What periods for rounds 3, 4,5 and 6

[awesum4]

I'm trying to gauge what periods interest people for playing the later rounds of the 2018 tournament.

This discussion is open to everyone not just people still playing, but competitors opinions will carry more weight. But this is not a democracy, there will be no binding vote, I will choose the periods, but I am open to suggestions.

Periods I am considering are;

Early period; Italian Wars French against Italian Wars Italian plus French Wars of Religion Huguenots against catholic

Poland; Polish against Russian plus Polish against Swedes

Eastern; Russian against Cossacks plus Ottomans against Tartars

Bloody Revolts; Spanish against Dutch plus Swabian league against German peasants

Rule Britannia; English against Irish plus English against Scots Border Reivers

Later Period; Various armies with bayonet....open to suggestions of which armies would be most interesting

[Aryaman]

I think a Tercio to Salvo period could be interesting, my vote would go for
Spanish 1566-1599 vs Dutch 1578-1589 ( the later Maurician infantry is simply overpowerful)
French Catholic 1562-1588 vs French Huguenot 1577-1588 vs French Huguenots 1562-1576 (Later Huguenot armies with kuirassiers too powerful)

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think that the Extra Nations armies, while fun, are not as well balanced as those in vanilla. That doesn't make me necessarily opposed to playing them, just something to keep in mind.

I would enjoy either Wars of Religion or the Poles.

For Extra Nations, Eastern followed by Revolts. Rule Britannia would involve enormous masses of lights, which I personally don't love.

The late period is fine, but all the lists play a little more similarly, and I prefer the asymmetry of earlier lists.

[Dobri_i]

I agree with Aryaman.
I think that Polish (1618-1632) vs Ottomans (1618-1629) or Russians (1621-1629) will be fun (impact vs shot).

[ahuyton]

I am not sure that I will make it that far, but Eastern seems like a good choice. It introduces new armies and requires different tactics, I should think.

[TheGrayMouser]

I’m up for any matches in all modules, lots of neat lists in Machielelli too. I would suggest for the earlier modules ( pre 30 years war module) that we play with medium armies . There are too many cheap spam units in the earlier modules plus arquebus units of all types are cheaper that equivalent musket armed ones, increasing unit count. It feels ahistorical having A dozen plus 2000 men p$s units running around the battlefield.

[TheGrayMouser]

The late period is fine, but all the lists play a little more similarly, and I prefer the asymmetry of earlier lists.

The later period has some good line ups: poles versus Sweden, both vs Russia etc. lots of armored Cavalry still around, plus bows mixing it up salvo troops some with bayonets.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Time period aside, I think a change needs to be made either to army size or map size. I think we need to either be Large Armies/Very Wide or Medium Medium. Right now, the two armies naturally tend to stretch to the "edge of the world" which is a bit annoying IMO. Medium size battles tend to leave flanks resting on natural defenses, not the map edge.

[Dobri_i]

Time period aside, I think a change needs to be made either to army size or map size. I think we need to either be Large Armies/Very Wide or Medium Medium. Right now, the two armies naturally tend to stretch to the "edge of the world" which is a bit annoying IMO. Medium size battles tend to leave flanks resting on natural defenses, not the map edge.

+1

P&S battalions are cheap, available in large numbers and "cover" 90% of the battlefield.
Anyhow, tercios and pike kiels are much more expensive and Large Armies/Wide is fine for early period.

[GDod]

Poles vs Ottomans is always a classic, then again the border reivers are very evenly matched and makes for a very fast moving game

[Pixel]

Poles versus Russians is also fun.