Done. Thanks. There are some oddities...found Gupta Indian in AoE....
Cheers
Rodge

2009/11/11 mark584036 <mark.fry4@...>

> Rodger - post the question on Warflute - the WF Senate does have some
> general guide-lines & tends to re-classify list submissions that obviously
> fall out of the designated sub-period te author states they are for. But it
> isn't easy, especially as the ge0graphic scope of the lists (including Inda,
> China & Far East) doesn't really follow standard Western Wargaming thinking.
>
> Also - even the A2 Lists had their oddities: such as the Koreans & Tibetans
> in the AoC era when both are so obviously C8th/C9th armies.
>
> In some ways the Biblical/Antiquities is the easiest - basicall no PH or
> Hoplite types is a pretty good guideline. So Lydians go int Antiquities and
> list that span the overlap - like Cypriot City States or the Siatic
> Egyptians should be placed in the sub-period that makes up the majority of
> their time-frame.
>
> Cheers
>
> Aetius
>
> --- In ARMATI@yahoogroups.com, "rodger1uk" <rodger.w@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Mark.
> > Judgement call then.
> > Reason for the question was where there are dates that have to be guessed
> at I wondered if there were guidelines that would make classification easier
> for listing (for Warflute AFT or to correlate with A2).
> > Cheers
> > Rodge
> >
> > --- In ARMATI@yahoogroups.com, Mark Grindlay <mark.grindlay@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I wouldn't have put dates on it, more developments and a key exponent
> force.
> > >
> > > Antiquity seems to kick off with the Persians.  Vincent and I
> discussed it a while ago, and wonder whether its the +2 sheild or the FV7 ,
> or the proper cavalry which marks the change, but in the end, the
> rules list the Persians .
> > >
> > > AoE seems to be with Alexander kicking Persians out (so combined arms,
> maybe, or better FV Cavalry).
> > >
> > > ToC with the stirrup and top-end horseybows ( I forget who is marked as
> that key army, huns perhaps?)
> > >
> > > And I think its the normans who are the first ToC - its something
> like charging lance armed noble cavalry FV6 non-cats, anyway.
> > >
> > > the problem with a single date, is someone always straddles it -
> e.g. the unhappy Siatic Egyptians, who are too good for biblical with all
> those FV7 hoplites.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: rodger1uk <rodger.w@>
> > > To: ARMATI@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, 9 November, 2009 11:16:59
> > > Subject: [ARMATI] Clarification of period dates
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Is there a consensus on the dates we should work to (start and end) for
> > > Biblical
> > > Antiquity
> > > AoE
> > > ToC
> > > AoE
> > > and what are they please?
> > > Cheers
> > > Rodge
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rodger - post the question on Warflute - the WF Senate does have some general
guide-lines & tends to re-classify list submissions that obviously fall out of
the designated sub-period te author states they are for. But it isn't easy,
especially as the ge0graphic scope of the lists (including Inda, China & Far
East) doesn't really follow standard Western Wargaming thinking.

Also - even the A2 Lists had their oddities: such as the Koreans & Tibetans in
the AoC era when both are so obviously C8th/C9th armies.

In some ways the Biblical/Antiquities is the easiest - basicall no PH or Hoplite
types is a pretty good guideline. So Lydians go int Antiquities and list that
span the overlap - like Cypriot City States or the Siatic Egyptians should be
placed in the sub-period that makes up the majority of their time-frame.

