Other Periods

[Hiromoon]

I mean, Picts vs. Romans near that wall up in Scotland would be a good example.

Which one? :wink:

Hadrian's wall, you numpty.

 

[cordas]

but the rules would prevent a charge, which is historically inaccurate. Dropping a shield takes seconds

I can assure you otherwise, especially if you got the darn thing strapped to your arm.

Really, how when they only carried TWO?

Extras supplied by the supply Sgt.

I've done re-enactment too and it doesn't take long for an unarmoured soldier to let go of a shield

There were no extras Hiro, please don't try to argue from an incorrect position. Two pila would be thrown at onrushing enemies under 30m away and then Gladii drawn. They weren't passed extra pila from the back to thrown indefinitely.......

My bad about the maths, just use 16 rather than 24, and the maths still works, its possible to intimidate 12 men....

Dropping a shield if its not pinned to you is easy, do it a group of moving people and you are likely to cause someone to trip, have 3 or 4 people in a closely grouped bunch of 12 and you cause problems, add in the fact that some have been tripped by weapons, others have been injured and killed.....

It all happens at once, the whole turns and actions used in evo (and every war game I have ever played) are there not because each side in a battle takes turns to act, but to give an abstraction that allows a game to be made of it thats playable.

Celtic swordsmen didn't form up in nice lines for the Romans to throw however many spears at then decide to act, any more than my PLA squadies stood there like cows waiting for my mates Marines to shoot them......

 

[emperorpenguin]

With respect you've not done re-enactment against *real* pila.

And with the knowledge that another volley is coming I'm not sure I'd want to throw my shield away. I rather fancy I'd be trying to see if it was serviceable because I know those nasty Italian blokes have those wicked stabbing swords handy. :wink:

True I haven't

But the Pila was designed to bend in such a way that it was impossible to keep using it so you couldn't try and hang on to it

 

[emperorpenguin]

Look BF:Evo is perfectly fine as a modern combat game but there is NO ruleset I know of that even attempts to cover all periods because they know that it cannot be done! Warfare changed too much.

Warhammer...[/quote]

warhammer doesn't cover anything past 1660........

 

[cordas]

Warhammer...

Ok lets all go home now and cry about the folly of youth :lol:

 

[emperorpenguin]

I mean, Picts vs. Romans near that wall up in Scotland would be a good example.

Which one? :wink:

Hadrian's wall, you numpty.

So not the Antonine Wall then? :wink: numpty yourself! what was that about assumptions Hiro? :wink:

 

[Hiromoon]

True, though I do suppose it was foolish of me to assume that we would have been using the more notable and far more success ful of the two walls there, EP.

warhammer doesn't cover anything past 1660........

Well, it does cover the 40,000s fairly well.....

 

[Old Bear]

Look BF:Evo is perfectly fine as a modern combat game but there is NO ruleset I know of that even attempts to cover all periods because they know that it cannot be done! Warfare changed too much.

Warhammer...

warhammer doesn't cover anything past 1660........[/quote]

Not played the house rule versions of ACW, Colonial and Napoleonic on the web then? they work OK, considering, and the engine used through Warhammer WW2 through to the proper sci-fi game is essentially the same.

 

[emperorpenguin]

True, though I do suppose it was foolish of me to assume that we would have been using the more notable and far more success ful of the two walls there, EP.

warhammer doesn't cover anything past 1660........

Well, it does cover the 40,000s fairly well.....

just because one lasted longer doesn't mean the other wasn't used.... :wink:

Depends on how good you think 40K is!

 

[Old Bear]

True, though I do suppose it was foolish of me to assume that we would have been using the more notable and far more success ful of the two walls there, EP.

warhammer doesn't cover anything past 1660........

Well, it does cover the 40,000s fairly well.....

just because one lasted longer doesn't mean the other wasn't used.... :wink:

Depends on how good you think 40K is!

To be fair that wasn't the question... I have also played Grand Manner Napoleonic rules as well as the Renaissance and Ancients variants.

 

[Hiromoon]

True, but then again, how many people have actually heard of Antonine wall, EP?

