I realize that the main rulebook says that there are no 'super armies' or whatever, but there is still a difference between solid and easy to use armies, and those that require a bit more ability to pull off a win with.
I am wondering what they would be? At the very least, any armies to avoid?
Also, is there a disadvantage to running an ancient army vs a more 'modern' one (such as one with firearms from the late-medieval period)?
I am getting ready to build a Principate Roman army and a Nikephoran Byzantine army personally, but wondered if I should put a later period army together as well.
Also, whats a good 'point level' for armies at 15mm? I know the starter armies in the FoG rules, but without a book to tally the points up with, not sure exactly how much they are worth.
Thanks!
Good Armies to Start With?
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
... everyone says that ("take the one you like").
Yet, in browsing through the forums, I get the feeling that some armies are easier to play than others. Some are more difficult to use together well.
I am looking for recommendations along this line. So that someone who likes 3-4 different armies can narrow their choices down if 1-2 of them are very difficult to play or somewhat ineffective for newer players.
For example, I like Byzantine, Late Roman/Early Byzantine, Imperial Roman (Trajan-Hadrian), Hun (mass of horse archers), and 100-years war English. If I can only pick two, which ones would I go for?
These are the kind of questions I get asked locally, and since I am brand new to the game, figured I would see if there are any armies that should be avoided.
Yet, in browsing through the forums, I get the feeling that some armies are easier to play than others. Some are more difficult to use together well.
I am looking for recommendations along this line. So that someone who likes 3-4 different armies can narrow their choices down if 1-2 of them are very difficult to play or somewhat ineffective for newer players.
For example, I like Byzantine, Late Roman/Early Byzantine, Imperial Roman (Trajan-Hadrian), Hun (mass of horse archers), and 100-years war English. If I can only pick two, which ones would I go for?
These are the kind of questions I get asked locally, and since I am brand new to the game, figured I would see if there are any armies that should be avoided.
-
Phaze_of_the_Moon
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:19 pm
Monotype armies are poor unless they can have their plan execute every time, easier to have 2-3 different kinds of fighting troops so you have "plan B" and "plan C".
Too much diversity is also bad, if every BG is different you'll go under to cognitive load, best to have no more than 6 or 7 different troop types.
Elites are better than hordes. Fewer BGs mean fewer decisions (and less painting), more manoueverable means less long range planning, and more resilient is more forgiving.
Later armies tend to be better at those three than earlier ones.
Too much diversity is also bad, if every BG is different you'll go under to cognitive load, best to have no more than 6 or 7 different troop types.
Elites are better than hordes. Fewer BGs mean fewer decisions (and less painting), more manoueverable means less long range planning, and more resilient is more forgiving.
Later armies tend to be better at those three than earlier ones.
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28284
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Most armies have a reasonable chance within their own time frame. In anachronistic battles, however, some armies will cope better than others.
Notably, armies based on spearmen and pikemen should have no great difficulty vs knights, but impact foot or light spear armed foot will have more difficulty. Lancers and Cataphracts are excellent value within their own time frame, but disadvantaged from a cost-effectiveness point of view vs knight armies. Bow or light spear cavalry are better able to cope with anachronistic encounters because of their ability to evade (knights) when in single line.
Notably, armies based on spearmen and pikemen should have no great difficulty vs knights, but impact foot or light spear armed foot will have more difficulty. Lancers and Cataphracts are excellent value within their own time frame, but disadvantaged from a cost-effectiveness point of view vs knight armies. Bow or light spear cavalry are better able to cope with anachronistic encounters because of their ability to evade (knights) when in single line.
Starting with an army from a period of history that interests you is a definite plus.philqw78 wrote:A good army to start with is one you like. Just don't take the obscure armies. The main advantage later armies have is knights and longbow, but the earlier ones can make up for this in numbers. The starter armies are about 600/615pts.
If you can find an army where your troops can be used to start other armies then that is really good. Medival armies are easy to 'morph' as are Macedonian or Greek armies. Principate Romans (the ones with rectangular shields) while a good army and one lots of people know of are very distinctive and do not really allow themselves to be used in any other army.
When the chariot lists arrive there will be a lot of "blokes in a skirt with a stick" armies and they are quite easy to shuffle troops around between.
The starter armies are actualy between 592 and 600. They are all legal 600 point lists.
Pike Armies
Hi There
Pike armies ie Swiss no cavalry to speak off at best four troop types Pikes, Halberds crossbow firearm, most Supurior heavy/drilled. Point and go forward to victory not quite but good fun non the less.
