Very small armies in the game . . .

[stockwellpete]

I am really in "cabin fever" mode now. One of the other things I have been looking at recently are those armies in the game that can field relatively few units. I started out by looking at this small number of armies that were in my head as "small armies" and what I did was pick the biggest number of units I could for each army (even when it was mostly dross) and the smallest number (highest quality units) that I could for each army. I had to use up as many as the points as possible in both types of selections. I came up with this little table (biggest number of units then smallest number) . . .

Norman 27-17
Breton (936AD) 27-18
Avar (558AD) 30-19
Anglo-Danish 33-21
-------------------------------
Anglo-Saxon (871AD) 33-24

I know for a fact that the Anglo-Saxon army here is viable in multi-player with a fairly standard selection giving an army size of 27/28 units. But things start to get a bit tighter with the Anglo-Danish where a standard selection will only give you 25/26 units and four of those are raw shieldwall. Their most likely historical opponents, the Welsh, can field a standard army of around 36 units in comparison. And then you get to the Normans who are the most challenged army that I have looked at so far and they can put out an army of 25 units, but it does include 3 mob units. I will look at this army in more detail in a moment as I think really that they should be a bit more difficult to play against considering their troubled history.

There are not that many of these armies and they seem to be clustered in the Early Medieval period, but please feel free to add any other ones that you feel are a bit on the small side.

Edit: I have corrected these figures slightly as initially I had inadvertently left my game on "Legate" level instead of "Tribune".

[Athos1660]

You should know it : Size does not matter... at least that's what they say.

(...) considering their troubled history.

I don't like this argument. But that's my point of view.
Been discussed lately.

[Athos1660]

(double post)

[stockwellpete]

You should know it : Size does not matter... at least that's what they say.

(...) considering their troubled history.

I don't like this argument. But that's my point of view.
Been discussed lately.

Which argument? Troubled history argument? Or size of the army argument?

[stockwellpete]

So the Normans (923-1040AD) are the pre-Norman conquest army that really carved out the Duchy of Normandy at the expense of its neighbours - and at the end of the period there was a lot of internal instability and civil war too.

One possible army pick (1200pts) gives you a very small army of 24 units that would really struggle in multi-player . . .
13 armoured lancers = 832pts
6 defensive shield wall = 216pts
1 mob = 15pts
4 missile skirmishers = 120pts

I think the Normans should be quite a tough army to play against really because they were quite a militarised society and they were very effective. But the army here is not particularly good and on some terrain-heavy maps would be hopeless. I am wondering if there is anything that can be done to help them a bit. Just looking at how other rule sets and TT figure manufacturers deal with them and there seems to be some support for the idea of light cavalry (not light javelin light horse cavalry) as a troop type for the Normans. Maybe a couple more defensive spears (0/8 instead of 0/6) and one more light crossbowmen option (0/2 instead of 0/1)?

The dismounted lancers option in the Norman list is very expensive because they are 72pts a go and any army with a lot of them would only just top 20 units. You can dismount the cavalry at the start if you have picked them, but then you are only getting 240 men for 64pts instead of 480 men for 72pts (equivalent huscarl spear unit for purposes of comparison). The 240 man unit will only last for around 3 complete turns in melee against its 480 man equivalent so dismounting is really not a good idea.

[Athos1660]

You should know it : Size does not matter... at least that's what they say.

(...) considering their troubled history.

I don't like this argument. But that's my point of view.
Been discussed lately.

Which argument? Troubled history argument? Or size of the army argument?

That, in game armies "should be (...) more (or less) difficult to play against (or with), considering their (...) [general] history".

IMHO, only unit quality should matter (as far as possible), not other parameters (economics, trade, culture, luck, brilliant general...), not who actually defeated who during a given war. As now in game. There are a lot of historical parameters that should not come into play in the army list making, as I see it.

(edit)
In a way, the current game make it possible to play alternative History with historical units. And that's nice.

[stockwellpete]

Turning to the mysterious Avars (558AD), a balanced selection for them might be . . .

