Army preferance

[Fluffy]

I know this is rather generalized, but what kind of army do you prefer or tend to draw up?

Please say why you like it and elaborate a little on the style\mindset required.

For example: I tend to go with combined arms. because I like my list to be balanced. It does require a little thought as the part of your army doing the work changes depending on your opponent, which keeps the army interesting, but is terribly easy to get wrong.

[peterrjohnston]

What about any of these?

[grahambriggs]

I prefer heavy foot armies, pity they're not good in this rule set! Partly it's that I've never liked painting horses, but also foot vs foot encounters seem to give a good historic feel.

To make them work, you have to have a well thought out plan that maximises the strength of your army. Flanks need to be protected but not to such an extent that the frontal punch is diluted. Good deployment is crucial, and must be in line with your plan, as you're not fast enough to change your mind. Hence, a well written army list is crucial, as you need to get the match ups in your favour.

[hazelbark]

I prefer heavy foot armies, pity they're not good in this rule set! Partly it's that I've never liked painting horses, but also foot vs foot encounters seem to give a good historic feel.

To make them work, you have to have a well thought out plan that maximises the strength of your army. Flanks need to be protected but not to such an extent that the frontal punch is diluted. Good deployment is crucial, and must be in line with your plan, as you're not fast enough to change your mind. Hence, a well written army list is crucial, as you need to get the match ups in your favour.

What chages woudl encourage that? table size? points? Or rules only?

[berthier]

I have seen comments popping up on this forum with frequency about have heavy foot armies aren’t playable, can’t win, aren’t being played, ect…and it strikes me that maybe it’s a problem of where and who you play. I have looked at the stats from the Gulf Coast Championship series here in the deep south of the USA and I just don’t see what the issue is. Lots of variety and no one army truly dominating army selection.

In the 2008-2009 GCC season, 71 different armies were played by 192 players in 15 tournaments. Of the those armies played, Later Republican Roman was played 10 times, Later Seleucid 9, Seljuk Turk 9, Alexandrian Macedonian 7, Dominate Roman 7 and Sassanid 7. Only 2 shooty cav armies (and only one of those with steppe) in the top 5 most popular armies.

In the 2009-2010 GCC season, 96 different armies were played by 202 players in 15 tournaments. Early Successor was played 11 times, followed by Dominate Roman at 9, New Kingdom Egyptian at 7, Sassanid at 7 and Middle Republican Roman 6 times. Only one shooty cav army in that list..

In the first 3/4ths of the 2010-2011 GCC season, 65 different armies have been played by 104 players in 9 tournaments. Sassanid Persian was played the most at 5 followed by Dominate Roman at 4, Early Successor at 4, Later Ptolemaic at 4, Warring States at 3, Early Hungarian at 3, New Kingdom Egyptian at 3, Later Medieval German City Leaues at 3 and Ghaznavid at 3. Three shooty cav armies in that lot. Of the 9 tournaments this year, no army has won more than one time. Later Anglo-Irish, Classical Greek, Sassanid Persian, Dominate Roman, Western Turk, Early Zhou and Warring States Chinese have all won one each

[hazelbark]

I think you are exactly correct Chris, where you are playing matters a lot.

I presume Graham was refering to the "top tournament" world. Meaning IWFs and bigger GB events. There in a 5-6 round event you can probably count on facing at least 50% armes with significant mounted capablities.

Here in the states heavier armies are prefered. This was actually true in the DBM days too. In spite of foot armies suffering worse there.

[grahambriggs]

I think you are exactly correct Chris, where you are playing matters a lot.

I presume Graham was refering to the "top tournament" world. Meaning IWFs and bigger GB events. There in a 5-6 round event you can probably count on facing at least 50% armes with significant mounted capablities.

Here in the states heavier armies are prefered. This was actually true in the DBM days too. In spite of foot armies suffering worse there.

I was more thinking that every time I take an army with undrilled HF to any game I end up regretting it. That included the Persians with Medizing greeks I took to IWF in the USA (of 6 opponents most had air and grit style armies). HF, particularly undrilled, are too easy for the enamy to avoid. Which is a shame, as battles between armies which both have HF centres are very enjoyable.

[ethan]

I think very carefully before taking undrilled HF/MF these days.

I know I find it far too easy to dodge half the enemy army if they are undrilled foot, they simply cannot react fast enough to moves against one side of their army.

If I use undrilled "other" the army has to be pretty carefully organized around doing so and you can wind up being forced into a fairly passive play style as they can't react to maneuver.

[timmy1]

I too prefer HF armies but don't choose them (other than when playing the rules authors to prove how badly done by the are...).

Ethan and Graham are spot on, against anyone good an undrilled HF army will really struggle against anything mobile. Drilled HF don't do much better.

