"Homebrew Games & Historical Accuracy" Topic

When making a homebrew game, how historically accurate must one make it? Obviously, having crusaders cross blades with early Roman Legionaries is a no-no, but what about having Poitevins going head to head with an army from Kievan Rus? As long as the armies existed in the same era, is their a problem?

Second: Unit names…..Honestly, when I read about armies in the era, they seemed to pretty much be divided up into "knights and then everyone else". When designing lists, is it appropriate to just use terms like "Frankish Archers" or "Saracen Spearmen"?

When making a homebrew game, how historically accurate must one make it?

How historically accurate do you want it?

When designing lists, is it appropriate to just use terms like "Frankish Archers" or "Saracen Spearmen"?

Sure! Everyone else does!

As long as the armies existed in the same era, is their a problem?

Short answer No. Should not be a problem.

That and what Margard said.

The "What Ifs" of history is what wargaming is all about.

How historically accurate do you want it?

Good question :P . I have no intention of putting plate mail in the late 11th and early 12th centuries, but neither is Geoffrey of Anjou gonna be a requirement in ALL Angevin armies.

Obviously, having crusaders cross blades with early Roman Legionaries is a no-no

I take it you're not very familiar with the ancients & medieval wargaming scene then ? :)

I take it you're not very familiar with the ancients & medieval wargaming scene then ? :)

Or Fantasy…

You try to make it as realistic as you can , then you play what if .

For simplicity just look at some of the DBfamily lists , armies hundreds of years/miles apart are nearly the same ,it's only the miniatures that are different .

I suppose that's why Neldoreth's historical modification to Kings of War just has a unified list, then.

….

Hmmm, this helps a fair amount with designing these lists. Thanks, guys.

I'd recommend buying the DBM lists as a starting point for developing your own. They are cheap and each book covers a lot of armies.

how historically accurate must one make it?

As historical as you can. If I can set up Hastings and the Normans cannot win no matter what die rolls happen, do not expect me to play them twice.

I think it all depends on your game mates and what they want, if they are happy who cares :)

Anachronistic duels are what is fun about ancmed. Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age world is chock-full of ancmed kingdoms that were separated in the Real World by space-time; yet they happily slaughter each other routinely. The late Rocky Russo, "back in the day" (this would be the mid to late 70s), put on a play by mail Hyborian-based campaign; i.e. he used the map, but created a slew of closer detail maps as needed; and the players each picked their fav ancmed army to populate their kingdoms with. I was "Poitain" and my army was Siculo-Norman. A Byzantine power (who eventually took over the "known" world) hired a Steppes army to rampage across my realm; I chased them but could not chase them down. However, as they departed, having sacked a number of my open towns/villages, a new enemy appeared; my army was already mustered and met them: a Seleucid Macedonian army! Elephants on the same field as Norman knights, yeah! I won, or rather, Rocky, playing my side in Denver (I live in Salt Lake), won: the Macedonian player rolled abysmal morale checks, and in short order his entire army was streaming away and my charging cavalry carried the field. The campaign ended soon after that; because, as I said, the Byzzie player gobbled up too much of the known world, and the rest of us capitulated into vassal states status….