Not strictly to do with FoG
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Not strictly to do with FoG
I know this is a FoG forum, but I would really appreciate some input, from this forum.
I help with coaching the club a Pretoria Boys High (still play DBM, not my call), the idea came up to get 6 club owned training armies.
Which set of armies do you think would be best for introducing beginners?
I help with coaching the club a Pretoria Boys High (still play DBM, not my call), the idea came up to get 6 club owned training armies.
Which set of armies do you think would be best for introducing beginners?
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
I would say it's probably best to select six armies from the same period in history that all did fight each other or at least could have done. Rules work better in a single period.
If the school teaches any pre-1500 history periods that would be a good start. Alternatively, recent films can be a decent start.
If the school teaches any pre-1500 history periods that would be a good start. Alternatively, recent films can be a decent start.
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:40 pm
How cool!
Wow! How exciting! To have 6 people who ALL want to dip their toe into the game at the same time and all who are interested in sticking to a single era! If you have the DBA book, then I might recommend looking at the campaign recommendations; there are tons of suggested eras where you can field 6 appropriate armies to square off.
For example, the 100 Year War campaign suggests Scotland, 100 Year War Continental (English), Medieval French, Low Countries, Burgundy, and Medieval Spanish (Crown of Aragon).
Another cool era could be the conquest of England: Normans, Anglo-Danish, Vikings, Early Welsh, Scots (Early Scots Isles and Highlands), and Feudal French.
...Or you could do the Diadochi (the 50+ years that followed Alexander the Great's death).
...Or pick any era from Rome's long empire (hey, if you pick the right period, you could even have different types of Romans, fighting each other, ala Julius Cesar's rise to power).
...OR, or, or, or... Oh the choices!
For example, the 100 Year War campaign suggests Scotland, 100 Year War Continental (English), Medieval French, Low Countries, Burgundy, and Medieval Spanish (Crown of Aragon).
Another cool era could be the conquest of England: Normans, Anglo-Danish, Vikings, Early Welsh, Scots (Early Scots Isles and Highlands), and Feudal French.
...Or you could do the Diadochi (the 50+ years that followed Alexander the Great's death).
...Or pick any era from Rome's long empire (hey, if you pick the right period, you could even have different types of Romans, fighting each other, ala Julius Cesar's rise to power).
...OR, or, or, or... Oh the choices!
>A variety of styles, common period, basically opponents, generally above average armies.
Agreed that's the principle to go for, although it doesn't matter so much (in the short term at least) whether they are all above average armies or not, as long as they give reasonably competitive games amongst themselves.
And a good list of armies too.
Another possible list (for the historical period I personally find most interesting):
Late Imperial Rome - a bit of everything, balanced army, and most importantly of all - pretty shield patterns!
Goths (Tervingi) - mostly heavy warband type foot
Picts - mostly lighter warband type foot, terrain becomes a factor
Huns - mostly light shooty mounted
Sarmatians - mostly heavy shock cavalry
Sassanids - mostly heavy shooty cavalry plus a few gimmicks e.g. nellies
Or substitute Post-Roman Brits for the Picts, decide that "Arthur" was indeed "Riothamus" so can be fielded in this timeframe, and cater for the true romantics.
In FoG some of those armies would be real dogs, true, but in DBMM I think they would all play reasonably friendly together. Can't quite remember DBM now but I think I would have been happy to give any of them a punt in those days.
Agreed that's the principle to go for, although it doesn't matter so much (in the short term at least) whether they are all above average armies or not, as long as they give reasonably competitive games amongst themselves.
And a good list of armies too.
Another possible list (for the historical period I personally find most interesting):
Late Imperial Rome - a bit of everything, balanced army, and most importantly of all - pretty shield patterns!
Goths (Tervingi) - mostly heavy warband type foot
Picts - mostly lighter warband type foot, terrain becomes a factor
Huns - mostly light shooty mounted
Sarmatians - mostly heavy shock cavalry
Sassanids - mostly heavy shooty cavalry plus a few gimmicks e.g. nellies
Or substitute Post-Roman Brits for the Picts, decide that "Arthur" was indeed "Riothamus" so can be fielded in this timeframe, and cater for the true romantics.
In FoG some of those armies would be real dogs, true, but in DBMM I think they would all play reasonably friendly together. Can't quite remember DBM now but I think I would have been happy to give any of them a punt in those days.
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:01 pm
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Emu, tell Carl I have a Welsh army of upwards of 70 Elements, A Pictish army with Saxon Allies of over 100 and a medieval English army of Free Company size. Between the 3 of them we can make almost any dark age army and a fair bunch of early through late medieval. I'll give you a call in the new year and you can have a look at what I have .
15mm: Painted: Late Republican Roman
Medieval Welsh
WIP: Ivan the Terrible's Russians
Later Ottoman Turkish
Medieval Welsh
WIP: Ivan the Terrible's Russians
Later Ottoman Turkish
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8812
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Is this a bit like Broadsword calling Danny Boylonehorseman wrote:Emu, tell Carl
Anyway I would have thought armies with as much mix and match as possible. As above a lot of armies can be made from the core of 1 or 2. Arabs are reasonably generic, Chinese are little known about here so can morph, etc.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
-
- Colonel - Ju 88A
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
- Location: Former British Empire
Re: Not strictly to do with FoG
Try asking on here if you haven't already: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBM ... ssages?o=1Fluffy wrote:I know this is a FoG forum, but I would really appreciate some input, from this forum.
I help with coaching the club a Pretoria Boys High (still play DBM, not my call), the idea came up to get 6 club owned training armies.
Which set of armies do you think would be best for introducing beginners?
Lawrence Greaves