Christian Nubian – the superior army?

[waldo]

Just wondering about these fellows – fought two 'battles' against the Arabs, the first causing several hundred casualties to the Arabs (calling it "a major defeat" in Decline and Fall is some stretch), the second a siege where the end result was the Nubians paid tribute to the Arabs for hundreds of years. Later on, after mixed results against the Egyptians, the Mamluks walked in and conquered them.

In FoG terms this translates to mass superior archers and an army that has in 16 tournaments placed in the top 3 8 times, has the highest average point score per round for those armies that have played more than 50 games and the 3rd highest ELO score.

Is this considered an accurate reflection of their historical abilities?

Walter

[hazelbark]

I think some have suggested the point value for superior undrilled unprotected bow is too low by 1 or 2.

If it weren't for the superior rating the army would not be seen.

The army is very good at destroying LH armies. But a roman will walk straigth through it.

Also i would guess that most players who run it are probably in the top 25% skill set at the comps they take it too.

So you have a lot of things combining to have it punching above its historical weight.

[david53]

I think it is a bit unhistorical I have done some research and I can't figure out why they are superior. I'm sure theres a source(arab) that said they were good with bows. I think maybe if they were'nt superior and they were average unprotected undrilled medium foot without a sword they might not have been seen on the table. But also as stated they might be playing good because of who is using them considering they have'nt great support troops. If you get among them most things are on a double plus both in impact and melee so that might go someway to sorting it out.

[philqw78]

Average players seem to do average with them.

As for their real life performance:

The egyptians and their contemporaries thought they were really good. So they can be superior as mercenaries in other peoples armies but not in their own during that time period.

So I suppose Capitalism then Christianity made them superior. This is why the church is so rich and the people it ministers to are so poor?

(thought about putting a smiley on the end, but I'd be kidding myself)

[DavidT]

hazelbark wrote

But a roman will walk straigth through it.

I have played Christian Nubian with my Late Republican Romans and, while my troops may walk through them, it is impossible to kill enough of them in the time period and meanwhile the shooting does take it's toll and every BG lost has a greater impact for the smaller Roman army. So usually a narrow winning draw for the Romans.

[waldo]

If Christian Nubian isn’t used because it would be ineffective then so be it – they certainly aren’t alone. Virtually every barbarian foot army is in the same boat. Look at the records of the armies from “Dogs from the Seas” (with the notable exception of the Norse-Irish, but they have more superior troops than their contemporaries and lots of cheap LF to skirmish and increase the army size – that old historical tactic of bringing in men with sticks to make the army harder to beat).

Surely it is better for them to be average than too powerful? Using a rationale of “they beat the Arabs a couple of times” as a justification for superior makes me wonder why the Scots spears aren’t all superior, they beat the English in a couple of battles and the English never did get around to conquering Scotland (and no, I’m not Scottish). Nor are the English archers superior.

It might be the case that the best players use this army, but that is only because they know it can be successful whereas those eternal optimists using Viking or Early Frank have consigned themselves to also-ran status. Have a look at the top 20 players and see what armies they use. There is a certain consistency. Even when themed tournaments are run some armies are in trouble e.g. Warfare 2009 Dark Ages 1st and 2nd place were taken by Bedouin Dynasties & Dailami. Hardly what springs to mind when 'Dark Ages' is mentioned. Or Roll Call 2009 Dark Ages where 1st and 2nd were Early Hungarian and Bedouin Dynasties. Christian Nubian rounded out the top 3.

I’m sure most agree with the statement “…for one-off battles that provide a reasonable opportunity for either player to win, a points system can be very useful.” [p.148]. Useful, but it is not working. There is no reasonable opportunity in many games for “either” player to win. Tournament results (and ‘friendly’ games for that matter) prove it. Victory conditions, terrain, even the board size are too heavily in favour of certain armies and against others. But I suppose that is another topic.

Walter

[philqw78]

Oooh Er missus

If Christian Nubian isn’t used because it would be ineffective then so be it – they certainly aren’t alone.

it is used

Virtually every barbarian foot army is in the same boat.

because they were not very good

Look at the records of the armies from “Dogs from the Seas” (with the notable exception of the Norse-Irish, but they have more superior troops than their contemporaries and lots of cheap LF to skirmish and increase the army size – that old historical tactic of bringing in men with sticks to make the army harder to beat).

Look at them in what? A contemporary comp or an open comp? In period they are shit.

Surely it is better for them to be average than too powerful? Using a rationale of “they beat the Arabs a couple of times” as a justification for superior makes me wonder why the Scots spears aren’t all superior, they beat the English in a couple of battles and the English never did get around to conquering Scotland (and no, I’m not Scottish). Nor are the English archers superior.

but the arabs conquered a lot of the known world. The English didn't.

It might be the case .......

That you are talking as much rubbish as the rest of us. A point system works. Your western bias does not

[philqw78]

There is a certain consistency.
Walter

Arse

[nikgaukroger]

hazelbark wrote

But a roman will walk straigth through it.

I have played Christian Nubian with my Late Republican Romans and, while my troops may walk through them, it is impossible to kill enough of them in the time period and meanwhile the shooting does take it's toll and every BG lost has a greater impact for the smaller Roman army. So usually a narrow winning draw for the Romans.

I've found it possible with my Wars of the Roses in around 3 hours game time - Romans should be even more capable. Won't always work, of course, but you've got a good chance - keep your move tempo, but as you aren't likely to need to do fancy moves that shouldn't be difficult.

