Capability Incompatibilities?

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

Capability Incompatibilities?

Post by SirGarnet » Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:18 am

While waiting for Amazon to restock companions, I have an army list design related question. My question is what capabilities are mutually exclusive either because they are inherently incompatible or they would not be allowed for design reasons?

The stated design philosophy is that weapons which may have been carried are not determinative of capabilities, which are intended to capture tactical effects. As a corollary, that leaves open possible combinations of capabilities which make sense to depict a troop type even though the weapon names used would not make sense together.

What follows is based on what I've read and the definitions - please correct me if mistaken (Swordsman is eant to include Skilled Sw too):


1. Can't have any missile capability or Light Spear if a Lancer specialist. E.g., no Bow Lancer Swordsmen.

2. Offensive or Defensive Spearman can't be each other nor Impact Foot, Heavy Weapon, or Swordsmen, or Light Spear.

3. Javelin-armed troops count as Light Spear.

4. Impact Foot can be Light Spear, Heavy Weapon, or Swordsmen but

5. Light Spear or Heavy Weapon rule out each other, but either can be Swordsmen too.

It seems like Light Spear covers what might be Heavy Weapons for mounted.

So far so good? Anything else?

Thanks,

Mike

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22549
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Capability Incompatibilities?

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:40 am

MikeK wrote:1. Can't have any missile capability or Light Spear if a Lancer specialist. E.g., no Bow Lancer Swordsmen.
Shallow formed cavalry with some rank lance, some ranks bow can be Bow*, Lancerrs, Swordsmen, but so far that has been only Byzantine tagmatic cavalry and, possibly, Jurchen.
2. Offensive or Defensive Spearman can't be each other nor Impact Foot, Heavy Weapon, or Swordsmen, or Light Spear.
Correct
3. Javelin-armed troops count as Light Spear.
Yes. But only LF and LH can have javelins capability. (Also maybe atlatl MF but that is another story).
4. Impact Foot can be Light Spear, Heavy Weapon, or Swordsmen but
Inpact Foot can only have Swordsmen melee capability. (or nothing, theoretically, but we don't have any of those yet).
5. Light Spear or Heavy Weapon rule out each other, but either can be Swordsmen too.
Heavy Weapon is exclusive - it is an impact and melee capbility.
It seems like Light Spear covers what might be Heavy Weapons for mounted.
Probably. We haven't defined any such troops yet.
Anything else?


There will be no troops classified as Bow, DSpear. Such a classification would result in over-powered super-troops. Such BGs will usually be either 1/2 DSp, 1/2 Bow or 1/2 Bow, Light Spear, 1/2 Bow or all Bow, Light Spear. (No swordsmen capability in most case)

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

Re: Capability Incompatibilities?

Post by SirGarnet » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:44 am

Thanks, Richard. It's very helpful to understand the design.
Impact Foot can only have Swordsmen melee capability. (or nothing, theoretically, but we don't have any of those yet).
What about Non-Swordsmen Impact Foot as representing troops with a fierce initial onset but much weaker in sustained melee, such as troops meeting the description of Impact Foot but armed with weapons of poor quality or unsuitable for melee combat against their adversaries, or with which they lack sufficient proficiency, or even troops with brittle morale if unsuccessful at the first onset? Impact Foot but of Poor quality might have morale issues getting to its target or in sustained combat, but can pose a threat at its first onset.

Mike

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22549
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Capability Incompatibilities?

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:52 am

MikeK wrote:Thanks, Richard. It's very helpful to understand the design.
Impact Foot can only have Swordsmen melee capability. (or nothing, theoretically, but we don't have any of those yet).
What about Non-Swordsmen Impact Foot as representing troops with a fierce initial onset but much weaker in sustained melee, such as troops meeting the description of Impact Foot but armed with weapons of poor quality or unsuitable for melee combat against their adversaries, or with which they lack sufficient proficiency, or even troops with brittle morale if unsuccessful at the first onset? Impact Foot but of Poor quality might have morale issues getting to its target or in sustained combat, but can pose a threat at its first onset.
Theoretically possible, but we have not felt the need to use the classification as yet - we may do so in future as it certainly doesn't "break" anything..

miffedofreading
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Reading, England

Post by miffedofreading » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:12 pm

Richard, (or any other bright chap),

There will be no troops classified as Bow, DSpear. Such a classification would result in over-powered super-troops. Such BGs will usually be either 1/2 DSp, 1/2 Bow or 1/2 Bow, Light Spear, 1/2 Bow or all Bow, Light Spear. (No swordsmen capability in most case)

If 1/2 Defensive spear and 1/2 bow. How does that count for impact and melee POA's. I would assume such a unit would be 1 rank of spear supported by 1 rank of bow. You get a combat POA if spear not less than 2 ranks. Does this count? There are 2 ranks but only one has spear??

