this your intent?

My view as a contributor FWIW.

Troop classifications are based on their historical performance and with an aim to ensure that the troops upon which the army relied on historically are those that are relied upon on the table top.

Things like no Elite hoplites are based on the performance of the army historically against their opponents and not on how they might fight against wildly anachronistic enemies.

korvus wrote:
Next up, I'm paraphrasing here, but you state in the design philosophy section that there's scaling of a sort to allow nations that fielded smaller forces to try out equal matchups. However, it does seem that there is a cutoff for inclusion indicated by: the abscence of some lists, relatively small counts requiring allies (Scots in Europe), or only appearing as ally lists (many in Rise of Rome).

My suspicion is that this is based on a couple of factors: a population large enough to generate an army of at least mdoerate size, evidence that the nation or culture did produce armies that fought in the manner modelled in the rules, and some sort of date cutoff for having done so (1500 AD?). Is this correct?

The basis has been, basically, did they fight anything that could be called an "army sized" battle against their historical foes. This means it is a bit of a sliding scale.

korvus wrote:
Finally, BGs seem to be modelled on a primary purpose, and then may mave some modifying abilities (i.e. you're impact foot + some stuff, or you're lancers plus some stuff). There seem to be some hard and fast divisions: you can be lancers and have Bow*, but not bow, similarly impact foot or heavy weapon seem to have some relative ability limitations (it appears you can be impact foot or heavy weapon, not both). Are these hard and fast rules, and would you be willing to list them?

The only one that is really hard and fast is the no Lancers, Bow, Swordsman one.

nikgaukroger wrote: The only one that is really hard and fast is the no Lancers, Bow, Swordsman one.

Mongol heavy cavalry?

Although i suppose the weren't really 'lancers' were they...

Luddite wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: The only one that is really hard and fast is the no Lancers, Bow, Swordsman one.

Mongol heavy cavalry?

Although i suppose the weren't really 'lancers' were they...

Lancers capability is not given to troops just because they used lances. It is only given to specialist lancers. Mongols were primarily horse archers, and whether they used lances or not do not qualify as specialist lancers, so do not get lancers capability.

For me the under the bonnet view is that we have worked to get the overall feel of every army correct .... and within that each troop type which means we focus on their primary tactical preferences and bases rather than simply what they carried.

So a Mongol may carry a lance for occasional use but in general fight much more with Bw and Sw and doesn't have the lance specialism that allows him to put in a properly sorted lance charge nor feel oblgied to charge in when close to enemy (which at the end of the day the two cahracteristics that define a lancer in FOG). This is the key. Not whether he has a lance but rather whether he is sufficiently skilled/inclined in its use to do what we allow lancers to do in the rules. This then gives the correct feel.

So being extreme I would ahve no porblem having some historical figure that carries a Lance a Bow and a Sword and defining them as CV with no POA capability if I felt they didn't pass muster in any area (not that I can think of any such troops yet). This would give the feel of an over-equiped soldier who was incapable with anything.

As for Elite hoplites they are not necessary to get the feel correct and in fact would create the wrong feel. The feel of a Spartan army should be that if feels ELITE OVERALL AS AN ARMY and that LOTS OF THEIR TROOPS ARE OF A SIMILAR HIGH STANDARD. Mass superior troops creates this feel most correctly in the rules.

Contrast this with an army with a small proportion of troops were viewed as exceptional in their time but in small quantites - ELITE COMPANIONS eg. These gave the army its elite feel. So here the right feel on the table comes from lots of AVE troops and afew ELITES thrown in.

At every stage this ... "does it create the correct overall feel at the level of abstraction wer are using?" ... has been the founding father of the thought processes.

Si