Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultiplayer)

[jomni]

For those bashing hoplites, they will shine in Immortal Fire when fighting against contemporary opponents (not those of a different era).

[rbodleyscott]

I broadly agree with Jishmael's analysis. However, I would be happy to play Category B armies vs Category A - in fact I prefer playing with some of the category B armies - e.g. Carthaginians. Category C and D are a bit harder to win with, even for experts - unless of course they are matched against similarly rated opponents.

We certainly do not intend to make any handicapping of armies an official part of the game. If you want to handicap some matchups you can do so in the Advanced options in skirmish challenge setup.

[TheGrayMouser]

I broadly agree with Jishmael's analysis. However, I would be happy to play Category B armies vs Category A - in fact I prefer playing with some of the category B armies - e.g. Carthaginians. Category C and D are a bit harder to win with, even for experts - unless of course they are matched against similarly rated opponents.

We certainly do not intend to make any handicapping of armies an official part of the game. If you want to handicap some matchups you can do so in the Advanced options in skirmish challenge setup.

If you handicap an army in a challenge, the challenge does indicate its "custom" but it does not indicate the points. Could that be added?

[rbodleyscott]

I broadly agree with Jishmael's analysis. However, I would be happy to play Category B armies vs Category A - in fact I prefer playing with some of the category B armies - e.g. Carthaginians. Category C and D are a bit harder to win with, even for experts - unless of course they are matched against similarly rated opponents.

We certainly do not intend to make any handicapping of armies an official part of the game. If you want to handicap some matchups you can do so in the Advanced options in skirmish challenge setup.

If you handicap an army in a challenge, the challenge does indicate its "custom" but it does not indicate the points. Could that be added?

I will add it to the wishlist - I may be able to do it in scripts, or it may need a change to the engine. I agree that it is important, otherwise you have to take it on trust.

[Spectre195]

Would people be interested in starting to compile their games together to start to get some numerical data involved in this discussion? I would be glad to help manage it if need be. All people would need to do is send in there:

Armies (and players)
Who won
Size of force
terrain
date ended (to help try and catch duplicates)

[NikiforosFokas]

Jishmael,
When you will have free time and if you would like, i will be very happy to see a similar tierlist for ImmortalFire. Thanks in advance.

[Lancier]

Argh you took the words right out of my mouth, i would ask for such a favor in couple of days. ^^

Jishmael,
When you will have free time and if you would like, i will be very happy to see a similar tierlist for ImmortalFire. Thanks in advance.

[Jishmael]

I'm relativey busy cacing in the bonus payments for working during the holidays atm

but A I'm still planning to revise this list, cleaning up some of my hoplite bias and watching the post release immortal fire results.

B I'm not sure if I should make a separate IF list or integrate it in the base one, probably the latter but not sure.

C I'd love to eventually base this on some actual data, but i dont have the time to go through player reports or tournament results atm, so if someone wants to help with that pm me pls

[vakarr]

Personally I think that all army lists should be ranked and a small handicap should be applied to those in the A and B ranks - having more rubbish than your opponent rarely helps, it's troop quality that matters, especially when for instance a pike phalanx can go into square and be practically invulnerable to attack by anything other than heavy foot. It's no good overlapping and out flanking your opponent when charging him in the front just causes your unit to be disrupted/fragmented and quite likely bounce off, before the flank charge can go in and - even that might not work, as so many troops can't cause disruption via a flank charge. I mean look at the Seleucid list that has the circus, and superior (or better armour) option for everything else - it gives you lots of choices. Somebody playing against them has to have a similar ranking list or they need to have terrain in their favour and they have to play better.

One other feature of A and B lists should be added: they often have freebies such as pikes being able to go into square (though this sort of thing is not as common as it used to be with previous rules).

[vakarr]

One simple way of handicapping would be to say that if a player who chooses a "C" list or worse and fights against a "B" or "A" list, the "C" list player can, before deployment is completed, request that the game be re-started as he doesn't like the terrain. However, he has to accept whatever terrain he gets after re-starting the game.

[vakarr]

NFA Tier
No Fun Allowed. Horse Nomads, Armies that are all Skirmishers.
These are technically strong and can be davastating to A Tier Armies.

Thracian 350 BC - 46 AD [heavy weapon alone does not make a good infantry. Tons of LC, borders to NFA?]

Thracian used to be in that category but Thracian light cavalry is not properly modelled in the lists now (should be javelin and sword or superior) nor are Thracian peltasts (superior protected light foot) yet available (except in the campaigns) so the massed light cavalry list doesn't work like it used to. There should also be some Thracian superior medium foot.

They just are horrible to play against as their playing Style does not include any decisive Engagements

I'm sure Crassus would agree - even though light troops have been nerfed by these rules, the heavy infantry players continue to complain that their men should remain inviolate, never be surrounded, never attacked from the rear, and that they should only have to fight Spartans or such like

[Ludendorf]

This is a snapshot, but I found Gauls vs Rhoxolani hard as nails to win as (well... I lost! ). That might just have been my bad play though; my opponent handled his cavalry well, and I think it is certainly doable. The difficulties the Gauls have is that it's basically luck-based whether their warbands withstand the charge of the enemy lancers, and you can't camp your infantry on rough ground because they'll just keep shooting you until they compel your advance. Gallic skirmishers are mediocre at best, and skirmishers aren't going to beat medium horse archers regardless of the circumstances. The Gallic cavalry can be good, but they're outnumbered and won't be able to beat the Rhoxolani cavalry without infantry support, which, of course... demands you move forward.