Dave
Pike armies ie Swiss no cavalry to speak off at best four troop types Pikes, Halberds crossbow firearm, most Supurior heavy/drilled. Point and go forward to victory not quite but good fun non the less.
Dave
This is a very good point--if you want to primarily play with club-friends, and they all play ancients, go for ancients. Also, though some may disagree, I think it is worth thinking about armies as being made of building blocks of BG's, and trying to get some flexibility. I am in the process of the same issue, just starting new, so I got a small 100YW English army, and have bought enough men-at-arms, crossbowmen, etc. to turn it into Free Company or French. A few extra pieces, more options! I hope you enjoy the game.kevinj wrote:Who are you going to play? Are you principally looking to play club or private games or are you planning to enter open competitions? If the former then what do your prospective opponents use?
Kevin
-
expendablecinc
- 2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm
When I was picking a first army I had the following factors that I took into account:
What sort of period did I want to get into first:
- for me this was late medieval
What armies can be played in many different ways:
- drilled vs undrilled drilled is more forgiving to newer players
- massed light horse/massed foot/massed knights
- can you get defensive or offensive spear
- a few impact foot are nice so long as there are soem other foot to support them
What armies can morph quite easily:
- most medieval armies can if the heraldry is fairly generic. I left the blatantly specific heradlry fo the generals so all I have to do was so different generals to use much of th esame troops.
What armies have something distinct that sets them apart from the run of the mill chaps:
- I knew nothing about war wagons so wanted to get an army with these available.
- Other fancy pants units might be heavy or scuthed chariots, elephants, berserkers or whatever else you find appealing as a special troop type to be able to include.
Then came the gaming aspect
What armies have good sum-of-the_part factors - terrain options, troop combinations and allies.
It was a personal choice but in the end I went with later hungarian but Navarese, Castillian and Latin Greek were in the running - I wanted the option to get light horse + knights with impact medium foot.
What sort of period did I want to get into first:
- for me this was late medieval
What armies can be played in many different ways:
- drilled vs undrilled drilled is more forgiving to newer players
- massed light horse/massed foot/massed knights
- can you get defensive or offensive spear
- a few impact foot are nice so long as there are soem other foot to support them
What armies can morph quite easily:
- most medieval armies can if the heraldry is fairly generic. I left the blatantly specific heradlry fo the generals so all I have to do was so different generals to use much of th esame troops.
What armies have something distinct that sets them apart from the run of the mill chaps:
- I knew nothing about war wagons so wanted to get an army with these available.
- Other fancy pants units might be heavy or scuthed chariots, elephants, berserkers or whatever else you find appealing as a special troop type to be able to include.
Then came the gaming aspect
What armies have good sum-of-the_part factors - terrain options, troop combinations and allies.
It was a personal choice but in the end I went with later hungarian but Navarese, Castillian and Latin Greek were in the running - I wanted the option to get light horse + knights with impact medium foot.
Right now, we are working on a local group of players. If it picks up, maybe small local tournaments? Some of us might want to head to larger Cons for tournaments, but thats a long time out.
The timeframe seems to be Ancient mostly. My friend and I are going the furthest out. Him with a Crusader Army (or German) and later a Viking one (when the book is available) and myself with a Byzantine (either very early or nikephorian), and possibly a Principate Roman later on.
In a bit of a rush this morning, alot of good responses I need to read over in more depth. Will post later when I am on. Thanks!
The timeframe seems to be Ancient mostly. My friend and I are going the furthest out. Him with a Crusader Army (or German) and later a Viking one (when the book is available) and myself with a Byzantine (either very early or nikephorian), and possibly a Principate Roman later on.
In a bit of a rush this morning, alot of good responses I need to read over in more depth. Will post later when I am on. Thanks!
-
philqw78
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8835
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
re starter armies:
Yes Omar I did give you the stock answer to begin with, If you wanted what I thought was the best army to start I would just say Tibetan or later Byzantine types or anything with cataphracts. The Tibetan list isn't even out yet but it will still be a favourite when the list does come out.
Yes you checked them Hammy and we all know that they are not all legal.They are all legal 600 point lists.
Yes Omar I did give you the stock answer to begin with, If you wanted what I thought was the best army to start I would just say Tibetan or later Byzantine types or anything with cataphracts. The Tibetan list isn't even out yet but it will still be a favourite when the list does come out.
OK, you got me therephilqw78 wrote:re starter armies:Yes you checked them Hammy and we all know that they are not all legal.They are all legal 600 point lists.
They are all no more than 600 points and while one or two may not be legal compared to the list they are all sensible and representative forces.