[nikgaukroger]

Even when themed tournaments are run some armies are in trouble e.g. Warfare 2009 Dark Ages 1st and 2nd place were taken by Bedouin Dynasties & Dailami. Hardly what springs to mind when 'Dark Ages' is mentioned.

Well, if you consider "Dark Ages" only to mean western Europe than I'd agree with you, however, if you consider a wider geographical area then both the Hamdanids and Buyids were capable and successful armies and ruled large areas.

[waldo]

Oooh Er missus

If Christian Nubian isn’t used because it would be ineffective then so be it – they certainly aren’t alone.

it is used

Virtually every barbarian foot army is in the same boat.

because they were not very good

Surely it is better for them to be average than too powerful? Using a rationale of “they beat the Arabs a couple of times” as a justification for superior makes me wonder why the Scots spears aren’t all superior, they beat the English in a couple of battles and the English never did get around to conquering Scotland (and no, I’m not Scottish). Nor are the English archers superior.

but the arabs conquered a lot of the known world. The English didn't.

It might be the case .......

That you are talking as much rubbish as the rest of us. A point system works. Your western bias does not

Are the rules trying to reflect the repeated crushing of barbarians or are we playing a game where each side is supposed to have a reasonable opportunity to win? I'm sure I read that somewhere. At the moment with barbarian foot, each side does not have a reasonable opportunity to win.

If the point system worked one would expect to see all types of army winning. It might work for horse archer armies, knight armies, legions and others, but there is one type of army representing a significant slice of European history for which it does not work. There is no bias on my part, just a desire for equality. I am not saying to change the melee or impact factors or shooting factors, I am saying that other parts of the rules make it difficult for those armies to win. The results support that conclusion.

Walter

[waldo]

Even when themed tournaments are run some armies are in trouble e.g. Warfare 2009 Dark Ages 1st and 2nd place were taken by Bedouin Dynasties & Dailami. Hardly what springs to mind when 'Dark Ages' is mentioned.

Well, if you consider "Dark Ages" only to mean western Europe than I'd agree with you, however, if you consider a wider geographical area then both the Hamdanids and Buyids were capable and successful armies and ruled large areas.

Yes but my point that Dark Age European armies have a very slim chance of victory still holds. That's why the top two armies at Warfare were from what some might call the Golden Age.

[richafricanus]

If the point system worked one would expect to see all types of army winning. It might work for horse archer armies, knight armies, legions and others, but there is one type of army representing a significant slice of European history for which it does not work. There is no bias on my part, just a desire for equality. I am not saying to change the melee or impact factors or shooting factors, I am saying that other parts of the rules make it difficult for those armies to win. The results support that conclusion.

Walter[/quote]

I've also pondered this dilemma of some armies simply never appearing in open tournaments because the list is not strong enough. A totally efficient points system should allow any army to be used and have a fair chance of working. The one way I've thought of achieving this would be to assign some sort of handicap to every list based on the overall effectiveness of the combinations within that list. So Ottomans might have a 9 handicap and Early Germans a 3. The handicap system would then allow the German player to field more points or the Ottoman player fewer points depending on how you constructed the system, thereby having a balanced game whatever you fielded. Of course it would be immensely challenging to assign the correct handicaps to every army but think of all the extra work for our rule writers and fresh debate on the forum

[dave_r]

Whilst being an unpalatable fact to some, it must be taken into account that the same army used by different players might have very different results.

[lonehorseman]

The other thing of course is that not all armies did well in life. Why then should all armies do well on tabletop?

[ATXPaul]

The other thing of course is that not all armies did well in life. Why then should all armies do well on tabletop?

Because the table top is a game and therefore should be fun for both players?

[Mehrunes]

Whilst being an unpalatable fact to some, it must be taken into account that the same army used by different players might have very different results.

Is that the old story of top players winning with every rubbish of an army?
I still don't believe it. I often see top players tend to some armies that have proven strong. I don't say they are top players because of the army though.
But I would like to see a top players prove the opposite and win a tournament with Early Slavic or something.

The other thing of course is that not all armies did well in life. Why then should all armies do well on tabletop?

Well, shouldn't the ones who did well in history be the ones who do well on the tabletop and vice versa then?
That's the essence of this thread, why is an army which had dubious success on few occasions one of the top armies whereas armies which ruled half or more of the known world or were very dominant in their times struggle at the very bottom of the ELO list?

Obviously it wasn't the aim to necessarily carry historical success over on the tabletop (and that was probably a good idea). But the "equal points = equal chance of winning" thing doesn't work, too.

[ATXPaul]

Obviously it wasn't the aim to necessarily carry historical success over on the tabletop (and that was probably a good idea). But the "equal points = equal chance of winning" thing doesn't work, too.

Just to be devil's advocate (I agree in principle): Shouldn't it be the goal of the system to do that, whether or not it works?[/i]

[Mehrunes]

Yes. It is the only way to make anachronistic battles at least playable and such, most of the tournaments possible.
In an utopia, winning chance would consist of 100% divided into player's skill and luck and 0% percent army choice.

[Cerberias]

good tournament system, good competitive play, i see it more as 'ideas taken from history' for the army lists as opposed to 'perfect history representation'.

Also, its more of a rock paper scissors system, some armies will beat the pants off people, others - if fighting the same army - will be massacred. (exaggeration, but it confers advantages, based on each players skill)