Cheers

Aetius

--- In ARMATI@yahoogroups.com, "rodger1uk" <rodger.w@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Mark.
> Judgement call then.
> Reason for the question was where there are dates that have to be guessed at I
wondered if there were guidelines that would make classification easier for
listing (for Warflute AFT or to correlate with A2).
> Cheers
> Rodge
>
> --- In ARMATI@yahoogroups.com, Mark Grindlay <mark.grindlay@> wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't have put dates on it, more developments and a key exponent force.
> >
> > Antiquity seems to kick off with the Persians.  Vincent and I discussed it
a while ago, and wonder whether its the +2 sheild or the FV7 , or the proper
cavalry which marks the change, but in the end, the rules list the Persians .
> >
> > AoE seems to be with Alexander kicking Persians out (so combined arms,
maybe, or better FV Cavalry).
> >
> > ToC with the stirrup and top-end horseybows ( I forget who is marked as that
key army, huns perhaps?)
> >
> > And I think its the normans who are the first ToC - its something
like charging lance armed noble cavalry FV6 non-cats, anyway.
> >
> > the problem with a single date, is someone always straddles it - e.g. the
unhappy Siatic Egyptians, who are too good for biblical with all those FV7
hoplites.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: rodger1uk <rodger.w@>
> > To: ARMATI@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 9 November, 2009 11:16:59
> > Subject: [ARMATI] Clarification of period dates
> >
> >  
> > Is there a consensus on the dates we should work to (start and end) for
> > Biblical
> > Antiquity
> > AoE
> > ToC
> > AoE
> > and what are they please?
> > Cheers
> > Rodge
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

I'd use the armies listed first and last in each section of the pblished
rules as the guide.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Mark.
Judgement call then.
Reason for the question was where there are dates that have to be guessed at I
wondered if there were guidelines that would make classification easier for
listing (for Warflute AFT or to correlate with A2).
Cheers
Rodge

--- In ARMATI@yahoogroups.com, Mark Grindlay <mark.grindlay@...> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't have put dates on it, more developments and a key exponent force.
>
> Antiquity seems to kick off with the Persians.  Vincent and I discussed it a
while ago, and wonder whether its the +2 sheild or the FV7 , or the proper
cavalry which marks the change, but in the end, the rules list the Persians .
>
> AoE seems to be with Alexander kicking Persians out (so combined arms, maybe,
or better FV Cavalry).
>
> ToC with the stirrup and top-end horseybows ( I forget who is marked as that
key army, huns perhaps?)
>
> And I think its the normans who are the first ToC - its something
like charging lance armed noble cavalry FV6 non-cats, anyway.
>
> the problem with a single date, is someone always straddles it - e.g. the
unhappy Siatic Egyptians, who are too good for biblical with all those FV7
hoplites.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: rodger1uk <rodger.w@...>
> To: ARMATI@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 9 November, 2009 11:16:59
> Subject: [ARMATI] Clarification of period dates
>
>  
> Is there a consensus on the dates we should work to (start and end) for
> Biblical
> Antiquity
> AoE
> ToC
> AoE
> and what are they please?
> Cheers
> Rodge
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

In a message dated 11/9/2009 3:46:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mark.grindlay@... writes:

I  wouldn't have put dates on it, more developments and a key exponent
force.

Antiquity seems to kick off with the Persians.  Vincent and  I discussed it
a while ago, and wonder whether its the +2 sheild or the FV7 ,  or the
proper cavalry which marks the change, but in the end, the  rules list the
Persians .

AoE seems to be with Alexander kicking  Persians out (so combined arms,
maybe, or better FV Cavalry).

ToC with  the stirrup and top-end horseybows ( I forget who is marked as
that key army,  huns perhaps?)

And I think its the normans who are the first ToC - its  something like
charging lance armed noble cavalry FV6 non-cats,  anyway.

the problem with a single date, is someone always straddles it  - e.g. the
unhappy Siatic Egyptians, who are too good for biblical with  all those FV7
hoplites.






The question seems to be how is an Egyptian phalanx different from Lydian
one?
I don't think there is much difference except drill.  I believe that  if
you spread outside of period, early fighting values of Phalanx is too  high.
If they fight in period, they are just right.

Alexander III does kick of the Age of Empires when he topples the Persian
Empire.  However, his death ends the Macedonian "Empire" and the Successor
Kingdoms emerge from the wreckage.

However, as Tarn points out in "Developments" it was Kingdoms carried on
the points of sarrisas and not with hereditary rights.  A Successor kingdom
was only as good as its last victory.  Such instability does not make
permanent kingdoms.

Rome turns out to be inheritor of the Hellenistic Kingdom, but retains the
same problem.  However, since there was no serious rival externally,
Parthians and Sarmations do not count, Rome stood.  No matter who was the
Prince, the mail was delivered, taxes levied, the Cohortes and  Legiones 
defended
the borders.