Ta

Andy

rogerg
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 855
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: Halifax, Yorkshire

Post by rogerg » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:37 pm

No POA for two ranks of spear, however, there are benefits for being steady spear because of the effect on opponents factors.

Draka
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:03 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ

Post by Draka » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:18 pm

Interesting. When (in the fullness of time) you get to the Warring States, Ch'in and Han armies of China then the subject of the dagger-axe (ge) or the later dagger-axe with speartip (ji) will rear it's ugly head. This was used extensively by foot, horse and chariot forces. In other rulesets it is labeled as 2HCW (ge) or 2HCT (ji). I was going to do a straight cross to Heavy Weapon in these cases. In the rulebook on page 130 it defines Heavy Weapon as "Troops armed with polearms ..." - the debate locally is if by "Troops" you mean only foot or any troop class.

As I finally have the rulebook I am struggling to come up with the above army lists.

Fugu
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Post by Fugu » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:12 pm

Draka wrote:Interesting. When (in the fullness of time) you get to the Warring States, Ch'in and Han armies of China then the subject of the dagger-axe (ge) or the later dagger-axe with speartip (ji) will rear it's ugly head. This was used extensively by foot, horse and chariot forces. In other rulesets it is labeled as 2HCW (ge) or 2HCT (ji). I was going to do a straight cross to Heavy Weapon in these cases. In the rulebook on page 130 it defines Heavy Weapon as "Troops armed with polearms ..." - the debate locally is if by "Troops" you mean only foot or any troop class.

As I finally have the rulebook I am struggling to come up with the above army lists.
We all are. There is a bit of a discussion on Han and Ch'in in the Armies section.

WhiteKnight
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:08 pm
Location: yeovil somerset

Post by WhiteKnight » Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:15 pm

I have to admit to knowing next to nothing about Chinese warfare but with these rules being based on the function of troops and how they used their weapons and their degree of skill and training with them, maybe it's possible to categorise these dagger-axes within the types existing?

On foot, were they mainly used in two hands like a European bill/halberd, to bash, chop and stab with? Or were they smaller and mainly used one-handed like a mace-type weapon?

On horseback, how did riders use them? One or two hands? Could they use them two-handed whilst charging at a fast trot/gallop, as a weapon causing damage as you impacted on the enemy? Or did you have to ride up to the enemy and then start using them when you were almost stationary?

Could you use them effectively two-handed from a chariot, or did the wielder most often dismount, hack about a bit then retire on his chariot when necessary?

It's interesting to see whether an essentially Western-originating set of rules can take into account the fighting styles, conventions and weaponry of an Eastern miliary tadition.

Martin

Fugu
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Post by Fugu » Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:34 pm

Well for simplicity's sake you can class the weapon in the way you want the unit to perform. These games really don't have huge granularity in their detail.

The Ji in particular, when you look at it 1:1 can be used in a myriad of ways. It could be a pike, a halberd, an axe, used to stap, slash, hook, cut strip, etc. The shaft itself apparently varied a great deal in length, form 1.5m to up to 4m. Probably one of the most versatile weapons of all times.

I've tried playing it as Spearmen (either Off or Def) mostly because I'm trying to simulate a Han army against Xiang-Nu. Against infantry I think heavy weapon would be more in keeping with it's style. Right now I'm leaning towards have Ji units be either Spearmen or Heavy Weapons, and Ge only as Heavy Weapon.

Draka
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:03 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ

Post by Draka » Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:46 pm

That is how I see it as an infantry weapon, but that leaves the question open as to whether the Heavy Weapon class is envisioned to be allowed to mounted troops - chariot or cavalry. And if the mounted unit dismounts, as what?

For a melodramatic visual on what we are discussing, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZdKoZcYE2c

Fugu
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Post by Fugu » Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:57 pm

I think if we're going to continue this discussion, we should stop hijacking this thread. ;-) I'll start a new one.

Draka
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:03 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ

Post by Draka » Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:05 pm

S'OK - but what I was addressing was this exchange:

"It seems like Light Spear covers what might be Heavy Weapons for mounted.


Probably. We haven't defined any such troops yet."

Seems to mean that the only function for mounted is to use a "long pointy stick". Either spear or lance - and I was trying for other interpretations.

jrd
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:23 pm
Location: Harlow, Essex, UK

Re: Capability Incompatibilities?