[Barrold713]

I broadly agree with Jishmael's analysis. However, I would be happy to play Category B armies vs Category A - in fact I prefer playing with some of the category B armies - e.g. Carthaginians. Category C and D are a bit harder to win with, even for experts - unless of course they are matched against similarly rated opponents.

We certainly do not intend to make any handicapping of armies an official part of the game. If you want to handicap some matchups you can do so in the Advanced options in skirmish challenge setup.

If you handicap an army in a challenge, the challenge does indicate its "custom" but it does not indicate the points. Could that be added?

I would submit my experience with the Krappodokians as Exhibit A. I was beaten like a rented mule with them, even in excess my general incompetence would have produced naturally.

[rbodleyscott]

I broadly agree with Jishmael's analysis. However, I would be happy to play Category B armies vs Category A - in fact I prefer playing with some of the category B armies - e.g. Carthaginians. Category C and D are a bit harder to win with, even for experts - unless of course they are matched against similarly rated opponents.

We certainly do not intend to make any handicapping of armies an official part of the game. If you want to handicap some matchups you can do so in the Advanced options in skirmish challenge setup.

If you handicap an army in a challenge, the challenge does indicate its "custom" but it does not indicate the points. Could that be added?

It has been added. It is in the forthcoming patch that will be released at the same time as Legions Triumphant. Also the custom points increments are adjustable, so in fact any desired differential can be used.

[Gwaylare]

Good idea to do this. I think it is easier to reduce the list armies to about 10 - 20 often played lists, to build a sceleton for tiers. In a second step it is possible match other armies.

As a preparation to Late Antiquity League I did a lot of test, playing those armies against my pontic army. So I get an impression, where it is possible to beat an other army or not. Playing against yourself is not very interessting, but eliminates the player skill quite well.
So here is what I found out. My army is Pontic 84 -47 BC

Ptolemaics 55-30BC: This is quite balanced, I think. Superior Ptolemaic will be outnumbered by Pontic infantry. You ever has better terrain or luck available will win the match. There is no real drawback for this army. Ptolemaics can avoid beeing outnumbered by not bying all the expensive stuff.
Kappadokians 260BC-17AD: Absolut no chance in open terrain. If hide your infantry in terrain your passive and the opponent can deal with the cavalry first. I do not see how to win with this army without of heavy terrain in the middle of the battlefield.
Ancient British 60BC-80AD: Same problems like before. The warbands have real problems in open terrain, because the are all medium infantry. Ok the are tough medium infantry, but not heavy infantry. They are easy to disrupt. I do not like chariots at all. Compared with cheap cacalry (44 pts) they are overprized for 36 pts. My irregular foot is fine to deal with them and they are far away from dealing with cavalry. So Galations are overprized and so outnumbered or smashed by quality. The need a lot of terrain to even beat the Pontics.
Indian 500-319BC: No idea to beat them. The combination of cheap cavalry, elefants and massed bows will counter Pontics very effectivly. Just bad luck with breaking elefants may ruin the indians day. But you cannot outnumber them, it is hard to break through the elefants and your cavalry will be harmed by elefants and bows. If it would be possible to play more infantry with the Pontics (19 is Maximum), it might be balanced.
Jewish 64BC-6AD: This is the list to beat indians and my be a very underestimated list. I like them very much and I cannot beat them with Pontics, because they can what Pontic just dream of. Playing 26 infantry units and with 12 speerman they do not have to fear cavalry, just lancers. But they can have cavalry, they can have a lot of light troups. So they are not predictable at all. So for me this is one of the best lists in here.
Seleucids 124-63BC: Very good infantry, but if you buy all the expensive stuff, you will be outnumbered by far. Then they can build a square and playing for a draw. Bying all the cheap stuff, they are hard to beat them in the open terrain. Hope there is no small stream ruin your day. Playing them with 15 Infantry and 4 cavalry and some lights will ruin Pontics day.
Galatians 63-25BC: Very good inexpensive cavlary and a lot of heavy infantry. No medium infantry and nearly no light infantry. This is a terrain gamble. In the open Pontic can spend the day at home. They can not outnumber them nor can they break through. But the Galatians can not charge the Pontics in the terrain. So if there is terrain for more then a third of the Pontics, the Galatians will have a hard day. So I guess here we will have a lot of draw games.
Romans 105-25BC: Dont buy the Veteran Legions and Pontics will have a hard day. You are much more flexible with mediums troups and you have inexpensive cavalry. There is no drawback, just benefits.
Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70BC: There much stronger than expected. They are most medium infantry, but the spanish troups are very good for the prize, they very very well against imitated legions and can deal with anything Pontic is able to throw into the field. There is just one draw back. They have to buy anything with no choice and then there a lot of points for light troups available. But Pontic do not have enough infantry to counter it. Again the Jewish with a full set of infantry may counter them quite effective.
Pontic 84-47BC: A significant drawback is that Pontic have to buy 4 irregular troups in every game. They need them to flank. It would be fine to have some really cheap poorly armed ramble or some more capable medium troups like speerman. In some games you cannot even avoid the thracians. Than it would be greate to have some cheap 44 pts cavalry. The Pontic are very flexible, but they do not have the troups to be either a mass army or a quality army. The major advantage of Pontic are, that most players do buy all the expensive stuff and get outnumbered even if they could have avoided that. You do not need veteran legions or veteran phalanxes or superior warbands to beats and they are no advantage, they are a disadvantage.


So here is my ranking:
first group:

Romans 105-25BC
Jewish 64BC-6AD
Indian 500-319BC

second group:
Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70BC
Galatians 63-25BC
Ptolemaics 55-30BC
Pontic 84-47BC
Seleucids 124-63BC

last group:
Ancient British 60BC-80AD
Kappadokians 260BC-17AD


Best regards
Gwaylare