5x Expert Armoured Horse Archers = 330pts
4x Armoured Lancers = 256pts
4x Horse archers = 176pts
5x Light Horse archers = 200pts
5x Irregular foot = 150pts
3x skirmishers = 84pts

So that is 26 units, but it is a very weak army with lots of irregular foot and horse archers (@44pts, which I think are the worst units in the entire game, value wise). If you try and beef it up with a few more lancers then it will drop below 25 units, which for me is too small for it to be effective. Militarily, the Avars had some successes, but were often beaten by the Byzantines and Franks.

I am not sure what the answer is to make these more attractive to players. All the basic troop types are provided in the list. The only thing I can think of is the cost of the various types of horse archers. Are they generally a bit too expensive in the game?

[stockwellpete]

That, in game armies "should be (...) more (or less) difficult to play against (or with), considering their (...) [general] history".

IMHO, only unit quality should matter (as far as possible), not other parameters (economics, trade, culture, luck, brilliant general...), not who actually defeated who during a given war. As now in game. There are a lot of historical parameters that should not come into play in the army list making, as I see it.

(edit)
In a way, the current game make it possible to play alternative History with historical units. And that's nice.

This is not really the argument that I am making in this thread though. I am just looking at the smallest armies and seeing if there is anything to make them a bit more attractive to players. I get a bit of an idea about this from the FOG2DL army selection process where players are asked to make 4 selections initially in each section they enter. Hardly anyone chooses the Avars at all, or the mid- and later Breton armies, and only occasionally are the Normans chosen, usually with French allies. The FOG2DL records for these armies are as follows (WDL) . . .

Breton 580AD 2-1-6
Breton 936AD not used
Avar 553AD not used
Avar 558AD 2-0-11
Avar 632AD not used
Norman 923AD 1-0-8

I think these figures really tell the story.

[Athos1660]

Okay ! And you think that they are not used because they have a small army in unit number. I see.

[Nosy_Rat]

That, in game armies "should be (...) more (or less) difficult to play against (or with), considering their (...) [general] history".

IMHO, only unit quality should matter (as far as possible), not other parameters (economics, trade, culture, luck, brilliant general...), not who actually defeated who during a given war. As now in game. There are a lot of historical parameters that should not come into play in the army list making, as I see it.

(edit)
In a way, the current game make it possible to play alternative History with historical units. And that's nice.

This is not really the argument that I am making in this thread though. I am just looking at the smallest armies and seeing if there is anything to make them a bit more attractive to players. I get a bit of an idea about this from the FOG2DL army selection process where players are asked to make 4 selections initially in each section they enter. Hardly anyone chooses the Avars at all, or the mid- and later Breton armies, and only occasionally are the Normans chosen, usually with French allies. The FOG2DL records for these armies are as follows (WDL) . . .

Breton 580AD 2-1-6
Breton 936AD not used
Avar 553AD not used
Avar 558AD 2-0-11
Avar 632AD not used
Norman 923AD 1-0-8

I think these figures really tell the story.

If we are speaking about DL, main problem of all those armies is that they all are very terrain-sensitive. Norman and Breton armies completely lack effective medium foot and personally I'd never pick an infantry army without at least 2-3 good units of MF. Avars (and other cavalry armies) are even more dependent on getting open map than heavy foot armies, and, to be fair, Avars are kinda ok as far as horse archer armies go, there's just no reason to pick them over Huns, the ultimate horse archer boys.



Something like that would be pretty viable army for Avars, with only 24 units.

horse archers (@44pts, which I think are the worst units in the entire game, value wise).

No, warbands are the worst, fight me

[Jagger2002]

The Normans are a very strong and fun army to play if you play historical or historical plausible games which is pretty much all I play anymore.

My biggest problem with the nicely balanced armies which can fight in any terrain and are very popular in the tournaments is when you suddenly find yourself facing an army that is almost entirely cavalry or infantry which mismatches your army selection. The tactics required to play those army types can be very tedious.

[Jagger2002]

double post

[stockwellpete]

Okay ! And you think that they are not used because they have a small army in unit number. I see.

Yes, that's it. I certainly think that is one of the main reasons. They will get flanked a lot, I think.

