How historically accurate do you need to be

[Imperial Dave]

Boom tish....

 

[Erpingham]

I'm quite happy with Byzantines v Aztecs, providing both armies are organised along their historical basis (as far as we know or can guess)

Historical organisation could well be more difficult than figures in the right kit. Unless the ruleset is tightly focussed on a time and place, rule writers rarely seem to focus on this.  Indeed, some rules make historical organisation nigh impossible.  Note all the discussions here and elsewhere about not being able to use the Roman triplex acies under x rules, for example.

[Imperial Dave]

Very astutely observed Anthony. Often overlooked or at least skimmed over, historical army organisation is a tough nut to argue let alone get 'right'

[Keraunos]

Indeed, Anthony.  What is driving some of my current attempts at rule writing is how to ensure that a player is not penalized if they wish to deploy their troops in historically realistic ways and, if possible, incentivized to do so. Not as easy as it sounds.

[Imperial Dave]

Amen to that...a tough nut to crack but a worthy aspiration nonetheless

[dwkay57]

A nut which your no doubt applying the crackers to in your rules Dave?

[Imperial Dave]

More Nutella than nut...

[Jon Freitag]

Indeed, Anthony.  What is driving some of my current attempts at rule writing is how to ensure that a player is not penalized if they wish to deploy their troops in historically realistic ways and, if possible, incentivized to do so. Not as easy as it sounds.

While difficult to get right, rigorous playtesting with a variety of players and playing styles helps a lot.  Without extensive playtesting, these inconsistencies may be difficult to surface.

[Keraunos]

Indeed, Anthony.  What is driving some of my current attempts at rule writing is how to ensure that a player is not penalized if they wish to deploy their troops in historically realistic ways and, if possible, incentivized to do so. Not as easy as it sounds.

While difficult to get right, rigorous playtesting with a variety of players and playing styles helps a lot.  Without extensive playtesting, these inconsistencies may be difficult to surface.

Agreed.  That's where the SoA Convention comes in handy, trying out rules with a new group of people interested in the questions you are trying to address and with a variety of experience and ideas to help get things over the line.

[Swampster]

Indeed, Anthony.  What is driving some of my current attempts at rule writing is how to ensure that a player is not penalized if they wish to deploy their troops in historically realistic ways and, if possible, incentivized to do so. Not as easy as it sounds.

To some extent, being historically 'accurate' would disincentivize or prevent unhistorical deployment which is better in game terms. Having proper reserves for instance.
Piquet did this by having certain deployment options which were only available to more 'sophisticated' armies.
Unfortunately it removes one of the main decision points for a player and can end up with battles becoming too repetitive.

On the appearance side, using historical examples can look better than using imagination. I think historical heraldry is generally more interesting than made up examples and the rules of colour were applied because it makes the colours pop more. I noticed this when I found a D&D figure I painted when a callow youth. The red cross on blue background just didn't stand out.
There can be limitations on appearance due to what is suppled by manufacturers- my early 15th century knights mostly came with horses with housings even though they were probably less common than that. On the plus side, it does make them look nice. The Teutonic Knights likely didn't use coverings on their horses but the folk image is so strong that they seem wrong even if historically they are right(ish).

[dwkay57]

I think it is possible to organise armies along known or near-known historical structures, irrespective of other factors. In the Completed Armies Thread, David Stevens has organised his Sassanians in line with the "seven great families" so it may not be just me. Be interested to learn if this affects their performance on the battlefield.

I do think that the writers of army lists do have some responsibility too. For instance in Slingshot 359, the Age of Hannibal list for Early Germans mentions the various tribes and outlines some of the differences but the list itself does not really bring out the differences in the tribes nor potentially the impact of some of them being allied.

[Imperial Dave]

I applaud army list writers and yet at the same time echo what David says. It would be nice to have more detail and context and of course the standard answer is well if you want it do it yourself

Which is why I am doing it for my dark age armies and digging another rabbit hole for myself

[Erpingham]

On the appearance side, using historical examples can look better than using imagination. I think historical heraldry is generally more interesting than made up examples and the rules of colour were applied because it makes the colours pop more.

Non-historical heraldry has three major advantages for me

1. Identifying the heraldry. It can be difficult to find historical heraldry, and identifying the individuals who you need in the army beyond the commanders.
2. A more generic approach allows you to use the same figures in more than one army. 
3. My artistic abilities are not up to tackling a lot of the more complex heraldry of the later Middle Ages.

There can be limitations on appearance due to what is suppled by manufacturers- my early 15th century knights mostly came with horses with housings even though they were probably less common than that. On the plus side, it does make them look nice.

Agreed.  Most of my early 15th century knights have caparisoned horses, because that's what their original owner bought. If you look at the Hinchliffe catalogue, though, you will see they only produced one unarmoured horse and that a bit on the small side so he didn't get a lot of choice. My 14th century cavalry are very colourful but, again, in barding terms, far too much of it. Incidentally, on the choice available point, most wargames covered medieval horses have their tails through the cover, whereas period sources much more frequently show the tail under the cover. So it's hard to be accurate, even if you try 

[Erpingham]

I think it is possible to organise armies along known or near-known historical structures, irrespective of other factors. In the Completed Armies Thread, David Stevens has organised his Sassanians in line with the "seven great families" so it may not be just me.

I think there is a difference between being able to identify troops as a named entity (that warband there is the Chatti) and organising them tactically to operate as their historical prototype.  If I say that Roman unit is the Tenth Legion, what does it mean within the rules?

[Swampster]

On the appearance side, using historical examples can look better than using imagination. I think historical heraldry is generally more interesting than made up examples and the rules of colour were applied because it makes the colours pop more.

Non-historical heraldry has three major advantages for me

1. Identifying the heraldry. It can be difficult to find historical heraldry, and identifying the individuals who you need in the army beyond the commanders.
2. A more generic approach allows you to use the same figures in more than one army. 
3. My artistic abilities are not up to tackling a lot of the more complex heraldry of the later Middle Ages.

I'm not thinking so much of heraldry to match particular individuals and I understand that most people want to have generic knights rather than specific ones for each different nation. What I was thinking more was where I have seen combinations of colours - like my red cross on blue - which don't work either aesthetically or heraldically.
By looking at historic examples there are quite a few simple designs which are still easy to do but which add a bit more variation than the more common fesses, bends etc.

P.