Christian Nubian – the superior army?

[jlopez]

Why not giving discounts to one-dimensional armies? Or maybe better for huge BGs. This way you exclude one-dimensional but highly mobile armies, which perform good at the moment and aim for the armies which need it, mainly consisting of rather cheap, but not cheap enough masses of average foot.

The solution is another thing to discuss, I'm happy that at least we got to an point where people start to accept that there IS a problem.

Ah Ha. No nott the scandinavian pop singers but an exclamation of back to where we started, or at least I did a couple of years ago. A points cost per BG in your army. Making bigger BG effectively cheaper. And highly mobile armies more costly. Brilliant idea.

Funny but that sounds a lot like 7th edition! Not that I'm criticising or anything, on the contrary I think FOG would improve hugely by keeping some of the better ideas of DBM and 7th.

[hammy]

Vikings are fine in period although it would seem by the extra restrictions being added in this thread any army that can have a reasonable number of superior or armoured or heaven forbid superior armoured troops does not count as an example of a bad army anyway.

It seems you WANT to misunderstand me. I think it's a difference if I can spend 320 points on such troops (that's around 50 percent of the army when you subtract the commanders) and build a good amount of my line with them or if I have only 1-2 small battlegroups of them somewhere. And then there are armies who don't get these guys at all. Go look at the Early Germans list for example. Or some armies from LT or OoF.
Slave Revolt definitely isn't the best example for one of these armies we are talking about. And even they won't be that good out of period.

No, I don't WANT to missunderstand you I am simply struggling to work out what you limitations are.

Slave revolt is a huge army where all the light troops must be poor, there can only be one BG of low quality mounted and only 8 bases of superior troops total. Now you commented that the armoured heavy foot were a significant boost so tooks the army away from whatever problem you seem to think there is.

Vikings can gave 18 bases of superior armoured heavy foot but apparently this does not make them a good army.....
Remember that when I used the slave army I had 1000 points so the armoured troops were less than 50% of my frontage and it was an in period comp so most of my opponents were pikes.

Slave revolt does get better main line foot than Early Germans but the Germans can have three or four BGs of decent mounted, average light troops and allies. You can even get a mix of tribes and have some medium foot and some heavy foot. I have not used them in comps, mainly because I don't have the figures. Thy were even more poo in DBM so there was little reason for me to have bought them. In an open comp I think that Early Germans would give armies like 100YW English a good run for their money. After all an Ancient British army nearly won the BGS Challenge last year.

[Mehrunes]

What should I say? The rankings don't lie...

Personally I didn't mention the Vikings, actually I remember they can also have some good cavalry in their list, maybe too much regarding to their historical way of fighting.
I think they are not that bad.
However they are one of the famous armies every beginner likes to take such as Romans, Carthaginians, Crusaders, Samurai, Normans and so on. These armies aren't necessarily bad, but suffer from being played by many beginners. You can see that in the rankings, too. Similar, but not so famous armies are ranking considerably higher.

Should we really continue to discuss if there is a problem at all? I thought most of the people accepted that in the meantime.
And as said before, a top player having some success with an army out of the top quarter of the rankings isn't a that good example anyway.
It counts what the bulk of the average players can do with these average or even poor armies.

[shadowdragon]

What should I say? The rankings don't lie...

A "ranking" is a statistic and you know what they say about statistics, lies and damned lies. A "ranking" only says what was and not the how it became to be that way. Clearly, reviewing this thread, there are a number of varying "truths" elicited from this statistic. But I'm not a tournament players so it's not my argument. Please, carry on with the discussion.

[Jilu]

What should I say? The rankings don't lie...

