Class of almughavars?

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

Post Reply
Robert241167
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Leeds

Class of almughavars?

Post by Robert241167 » Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:55 am

Hi everyone

In the Catalan Company list it says all almughavars need to be of the same class.

Well they can be protected/unprotected and offensive spear or impact foot/sword. Is the class related to armour as well as weapons so that if I choose some protected spear that all almughavars need to be protected spear only?

Cheers

Rob

SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:10 am

Only that they must be all Impact Foot or all Offensive Spearmen.

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:46 am

IMO they must all be the same in all ways including armour. The restriction says that "All MF almughavars must be classified the same" I can't see any way that would allow some unprotected and some protected.

SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:04 pm

Yes, that wording indeed indicates they must be identical.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10278
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:19 pm

Deliberatley so :D
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

azrael86
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by azrael86 » Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:43 pm

The correct classification being of course - 'hard and likely to bear a grudge'...

:-)

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:54 am

azrael86 wrote:The correct classification being of course - 'hard and likely to bear a grudge'...

:-)
At the club on Monday my unprotected almughavars ran about even 50/50 with equal numbers of Dailami

xavier
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: Barcelona

Post by xavier » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:35 pm

hammy wrote:IMO they must all be the same in all ways including armour. The restriction says that "All MF almughavars must be classified the same" I can't see any way that would allow some unprotected and some protected.
There were doubts on how to class almughavars in the game since from a definition point of view they should clearly be impact foot (they started combat with a shower of heavy iron javelins before clashing in the melee), but from game balance point of view, offensive spearmen reflect better their capability to stand against mounted in the open. Therefore we allowed both classes but forcing the player to choose one of them.

Regarding armour, there was no intention from my side to class them all the same, since the grade and quality of armour could vary from unit to unit. Originally they would be unprotected, but they could become "protected" depending on what equipment had they found / looted during a campaign, and not all units joined a campaign at the same time, nor could loot the same during it...

On the other hand, last word has always been of the rules authors, not the list writers. If for whatever reason they don't want to allow unprotected and protected units in the same list, I disagree, but despite having wrote the list myself, I have to accept it :?

ethan
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:40 pm

Post by ethan » Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:52 pm

xavier wrote: On the other hand, last word has always been of the rules authors, not the list writers. If for whatever reason they don't want to allow unprotected and protected units in the same list, I disagree, but despite having wrote the list myself, I have to accept it :?
Just a guess, but doing that sort of thing might lead to "cleverer" play than the authors might have wanted. People would take small units of unprotected to provide rear support for protected or whatever. Or even doing paradoxical things like putting the less well equipped unprotected guys out to fight enemy knights while the "best" troops with armor support their flanks - which doesn't strike me as historical.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10278
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:13 pm

ethan wrote:
xavier wrote: On the other hand, last word has always been of the rules authors, not the list writers. If for whatever reason they don't want to allow unprotected and protected units in the same list, I disagree, but despite having wrote the list myself, I have to accept it :?
Just a guess, but doing that sort of thing might lead to "cleverer" play than the authors might have wanted. People would take small units of unprotected to provide rear support for protected or whatever. Or even doing paradoxical things like putting the less well equipped unprotected guys out to fight enemy knights while the "best" troops with armor support their flanks - which doesn't strike me as historical.
Good guess 8)

All too easy for the Law of Unintended Consequences to kick in - look at the Dom Roms for a good example.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

xavier
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: Barcelona

Post by xavier » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:23 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
ethan wrote:
xavier wrote: On the other hand, last word has always been of the rules authors, not the list writers. If for whatever reason they don't want to allow unprotected and protected units in the same list, I disagree, but despite having wrote the list myself, I have to accept it :?
Just a guess, but doing that sort of thing might lead to "cleverer" play than the authors might have wanted. People would take small units of unprotected to provide rear support for protected or whatever. Or even doing paradoxical things like putting the less well equipped unprotected guys out to fight enemy knights while the "best" troops with armor support their flanks - which doesn't strike me as historical.
Good guess 8)

All too easy for the Law of Unintended Consequences to kick in - look at the Dom Roms for a good example.
I hadn't thought about those cheesy possibilities. And I have to admit that I prefer not being able to field both protected and unprotected almughavars (even if it happened), than seeing them being used in the wrong way. Sad that we can't have it all...

That's why rules writers have the last word :D

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”