[pompeytheflatulent]

Breton 580AD 2-1-6
Breton 936AD not used
Avar 553AD not used
Avar 558AD 2-0-11
Avar 632AD not used
Norman 923AD 1-0-8

I think these figures really tell the story.

The alternate time-frames for the Avar are not used because they just have less unit choices, in return for raising the unit cap on Expert Armored Horse-archers. Nobody is going to giving up on the option of taking infantry or cheaper horse archer in return for a stupidly high cap they can't get close to.

Screen_00000014.jpg (473.97 KiB) Viewed 2319 times

The later Breton list is just a worse copy of the Norman list.

With all of these, you basically have a sample size of one player playing them for one season. Although I'm not entirely sure what's up with the Avars, did somebody quit halfway through a season?

[stockwellpete]

If we are speaking about DL, main problem of all those armies is that they all are very terrain-sensitive. Norman and Breton armies completely lack effective medium foot and personally I'd never pick an infantry army without at least 2-3 good units of MF. Avars (and other cavalry armies) are even more dependent on getting open map than heavy foot armies, and, to be fair, Avars are kinda ok as far as horse archer armies go, there's just no reason to pick them over Huns, the ultimate horse archer boys.

Yes, I think that is right. When I played regularly in the FOG2DL I treated my 9 matches as part of a single military campaign where I might encounter all sorts of terrain. So I tended to pick armies like the Carthaginians who can handle all the various terrain types.

Something like that would be pretty viable army for Avars, with only 24 units.

I would be a bit nervous about that line-up because you have got 13 cavalry archer units and only 3 lancers, a ratio greater than 4:1. My fear would be that they might get bullied by any army has a strong cavalry contingent. I tend to be happier with about a 2:1 ratio of cavalry archers to lancers. Obviously you can adjust your selection according to the army you are facing but I usually end up with my cavalry archers facing the wrong way and being useless to me.

[pompeytheflatulent]

horse archers (@44pts, which I think are the worst units in the entire game, value wise).

No, warbands are the worst, fight me

@stockwellpete: See earlier Ghilman thread for the whole expensive vs cheap horse archer debate.

@Nosy_Rat: I see your warband and I raise you Persian Immortals.

[stockwellpete]

The Normans are a very strong and fun army to play if you play historical or historical plausible games which is pretty much all I play anymore.

Yes, the match up with contemporary Bretons is good. I also did Val-es-Dunes 1047 as a scenario battle, which usually gives a good game.

[stockwellpete]

With all of these, you basically have a sample size of one player playing them for one season. Although I'm not entirely sure what's up with the Avars, did somebody quit halfway through a season?

No, I cannot remember exactly about the Avars, but some statistics for the armies are not shown in multiples of 9 matches because they were used in the Themed Event, or in one of earlier seasons where I used a series of obscure historical match-ups as the basis for a section when there were only a very limited number of DLC's available.

[pompeytheflatulent]

I would be a bit nervous about that line-up because you have got 13 cavalry archer units and only 3 lancers, a ratio greater than 4:1. My fear would be that they might get bullied by any army has a strong cavalry contingent. I tend to be happier with about a 2:1 ratio of cavalry archers to lancers. Obviously you can adjust your selection according to the army you are facing but I usually end up with my cavalry archers facing the wrong way and being useless to me.

I've played a lot of Magyar vs Khazar and Magyar vs German mirrored games, and the Magyars never felt like they were at a disadvantage despite being outnumbered 3:1 or 4:1 in lancers. Metric buttloads of nomad horse-archers constantly angling for flank charges really makes it hard for the side with more lancers to achieve a quick decisive charge.

[stockwellpete]

I've played a lot of Magyar vs Khazar and Magyar vs German mirrored games, and the Magyars never felt like they were at a disadvantage despite being outnumbered 3:1 or 4:1 in lancers. Metric buttloads of nomad horse-archers constantly angling for flank charges really makes it hard for the side with more lancers to achieve a quick decisive charge.

Do you mean the 44 point nomadic cavalry archers rather the 40 point light horse with the Khazars? I am not very good with horse archer armies but it seems my 2:1 ratio of cavalry archers to lancers is a mistake and I should be trying something nearer to 4:1?