Warfare 2010

[nikgaukroger]

Its not so much that there isn't variety - though I make it 13 from 18, but that there are so many missing altogether, including a lot of armies that were reasonably common in DBM (so the figures are out there).

So people have chose to branch out a bit, perhaps. Still don't see an issue - you can only expect so many army choices from 16 players (chances are Richard will be in 25mm and I'll be in the Classical pool) after all.

Ghurid Afghan
Good on the defensive I guess.

Only if you want to be. Plenty of troops to use aggressively in the list. It would have been my choice if my figures weren't so tatty and in need of much TLC

Quite a lot of defensive spear though, which I assume is the USP. Also, its another example of the Christian Nubian/Valentinian III syndrome where a fairly mediocre army that never did very much somehow ends up with top billing.

USP is the spearmen with karwah rather than being spearmen per se, and the main reason I'd have for using it is to get them on table - although, of course, the cool figures from Grumpy's don't actually have an authentic karwah

No idea where you think the army is somehow getting top billing

[nikgaukroger]

Also, its another example of the Christian Nubian/Valentinian III syndrome where a fairly mediocre army that never did very much

Hum, not sure an army that destroyed the Ghaznavids (albeit they were somewhat in decline) gave out some pretty severe kickings to the Seljuqs and Khwarismians (and maybe Qidans, but I'm a bit vague on that), and conquered the north of India to set up the Delhi Sultanate can realistically be said to have not done very much. No world empire, but serious players for a while in their part of the world.

[dave_r]

Nice range of army styles and periods from the MAWS contingent

A much bigger variation than your last three years Tim. Roman, Roman, Roman.

I have Bactrian, Urartian, Hun.

The Dave's have cough,ahem, cough.

I have used Parthain, Bosporan and Bosporan.

For how Tim Porter's Romans took a monumental kicking from aforementioned Parthians you can look at Youtube or Tim's own website.

[azrael86]

Ghurid Afghan
Good on the defensive I guess.

Only if you want to be. Plenty of troops to use aggressively in the list. It would have been my choice if my figures weren't so tatty and in need of much TLC

Quite a lot of defensive spear though, which I assume is the USP. Also, its another example of the Christian Nubian/Valentinian III syndrome where a fairly mediocre army that never did very much somehow ends up with top billing.[/quote]


USP is the spearmen with karwah rather than being spearmen per se, and the main reason I'd have for using it is to get them on table - although, of course, the cool figures from Grumpy's don't actually have an authentic karwah

No idea where you think the army is somehow getting top billing [/quote]

OK, I withdraw the phrase top billing, in favour of 'appearing instead of many more significant armies" - like the Tang, Tibetan, Ming and Khmer.

[dave_r]

Quite a lot of defensive spear though, which I assume is the USP. Also, its another example of the Christian Nubian/Valentinian III syndrome where a fairly mediocre army that never did very much somehow ends up with top billing.


USP is the spearmen with karwah rather than being spearmen per se, and the main reason I'd have for using it is to get them on table - although, of course, the cool figures from Grumpy's don't actually have an authentic karwah

No idea where you think the army is somehow getting top billing

OK, I withdraw the phrase top billing, in favour of 'appearing instead of many more significant armies" - like the Tang, Tibetan, Ming and Khmer.

So what you really mean is that somebody took an army that you would have chosen not to? Why should Tang, Tibetan, Ming and Khmer come above the other countless armies and nations that were bigger than them?

Can't see what point you are trying to make. You complain about the Roman period being full of, erm, Romans - one of the biggest nations at the time and then you complain that in another period the biggest nations aren't represented

I think you need to make your mind up over what you are whining about

[nikgaukroger]

OK, I withdraw the phrase top billing, in favour of 'appearing instead of many more significant armies" - like the Tang, Tibetan, Ming and Khmer.

You know, if there had been a load of Ghurids I'd agree you may well have a point, however, there is just the one and if we look at the rest of the armies chosen we are hardly short of "big players" amongst them. There are a lot of lists available in an EotD comp, and it is hardly surprising that some big names are not represented - especially given the number of players.

[madaxeman]

Nice range of army styles and periods from the MAWS contingent

A much bigger variation than your last three years Tim. Roman, Roman, Roman.

I have Bactrian, Urartian, Hun.

The Dave's have cough,ahem, cough.

I have used Parthain, Bosporan and Bosporan.

For how Tim Porter's Romans took a monumental kicking from aforementioned Parthians you can look at Youtube or Tim's own website.

That was back when I thought that taking proper balanced armies with an interesting mix of troop types was a good idea

[peterrjohnston]

However, Tibetan is a crap list. Using the main list only you can get to 10 BG at 800AP, which under the current scoring system is just not feasible.

When you have very high-value capital troops, who need to be double-ranked to work, and little in the way of support (4BGs!!!), an army becomes a dog.

