In Praise of Poor Troops

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

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

Post Reply
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

In Praise of Poor Troops

Post by petedalby » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:05 pm

The sample list for the Mid Republican Romans allows many of the troops types to be downgraded to 'Poor' to reflect raw or unenthusiastic troops.

Is there any merit in extending this principle to the other lists?

Eg - were the Balearic Slingers always 'Superior' or did anyone ever recruit a duff batch?

I appreciate this would create quite a bit of extra work for the list producers but it might give a bit more flavour to armies?

Any thoughts?


Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:37 pm

More Poor Please!

Post by lanceflint » Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:32 pm

Why is it only the bloody romans that have the widest range of troop types?

There should generally be far more poor troops, especially for the undrilled armies, as compulsories within those lists, usually as a proportion of such types.

I will not quote any relevant battles to start an acaedmic arguement, yet!

Your comments please............


Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”