Quick question - army count?
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
Quick question - army count?
Not sure if anyone can help me out with some info here but I'm after details of just the numbers (total) of armies covered by the current supplements. Just the headline armies (e.g. not taking into account various optional builds). I have four of the books but not all.
armies
Rise of rome :18
Storm of arrows :28
Immortal frie: 18
Swords & scimitars :18
Legions : 22
Eternal empire: 17
decline and fall:23
wolves:22
swifter: 24
oaths:30
empires:38
blood and gold:27
lost scrolls:20
total: 305
Ben
Storm of arrows :28
Immortal frie: 18
Swords & scimitars :18
Legions : 22
Eternal empire: 17
decline and fall:23
wolves:22
swifter: 24
oaths:30
empires:38
blood and gold:27
lost scrolls:20
total: 305
Ben
Some interesting facts based on the "Army Rankings" tables. Navarrese from Storm of Arrows has never been played in a tournament. Nor have Cumans or Middle Serbians from Swords and Scimitars. From Legions Triumphant, the early Anglo-Saxons, et al. and the Gepid/Early Lombards have been neglected. Eternal Empire sees Early Ottomans and Late Bulgarians snubbed. In Decline and Fall, African Vandals, Early Bulgars, Early South Slavs, Late Moorish, Pechenegs and Thematic Byzantines have found no vote of confidence. Wolves from the Sea sees the following armies with no representation at tournaments: Early Medieval French, Early Polish, Early Slavic, Great Moravian, Later Scots Irish, Middle Anglo Saxon. Swifter than Eagles has only three armies without a tournament berth: Kushite Egyptian, Later Hebrew, Neo Hittite/Aramaen. Rise of Rome and Immmortal Fire have no army that has not appeared in at least one tournament. The last 4 books probably have not been out long enough to generate a significant tournament representation.
So, what's wrong with the Navarrese?
So, what's wrong with the Navarrese?
Last edited by gozerius on Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians
missing armies
I think the Naverrese are just too similar but less effective than the spanish neighbors. there will always be armies like this that just don't have either the historical mainstream appeal such as the aztecs, medevial french and vikings or the right mix of troops (late romans, WOTR english, bosphorans) to get many tourney adherents.
Also it is worth looking at weather a similar army has a better mix. african Vandals compare unfavourably with italian ostrogths for example as the Vandals only get cavalry lancers, while the ostrogoths get those and supporting troops.
surprised the Gedis havn't been used though they seem a more flexible version of the ostrogoths or early vandals. perhaps it is the allies or the lesser historical appeal that makes the difference here?
Ben
Also it is worth looking at weather a similar army has a better mix. african Vandals compare unfavourably with italian ostrogths for example as the Vandals only get cavalry lancers, while the ostrogoths get those and supporting troops.
surprised the Gedis havn't been used though they seem a more flexible version of the ostrogoths or early vandals. perhaps it is the allies or the lesser historical appeal that makes the difference here?
Ben
It would be interesting to know if there is a lot of variation in armies fielded within the lists. Do people bring armies across the range of list possibilities, or do armies of a particular list follow a predictable template?
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians
-
Skullzgrinda
- Master Sergeant - U-boat
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:32 pm
- Location: Dixie
Re: missing armies
Agree with you about the Gepids. Bought the lead, but have yet to get them past filing their bases.benos wrote:I think the Naverrese are just too similar but less effective than the spanish neighbors. there will always be armies like this that just don't have either the historical mainstream appeal such as the aztecs, medevial french and vikings or the right mix of troops (late romans, WOTR english, bosphorans) to get many tourney adherents.
Also it is worth looking at weather a similar army has a better mix. african Vandals compare unfavourably with italian ostrogths for example as the Vandals only get cavalry lancers, while the ostrogoths get those and supporting troops.
surprised the Gedis havn't been used though they seem a more flexible version of the ostrogoths or early vandals. perhaps it is the allies or the lesser historical appeal that makes the difference here?
Ben
With the same core of minis I think That I can do all of the Folk Wandering Period Germans except the Early Franks and perhaps the Saxons.
Sone different command stands and they will serve for Merovingians as well.
Yeah...I too have Gepids in my future plans. I've always wanted a Hairy army, but some of the other Hairy lists are too one dimensional for my tastes.
"Late Romans" don't get many tournament adherents? I can only assume this is referring to Foederate Romans (which coincidentally is my list of choice right at this moment) rather than Dom Roms?
"Late Romans" don't get many tournament adherents? I can only assume this is referring to Foederate Romans (which coincidentally is my list of choice right at this moment) rather than Dom Roms?