First Impression of Age of Eagles

[OldenTired]

Not impressed.

Nice book and all, but the lists are all a bit... samey.

Will have to reserve judgement until I see more light chariots in action. But because we use open tournaments here in New Zealand, I'm thinking that we probably won't see too many. They're prohibitively expensive when you need to field 17 BG minimum just to stay on table for any great length of time.

[nikgaukroger]

You mean "Swifter than Eagles"

Not impressed.

Nice book and all, but the lists are all a bit... samey.

Alas, the armies appear to have been - it was something noted when drawing them up.

Will have to reserve judgement until I see more light chariots in action. But because we use open tournaments here in New Zealand, I'm thinking that we probably won't see too many.

Probably true, many of the armies in the book will struggle in open comps, however, IMO there are a few that will be OK. Not that open comps are compulsory though, you make your bed and all that.

They're prohibitively expensive when you need to field 17 BG minimum just to stay on table for any great length of time.

Damn, the 13 BG armies that came 1st, 2nd and 5th at the BHGS Challenege must actually have had invisible BGs bulking them out, no wonder they did so well

I will say that having list checked your Natcon lists I can see why you may think you need loads of BGs, however, I think that is at least partially due to the way many of you structure your armies and if you designed them differently you wouldn't think you needed all those BGs.

[grahambriggs]

You mean "Swifter than Eagles"

Not impressed.

Nice book and all, but the lists are all a bit... samey.

Alas, the armies appear to have been - it was something noted when drawing them up.

Will have to reserve judgement until I see more light chariots in action. But because we use open tournaments here in New Zealand, I'm thinking that we probably won't see too many.

Probably true, many of the armies in the book will struggle in open comps, however, IMO there are a few that will be OK. Not that open comps are compulsory though, you make your bed and all that.

They're prohibitively expensive when you need to field 17 BG minimum just to stay on table for any great length of time.

Damn, the 13 BG armies that came 1st, 2nd and 5th at the BHGS Challenege must actually have had invisible BGs bulking them out, no wonder they did so well

I will say that having list checked your Natcon lists I can see why you may think you need loads of BGs, however, I think that is at least partially due to the way many of you structure your armies and if you designed them differently you wouldn't think you needed all those BGs.

Drat! I only had 12BGs. That's why I came 6th!

G

[nikgaukroger]

And Roger Greenwood with 8 completely blew it, hence came just 19th - God alone knows how he played all his games on the top 4 or 5 tables

Mind you the muppet he beat in the first round will have helped ...

[vamrat]

Are there any more first impressions on "Age of Eagles" ? I have it on pre-order and am hoping that some other people find it interesting. I was expecting it to be somewhat same-y, since as Nik said, the armies of the period were.

[hazelbark]

Are there any more first impressions on "Age of Eagles" ? I have it on pre-order and am hoping that some other people find it interesting. I was expecting it to be somewhat same-y, since as Nik said, the armies of the period were.

Not seen it yet. But the beta Hittie and NKE and Assyrians were different and the rumors of Mitanni make them sound diffferent.

I think the issue is for much of this period the Chariot was THE weapon. So once you have determined what kind of chariot then it is the people who walk after that.

[OldenTired]

Are there any more first impressions on "Age of Eagles" ? I have it on pre-order and am hoping that some other people find it interesting. I was expecting it to be somewhat same-y, since as Nik said, the armies of the period were.

Not seen it yet. But the beta Hittie and NKE and Assyrians were different and the rumors of Mitanni make them sound diffferent.

I think the issue is for much of this period the Chariot was THE weapon. So once you have determined what kind of chariot then it is the people who walk after that.

the main difference with the mitanni is the ability to make much of the army drilled. otherwise, light chariots, LS/SW MF + bows.

don't get me wrong. the armies dominating the new zealand scene tend to be light horse-heavy. this means that light chariot armies could give them a run for their money.

but... a key reason why they're dominant is because the best players are <strike>taking the piss</strike> using them.

[david53]

don't get me wrong. the armies dominating the new zealand scene tend to be light horse-heavy. this means that light chariot armies could give them a run for their money.

but... a key reason why they're dominant is because the best players are <strike>taking the piss</strike> using them.

Is there any special LH armies or a good old mix of types.
dave

[DaiSho]

Probably true, many of the armies in the book will struggle in open comps, however, IMO there are a few that will be OK. Not that open comps are compulsory though, you make your bed and all that.

Well, I'm not sure that this is 'our' fault (as in the fault of the people in the Antipodes).

Our (in Australia) largest convention this year has had about 40 participants. I would suggest that a large chunk of those would not play in a themed competition due to lack of armies.

In Europe you benefit from having a larger population AND the ability to easily travel within countries. Thus, it would be not impossible to go to Italy for a 'themed comp' if your 'local comp' wasn't themed in the same way as you enjoy. Considering the distance from London to Rome is substantially less than (at least) one Can-Con participants travel distance (Perth to Canberra - about equiv of London to Moscow).

