v2 Army Lists

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
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

v2 Army Lists

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:54 pm

Ladies and gentlemen - and Dave Ruddock,

JD has asked me to think about the possibility of revised army lists to go alongside the v2 rules.

As yet the scope of such a project has not been determined, although it will definitely not be 13 new list books 8) , and so it would be useful if people could indicate which lists they feel are most in need of revision, and (briefly) why. This will help identify player needs and desires and will assist in deciding exactly what is to be done and how they may be published. (However, please do not give us your pet idea on how publishing may take place, that will come later)

In order to keep this topic manageable can I ask that no matter how passionate and enthusiastic you may be about the need for changes to a list or lists, that you don't post all your ideas as to what is needed with all the supporting information in this topic - please use the Player designed Lists forum for that, but feel free to link postings there to comments here.

Your input here will have a direct influence on v2 lists - so thank you in advance for your comments. Now fire away ...
Last edited by nikgaukroger on Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

peterrjohnston
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am

Post by peterrjohnston » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:04 pm

I assume, based on what I can see in the lists, that design "mistakes" made in the early books were avoided in the later books, based on experience. For example, there are few 4-base infantry units in the later books, except for a few special units like Etruscan axemen, landsknecht forlorn-hope, etc. A more minor example is mobs tend to come in 8-12s in the later books, rather than 6-12s. Whatever the merits, or not, of infantry in 4-base units, I would think this needs to be corrected. (There's a counter-argument that perhaps it would have been better to be consistent even in "error"). Obvious examples are Roman infantry, especially in Principate and Dominates, the spear in SHNC, etc. Did these armies really have infantry units significantly smaller than every other army at the "scale" adopted in later army-list books? The problem is removing all 4s might break some lists, like the 4s for English men-at-arms.

The Italian wargamers complain about the Condotta list. I'm still hoping they might actually write some new list(s). Could do with a Savoy option, perhaps.

I cannot but agree with Xavier about the Catalans :) :
http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10161

There's a lot of minor lists we've been promised will be published online...

Minor things I'm aware of:
Very late Swiss used for "Three Leagues" in the Swabian War should probably have some larger BGs of armoured halberdiers (as an opponent for the Swabian War Medieval German City Leagues Swabian War option). See Karsten's comment here:
http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15965

Either Medieval German City Leagues (Northern) need a Later Polish ally, or vis versa, for the quite major war in Prussia from 1454–66 AD.


Last, and most importantly, just to keep Dave happy and be consistent with M^2, the Skythian unarmoured cavalry should be reclassified as all cavalry, ie no LH option.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:21 pm

peterrjohnston wrote: The Italian wargamers complain about the Condotta list. I'm still hoping they might actually write some new list(s). Could do with a Savoy option, perhaps.

Here is their chance to indicate why they think revision would be good - not even any need for full ideas and justification at this stage. Give 'em a kick on the Italian forum for me ...
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

gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Post by gozerius » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:34 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
peterrjohnston wrote: The Italian wargamers complain about the Condotta list. I'm still hoping they might actually write some new list(s). Could do with a Savoy option, perhaps.

Here is their chance to indicate why they think revision would be good - not even any need for full ideas and justification at this stage. Give 'em a kick on the Italian forum for me ...
But Savoy can be modeled using the Later Feudal German list. It was, after all, a Feudatory of the Empire. And the Swiss ally option is there.
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians

gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Post by gozerius » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:39 am

I would like to see an improved Late Medievel (Imperial) German list, comparable to the ones in OoF and LS.
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians

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

Post by ethan » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:55 am

Clean up the "we left it this way because other rules sets let them be this way" stuff. If you think the game and current historical thinking means something should be graded as X, grade it as X. Hittites should be light chariots like everyone else for instance. There are a few others. If you want to leave in something for people with "older" armies note in teh army lists that some variant in modeling/basing is acceptable and possibly even appropriate.

There should be a uniform standard for getting 4 base BGs of foot and 2 base BGs of mounted. They are a bit common in the earliest books published and suspiciously absent from later...

david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by david53 » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:19 am

ethan wrote: There should be a uniform standard for getting 4 base BGs of foot and 2 base BGs of mounted.
Would'nt this lead to more swarm armies around.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:23 am

david53 wrote:
ethan wrote: There should be a uniform standard for getting 4 base BGs of foot and 2 base BGs of mounted.
Would'nt this lead to more swarm armies around.
A uniform standard need not make them more common, it can make them less common, it depends how you set the standard - make an educated guess which way it would be likely to go based on comments made by Richard and myself to date.
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

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:24 am

gozerius wrote:I would like to see an improved Late Medievel (Imperial) German list, comparable to the ones in OoF and LS.
Can you be a bit more specific please - improved in what way?
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

