How Good do you think that Army actually is ?

[madaxeman]

I've now added (with the help of MikeK) a new voting template to all of the army pages in the Madaxeman.com FoG WIKI - so you can now vote on how good any given army is:

The options are :

1 Great all round army
2 Good, but only in its own theme/book
3 Not great, but still a solid choice
4 A near-duplicate of a better list
5 Eccentric - Terrain or matchup dependant
6 A real dog I'm afraid
7 None of the above

You don't need to register to be able to vote, and the votes will be on display to anyone else visiting the site after you.

All the army pages have separate voting panels on them, so if you wanted to rate the Vikings you'd go to

http://www.madaxeman.com/wiki2/tiki-ind ... age=Viking

Tim


tim

[Fulgrim]

A really nice site! great job!

[ars_belli]

A very nice way to poll players on the various armies. One other option might be "Could be better with a little tweaking."
Many thanks for providing such a great resource, Tim!

Slave,
Scott

[Delbruck]

Excellent idea Is there going to be a consolidated page that lists the rankings?

[madaxeman]

A very nice way to poll players on the various armies. One other option might be "Could be better with a little tweaking."
Many thanks for providing such a great resource, Tim!

Slave,
Scott

Do you mean "if I cheat and add 2 Units of knights and some triple armed protected LH this army gets better"...?

That might be a popular answer

[Cam_Millar]

That should be fun.

The option "4 A near-duplicate of a better list" is going to be annoying since it begs the question which list does the voter think is better.

For instance, the only vote so far for Kushan is (4) - but what is the better list?

In an ideal world, there would be some sort of comment field to provide a litle more colour...

Cam

[ars_belli]

Do you mean "if I cheat and add 2 Units of knights and some triple armed protected LH this army gets better"...?

That might be a popular answer

It might be indeed.

However, I was thinking more along the lines of: "if the list was adjusted in future, to better reflect historical capabilities" -
a la the new Player Designed Lists forum, for example.

Salve,
Scott

[MatthewP]

I chose number 4 for the kushan. I was thinking of the IndoParthian as the better army, as you can take 18 cataphracts without the need for an ally. I agree without being able to specify the alternate army, choosing option 4 is a little pointless.

Great idea though.

[madaxeman]

That should be fun.

The option "4 A near-duplicate of a better list" is going to be annoying since it begs the question which list does the voter think is better.

For instance, the only vote so far for Kushan is (4) - but what is the better list?

In an ideal world, there would be some sort of comment field to provide a litle more colour...

Cam

Well, as if by magic..... the whole Army Pages section is set up as a WIKI, so anyone can add whatever they want to it.

As long as you know who Philip of Macedons famous son was you can register in about 5 seconds and then you can add whatever you want to any of the pages, including which armies you think are similar but better....

I cant add the option into the polling direct, but the wiki allows far more customization

tim

[sergiomonteleone]

I've now added (with the help of MikeK) a new voting template to all of the army pages in the Madaxeman.com FoG WIKI - so you can now vote on how good any given army is:

The options are :

1 Great all round army
2 Good, but only in its own theme/book
3 Not great, but still a solid choice
4 A near-duplicate of a better list
5 Eccentric - Terrain or matchup dependant
6 A real dog I'm afraid
7 None of the above

You don't need to register to be able to vote, and the votes will be on display to anyone else visiting the site after you.

All the army pages have separate voting panels on them, so if you wanted to rate the Vikings you'd go to

http://www.madaxeman.com/wiki2/tiki-ind ... age=Viking

Tim


tim

Hi Tim,
great idea.
Why not making this considering all the armies (I remember similar thing made for DBM regarding armies most used in tournaments)?
For example, in Italy many players like to use medieval armies because they think it'svery hard to win against KN' s.
Sergio

P.S.: I tried Viking, in my opinion it's a little bit hard to manouvre (all BG's undrilled) and weak on the flanks even with an ally

[madaxeman]

Hi Tim,
great idea.
Why not making this considering all the armies (I remember similar thing made for DBM regarding armies most used in tournaments)?
For example, in Italy many players like to use medieval armies because they think it'svery hard to win against KN' s.
Sergio
P.S.: I tried Viking, in my opinion it's a little bit hard to manouvre (all BG's undrilled) and weak on the flanks even with an ally

It is set up to cover all the armies - eventually

If you have any tips or advice on using a particular army, just set up an account on the WIKI and then add your advice to that page wherever you think is best (so for these comments, the "Using the army in FoG" section would seem to be the best place to add them in)

[batesmotel]

Out of curiosity, do most other people consider a 2 rating for an army better than a 3? (I rated the Alexandrian Macedonians as a 3 vs. a 2 because I think they are a good all around army for any period, but not a super one. While the armored cavalry with lance may not be very useful against knights frontally, the presence of pikes and availability of elephants seems to negate that as an out of period issue.) On the other hand, if I was going to rate Parthians or Palmyrans, as cataphract armies I might well rate them as a 2 for being strong in period but less so out of it. For my use, at least, I consider the Alexandrian Macedonians a stronger army to take to an open tournament than I would the Parthians or Palmyrans (although I haven't played with either of these yet so that is only a guess).

