Army Choices-Ottomans, Serbians or Later Hungarian

lonehorseman · Post by **lonehorseman** » Fri May 21, 2010 12:36 pm

I was looking though my Eternal Empires book and it struck me that possible a fully mounted army ssuch as my mongol conquest is not neccesarily the best idea for open competitions where it is likely to come up against HYW and such.

Now I prefer Eastern European armies historically so would like to know which of these, Later Ottoman Turkish, Later Serbian or Later HUngarian is a better open tournament army.

Thanks.

Duane

lonehorseman · Post by **lonehorseman** » Fri May 21, 2010 12:44 pm

I think add to that Later Lithuanian and Hussite

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Fri May 21, 2010 12:52 pm

Wallachian....

Who can't resist Vlad Tepes

Madcam.

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Fri May 21, 2010 3:41 pm

lonehorseman wrote:I was looking though my Eternal Empires book and it struck me that possible a fully mounted army ssuch as my mongol conquest is not neccesarily the best idea for open competitions where it is likely to come up against HYW and such.

Now I prefer Eastern European armies historically so would like to know which of these, Later Ottoman Turkish, Later Serbian or Later HUngarian is a better open tournament army.

Thanks.

Duane

The sensible, though entirely unsatisfactory aswer is "it depends" but I'll go out on a limb and go later hungarians.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Fri May 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Later Ottoman Turkish has won several competitions, the others haven't

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed May 26, 2010 9:55 pm

grahambriggs wrote:Later Ottoman Turkish has won several competitions, the others haven't

Phoeey. That's not a fun criteria.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed May 26, 2010 9:57 pm

A lot depends on your style of play and configuration.

The Serbs are about delivering the knights and having enough LH to drive off enemy LH

Ottomans are about shooting with lots of good troops.

Hungarians have many different styles, but tend toward LH shooting and domination with Knight delivery as coup d'grace.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Wed May 26, 2010 11:44 pm

Although I have a fondness for Later Hungarian armies . . . I propose the hypothesis that Ottomans have a greater range of comparably viable army compositions. On the rating scale http://www.madaxeman.com/wiki2/tiki-ind ... an+Turkish, I rate them as "A" for being versatile against varying opponents but as having a learning curve to optimize combined arms tactics.

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Thu May 27, 2010 4:33 am

grahambriggs wrote:Later Ottoman Turkish has won several competitions, the others haven't

Dangerous path to take as all this means is that its a good army in the hands of a vary good player. A lot of firt timers go looking at the tournament placings and end up dejected after the army that everyone else is winning with (seljuks, Scythians, later swiss) dont do as well as they expect.

lonehorseman · Post by **lonehorseman** » Thu May 27, 2010 9:21 am

In the end I went with Ottomans as they would allow me a greater flexibility in themed tournaments (due to long time span) as well as giving me an army I could use in FOG:R and possibly with some extra figures in Napoleonics. Also I thought that as I did play Mongols it would be similar in at least part of the army. I have since played 2 test games with them (with my magnificent HYW longbowmen-jannisaries and knightly cv as stand ins lol) both of which have been decisive (24-1 (LRR) & 25-0 (Burgundian Ordonnance)) victories.

Thanks for the advice.

D

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:21 am

lonehorseman wrote:In the end I went with Ottomans as they would allow me a greater flexibility in themed tournaments (due to long time span) as well as giving me an army I could use in FOG:R and possibly with some extra figures in Napoleonics. Also I thought that as I did play Mongols it would be similar in at least part of the army. I have since played 2 test games with them (with my magnificent HYW longbowmen-jannisaries and knightly cv as stand ins lol) both of which have been decisive (24-1 (LRR) & 25-0 (Burgundian Ordonnance)) victories.

Thanks for the advice.

D

And unlike Knight armies they can run away screaming when they can't win head on.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 1:54 pm

And unlike Knight armies they can run away screaming when they can't win head on

Have you suffered recently at the hands of the Ottomans? I noticed a similar post somewhere else too.

Skullzgrinda · Post by **Skullzgrinda** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:32 pm

madcam2us wrote:Wallachian....

Who can't resist Vlad Tepes

Madcam.

Same.

Skullzgrinda · Post by **Skullzgrinda** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:38 pm

expendablecinc wrote:Dangerous path to take as all this means is that its a good army in the hands of a vary good player. A lot of firt timers go looking at the tournament placings and end up dejected after the army that everyone else is winning with (seljuks, Scythians, later swiss) dont do as well as they expect.

I will testify to this from the carrion end of tournament results. I have done very poorly by my Skythians - not they by me - in every FoG game I have played with them. When I run them as Alans, with twice as many lancers, I have done alright.

Picking an army based on other people's results and styles is a poor policy, IMO.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:45 pm

Skullzgrinda wrote:
expendablecinc wrote:Dangerous path to take as all this means is that its a good army in the hands of a vary good player. A lot of firt timers go looking at the tournament placings and end up dejected after the army that everyone else is winning with (seljuks, Scythians, later swiss) dont do as well as they expect.
I will testify to this from the carrion end of tournament results. I have done very poorly by my Skythians - not they by me - in every FoG game I have played with them. When I run them as Alans, with twice as many lancers, I have done alright.

Picking an army based on other people's results and styles is a poor policy, IMO.

Watch for the Dom Roms and Ottoman Turks at Britcon then, and I'll go way out on the limb here Lancer Armies as well.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:19 pm

Skullzgrinda wrote:Picking an army based on other people's results and styles is a poor policy, IMO.

I agree, many different styles appear to work in FoG. From swarm to small and shock to skirmish. They all have their advantages (some more than others maybe) and disadvantages, but it needs to be a style that suits the player.

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:19 pm

petedalby wrote:
And unlike Knight armies they can run away screaming when they can't win head on
Have you suffered recently at the hands of the Ottomans? I noticed a similar post somewhere else too.

Hasn't everyone? A while back most people picked proper Ottoman (with Serbs). Lately it seems the fashion to pick all LH and cav and it's surprisingly reminiscent of the old days of Patrician Roman and Later Hungarian death by geometry and a thousand arrows...

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:54 pm

A while back most people picked proper Ottoman (with Serbs).

Good to know that the version I use is proper - I wouldn't leave home without the Serbs!

Andy1972 · Post by **Andy1972** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:08 am

I like the Hungarians.. I like the mix of armored spearmen, knights, cav and light horse.. I like the combined arms armies.

Army Choices-Ottomans, Serbians or Later Hungarian

Army Choices-Ottomans, Serbians or Later Hungarian

Re: Army Choices-Ottomans, Serbians or Later Hungarian