Speculation about future new T9A factions

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • BondageGoatZombie wrote:

    Shukran wrote:

    @BondageGoatZombie hope it works

    Im from smartphone. Im noob at posting images and i did it in hurry. Please help


    Edit: do i have to put links in "image link" or just "link" string?
    needs a paint job, but looks promising :) are you using it for one of the current armies?
    NO they are meant to be used as the homebrew i had in mind. Needed prints to test bases to decide op rules and eventual unit size and such.

    I think that they may be used as DL if bases matches . But maybe it may be as nippon and titan forge minis used as eos
  • Reliquary wrote:

    On the other hand, human Native Americans would be fantastic. They suffer from the same problem as Africans: that their historical analogues never developed military sophistication equivalent to renaissance Germans, so people writing homebrew tend to overcompensate with the fantasy aspects. Sonnstahl are historical landsknecht with magic and artillery that's had a few liberties taken. If orcs invaded historical Germany, the locals would attempt to wipe them out in pitched battle. If orcs invaded pre-USA Texas, the Commanche might have raided small bands but mostly they'd avoid the new enemy. Historically, they were pushed out by waves of armed settlers just as much as by military units.
    Technology and tactitcs etc doesn't equate military sophistication. It is a mistake to say an ordinary Conquistador were a more sophisticated soldier than an aztec warrior. The aztecs were a fantastic warrior civlization which had a very advanced way to recruit, train and use their warriors. It was perfectly suited to the mezoamerican way of warfare.

    Eldan wrote:

    Make aspects like terrain and weather player decisions. They could for example be purchasable with points. That would open up a ton of tactical options plus story options like guerilla warfare where one side buys more forests and swamps and the other side more manpower.

    I mean, we have some of that already with the wood elves, just open it up more.
    This is a great idea!

    Marcos24 wrote:

    Lol on a one to one with even numbers an actual Spanish army would’ve slaughtered the Aztecs
    No. It is not a given. There are so many other variables to take into account. For example, even the idea of a one to one army is not useful when comparing different forces. Because different doctrine and other variables will change that. An army doing raids and skirmishing is not less capable than an army built for pitched battle.

    There is a notion that the correct way to measure different cultures military skill and acumen are from how they would perform in pitched battles. But pitched battles is such a small part of the entire military business. Assymetrical warfare was big then and it is big now. (recent example being the Talibans defeating the USA in afghanistan.)

    The armed forces of the USA were, and are, absolutley massive in dominating a battlefield compared to the talibans. But they lost the war in the end because of something you write below.

    Marcos24 wrote:

    Had at least a recent history (because we can't tell much more) of fighting staged combats to capture enemy warriors alive. That's what they became accustomed to. That's what they had. Zero indication of any serious tactics other than "lets try and ambush"
    This would be on of the primary reason aztec armies would fail against non-aztec armies. They are having very different military goals. Both on tactical, operational and strategic levels. This is more important than technological difference or numbers or economic power.

    Armies from Europe operates from the principle of total war. It was "invented" by the ancient greek during their dark age. The aztecs did not operate from a total war perspective.

    This is important because total war is a mindset, bent on defeating the enemy and inflict a lot of hurt to it so it can't build up its strength again. This is why european armies searched for pitched battles for over 2 millennia. The aztec warfare were more close to the heroic age where war was decided by champions and individual prowess, were the goal was to take prisoners etc.

    And that is the biggest difference in aztec and conquistador armies. The aztecs couldn't even comprehend what or why the spanish were doing things like they did. It was totally alien concept for them. It would be like aliens coming to earth today and do stuff we don't understand. We can't even speculate about it because we have yet to encounter it. :)
  • @Davian mmm… well for one the Aztecs did have pitched battles against other tribes. And they did have a well organized military, that’s what their culture was about, but it was organized towards war against a similar level of technology and tactics. And by the way, they did try to kill Spanish in combat so that excuse of not understanding why the Spaniards were killing them is of no use anymore. They adapted to the Spanish, they even used feigned retreats. Why? Because they got whooped when they tried to fight toe to toe

    Second, you’re kinda expanding on some things I've said anyway, but I can confidently say that an American soldier is a more sophisticated soldier than a Taliban soldier. Regardless of the “what if” factors we can create to give the advantage to Taliban. “Single US soldier walks through a town full of Taliban that look like the average residents, gets ambush and killed”. The US soldier can likely still shoot better, has better equipment, let’s just even pretend that for sure he’s in better shape and can fight in hand to hand combat better. He still loses in that scenario… but he’s still a more sophisticated soldier. Win/loss doesn’t mean one is more sophisticated than the other. But comparing all the qualities of one vs the other is how we come to that conclusion. The Aztecs not fighting in such a manner as you describe as “total war” (at that time) is exactly the kind of factor I’d use to prove my point. People just don’t like to hear “this one is better”. Well he is.

    Third. It’s reasonable to believe that the concept of total war existed before, as you claim, the Greeks invented it all over the world lol. Just because they may have put the concept in words, or gave it a name and definition doesn’t mean that no one else every did it. It seems to me like the most natural way of fighting. If you’re going to fight against a different culture/nation, and maybe even nit speak their language, you’re probably not going to set any ground rules
  • Giladis wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    but ethnically and culturally the Ottomans were most definitely Asian.
    Debatable. Original beys certainly were but by the time of the empire, the imperial family as well as the majority of the state apparatus including elite military units were predominantly European in origin. Even the Sultans by the time 17th century rolled in had more European than Asian heritage due to the succession of mothers of European origin. For example Ahmed I had 5 consecutive female ancestors in direct line of European heritage.
    That's royalty though. For example when Prince Christian of Denmark one day takes the throne he'll be 1/2 australian, 1/4 french and 1/8 traitor (they like to call themselves swedish I've heard). The remaining 1/8 might have a grain af danish somewhere, but is really german





    Even the Ottomans themselves saw themselves as Europeans especially due to the claim of being the successors of the Palaiologos dynasty.


    Different Sultans had different views in that regard and the focus and even capital shifted several times before they took Constantinopel. I'm surprised if the Sultans weren't too proud to consider themselves successors to anybody. Thought that claim was just put forward to "legalize" attacks on former byzantine territory.

    I'm not sure whether Ottomans in general started to consider themselves at some point after Constantinopel. Heck, whether you'd ask Ataturk, Erdogan or any turk in the street I'm not sure you'd get a clear answer if modern turks are european

    That still didn't stop them from claiming the position of the Caliph.
  • So it sounds like Marcos24 is going to spearhead an Aztec supplement? ;)

    Edit: Also this debate reminded me of the one pitched battle I recall the Spanish/Aztecs fighting, and it demonstrates the power of psychology in medieval battles:

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Otumba

    Note that the decisive action in the battle wasn’t guns or cannons, but a good ol’ fashioned shock cavalry charge.
  • New

    Does anyone talked about a whole ethereal ghost army ?

    I mean, you know the miniatures range I'm thinking about and I think it's really cool.

    Furthermore, I miss the old school necromants armies - before vampires arrival - and it could be really cool to mix it with some summoning mechanics, like for cultist.

    Imagine, a ghostly horde, coming from everywhere, through ruins and woods, while your troops are desperately trying to hunt the summoner before this colossal undead dragon raise from the dead.

    I know, actually it really looks like some recent American Fantasy's best seller... but that wasn't what I had in mind before writing this.

    Meh. You screwed it up.
  • New

    Necrosa wrote:

    Does anyone talked about a whole ethereal ghost army ?
    That would make a nice variant army book. I'd be up for that as a second army.


    Necrosa wrote:

    Furthermore, I miss the old school necromants armies - before vampires arrival - and it could be really cool to mix it with some summoning mechanics, like for cultist.
    Same. I miss when undead was just an army and now a vampire led thing. I miss the days of skeleton archers, skeleton chariots and skull catapults. I know they are part of UL but I want them in the medieval style undead army.
    Legion of the Barrow Downs (Vampire Covenants) - 2120 points.

    "I see shapes of Men and of horses, and pale banners like shreds of cloud, and spears like winter-thickets on a misty night. The Dead are following."
  • New

    Giladis wrote:

    Does the Barrow Legion not sufficiently cover that aesthetic?
    Yes and no. If I went with that, I'm still playing UL which means I miss out on the other undead units I would like.


    arwaker wrote:

    Barrow Legion should definitively be a supplementary book of both, UD AND VC, incorporating the best fitting elements from each book.
    Yes. Agreed.
    Legion of the Barrow Downs (Vampire Covenants) - 2120 points.