A "ranking" is a statistic and you know what they say about statistics, lies and damned lies. A "ranking" only says what was and not the how it became to be that way. Clearly, reviewing this thread, there are a number of varying "truths" elicited from this statistic. But I'm not a tournament players so it's not my argument. Please, carry on with the discussion.

so sports rankings are false too?
I know the French/Belgian Ranking and it does reflect reality.
The best players are first...simple.
The only thing is in tournaments the best players usualy play armies that are not realy chalanging. (contrary to my good friend Badaboum/Jacques who plays strange armies for the fun of it).
Mayby putting a handicap during tournaments depending on army ranking vs player ranking difference .... might push the best players to play odd armies.

[hazelbark]

The best players are first...simple.
The only thing is in tournaments the best players usualy play armies that are not realy chalanging. (contrary to my good friend Badaboum/Jacques who plays strange armies for the fun of it).
Mayby putting a handicap during tournaments depending on army ranking vs player ranking difference .... might push the best players to play odd armies.

Well the truth is in a large field, 5-6 round tournament. The best player beat up the weakest and will play not to lose versus the other better players unless an army mismatch or deployment gives them a noticable edge.

But at the end of the day, if playerrs want to take the same army over and over and over again, then they are boring lost souls. And to make them feel better we should let them win tournaments.

The game is fun. play for fun and you can win too.

[shadowdragon]

so sports rankings are false too?

In the sense that this group of teams met on these days and this is the result? No. In the sense that one applies a theory - after the events - as to the cause of the ranking? Yes.

It tells what was and not necessarily the why. If it did, there'd be no doubt about the victor for the next tournment; and betting houses would disappear.

I know the French/Belgian Ranking and it does reflect reality.

Surely you are not confusing your perception of reality (a theory) with reality. I'm willing to wager that I could easily find a good number of people who would disagree - at least in part - with your reality. How am I to determine who's "reality" is "THE REALITY"?

The best players are first...simple.

This seems to me to be semantics. "First" = "Best" and "Best" = "First". Unfortunately, this tells me little other than who won the past game and it gives me no insight into the next. I was hoping for a sure way to win my bets.

The issue is a basic epistemological question about knowledge and its limits. I would also argue that a good research scientist should not accept blindly the the simple equation of "best" = "first". For an antidote I suggest you read Nicholas Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan.

The issue here is the use of tournament rankings as an infallible method to identify superior versus dog armies. It may be that there is a undiscovered trick to using the dog armies in a tournament beating way. If that were ever to be the case then I'm sure there'd be a multi-page thread on the unfairness of such "formerly" dog armies. A review of past threads will easily reveal an evolution in gaming skill with FoG including which armies are in fashion.

[Mehrunes]

The issue here is the use of tournament rankings as an infallible method to identify superior versus dog armies.

What's your method? Do you have a better one?

Nobody said it is the one and only truth. But definitely it shows a tendency.

[nikgaukroger]

The game

Which you have just lost ...

Oh hang on, doh!

[hammy]

Personally I didn't mention the Vikings, actually I remember they can also have some good cavalry in their list, maybe too much regarding to their historical way of fighting. I think they are not that bad.

OK, well someone did and I am not concentrating as hard as perhaps I should be.

However they are one of the famous armies every beginner likes to take such as Romans, Carthaginians, Crusaders, Samurai, Normans and so on. These armies aren't necessarily bad, but suffer from being played by many beginners. You can see that in the rankings, too. Similar, but not so famous armies are ranking considerably higher.

So is your problem that the armies that are at the top of the rankings pile are not the ones that dominated the history books?
If so there is the fundamental difference that real wars were not fought as a series of equal point battles. They were fought nation against nation and in the case of the Romans Empire against nation. Real wars were in no way ballanced affairs.

At least in FoG Roman armies seem to work reasonably well whereas in several other rulesets they were simply garbage.

Should we really continue to discuss if there is a problem at all? I thought most of the people accepted that in the meantime.
And as said before, a top player having some success with an army out of the top quarter of the rankings isn't a that good example anyway.
It counts what the bulk of the average players can do with these average or even poor armies.

