Historicon 2010: Steppe v. Civilized theme army lists

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:24 pm

hazelbark wrote:Of course the Ilkhans sweeping out of the steppes had no Knights until they were pretty deep into the Middle east.

Rather correct, but their territory still included the same regions the Khwarazmians had occupied before AND they had troubles with the golden Horde in that area. So steppe territory existed AND was fought in/over. Actually that argument goes for various armies otherwise, few of the steppe boys had steppe once sweeping out of it. I doubt the Kushan/Indo-Skythians brought all that Indian infantry and Elephants into the steppe to fight for them there. The Mongols did not use artillery in the steppe and so on.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:19 am

Why, considering the overall success of shooty cav armies in FoG, are people thinking that the steppe side is uncompetitive? My worry, before posting the lists, was that I would have trouble finding enough civilized players to balance the numbers, not the other way round.

As for the question of Ilkhanids, I tried to avoid having any army be the obvious choice on either side. Ilkhanids with knights struck me as the army that all the steppe players would be running if it were there. That, combined with the thought that they were settling in to run an empire at that point, rather than initially conquering one, meant that I could eliminate them.

Talk to me,

Marc

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:05 am

babyshark wrote:Why, considering the overall success of shooty cav armies in FoG, are people thinking that the steppe side is uncompetitive? My worry, before posting the lists, was that I would have trouble finding enough civilized players to balance the numbers, not the other way round.

While shooty armies are generally successful I do not subscribe to the 'easy to play' tag often attached to them. If you want to actually win with them (as in routing your opponents army or at least get a high winning draw) I think they are far from easy to use. You need to play fast, as vs. most opponents you want as many rounds as you can get. At the same time you have to be careful not to get tangled up, bungle shooting lines or worse evade paths. For me it takes to much time to sort my moves; so at tournaments I usually end up a few rounds short of breaking my opponent (or getting broken, admittedly). That's why I like the knight option of the Ilkhanids it allows you to break through a bit faster... IF you can deliver the Knights to the right spot (otherwise it tends to speed your demise).
From my own experience and watching others I've come to believe that shooty horse armies are not a winning tool for everybody, not by far. It takes either the right kind of player or lots or practice (preferably both) to win consistently with such armies. Those that can make shooty horse really work make them look very good (as they are and been historically) but I think it skewers the picture (just like not everyone can win with Grahams DomRom Swarm, despite many attempting to do so).

So in the end I think it's a difficult theme. Those that can't make shooty horse work might look for 'civilized armies' but some will "fear" those that can make the steppe boys work. For those a more desirably option might be an unusual steppe army that they can make to work, but that also keeps them on the same side as the "true masters of the steppe" so they don't have to face them. (At least I understood the theme to be exclusively one side vs. the other with no 'infighting'.)

babyshark wrote: As for the question of Ilkhanids, I tried to avoid having any army be the obvious choice on either side. Ilkhanids with knights struck me as the army that all the steppe players would be running if it were there. That, combined with the thought that they were settling in to run an empire at that point, rather than initially conquering one, meant that I could eliminate them.

I don't think one can describe them as settling in before the death of Hulegu and probably not before the death of Abaqa as I mentioned above. Even if you consider them settled their near constant war with the Golden Horde would then probably qualify them for the 'civilized' armies. The decision is yours of course and as it does not affect me in any way I don't really care that much.

pcelella · Post by **pcelella** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:00 am

Mark

It might be best if the theme was not so exclusionary of steppe armies after they have made their conquests and begun to settle down. If they are still steppe based, but with a few units mixed in from the settled component that had gotten incorporated into their armies, wouldn't that result in a more interesting mix with a bit more variety? It might be a little boring as a potential "civilized" player if every army I faced was to be exactly composed of 3 units of armored, superior, bow, sword, cavalry, and 9 units of unprotected, light horse, bow, sword

BTW - I would like to see the Magyars, Sarmatians, Alans, and Timurids included on the steppe side, all the Seljuks, and possibly things like the Ghaznavids and Early Ottomans.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:13 pm

pcelella wrote:BTW - I would like to see the Magyars, Sarmatians, Alans, and Timurids included on the steppe side, all the Seljuks, and possibly things like the Ghaznavids and Early Ottomans.

If you are going to include Timurids you probably need to include their historical opponents - Medieval Indians and Later Ottoman Turks among others.