[Fluffy]

Clearly "Combined arms" is the most popular, but what is it that everyone likes so much?

Is it the "best of both worlds" idea or is there something else?

[expendablecinc]

Clearly "Combined arms" is the most popular, but what is it that everyone likes so much?

Is it the "best of both worlds" idea or is there something else?

I think the 4 inch move if outside 6 will help HF armies significantly but only if you ignore skirmishers in the determination of whether you can do a 2nd move. skirmishers will still be able to skirmish as they can get in the way and prevent a full move or force a charge but they wont be able to loiter abou 9 inches away and prevent a march.

[philqw78]

Clearly "Combined arms" is the most popular, but what is it that everyone likes so much?

Is it the "best of both worlds" idea or is there something else?

I think the 4 inch move if outside 6 will help HF armies significantly but only if you ignore skirmishers in the determination of whether you can do a 2nd move. skirmishers will still be able to skirmish as they can get in the way and prevent a full move or force a charge but they wont be able to loiter abou 9 inches away and prevent a march.

Er? How are these two connected?

[hannibal]

Clearly "Combined arms" is the most popular, but what is it that everyone likes so much?

Is it the "best of both worlds" idea or is there something else?

I interpret "like" as having an affinity to, rather than expecting to do well! IMO FOG is a ruleset that values mobility, so I tend to find that mounted armies do better. I don't prefer them though - I like to have different troop types to add flavour and challenge. More fun to paint & build the army & gives you different games depending on what you play. One of my favourite armies is Later Carthaginian, despite the fact that I always lose with it!

Marc

[hammy]

Clearly "Combined arms" is the most popular, but what is it that everyone likes so much?

Is it the "best of both worlds" idea or is there something else?

I interpret "like" as having an affinity to, rather than expecting to do well! IMO FOG is a ruleset that values mobility, so I tend to find that mounted armies do better. I don't prefer them though - I like to have different troop types to add flavour and challenge. More fun to paint & build the army & gives you different games depending on what you play. One of my favourite armies is Later Carthaginian, despite the fact that I always lose with it!

Marc

I am happy playing any army but I seem to do better in open tournaments with mainly mounted forces. That said I have done well with most other types as well.

Almost all sets of ancients rules favour mobility in some way or other. The armies I did best with in DBM were very much mounted or mounted heavy combined arms as well

[MatthewP]

The majority of armies are combined arms which may explain the high preference for this type. Pesonally I prefer combined arms armies, partly because of the variety but mainly because I just hate painting horses.

[zocco]

Clearly "Combined arms" is the most popular, but what is it that everyone likes so much?

Is it the "best of both worlds" idea or is there something else?

I think the 4 inch move if outside 6 will help HF armies significantly but only if you ignore skirmishers in the determination of whether you can do a 2nd move. skirmishers will still be able to skirmish as they can get in the way and prevent a full move or force a charge but they wont be able to loiter abou 9 inches away and prevent a march.

Very nice idea - I like it

[Fluffy]

Interesting, thanks for the input.

[eldiablito]

So, I am HARDLY a "good" player. However, I quickly see the army lists and select the lists that I like, historically.
I like Alexander the Great, so I play his army.
I recently read the successor kingdom books, and enjoyed them too. So, I played Seleucid and Macedonian successors. All 3 of these armies are combined arms with a heavy lean towards foot.
...I then skip several hundred years and pick up again in the Crusades...
(I'll eventually get to the 1st Crusade and the Norman Conquest).
I have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Crusaders set (although I'm still looking for a good Elanor of Aquitaine model to lead my men in the 2nd Crusade). These are mostly combined arms, but the 4th Crusade seems to look more like a knight army with light foot.
I also have the Saracens (although I haven't started a Saladin army, yet...). These guys (excluding Saladin) fight as a cavalry army.
Finally, I have just started to play 100 Year War (both English and French, gotta love Joan of Arc, the Black Prince, and Henry V). The English are a foot army and the French are a knight army.

I have a feeling that most people fall into a similar trend. Most players like their particular period of history or cults of personality (personalities?), and since the famous generals of time tended to use combined arms (with a few exceptions), I would not be surprised if most players select their lists on history and less on gamesmanship.
...And now everyone knows far more than they needed about my vote.

[expendablecinc]

Clearly "Combined arms" is the most popular, but what is it that everyone likes so much?

Is it the "best of both worlds" idea or is there something else?

I think the 4 inch move if outside 6 will help HF armies significantly but only if you ignore skirmishers in the determination of whether you can do a 2nd move. skirmishers will still be able to skirmish as they can get in the way and prevent a full move or force a charge but they wont be able to loiter abou 9 inches away and prevent a march.

Er? How are these two connected?

they both follow the quote I meant to reply to - re : the plight of heavy foot.