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:41 am

As stated in the player designed lists, I think that some armies like the Ancient Spanish or the Illirians are too "flat" and not very appealing (besides having all the problems commented for Barbarian foot). I think these lists could be improved adding some "special campaigns". I have added my ideas about Ancient Spanish there. It would be nice to add more troop types, some of them just upgrades that can be deducted from the sources (like the devotii of a lord) and other upgrades for specific campaigns,like Viriatus or Numantia campaigns, giving these armies some drilled troops and maybe some upgrades too. I don't know if in this post you want some specific suggestions or just hints of lists that should be reviewed.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:53 am

Strategos69 wrote:As stated in the player designed lists, I think that some armies like the Ancient Spanish or the Illirians are too "flat" and not very appealing (besides having all the problems commented for Barbarian foot). I think these lists could be improved adding some "special campaigns". I have added my ideas about Ancient Spanish there. It would be nice to add more troop types, some of them just upgrades that can be deducted from the sources (like the devotii of a lord) and other upgrades for specific campaigns,like Viriatus or Numantia campaigns, giving these armies some drilled troops and maybe some upgrades too. I don't know if in this post you want some specific suggestions or just hints of lists that should be reviewed.

The sort of thing you have posted here is just fine - especially with backing material in the Player designed Lists forum. This topic is to get a feel on what could be done rather than to bash out specifics (post specific info on the other forum so it doesn't get lost).
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

peterrjohnston
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am

Post by peterrjohnston » Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:12 pm

gozerius wrote: But Savoy can be modeled using the Later Feudal German list. It was, after all, a Feudatory of the Empire. And the Swiss ally option is there.
Are you not making an a priori assumption that because the Holy Roman Emperor granted the Duchy, then it follows the army must be a feudal German army? Given that Savoy mainly bordered France and various Italian city states such as the Duchy of Milan, I would have thought it more likely it followed a French or Italian model. I may equally be wrong, of course.

There are a couple of books that look at Savoyard medieval army organisation in the mid 15th century. The more interesting one is in French, which alas I can't read, as it reconstructs the army based on war treasury records. The other is in Italian and more general - I might see if I can get hold of it.

There's a review of the French book here:
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bits ... 10.08.html

The Italian one is in the notes.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22716
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:26 pm

One thing that I would add to this thread is that the V1.0 FOG lists are based on the evidence that was readily available to us at the time of writing them. We were on a fairly tight time schedule, so did not have time to do PhD standard research on each list.

Inevitably this means that in several cases we will have missed useful evidence that would have materially affected the list.

However, it is no use expecting us to do this detailed research now ourselves personally for revised lists. (Well you can expect it, but it isn't likely to happen).

So if you think that an existing list is wrong because we missed some important piece of evidence, then if you want that list to be changed you will have to provide us with that evidence. (And not just in the form of a reference or an unsupported statement that such-and-such a book proves that the list is wrong).

You will need to quote the relevant source in some detail so that we can assess it within a reasonable timescale.

So please do put your suggestions on the Player Designed Lists board, with your evidence in some detail.

And for those who have a tendency to get over-excited, please try to avoid being unpleasant - it does your cause no good.

david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by david53 » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:43 pm

nikgaukroger wrote: make an educated guess
In manchester please, but yes I know which way you'll jump. :)

david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by david53 » Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:00 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
david53 wrote:
dave_r wrote: Apart from Tim griping about armour, I think changes to Points values are more appropriate.
As I would but I don't think they'll change the army lists soon.
Well that manages to ignore the v2 lists thread.
The problum I have is not with a single list, put the majority of them. Why are there so many superior troops allowed, sure there are examples of Superior type troops but for the majority of say anyone who can ride a horse being classed as superior.

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 » Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:07 pm

I wanted to share a general thought that already appeared in the Ancient cavalry thread regarding the armour classification. If the intention of troop quality and armour is merely related to their historical counterparts (we all agree that Middle Age steel and armour were far better than those from Ancient times), it strikes me that we end up making most troops average and protected when there are four categories that could be used. In book 1 I have counted 5 troops with the heavy armour type and in the book 3 they are 2, all of them are cataphracts, a total of 7out of more than 200 different options. Then cataphracts PoA could have captured better the interaction than having an amour type that is not used. (For example, stating that cataphracts always count a PoA in armour when dealing other troops.) And that is similar for the elite grading.

Thus, and I know it can be a big change, I wonder why, having four categories of armour, categories like heavily armoured are not used more particularly in books 1 and 3. It seems that one solution for many main line infantry could be being upgraded to armoured, which could make disappear some of the problems that we can see right now (especially when dealing with the choice armoured-protected), reducing the impact of shooting in a period where it was not very important. A few troops now classified as armoured could then be reclassified as heavily armoured to keep the balance within the period.