This of course changed during the great military manpower drain of the 3rd
century.  Universal citizenship also did not help, the reason to join the
Roman army was removed.  The plague was a major factor, denuding the Empire
of veteran pedes which in turn lead to the rise of the mounted arm.

"Dark ages" were anything but dark, but with the rise of fiefs and
hereditary service, which is very much Persian, this changed the face of warfare
in how it was handled internally.  On the outside however, nothing much had
changed.  Sieges were impossible to carry out, since soldiers had a limited
service time.  This in turn led to the Hellenic solution.   Mercenaries.
Yet these came with the same baggage that plagued  the Greeks.

The dating of these "eras" seems to be arbitrary except two.    The
bibicals, where the /Battle Car Chariot is the important weapon, which is
eventually supplemented by cavalry, seems to have a clear determining moment 
when
Persia assumes control.

The same when  Alexander topples the Orientals hundreds of years  later.

Steve


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I wouldn't have put dates on it, more developments and a key exponent force.

Antiquity seems to kick off with the Persians.  Vincent and I discussed it a
while ago, and wonder whether its the +2 sheild or the FV7 , or the proper
cavalry which marks the change, but in the end, the rules list the Persians .

AoE seems to be with Alexander kicking Persians out (so combined arms, maybe, or
better FV Cavalry).

ToC with the stirrup and top-end horseybows ( I forget who is marked as that key
army, huns perhaps?)

And I think its the normans who are the first ToC - its something like charging
lance armed noble cavalry FV6 non-cats, anyway.

the problem with a single date, is someone always straddles it - e.g. the
unhappy Siatic Egyptians, who are too good for biblical with all those FV7
hoplites.



________________________________
From: rodger1uk <rodger.w@...>
To: ARMATI@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 9 November, 2009 11:16:59
Subject: [ARMATI] Clarification of period dates

 
Is there a consensus on the dates we should work to (start and end) for
Biblical
Antiquity
AoE
ToC
AoE
and what are they please?
Cheers
Rodge




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is there a consensus on the dates we should work to (start and end) for
Biblical
Antiquity
AoE
ToC
AoE
and what are they please?
Cheers
Rodge

I am definitely a tournament player, although I also enjoy big historic battle
reconstitution.

I do not think that Armati is providing us with a good "equal points equal
chances" systems, but that does not prevent me playing it. Quite to the
contrary, I like the fact that being on equal points still allows me to play
armies which are difficult to win with and which provide me with some
interesting challenges.
I do not see the point in opposing competition and scenario. In fact,
competition scenario playing is my favorite way of playing. I.e. I like it best
when the army and/or the terrain and/or the winning conditions have been
tampered with/imposed by the organisers like the competitions in Glagow,
Bournemouth or the Sun Tzu Trophy which I am organising in Paris.

I have played a lot of DBM competition, some with quite good results. I have
tried some WAB and FoG games, even in competition frame of mind, but my best
competition experiences remain in Armati and I would hate it to see Armati
competition disappear because it does not attract the same number of players as
more fashionable rules. In fact I believe that diversity has a virtue in itself
and that trying to compare the quality and successes of different rules is
pointless. Each brings a flavor which its author wished to emphasise. Each has
its own good points and bad points.

IMHO, the main reason that Armati is not so attractive lies in its inherent
mecanisms. In Armati, maneuver is deliberately very limited and it is usually
impossible to recover from a bad deployment if your opponent is competent
enough. This put a big emphasis on long term planning and careful timing of your
attacks. This is the reason why I so like Armati, but it is also the reason why
so many players are put off by it. They prefer rules which allow them to react
instantly and reorganise their army on the battlefield. Whether this is
historical is irrelevant here, it gives them fun games where any player can
expect to recover through luck or skill from a badly thought out deployment. And
that is the main drives of all players, whichever rule they choose: have fun. We
just have to admit that everyone's version of fun does not have to be the same
for all Earth inhabitants (and I sincerely believes that this is very
fortunate).

As far as availability of Armati and would be Armati companion books is
concerned, I think that our population is unfortunately too small for a
publication and presence in all major gamestores to be economically viable. This
does not mean that we cannot grow, but I think that the implied requests of
Durulz are unrealistic.

Best regards



                              Vincent