Any chance of medieval historical armies in the future?

[Hannibal]

Funny I was emailing Chad on this very subject.  I think that pairing historical factions is a really good idea from a hobby perspective, and I'll bet not a terrible idea from a sales perspective.  Follow me here:

As I stated above, a lot of historical matchups would be boring because of their similarities (English vs French), and so the really interesting factions are in essence culture clashes.  Alexander vs Persia.  Spanish vs Aztecs.  Crusaders vs Muslims.  Even Rome vs Carthage (although those two were fairly similar).

In those matchups, there's usually a side we Westerners have been conditioned to sympathize with, even if just subtly.  Aztecs vs Spanish might come close to one where we're not sympathetic, but that's it.  Everybody thinks positively of Rome and the Greeks, and we tend to not really pay attention to the other side.

The result is that people buy the historical sets basically to play one faction.  I'll bet 90% of people who bought the Punic Wars (and are not on this forum) did so because they wanted to play Rome.  I'll bet 90% of the people will want to play Alexander.

And hey, I'm no different.  I cracked open Rome first.  When I joined the team, I looked at Alexander first, poring over the Greeks.  But you know what?  I found Carthage to be far more fun than Rome.  And I'd much rather play Persia than the Greeks.

I think being 'forced' to have the other faction enriches the game because there's more people exposed to these lesser known factions, that are really good.  But I think if they were on their own they'd sell terribly.

From a business perspective, the question becomes "how many people chose not to buy because they didn't want to pay the extra $20 that they were being 'forced' to spend to get the Romans?"  Well, that's pretty hard to know.  My gut says that most miniatures players aren't gonna fret over $50  for 2 vs $30 for 1.  At $50, the two factions are still cheaper than the buy in cost for many rulebooks.

[kidbrock9]

You're probably right about all that.  Still, there are points in the 100 years war when the troops are fairly different.  Toward the end it became more homogenized, but in the earlier years, England had a professional army while the French were hanging on to feudal style armies.  Probably not enought to make it worth it of course, but hardly identical.

Oh well.  As was said, it probably wouldn't be as cool in battleground as it seems when you're poring over it in books and documentaries. 

The interest in the thread was gratifying at least. 

[Hannibal]

You're probably right about all that.  Still, there are points in the 100 years war when the troops are fairly different.  Toward the end it became more homogenized, but in the earlier years, England had a professional army while the French were hanging on to feudal style armies.  Probably not enought to make it worth it of course, but hardly identical.

Oh definitely true!  Sorry to imply otherwise, and really when I say that the armies are the same, I'm saying that with my design cap on.  Your average BGFW faction has 12 different units, so when you're looking to make an army you have to ask yourself "is there a dozen units in there?"  And while you can get some real mileage out of "Troop X, rookie version of Troop X, elite version of Troop X" for one faction, if the two armies fight the same way you have ask if you can really get enough differentiation for 12 units per army.

Its why, as I've said, the Greeks would be hard to do as a pair.

The interest in the thread was gratifying at least.

Hey its fun.  I've had my interest in military history renewed as late, so sorry if I launch into my lecture/analysis.   

[RushAss]

As I stated above, a lot of historical matchups would be boring because of their similarities (English vs French), and so the really interesting factions are in essence culture clashes.  Alexander vs Persia.  Spanish vs Aztecs.  Crusaders vs Muslims.  Even Rome vs Carthage (although those two were fairly similar)....

I think being 'forced' to have the other faction enriches the game because there's more people exposed to these lesser known factions, that are really good.  But I think if they were on their own they'd sell terribly.

...From a business perspective, the question becomes "how many people chose not to buy because they didn't want to pay the extra $20 that they were being 'forced' to spend to get the Romans?"  Well, that's pretty hard to know.  My gut says that most miniatures players aren't gonna fret over $50  for 2 vs $30 for 1.  At $50, the two factions are still cheaper than the buy in cost for many rulebooks.

Great stuff right here.  I have not thought of it that way before, but you are spot on.

[leemie]

Mongols vs samurai?



I just want to play samurai

[leemie]

or Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)

[Karasu]

Nudge: Read this thread.  whistles innocently.

http://yourmovegames.com/forum/index.php/topic,874.0.html

[leemie]

Nudge: Read this thread.  whistles innocently.

http://yourmovegames.com/forum/index.php/topic,874.0.html

fantasy samurai would be cool too but there wouldn't be a reason to do both historical and fantasy. I would be happy with either.

[Bloodaxe]

I would definitely buy some historical factions.

[Niko White]

Just making a few quick notes:

-Spanish vs. Aztecs is indeed official and is pretty close to done now, I think.
-The Spanish are the Spanish Empire, so a late medieval/early renaissance cusp faction.  They have all the units they used to actually fight the Aztecs, but also the ones that they used in the European wars throughout the 1500s.  They're not exactly "archetypal medieval" since the Hawks are more like that, but they definitely have some of that feel.
-Everyone's right that "X vs. Y" is harder to come up with than it looks.  Spain got incredibly lucky to have as easy a time as they did with the Aztecs and that's a genuine clash of civilizations, so it's actually one of the easier ones to make as factions.  Ditto the few other rare genuine clashes between different cultures - Punic War and Alexander being good examples.  Some of the Mongol or Mongol successor stuff has lots of different units, but horse archer spam is boring.  Other than that, you get some really samey units.  I think we'll be able to continue to make historical factions and we plan to, but it is surprisingly hard to come up with good ones.

[Darthvegeta800]

Personally the future armies i'd love to see would be:

Teutonic Knights versus Poland-Lithuania OR Baltic Crusaders vs Novgorod
Japan/Samurai versus Korea
Normans versus Saxons
Byzantium versus Ottomans
England vs France (100 Years War)

On a sidenote. A sort of 'King Arthur' thematic set would be fun too.