There is a bit of a chicken and egg thing here. If a top player uses the same army multiple times and wins or does very well with it then the ranking of the army will improve. Just look at the Middle Hungarians and look at the graph. Only 4 months ago the army was rated just over 1600, now it is the second highest rated army in the list. In one tournament I managed to increase the ranking of the army by some 55 points. Does that say things about the army or the player??

There are some armies that are better in open events, some that are better in theme, some that are hard to do well with but not many total dogs.

[shadowdragon]

What's your method? Do you have a better one?

Don't need one, but if I did I'd rather no method than a bad method.
Otherwise I'd be like a guy lost in the Amazon rain forest, happy that he had a map of New York City.

Nobody said it is the one and only truth. But definitely it shows a tendency.

Now, if you had written that to begin with....I'd have no argument with you.

[Mehrunes]

Well, I never said it is the one and only truth. You imputed it to me.
But it's the best method we have IMO.

@hammy

So is your problem that the armies that are at the top of the rankings pile are not the ones that dominated the history books?

No, that's just a side effect. My problem is that army choice is too important in FoG because there are armies which are basically crap and those which are obviously good, even in open comps. It should be the player's skill + luck alone.
By the way this problem makes it even more difficult to beat top players because they tend to come up with tigers.
Another effect is that some armies aren't played at all on the one hand and on the other hand you see the same usual suspects over and over again. That's a pity.
There are armies in the companion books which are what followers of the Evil Empire would call "codex corpses".

There is a bit of a chicken and egg thing here.

You are right, it is. Sometimes more, sometimes less. It's less the more data we have of an army.
This is why the rankings can only give an approximation of the situation. But in the meantime, there are enough games in the statistics to show tendencies that can be discussed.

[philqw78]

It should be the player's skill + luck alone.

Surely chosing an army that suits you and is good is also a skill. Or should Mound Builder indian have a good chance against Principate Roman?

[waldo]

This seems to me to be semantics. "First" = "Best" and "Best" = "First". Unfortunately, this tells me little other than who won the past game and it gives me no insight into the next. I was hoping for a sure way to win my bets.

Not betting on Early Franks to win would be the start of a sound strategy.

The issue is a basic epistemological question about knowledge and its limits. I would also argue that a good research scientist should not accept blindly the the simple equation of "best" = "first". For an antidote I suggest you read Nicholas Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan.

My take from the book was that in a world of swans, both white and black, Early Frank and its kin are still dogs.

The issue here is the use of tournament rankings as an infallible method to identify superior versus dog armies. It may be that there is a undiscovered trick to using the dog armies in a tournament beating way. If that were ever to be the case then I'm sure there'd be a multi-page thread on the unfairness of such "formerly" dog armies. A review of past threads will easily reveal an evolution in gaming skill with FoG including which armies are in fashion.

We are all waiting for the "undiscovered trick" to be followed by a post decrying the unfairness of of these armies. It could be a long wait, perhaps as long as the wait Europeans had to find out that there were black swans.

Walter

[waldo]

It should be the player's skill + luck alone.

Surely chosing an army that suits you and is good is also a skill. Or should Mound Builder indian have a good chance against Principate Roman?

Just because it is an invented army doesn't mean it shouldn't have a chance.

Walter

[Cerberias]

Yeah, i would agree with phil in saying that picking an army that suits you, has its flaws minimised and you have practiced with is a skill also. I took classical indian into a comp called 'caesars challenge' for a bit of a laugh, I wouldnt think anyone taking classical indian into a comp based around romans would expect to do that well.. but if you took it into a comp against a whole lot of horse archers and not many lancer cav should expect to do better.

[hammy]

So is your problem that the armies that are at the top of the rankings pile are not the ones that dominated the history books?

No, that's just a side effect. My problem is that army choice is too important in FoG because there are armies which are basically crap and those which are obviously good, even in open comps. It should be the player's skill + luck alone.
By the way this problem makes it even more difficult to beat top players because they tend to come up with tigers.
Another effect is that some armies aren't played at all on the one hand and on the other hand you see the same usual suspects over and over again. That's a pity.
There are armies in the companion books which are what followers of the Evil Empire would call "codex corpses".

