Very small armies in the game . . .

[pompeytheflatulent]

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?

Yeah, I usually maximize on the non-light horse archers at the expense of light horse archers, as long as the map is roomy enough for them to maneuver. Light horse archers basically trade half of their number, all of their armor, their ZOC, ability to disrupt non-light units with a flank charge, in return for greatly increased maneuverability and a 10% discount on price. So I tend use up my spare points upgrading light horse-archers to non-light, as long as I can squeeze them in on the map without them getting in the way of each other evading.

[Nosy_Rat]

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.

Yeah, that's not optimal, of course, just an example of how you could build an Avar list.

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

Dunno, Immortals are indeed extremely expensive, but are at least reliable? Like you know when they would stand, and when they would lose, and you can plan around that. Warbands are both expensive and random in their performance.

[pompeytheflatulent]

Well with Immortals I get to PLAN around the fact that they'll RELIABLY lose to every other 70+ point unit without some sort of massive terrain advantage.

[rbodleyscott]

Well with Immortals I get to PLAN around the fact that they'll RELIABLY lose to every other 70+ point unit without some sort of massive terrain advantage.

And with a "massive terrain advantage" (a bit of rough going) they will reliably trounce all of them.

They are a premium unit, and certainly don't need to be cheaper. (They would, of course, need to be cheaper if the terrain rules were changed as some people wish).

I would take 4 or 5 of them as a no brainer in almost any army list at all, if I was allowed to do so. (Especially if I could see the map first).

[pompeytheflatulent]

Keeping in context of horse archer armies doing poorly in tournament in general, the main critiques I have for the Avar list in regards to other horse-archer armies:

- Ratio of 66 point vs 44 point non-light horse archers should be reversed. Few players will ever hit the list maximum for 66 pt horse archers in any competitively viable army. And if you get a big open map, having the option to trade two 66 pointers for three 44 pointers to be able to outflank your opponent easier is always welcome.

- Ratio of light archers and light javelinmen should be reversed. It is much easier to focus fire with a 2:1 archer to javelin ratio, than a 1:2 archer:javelin. Plus much less likely to get run down by cavalry.

- No mandatory irregular foot. Right now the choice is between seeing that 30 points essentially go to waste, or taking even more irregular foot and reducing the mobility of your whole army.

[rbodleyscott]

Keeping in context of horse archer armies doing poorly in tournament in general, the main critiques I have for the Avar list in regards to other horse-archer armies:

- Ratio of 66 point vs 44 point non-light horse archers should be reversed. Few players will ever hit the list maximum for 66 pt horse archers in any competitively viable army. And if you get a big open map, having the option to trade two 66 pointers for three 44 pointers to be able to outflank your opponent easier is always welcome.

- Ratio of light archers and light javelinmen should be reversed. It is much easier to focus fire with a 2:1 archer to javelin ratio, than a 1:2 archer:javelin. Plus much less likely to get run down by cavalry.

- No mandatory irregular foot. Right now the choice is between seeing that 30 points essentially go to waste, or taking more irregular foot and reducing the mobility of your whole army.

The lists are based on the available historical evidence, not on optimizing armies for tournaments.

In any case, the issue is more with the relative points costs of Superior Armoured and Average Protected horse archers. I said when the cost of Superior Armoured Horse Archers was reduced to 66 that a further reduction might be needed after further play.

[pompeytheflatulent]

Keeping in context of horse archer armies doing poorly in tournament in general, the main critiques I have for the Avar list in regards to other horse-archer armies:

- Ratio of 66 point vs 44 point non-light horse archers should be reversed. Few players will ever hit the list maximum for 66 pt horse archers in any competitively viable army. And if you get a big open map, having the option to trade two 66 pointers for three 44 pointers to be able to outflank your opponent easier is always welcome.

- Ratio of light archers and light javelinmen should be reversed. It is much easier to focus fire with a 2:1 archer to javelin ratio, than a 1:2 archer:javelin. Plus much less likely to get run down by cavalry.

- No mandatory irregular foot. Right now the choice is between seeing that 30 points essentially go to waste, or taking more irregular foot and reducing the mobility of your whole army.