[david53]

However, Tibetan is a crap list. Using the main list only you can get to 10 BG at 800AP, which under the current scoring system is just not feasible.

When you have very high-value capital troops, who need to be double-ranked to work, and little in the way of support (4BGs!!!), an army becomes a dog.

Not sure I think you could make 11 at a try? and if all are Cats someone will have to fight them then.

[nikgaukroger]

However, Tibetan is a crap list. Using the main list only you can get to 10 BG at 800AP, which under the current scoring system is just not feasible.

When you have very high-value capital troops, who need to be double-ranked to work, and little in the way of support (4BGs!!!), an army becomes a dog.

Not sure I think you could make 11 at a try? and if all are Cats someone will have to fight them then.

Well, if you don't want to use allies you may well be so limited - but that'd be your choice

[azrael86]

So what you really mean is that somebody took an army that you would have chosen not to? Why should Tang, Tibetan, Ming and Khmer come above the other countless armies and nations that were bigger than them?

Can't see what point you are trying to make. You complain about the Roman period being full of, erm, Romans - one of the biggest nations at the time and then you complain that in another period the biggest nations aren't represented

I think you need to make your mind up over what you are whining about

OK then - instead of an interesting and diverse range of colourful armies we have mostly got another bunch of central asian mounted armies, whose main role in history was as mongol roadkill. Vagaries of the points system work against actual mongol, and a pretty arbitrary decision has counted against virtually all the foot in the book.

Playing against the same opposition all the time is quite dull, or haven't you noticed?

[peterrjohnston]

Well, if you don't want to use allies you may well be so limited - but that'd be your choice

I'm not sure an argument that the army only becomes semi-functional if you take allies is very valid. I can't think of any other list that is so handicapped with regards to BG numbers. Richard made the point some time ago that a lot of the western medieval armies had been given small BGs of LF so they became functional at 800AP, ie looking to come in at around 12-13 BGs. I assume he meant without allies!

[peterrjohnston]

Not sure I think you could make 11 at a try? and if all are Cats someone will have to fight them then.

Internally there's 4 BGs available, buying the cheapest options comes to 154AP. 6BGs of Cats gets you to 634 AP. As the list is so inflexible, there's no options left. To do better internally you could maybe use the Abbasid troops in the special campaign option, but apart from a relatively cheap BG of spear, it's yet more expensive mounted. So maybe 11BG.

[peterrjohnston]

OK then - instead of an interesting and diverse range of colourful armies we have mostly got another bunch of central asian mounted armies, whose main role in history was as mongol roadkill. Vagaries of the points system work against actual mongol, and a pretty arbitrary decision has counted against virtually all the foot in the book.

I see 5 steppe armies of 4 different lists, excluding the Mongol and arguably Timurid. Not sure what the problem is? If anything playing Kofun Japanese, or whatever it's called, could get repetitive.

[philqw78]

Mongol Road Kill

Koryo Korean ??
Timurid ??
Medieval Indonesian or Malay ??
Western Han Chinese ??
Kofun-Nara Japanese ??
Xi Xia
Liao
Mongol Conquest ??
Central Asian City States ??
Abbasid Arab ??
Ghurid Afghan
Later Horse Nomad Umpire ??

IIRC thats 2 or 3 Mongol Road kill then. The rest being not around at the time, or Mongols themselves, or nowhere near, or not roadkill.

[philqw78]

That was back when I thought that taking proper balanced armies with an interesting mix of troop types was a good idea

Yes the interesting mix of Superior or Elite legions.

[azrael86]

Later Horse Nomad Umpire ??

Now that is a good list

[madaxeman]

That was back when I thought that taking proper balanced armies with an interesting mix of troop types was a good idea

Yes the interesting mix of Superior or Elite legions.

You are confusing Warfare 2008 (when I thought balanced interesting armies were a good idea) and Warfare 2009 (when I had some new gladiator figures I wanted to use).

None of my figures previously seen at Warfare will reappear in my 2010 army, and hopefully I will also be able to come up with yet another new innovative way to fail to deal effectively with several tedious swarms of LH this time around as well.

[azrael86]

OK then - instead of an interesting and diverse range of colourful armies we have mostly got another bunch of central asian mounted armies, whose main role in history was as mongol roadkill. Vagaries of the points system work against actual mongol, and a pretty arbitrary decision has counted against virtually all the foot in the book.

I see 5 steppe armies of 4 different lists, excluding the Mongol and arguably Timurid. Not sure what the problem is? If anything playing Kofun Japanese, or whatever it's called, could get repetitive.

Well, it's a bit strange that there are three Kofun Naras may be related to the fact that it is actually three almost entirely different lists!

Pre 400, 400-645 and 646 -

[philqw78]

Well, it's a bit strange that there are three Kofun Naras may be related to the fact that it is actually three almost entirely different lists!

Pre 400, 400-645 and 646 -

Kofun Nara has a lot of different options and can be quite interesting. If you like MF without swords, or impact capability.