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Post by bahdahbum » Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:31 pm

First : merry Christmas and Happy New Year 8)
Thank you for all the work you have done . ALL of you .
I know that sometime , I might be seen as some that is unhappy as I critisize ...but I do it because I defend what I think is right . FOG is a game, must be considered as a galme, an entertainment .

As for the armies I really would like you to restudy the varangians in the Nikephorian army . Enough has been wrtitten ,in another forum . Just check and decide . Also have a look at one of tne "new" Osprey books about the vaarangian . It is interesting . There is IMO enough evodence to have the varangians drilled, at least armoured, even superior before 1042 and even as soon as 988 . I will wait your final decision as I did sent you all the necessary informations during the discussion . If need be, I can resent it all .

Skutatoï front rank could be armoured but it is open to discussion .

Concerning the Imperial German Army ( storm of arrows ) , compared to latter lists , it seems dull indeed just as if it lacked something . Our german friends could perhaps help us a bit :P

Regards

Jacques

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:30 pm

bahdahbum wrote: Also have a look at one of tne "new" Osprey books about the vaarangian . It is interesting .
I thought it was fairly poor and very derivative to be honest.

I did sent you all the necessary informations during the discussion . If need be, I can resent it all .

Just make sure it is in the Player Designed Lists forum and we'll be OK.

Concerning the Imperial German Army ( storm of arrows ) , compared to latter lists , it seems dull indeed just as if it lacked something . Our german friends could perhaps help us a bit :P

Now is their opportunity ...
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

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Post by bahdahbum » Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:20 pm

Varangians : but you have all the other listed sources in the forum :P

The discussions about NIKE army : they are all in player designed list forum .

spikemesq
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:18 am

Post by spikemesq » Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:14 pm

I'll chime in with a global change to army lists that does not require reprinting 13 books.

Figured that I would note some thoughts on army lists posted in this thread viewtopic.php?t=20744

Charge AP per BG instead of per base. Add discounts to bases over certain threshholds to reflect their diminished marginal utility.

For instance, the 5th and 6th bases of a mounted BG could be half-price.

MF/LF could cost the same AP in 4-packs and 6-packs (probably 5x base AP price).

The discounts could differ between Drilled and Undrilled, as the latter face greater downsides in larger BGs.

Supporting LF/MF in mixed BGs could be reduced in cost -- LF/Av/Bw in a mixed BG are not the same value as stand-alone BGs. So charge 3 AP for LF/Av/Bw in mixed BGs, but 5 AP standing alone.

Rethinking how troops are priced would bring army construction into line with game play. Namely, the game is played, won and lost at the BG level. Buying troops as bases to use them in BGs exacerbates the differences in quality found at the BG level. Small BGs are often too cost-advantaged (4-packs of drilled MF), while larger BGs tend to suck primarily because they are large (6-packs of mounted). Having more stands provides some value, but virtually no BG value equals the sum of its parts.

Changing the AP focus also frees up some wiggle room for any number of debates on game balance. The agony over balancing undrilled vs drilled could be made easier if there were two levels of points adjustment. The current base price difference AND a second level of price changes at BG margins. So the authors could balance 4-packs of MF (drill/undrilled) with the base price gap, but account for other differences with BG pricing -- give undrilled MF a discount in BGs of 8-10.

Furthermore, BG pricing could restore some historical distinctions that existed in DBM but have not imported into FoG. For example, Knights in FoG are Manichean. Bring HvyArm/Superior or nothing. Gone are the finer balances of Kn(S/O/I). In DBM, Kn(S) were obviously the best, but Kn(O) and even Kn(I) were not hopeless given their points values. Presently, almost every army with DBM Kn of any flavor has "proper Knights" as a line item, including German (Kn(I)), certain English (Kn(O), Komnenan Franks (Kn(O)), etc. If we priced troops as BGs, FoG could recapture some of the historic interactions between Western knights -- e.g., French/Teutonics > Spanish > German -- by maintaining the "proper knight" base, but increasing minimums for Germans/Spanish to cheaper 6-packs. They would be powerful in combat, but more cumbersome to use relative to French/Teutonics. If you implemented such a list change under the current system, German/Spanish Kn would disappear, because 138 AP for a Kn BG is impossible. If that BG cost 115 AP (5 x base), that might be worthwhile.

Although the price changes could be dramatic, it would not require an overhaul of all the army books. Instead, you could insert one page in the rulebook (and use errata for the intro to each army book) to change how armies are built. None of the detailed lists would need revision, though once the system took root, you could build some nice distinctions with army list errata and/or new books.


tl;dr = restructure AP costs at the BG level instead of the base level. Some larger BGs become cheaper per base.

Post Reply

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