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Whilst I'm afraid it will be a while before they are published I can assure you the Tibetans will be in the eastern book(s).
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
Its all good, not trying to be snippy or anything.
Picked up a copy of Eternal Empire, so I think I am going to do one early (Principate Roman), one middle (Nikephoran Byzantine), and one late (not sure yet).
I will suggest 600pts being the limit for our local games.
With my background in the SCA, I tend to look at it from a 'what if' point of view. Thats part of the appeal to FoG for me. Anyway, I know full well that certain later armies would just tear apart early period armies (which is why they either went away, or adapted). Just wondering if the same was the case for FoG.
Any suggestions from Eternal Empire? I like the look of the Late Ottomans and Tartars.
Picked up a copy of Eternal Empire, so I think I am going to do one early (Principate Roman), one middle (Nikephoran Byzantine), and one late (not sure yet).
I will suggest 600pts being the limit for our local games.
With my background in the SCA, I tend to look at it from a 'what if' point of view. Thats part of the appeal to FoG for me. Anyway, I know full well that certain later armies would just tear apart early period armies (which is why they either went away, or adapted). Just wondering if the same was the case for FoG.
Any suggestions from Eternal Empire? I like the look of the Late Ottomans and Tartars.
Some additional comments:
If you are recruiting other gamers in your area I'd suggest having at least one pair of historical opponents you can use to demonstrate the game. It can be good as a refrence point (e.g., Rome vs. Carthage or barbarians, Crusaders vs. Saracens are familiar and the fights are nicely modeled). It also maintains credibility with those who view ahistorical matchups as fantasy gaming.
Light and heavy horse archers can be fairly morphable over a long period and can be fun and very successful, but you have to get the hang of it and like the style of play.
You can't go far wrong with some Spearmen, especially Offensive Spearmen, in your army. They are a reasonably priced well-rounded and easy to operate troop type. They make a nice solid line of battle and are a good counter to costly and dangerous types like Knights and Elephants. Actually, Knights, Spears and some light/terrain troops has some nice balance to it - can do it with Crusaders.
Cheers,
Mike
If you are recruiting other gamers in your area I'd suggest having at least one pair of historical opponents you can use to demonstrate the game. It can be good as a refrence point (e.g., Rome vs. Carthage or barbarians, Crusaders vs. Saracens are familiar and the fights are nicely modeled). It also maintains credibility with those who view ahistorical matchups as fantasy gaming.
Light and heavy horse archers can be fairly morphable over a long period and can be fun and very successful, but you have to get the hang of it and like the style of play.
You can't go far wrong with some Spearmen, especially Offensive Spearmen, in your army. They are a reasonably priced well-rounded and easy to operate troop type. They make a nice solid line of battle and are a good counter to costly and dangerous types like Knights and Elephants. Actually, Knights, Spears and some light/terrain troops has some nice balance to it - can do it with Crusaders.
Cheers,
Mike
Again, you should go for whatever period catches your interest. I would completely agree with the morphability factor, espescially when you are starting out. There is nothing worse IMHO then having enthusiasm for a particular army which doesn't live up to expectation in reality.
From my own personal experience I like lots of things I can use in a variety of armies. I have a collection of small groups of figures that find themselves in a variety of armies -have bow/sling/javelin will travel types
.
From my own personal experience I like lots of things I can use in a variety of armies. I have a collection of small groups of figures that find themselves in a variety of armies -have bow/sling/javelin will travel types
.Thanks for all the advice.
I decided to go with a Principate Roman Army to start with. Most of it will not be useful for any other army, but the 'generic' troops like archers, light horse, javelinmen, etc. They will have uses in other forces.
From here, thinking Byzantine of some sort, maybe a morphable force of Nikephorian and Komnenan Byzantine. I also have some Later roman models coming, so I might be able to expand that into workable army.
If I can get a big enough 'generic core' of troops I should only need to add some specific ones later to turn it into a different army. I might not have all the options available (unarmored vs protected, etc), but at least I have them.
I decided to go with a Principate Roman Army to start with. Most of it will not be useful for any other army, but the 'generic' troops like archers, light horse, javelinmen, etc. They will have uses in other forces.
From here, thinking Byzantine of some sort, maybe a morphable force of Nikephorian and Komnenan Byzantine. I also have some Later roman models coming, so I might be able to expand that into workable army.
If I can get a big enough 'generic core' of troops I should only need to add some specific ones later to turn it into a different army. I might not have all the options available (unarmored vs protected, etc), but at least I have them.