Author Topic: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?  (Read 12316 times)

kidbrock9

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« on: September 18, 2011, 08:15:40 AM »
Ancient warfare is great, but I'd really like to see some classic medieval warfare in the historical set.  Has this been given any thought yet?

I'd love to see the 100 years war with the starters concentrating on units from the earlier and middle conflicts and the reinforcements bringing in the later units (maybe some gunpowder).  There's something about the French fighting with Knights and mercenary crossbows against English longbows and men-at-arms that typifies medieval warfare in my mind.

Of course any of the crusades would work well too and provide more diversity in opposing sides.  Charlemagne's rise might be interesting as well.

Does any one else share my desire for these kind of armies.  Thanks for taking the time to read/respond.  ;)

Kevin

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2011, 08:57:19 AM »
There was a discussion about this at one point.  One issue is that Hawkshold is already a generic "Medieval Europe" army, and the medieval armies of Europe were somewhat similar to each other (apart from the English Longbow, which Hawkshold has too).

I had heard vague rumors of a Crusaders vs. Arabs future release, though.  But with two fantasy releases and two (double) historical slated to take place first we'd be talking...2014?
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

kidbrock9

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2011, 09:16:03 AM »
I had certainly considered Hawk, but doing a historical set would allow YMG to focus on the little differences and add more unique rules.  Not that it matters with the design schedule full so far out.  :o

I do believe, however that there is enough difference between historical medieval armies and the fantasy armies to warrant their inclusion and they have a much higher "cool" factor in my mind.




Kevin

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2011, 09:49:07 AM »
By the way, the upcoming schedule (unofficial and subject to change at any time for any reason of course) looks like the following (top stuff happening first)

Alexander vs. Persia - historical double-faction set, essentially complete except for the art.

Wuxing Empire - Chinese-flavored fantasy faction with terra cotta soldiers.  Being developed/playtested at this point.

Spanish vs. Aztecs - Historical double-faction in early stages of development/playtesting.

?  - I don't know what's next, but the pattern seems to be alternating historical double-factions with fantasy single-factions.  Maybe Amazons.

Then after that we'd get Crusaders vs. Arabs, though I'm not sure if that (or even if Spanish vs. Aztecs) has been given the official go-ahead.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2011, 11:16:51 AM by Kevin »
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

kidbrock9

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2011, 10:49:18 AM »
Well crusaders vs. arabs would certainly scratch my itch.  So there is some hope on the horizon.  ;)

Thanks for that information.

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2011, 01:44:44 PM »
I'm right in the middle of reading "Empires of the Sea" about the century long war for control of the Med in the 16th century. An Arab/Turk army would be cool, but I don't know how many of the historical battles would translate well in BG terms as most of the battles were sieges or predominately sieges and BG is not a siege game.
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4559
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2011, 05:30:39 PM »
Well crusaders vs. arabs would certainly scratch my itch.  So there is some hope on the horizon.  ;)

Thanks for that information.

In the middle of Alexander vs Persia I got the okay from Chad to take a look at that era.  I decided to make it Saladin vs Jerusalem, focusing on roughly 1170-1195.  That period would include the Third Crusade, which is really only a couple small battle and one pitched battle sized ambush.  But Saladin fought several battles against the Kingdom of Jerusalem between The battle of Montgisard through Hattin and Arsuf, culminating with Ramla.

In the end I've sort of tabled it because other projects are pressing but also because both factions are pretty uniform, with only about 5-8 troop types each (predominantly cavalry on both sides).  But it is something that will eventually get another look, if only to decide decisively whether to do it or not.


I'm right in the middle of reading "Empires of the Sea" about the century long war for control of the Med in the 16th century. An Arab/Turk army would be cool, but I don't know how many of the historical battles would translate well in BG terms as most of the battles were sieges or predominately sieges and BG is not a siege game.

And raids.  Pitched battles were relatively rare in medieval warfare, but raids (and counter-raids) were fairly common.  Usually the intent was pillage and ravage, essentially sanctioned banditry.  The nice thing about BGFW is that with the "floating scale" you can represent those raids with units pretty well by making sure that there's 1-2 cavalry units as Core in each faction.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2011, 05:37:29 PM by Hannibal »

Kevin

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2011, 08:28:17 PM »
Quote
In the end I've sort of tabled it because other projects are pressing but also because both factions are pretty uniform, with only about 5-8 troop types each.

