"Reading Army Lists for Fun?" Topic

Do you find it enjoyable to peruse army lists for miniature wargaming?

Yes. I owned five Field of Glory army books before I even got the rules. Which I really only bought because it was really cheap at a used book store.

Yes, very much so!
For Ancients I like FoG-type lists that define the main army, ex.: a legion, and types/numbers of allies.
For Napoleonics I like lists that include nations/numbers of allies for a campaign ex.: Peninsular Campaign for a given year.
For WWII and more recent, I like typical force lists (whatever size) that include support elements available.

Oh, absolutely.

Yes

x42

Of course; the megalomaniac in me likes to see how great generals organized their armies. Fun to think about how I would construct the perfect army.

Totally with Ancients. I have all the FOG books and still pour over them. Those books are marvelous I say, just marvelous!
Never played or owned the game.

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Yes. Reading a new set of rules which need some refined lists.

Bigest recent disappointment were the historical Kings of War. You could have any troop type that the country fielded in the same army. For example Egypt can field chariots, pikemen and Saracen Mameluke. Awful

Now that I think about it, FOG:R "Trade and Treachery" is in my truck right now- I was reading it in carline at school.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only enthusiastic AL reader!

yes definitely

Yes, all the time.

"Army lists" in the sense of troops permitted or required under a particular set of rules? Great Heavens no! Real orders of battle, certainly.

Definitely. They are a good resource to see what an army consisted of.

When I got a copy of FOG Napoleonics, I sat down and designed army lists for the Latin American Wars of Independence, US war of 1812, and other smaller wars like the First Carlist War.

Yes. It kind of raises my interest level in areas I most definitely don't need to start collecting.

No. As Robert piepenbrink, yes for actual OOB. Even for fictional armies, I would rather read the canon (or even fluff) rather than the wargame stats.

Yes. Still reading WRG 7th edition lists.

Perris0707, I still read those also.

For the few set of rules that I actually have historical data for, the rules give a fairly accurate ratio of the various troops types. Of course OOBs are much more accurate but for a rough estimate, they're not that bad.

very much so

Even I admit I don't read army lists for fun. Why would you? Ours are based as best we can on real data but while informative I don't see them as fun. Reference yes, can I have more than 3 bridge layers and who can have an engineer vehicle with them and so on.

Indeed, I enjoy learning how a rules author translates Historical Armies into games list. ditto to Russ. Great booklets.

I am just now studying the army lists in Bataille empire.

Army Lists give a good indication of where the rules author is trying to go.

And also if you should get off their bus if they (the rules, nor the author) are not to your particular taste.

Yes.