And the thousands of wargamers playing 40k as we speak can't be wrong.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Not played the house rule versions of ACW, Colonial and Napoleonic on the web then? they work OK, considering, and the engine used through Warhammer WW2 through to the proper sci-fi game is essentially the same.

they aren't official, anyone can write unofficial sci-fi versions of DBA for example!

There are still some fundamental differences between Warhammer ancients and fantasy though let alone 40K. Then there are differences between Ancients and ECW

They don't attempt to use one rule catches all

 

[emperorpenguin]

True, but then again, how many people have actually heard of Antonine wall, EP?.

you making assumptions there? :wink: Anyone with any knowledge of the period and many Scots I'd imagine for starters....

 

[Poko]

here's a very basic design of a shield, but one that, in more or less elaborate form" was the "gnerally approved" design(at least for the timelimits we'r discusing. notice that there is only one handle there. no straps, just a handle. how quick can you let a handle loose? straps were used,but by cavalry,which needed both hands operational to a degree,or by the romans with their huge scuta

 

[Hiromoon]

True, but then again, how many people have actually heard of Antonine wall, EP?.

you making assumptions there? :wink: Anyone with any knowledge of the period and many Scots I'd imagine for starters....

Nope...you certainly seem to be though.

 

[Old Bear]

Not played the house rule versions of ACW, Colonial and Napoleonic on the web then? they work OK, considering, and the engine used through Warhammer WW2 through to the proper sci-fi game is essentially the same.

they aren't official, anyone can write unofficial sci-fi versions of DBA for example!

There are still some fundamental differences between Warhammer ancients and fantasy though let alone 40K. Then there are differences between Ancients and ECW

They don't attempt to use one rule catches all

What's 'official' got to do with it? the answer is: nothing. :wink: Variants of the games have been written and work to some degree or another. There are differences of course, but taking the comparison further for the sake of discussion the same could be done with the Evolution rules. The core systems either work or they don't, and I think from the rough example already given about the Romans/Celts above it shows it can work out.

I think the term 'suppression' is the red hering here. It's a modern term that has distinct meaning on the modern battlefield. Disorganisation though has always existed.

 

[emperorpenguin]

True, but then again, how many people have actually heard of Antonine wall, EP?.

you making assumptions there? :wink: Anyone with any knowledge of the period and many Scots I'd imagine for starters....

Nope...you certainly seem to be though.

really? :roll: are you saying anything Hiro or just word-playing?

 

[emperorpenguin]

What's 'official' got to do with it? the answer is: nothing. :wink: .

You are wrong. unofficial variants are done all the time but no games designer has tried to write a single rules set to cover all periods because those with military history knowledge know it isn't possible!

 

[Hiromoon]

Well, most people who come here, EP, don't seem the time to have more than a basic understanding of Roman history. Hadrian's wall gets the majority of the press, so saying 'The wall up there' literally means Hadrians wall to them, where as someone with a better understanding would have asked, without smilies or anything like that," Do you mean <x>'s wall or <y>'s wall".

Additionally, not everyone who comes here is Scottish, or is versed in Scottish history beyond a few notable things, so again, saying what I said before still stands true.

And finally, you just told Old Bear that he's wrong. And you're on the same Island as he is. What are you thinking you fool! He's got Ted on his side! RUN! RUUUUN!!

 

[emperorpenguin]

Well, most people who come here, EP, don't seem the time to have more than a basic understanding of Roman history. Hadrian's wall gets the majority of the press, so saying 'The wall up there' literally means Hadrians wall to them, where as someone with a better understanding would have asked, without smilies or anything like that," Do you mean <x>'s wall or <y>'s wall".

Additionally, not everyone who comes here is Scottish, or is versed in Scottish history beyond a few notable things, so again, saying what I said before still stands true.

And finally, you just told Old Bear that he's wrong. And you're on the same Island as he is. What are you thinking you fool! He's got Ted on his side! RUN! RUUUUN!!

You are assuming people's level of knowledge Hiro.... and if you knew there were two (and didn't in fact learn it from me) you would have been nice and not said "numpty" :wink:

Assumption again, if you look at my location you'll see where I am and therefore I am not on the same island....... :wink: