Fish

[Ithoriel]

I dislike the attempt to "historicalise" the rules.

For me, Fantasy is not historical armies with dragons, it's a whole different animal with a whole set of different underlying principles.

The sources are not Arrian, Anna Comnena or Aeneas Tacticus but rather Tolkein, Gemmel, Jordan, et al, or even (Insert favourite fantasy author here).

Cavalry are queens of the battlefield, grinding the grubby little ground pounders into the mud (except when the ground pounders are the heroes and have some cunning plan, possibly involving turnips, to turn the tables).

Archers have muscle-powered SMGs.

No author I've read seems to understand the difference between a javelin, spear or pike - a pointy stick is a pointy stick.

Likewise, none of them understand how skirmishers work and most don't seem to know they might exist.

I like the uncertainty created by the command system and the constant attempts to shield players from the consequences of their own actions frustrate me.

Other people like the new version, and more power to their elbows, but they are not for me.

 

[steve_holmes_11]

No author I've read seems to understand the difference between a javelin, spear or pike - a pointy stick is a pointy stick.

Likewise, none of them understand how skirmishers work and most don't seem to know they might exist.

The same could be said for plenty of contemporary (ie Ancient) historians, playwrights and authors.

They all tend to follow a similar track.
* A pointy stick is a pointy stick, and I won't go into great detail about its length (How were the Hypaspists equipped?)
* Heavy infantry covers anything from a Spartan Warrior, Roman Legionary to a Gallic Infantryman.
* The only skirmishers worthy of note hail from Mediterranean islands, or ride horses.
* There's never much detail about how the opposition fights.

[FierceKitty]

May we add the idiocy of calling a halberd a pike? The noirest of betes noirs.