Post by jrd » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:51 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
MikeK wrote:Thanks, Richard. It's very helpful to understand the design.
Impact Foot can only have Swordsmen melee capability. (or nothing, theoretically, but we don't have any of those yet).
What about Non-Swordsmen Impact Foot as representing troops with a fierce initial onset but much weaker in sustained melee, such as troops meeting the description of Impact Foot but armed with weapons of poor quality or unsuitable for melee combat against their adversaries, or with which they lack sufficient proficiency, or even troops with brittle morale if unsuccessful at the first onset? Impact Foot but of Poor quality might have morale issues getting to its target or in sustained combat, but can pose a threat at its first onset.
Theoretically possible, but we have not felt the need to use the classification as yet - we may do so in future as it certainly doesn't "break" anything..
I've been playing around with biblicals and I'm currently experimenting with how best to rate Kushite non-bow-armed foot. The figures I have are near-naked tribesmen with a selection of spears, clubs and light shields. My current preference is unprotected impact MI. This makes them fairly effective at contact but fragile in melee, which feels to me about right. I don't think their equipment warrants swordsman status, but rating them as unprotected light spear only makes them almost worthless in combat.

John

miffedofreading
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Reading, England

Post by miffedofreading » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:01 pm

Impact foot seems perhaps too good for biblicals? I would not have thought many would classify so highly even without swordsmen skill. Maybe sherden guards or something similar?

jrd
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:23 pm
Location: Harlow, Essex, UK

Post by jrd » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:30 am

miffedofreading wrote:Impact foot seems perhaps too good for biblicals? I would not have thought many would classify so highly even without swordsmen skill. Maybe sherden guards or something similar?
There is a shortage of information about the Kushites and how they fought, but they did conquer Egypt and defeated the Assyrians in battle at least once in battle. Kushites have been reassessed by successive generations of WRG/DBM army lists, from Irreg A LMI JLS, Sh to Wb(F) to Ax(O). I don't know what evidence has driven this change.

The current DBM Nubian army list (the precursors of the Kushites) has the tribesmen as Wb(F).

Classifying Kushite tribesmen as unprotected MF light spear makes them almost useless in FoG, since they would be only marginally better than the unprotected MF bow at impact, and would fight the same as the bow in melee. Another option would be to rate them as protected, but that seems over-generous.

I don't see any good reason why Impact Foot should not be allowed in the Biblical period - all the classification requires is "relying on a fierce charge to disrupt the enemy at contact". If anything, I would expect this to be more common among primitive troops lacking sophisticated weapons and armour!

John

Intothevalley
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:34 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Capability Incompatibilities?

Post by Intothevalley » Thu May 22, 2008 3:27 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
There will be no troops classified as Bow, DSpear. Such a classification would result in over-powered super-troops. Such BGs will usually be either 1/2 DSp, 1/2 Bow or 1/2 Bow, Light Spear, 1/2 Bow or all Bow, Light Spear. (No swordsmen capability in most case)
Will Bw* DSpear classification be permitted/considered? I'm thinking of T'ang Chinese infantry, who, theoretically at least, were all supposed to be armed with the bow, including those with spears.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22549
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Capability Incompatibilities?

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu May 22, 2008 4:38 pm

Intothevalley wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:
There will be no troops classified as Bow, DSpear. Such a classification would result in over-powered super-troops. Such BGs will usually be either 1/2 DSp, 1/2 Bow or 1/2 Bow, Light Spear, 1/2 Bow or all Bow, Light Spear. (No swordsmen capability in most case)
Will Bw* DSpear classification be permitted/considered? I'm thinking of T'ang Chinese infantry, who, theoretically at least, were all supposed to be armed with the bow, including those with spears.
Not yet decided.

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

Post by SirGarnet » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:47 am

A couple more questions if I may:

I thought that shock foot can't have missile POAs, but Highlanders have Bw* (no other exceptions unless I missed them). Is this an situational exception to a general rule or may we see more of these?


Are Javelin, Light Spear, Swordsmen such as Stradiots and Albanians an exception to the rule that troops can't have maximum level capabilties in all 3 areas, or is Javelin like Bow* in not being a maximum level capability so there may be LF who could have these capabilities as well?

Thanks,

Mike

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22549
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:29 pm

MikeK wrote:A couple more questions if I may:

I thought that shock foot can't have missile POAs, but Highlanders have Bw* (no other exceptions unless I missed them). Is this an situational exception to a general rule or may we see more of these?


Are Javelin, Light Spear, Swordsmen such as Stradiots and Albanians an exception to the rule that troops can't have maximum level capabilties in all 3 areas, or is Javelin like Bow* in not being a maximum level capability so there may be LF who could have these capabilities as well?

Thanks,

Mike
Each case is taken on its merits, but we avoid excessively powerful combos.

Post Reply

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