The lists are based on the available historical evidence, not on optimizing armies for tournaments.

I know, I'm just theorizing on why they are doing so poorly in the tournament, while other steppe-nomad lists are at least holding their own, even if not top-tier competitive.

[pompeytheflatulent]

In any case, the issue is more with the relative points costs of Superior Armoured and Average Protected horse archers. I said when the cost of Superior Armoured Horse Archers was reduced to 66 that a further reduction might be needed after further play.

I would love it if we could get like a dozen players together and repeat the 10 expert armored horse archer vs 15 nomad horse archer test I did with Nosy_Rat, and repeat it in mirrored matchs with players switching opponents round-robin style.

[pompeytheflatulent]

I'm kinda scared to ask, but what was the price of superior/armored horse archers before it was lowered to 66?

[Nosy_Rat]

I'm kinda scared to ask, but what was the price of superior/armored horse archers before it was lowered to 66?

72 points iirc

[pompeytheflatulent]

I'm kinda scared to ask, but what was the price of superior/armored horse archers before it was lowered to 66?

72 points iirc

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, 72 point is pretty outrageous. I think the superior horse archers and immortals suffer from the same source of price inflation: They are shooty units first and melee units second. So the player is always paying the cost for their quality, but not always using that quality. I think maybe RBS's Big Book of Pricing Guidelines (tm) needs an asterisk added that states: shooty units don't pay full price for superior quality?

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think Immortals are a solid buy tho

[Jagger2002]

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.

From the historical or historical plausible perspective, I would also look at match ups with the French, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Scots, Navarrese, Vikings, Lombards and maybe even the Arabs in Sicily. Probably forgot some but I think all listed would be good quality, interesting match ups for the Normans in which they would hold their own. They are definitely a high quality army perhaps in the mode of the Romans but with the addition of great cavalry.

[stockwellpete]

From the historical or historical plausible perspective, I would also look at match ups with the French, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Scots, Navarrese, Vikings, Lombards and maybe even the Arabs in Sicily. Probably forgot some but I think all listed would be good quality, interesting match ups for the Normans in which they would hold their own. They are definitely a high quality army perhaps in the mode of the Romans but with the addition of great cavalry.

Yes, fair comment. I will start using some of these in my testing.

[Morbio]

I've read this thread and I wonder if someone is looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

These are historical army lists, they may be small and possibly weaker because of it, so they aren't chosen in the DL.... so what?

[stockwellpete]

I've read this thread and I wonder if someone is looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

These are historical army lists, they may be small and possibly weaker because of it, so they aren't chosen in the DL.... so what?

You don't care about it. So what? I think it would be better if these armies were a bit more viable. Just my point of view.

[Morbio]

I've read this thread and I wonder if someone is looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

These are historical army lists, they may be small and possibly weaker because of it, so they aren't chosen in the DL.... so what?

You don't care about it. So what? I think it would be better if these armies were a bit more viable. Just my point of view.

and your point of view is valid, as is everyone else's. I just wanted to ensure that someone was offering opposition to all the change proposals, so that they don't make it into the game without serious consideration. If I didn't then your comments that there was a lot of support for changes may be taken more strongly than it perhaps should be. I suspect the regular user base for the game is in the 100s, 1000s or 10s of 1000s and just because 99% of the players aren't commenting doesn't mean that they want the game to change.

[stockwellpete]

and your point of view is valid, as is everyone else's. I just wanted to ensure that someone was offering opposition to all the change proposals, so that they don't make it into the game without serious consideration. If I didn't then your comments that there was a lot of support for changes may be taken more strongly than it perhaps should be. I suspect the regular user base for the game is in the 100s, 1000s or 10s of 1000s and just because 99% of the players aren't commenting doesn't mean that they want the game to change.

I am not sure which comment you are referring to. If you mean the one in the thread with the poll, all that suggests to me is that about two-thirds of players reading the forum in the last 24 hours are quite likely to download an anarchy mod at some point to have a look at it. I do think it does mean that it will be a worthwhile exercise to try and produce such a mod.