OK, so you are saying that some armies are total dogs under all circumstances. What exactly makes an army a total dog?

There is a points system which does a reasonably good job of costing the all round effectivness of different troops in comparison to all other troops. Where there is a problem and there will be a problem with any wargame where the two sides do not have absolutely identical forces is that there are some troops who are better against one opponent while being worse against another. For example protected MF impact foot swordsmen are the absolute best thing you can have against medium foot bow, on the other hand those self same troops are total rubbish against armoured impact foot skilled swordsmen and they are not very good against most mounted troops either.


Some armies get a better mix of troops or troops that work together better than others but as FoG is a historically based game you can hardly go adding a BG of knights to an Ancient British army because it will make them a better tournament army. The army lists have to be based on history. OK, some of the earlier lists could perhaps have had one BG of 'nobles' added to give them a bit more poke but a lot of the armies where there are no elite troops didn't actually have bands of elites working together, they were just a mass of mixed groups which are best represented as average.

The codex corpses comment is an interesting one, yes there are armies that are rarely played but I don't think there are as many armies in FoG that are not worth the time of day as there were in DBM for example. Just looking through Rise of Rome there are not really any armies in there I would not be willing to try on the table. Some of the armies in the later suplements are rather samey but then the armies they were based on are also rather similar. Can you specify a few of these codex corpses and I will see if they are really so bad I would not consider using them.

[philqw78]

It should be the player's skill + luck alone.

Surely chosing an army that suits you and is good is also a skill. Or should Mound Builder indian have a good chance against Principate Roman?

Just because it is an invented army doesn't mean it shouldn't have a chance.

Walter

It has a chance. Not a good one.

No matter how you ran the game or points unless the mound builders were twice as wide and deployed in such depth that all their front line routs were destroyed before the second line was reached, or they had chance to bolster the BG 's routed through, armoured superior skilled sword troops would cut straight through the middle of them. Changing the points to give them a decent chance would mean buying so many figures no one would bother, if they did their eye sight would have failed before they had finished painting them anyway. The game would end a draw as the Romans could not kill enough of them. (Although this is a bit like fighting Roman swarms now)

But then you could change the rules so that they were of equal effectiveness. So a man with a flint axe and balsa wood armour is as effective as a Roman Legionary. May as well play chess with dice.

[waldo]

OK, so you are saying that some armies are total dogs under all circumstances. What exactly makes an army a total dog?

As some American judge once said in reference to hard core p0rnography "Hard to define, but I know it when I see it."

Walter

[grahambriggs]

OK, so you are saying that some armies are total dogs under all circumstances. What exactly makes an army a total dog?

As some American judge once said in reference to hard core p0rnography "Hard to define, but I know it when I see it."

Walter

A point system that focusses on the cost of each base should (if sensible) be reasonably good at working out the average effectiveness of bases. Though some are very opponent dependent.

If there is no unit level points (say a command cost or similar) then you're reliant on other aspects of the rules systems to help out - e.g. army lists prevent 2 base mob BGs, generals fighting with a BG improves big BGs. In Fog this helps though only partially.

If there is no 'overall army structure' level points system then some armies are likely to be dogs - particularly armies which are monotypes of troops that have only one battlefield role. On the other hand, armies that are full of one or two multi-role troop types (e.g. drilled armoured light spear sword MF and superior shooters) can be very good. As can armies with solid compulsory troops plus a wide range of other types to pick and mix from (e.g. Seluekid).

FoG does the base costing well, in my opinion. It has some unit level mechanism that mitigate the lack of a points system at that level. It has no army level system. In theory this could be improved at the cost of added complexity. However, working out a good system to cost out army level structure issues would be very difficult I would think.