    "I see shapes of Men and of horses, and pale banners like shreds of cloud, and spears like winter-thickets on a misty night. The Dead are following."
  • New

    Necrosa wrote:

    I failed in searching what is Barrow Legion. Can someone help me?
    In the Undying Legions army book there are two variants, Barrow Legion and Terracotta Army.
    Legion of the Barrow Downs (Vampire Covenants) - 2120 points.

    "I see shapes of Men and of horses, and pale banners like shreds of cloud, and spears like winter-thickets on a misty night. The Dead are following."
  • New

    I want more human factions. For a game, a world, which kind of says humans are the most common sentient species and among the most numerous it feels weird for it to only be 3 human factions in the game. :)

    It would make the game more interesting with more humans both from flavor but also from pure gaming perspective. Humans would have human profiles and we would have more armies with "average" profile and average special rules. Which would dampen the power creep a bit I believe. :)
  • New

    Warriors of the dark gods, Knights of Unspellable-aine and the Empire. ( I count Mahkar and Åsklanders as WDG)
    I forgot about the cultists. But as main factions we only have 3, and I think human factions should be outnumbering the others combined. So we should have 50% of the factions in total being humans.

    To make the game make sense lorewise :p I mean, surely not ALL humans are living in Equataine or the Empire or with the dark gods.

    I like fantastic factions much like everyone else however, and this is a rather controversial take on fantasy tropes but, all non-human species are limtied humans. They are always a facet, an extra focus, on some of what makes humans human. But they are never fully human, they are always limited some way.

    Elves? They are humans with heightened focus on longevity and grace etc. They are never ugly, clumsy, stupid, gregarious etc. They represent exaggerated aspects of humanit, but they are never full human. They are always a mutilated species. They are captured and hold prisoner by their genetics. Dwarves? same there. They are humans with exaggerated focus on hardiness, industrious, crafting, society etc. But they are never the fair graceful almost ghostlike people and so on. Orcs are another facet or exaggeration of humanity and so on.

    All sentient beings a human can design are humans. We, as humans, can't create something which is beoynd our understanding. Anytime we answer the question "what is an elf?" we answer it "An elf is a human, but with these features and they lack these other features". We can't comprehend or create and design other sentient beings than human variations. Just like someone born blind can never comprehend what colours look like, or a deaf person comprehend what Iron Maiden sound likes etc.

    And this limitation of our creative process as human make most fantasy-factions in a game suffer the risk to become stereotypes. Some kind of modern animism almost. This will be more and more prevalent and noticable in a fantasy game, the more non-human factions we create. To counterblance this, to make fantasy fantasy and not "humans cosplaying fantastic beasts", fantastical elements should be kept to a minimum as much as possible.

    because nothing is fantastic if everything is fantastic, undeads are not really something which should be fearsome in a world with just as many undead factions as human factions. This for example implies that there are likely as many undead in the world as humans. And it woyuld make them the #2 most common warrior to encounter. Not that scary anymore.

    So to make the fantasy elements stronger, the amount of fantastic features should be toned down. And I believe adding more human factions will provide just that at the same time the world in general becomes more coherent to the setting.
  • New

    @Davian we originally started developing fantasy races as truly alien but the feedback we got was overwhelmingly negative because people were unable to connect with their miniatures or project themselves onto them, so we scaled it back a lot to what we have today.

    From a background perspective, the world is already oversaturated with human cultures compared to non-human ones. In terms of game design we also already have too many factions to properly develop them into really unique gaming pieces where the choice of a faction really defines how you play the game. If we were in a position to develop the game truly from scratch rather than starting from preserving our existing model collections I doubt we would have introduced more than 10 factions.

    Elves
    Dwarves
    Ogres
    Undead
    Humans
    Saurians
    Beasts
    Daemons
    Vermin


    Davian wrote:

    Unspellable-aine
    Come now the name is one vowel removed from the name of one of the most famous medieval fiefs and a well-known region of France

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    DE LAB TT

    THE SAUCY QUILL INN