Rome, the Spanish, and the Aztecs suffer similarly, but they all use one word to fudge their way around the issue:

"Veteran"

Just saying...
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4559
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2011, 08:36:45 PM »
Quote
Rome, the Spanish, and the Aztecs suffer similarly, but they all use one word to fudge their way around the issue:

"Veteran"

Just saying...

Yeah and that's what I was doing for a lot of stuff.  At the time I felt hemmed in a lot by the fact that Hawkshold-type Knights don't exist until around the Hundred Years War, meaning I was playing with a lot of variations of Light Cavalry upgrades & downgrades.

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2011, 08:42:14 PM »
Quote
In the end I've sort of tabled it because other projects are pressing but also because both factions are pretty uniform, with only about 5-8 troop types each.

Rome, the Spanish, and the Aztecs suffer similarly, but they all use one word to fudge their way around the issue:

"Veteran"

Just saying...
Plus with the veteran thingy, taking a note from DBA, all that really needs to mean is that at any specific battle this unit type was better than the opposing identical unit type, such as Scipio's cav being better than Hannibal's in Africa, But Hannibal had better cav up until then (generally).
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

RushAss

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3816
  • Eat your beets - Recycle!
    • My Facebook.  Where you can see my, uh... face.
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2011, 11:06:36 AM »
Getting back to the subject at hand, I always thought a Vikings vs Celts historical set would be interesting.  There would be a lot of issues like cavalry and the fact that most of these "battles" where really the a fore mentioned raids.  But still, after over a dozen factions the closest we have to Vikings is the Dwarves and I think that is sad.  We could also go the other way and do a total fantasy Viking faction.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 11:09:27 AM by RushAss »
"Art as expression, not as market campaigns
Will still capture our imaginations"
-Rush, Natural Science

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4559
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2011, 11:37:39 AM »
There's two big hurdles to historical armies.  First is that there's not a lot of differentiation.  For example, with medieval armies everyone is basically some variation on:  lancer cavalry, crap spearmen, decent crossbowmen.  Being smart, a designer would cherry-pick a faction that had a few interesting units (English Longbows, for example).  But this limits matchups.  For example, French vs English would be impossible because the two factions would be near identical.  This is why I doubt there'll ever be a Peloponnesean War set:  two faction of phalanxes would be too similar.

The other problem is that some factions are just the losers of the historical matchups.  To represent them anywhere close to accurately, they'd just get curb stomped by another other faction.  My hat's off to Niko for doing with Aztec's because I wouldn't have been able to.  But beyond technologically inferior there's also tactically unbalanced armies.  Vikings are a great example.  The reason vikings were such a scourge has more to do with the fact that they attacked Europe during a time when the social order had collapsed.  They also had an unknowable advantage of where they attacked:  the rivers of Europe are really deep and fast flowing, as if they were designed for drakkar ships.  So the vikings could penetrate deep into the continent which was full of fairly wealthy regions that had been developed under the protection of an empire that had been replaced by tons of little fiefdoms barely held together by a local warlord.  If you notice, as soon as Europe develops a decentralized rapid response system (known as feudalism), the viking threat goes away.

So Vikings would be a fairly boring faction with like 5 infantry troop types.  Same with Celts (they were still riding chariots in Caesar's time!).  They fit better as a fantasy faction where you can make stuff up.

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2011, 04:44:29 PM »
What Hannibal says.
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

Kevin

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2011, 05:02:14 PM »
I wonder if at some point historical factions will shift their form, to either be a single faction, or maybe two half-size factions packaged together.  i.e. You'd buy a standard size ($30) set of "Vikings & Celts."  Within the set you could do Vikings vs. Celts; when battling other armies you'd have the Vikings & Celts join together to fight the invading Dark Elves.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2011, 05:42:04 PM »
Actually, I think the historicals will depend on player/enthusiasts for development. I'm also thiking that many of those "I think it would be cool if..." suggestions would actually fade away once they got down to the nitty gritty of designing the faction and found out many of the points that Hannibal made were quite valid. The problem with any historical army is that they are really cool while they're the next best thing, but then they get eclipsed by the new next best thing. This is why I have a big "AHEMMMM" for matching up ahistorical anachronistic opponents and thinking it simulates anything. Matching Ravenwood and the Romans doesn't tell you anything about how they would have fared against each other, all you can get is an idea of what would happen if two armies with these stats and these abilities, relatively speaking, had faced off against one another.
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/