So I'm definitely curious to see how others compare a 2 vs. a 3 rating since it seems like they are orthogonal evaluations to me rather than a strict sequence.

Chris

I've now added (with the help of MikeK) a new voting template to all of the army pages in the Madaxeman.com FoG WIKI - so you can now vote on how good any given army is:

The options are :

1 Great all round army
2 Good, but only in its own theme/book
3 Not great, but still a solid choice
4 A near-duplicate of a better list
5 Eccentric - Terrain or matchup dependant
6 A real dog I'm afraid
7 None of the above

You don't need to register to be able to vote, and the votes will be on display to anyone else visiting the site after you.

All the army pages have separate voting panels on them, so if you wanted to rate the Vikings you'd go to

http://www.madaxeman.com/wiki2/tiki-ind ... age=Viking

Tim


tim

[madaxeman]

Out of curiosity, do most other people consider a 2 rating for an army better than a 3? (I rated the Alexandrian Macedonians as a 3 vs. a 2 because I think they are a good all around army for any period, but not a super one. While the armored cavalry with lance may not be very useful against knights frontally, the presence of pikes and availability of elephants seems to negate that as an out of period issue.) On the other hand, if I was going to rate Parthians or Palmyrans, as cataphract armies I might well rate them as a 2 for being strong in period but less so out of it. For my use, at least, I consider the Alexandrian Macedonians a stronger army to take to an open tournament than I would the Parthians or Palmyrans (although I haven't played with either of these yet so that is only a guess).

So I'm definitely curious to see how others compare a 2 vs. a 3 rating since it seems like they are orthogonal evaluations to me rather than a strict sequence.

Chris

The options are :
1 Great all round army
2 Good, but only in its own theme/book
3 Not great, but still a solid choice
4 A near-duplicate of a better list
5 Eccentric - Terrain or matchup dependant
6 A real dog I'm afraid
7 None of the above
You don't need to register to be able to vote, and the votes will be on display to anyone else visiting the site after you.
tim

The options are not intended to be a straight sequence, and the results only get presented as numbers of votes for each option - in the actual Polls, they dont even get listed as "options 1-7" and so there is no "...thus giving an average score of 6.2 for this army".

However comments like the ones you've made here about why the Greeks might be dithering between option 2 and option 3 could be very useful to help other people understand how the army might work... they'd make a great addition to the FoG wiki pages for these armies

tim

[SirGarnet]

The poll choices are being updated to make it easier to choose between the defined options with a focus on versatility.


Description below from the main FoG armies page):

Each army now has its own Versatility rating which you can vote on without registering. These indicate how versatile an army is against the overall field of all possible opponents. This should be useful to competition and other players with an interest in performance. Obviously, these ratings are a matter of particular players' opinion and experience - it's the particular pair-wise match-up and player skill that affect actual outcomes. A jack-of-all-trades "A" army can be beaten by a specialist "B", "C" or "E" that can play to its strengths, and experts can tease amazing performance from armies that seem run-of-the-mill to others.

* A = Good all-round with no nemesis i.e., a good all-round versatile army with no fatal weaknesses against particular opponents.

* B = Strong at least in theme or era i.e., strong in either theme or era, but challenges beyond that mean this army is not eligible for "A" rating.

* C = Competent but uneven i.e., a competent army that might be competitive and might have strengths, but more uneven in versatility than A or B.

* E = Eccentric results due to match-up or terrain i.e., an eccentric performer due to high sensitivity to opposing match-ups or terrain.

* F = This dog won't hunt. Remember that dogs can be lovable creatures, even if they expect to lose routinely (though maybe not always) against players of equal skill with better armies.

* D = Duplicates better list. Duplicate means you can get virtually the same troop type mix in another list that offers additional advantages. Apart from D, this army would also have a usual rating, so an A or B army could also be a D. Go to this army’s page for discussion of better lists.

(If you do vote "D" for any armies, please edit that armies page and include which armies you think are similar but better in the "how to use this army in FoG" section)