I think themed comps are a great thing, but unfortunately I can't see them being a large ANZAC thing any time soon.

Ian

[SirGarnet]

a key reason why they're dominant is because the best players are <strike>taking the piss</strike> using them.

Meaning what might in northern climes be called taking the laurels of victory?

[OldenTired]

actually... reading the POAs a little more closely (having never fought LCh in close combat. the one game i had they hid behind skirmishers), LCh might not be too bad.

this makes the early/middle assyrians pretty tough. i'd most definitely put LCh up against average KN for example.

[sergiomonteleone]

Not impressed.

Nice book and all, but the lists are all a bit... samey.

Will have to reserve judgement until I see more light chariots in action. But because we use open tournaments here in New Zealand, I'm thinking that we probably won't see too many. They're prohibitively expensive when you need to field 17 BG minimum just to stay on table for any great length of time.

Hi,
I haven't received Swifter than Eagles yet (I made a pre-order, in Italy we have some problem with distribution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).
But, considering beta test armies, I guess Assyrian is a good armies (HCH, Cv superior armoured with bow and footmen for terrain).
I hope the same for Ugaritic (very good army in DBM).
I guess the same for Egyptian with a lot of LCH.
Sergio

[recharge]

I have fought agains Ancient British LCh. They were very tough; negating armor, 2 dice per base, etc.

Looking forward to the NKE list.

John

[expendablecinc]

Are there any more first impressions on "Age of Eagles" ? I have it on pre-order and am hoping that some other people find it interesting. I was expecting it to be somewhat same-y, since as Nik said, the armies of the period were.

Its great. I'm not about to be racking up loads of different armies from it buts thats the same for any book.

NKE, Assyrians both middle and late adn libyan egyptians just out straight away as looking good.

Ive done ok in club games with my Assyrian list in open style games:

3 TCs
4 heavy chariots
4 superior Cav w Bw*
4 superior Cav w Bw
4 guard with 2 LF support
8 armoured HF with bow at rear
8 protected MF with bow at rear
4 LH scouts
6 kushite MF bow (drilled)
6 LF slingers (avg)
4 LF javelin (poor)

scythian ally
TC general
4 Cav superior Bow
4 LH superior Bow
4 LH superior Bow

13 BGs
All drilled or with skirmishing capability
everything shoots
lots of superiors superior
lots with decent armour

[OldenTired]

Are there any more first impressions on "Age of Eagles" ? I have it on pre-order and am hoping that some other people find it interesting. I was expecting it to be somewhat same-y, since as Nik said, the armies of the period were.

Its great. I'm not about to be racking up loads of different armies from it buts thats the same for any book.

NKE, Assyrians both middle and late adn libyan egyptians just out straight away as looking good.

Ive done ok in club games with my Assyrian list in open style games:

3 TCs
4 heavy chariots
4 superior Cav w Bw*
4 superior Cav w Bw
4 guard with 2 LF support
8 armoured HF with bow at rear
8 protected MF with bow at rear
4 LH scouts
6 kushite MF bow (drilled)
6 LF slingers (avg)
4 LF javelin (poor)

scythian ally
TC general
4 Cav superior Bow
4 LH superior Bow
4 LH superior Bow

13 BGs
All drilled or with skirmishing capability
everything shoots
lots of superiors superior
lots with decent armour

hate to point this out, but there are no sup LH in the skyths. you have more points to spend!

[hammy]

Not impressed.

Nice book and all, but the lists are all a bit... samey.

From my PoV there are severl different kinds of armies in the book. The only real sameyness is that the vast majority of the foot are medium foot rather than heavy.

I have four biblical armies all of which are covered by this book and to describe Sumerian, Early Libyan, Mittanni and Later Assyrian as the same is IMO just plain wrong.

I am really looking forwards to the next round of the SoA doubles in Leeds where I will be able to dust off my chariots for the weekend.

[davem]

I have been using the Beta NKE list for some time (see my AAR "When Nellie the Elephant met Pharoah Rammettuphem) and I think they are perfectly viable. The Lch are very good against any mounted being able to skirmish away from anything they don't want to fight.
The weakness is the MF bow, but if deployed carefully and not over-committed can be OK. The MF close fighters can support the Bw but you have to time any interpenetration very carefully.
Consider taking a BG or 2 of the Sea Peoples HF impact foot.
I am generally running 12-14 BG's in my NKE. I always take 4 TC's but a FC for flank marches might be worth considering.

[OldenTired]

Not impressed.

Nice book and all, but the lists are all a bit... samey.

From my PoV there are severl different kinds of armies in the book. The only real sameyness is that the vast majority of the foot are medium foot rather than heavy.

I have four biblical armies all of which are covered by this book and to describe Sumerian, Early Libyan, Mittanni and Later Assyrian as the same is IMO just plain wrong.

I am really looking forwards to the next round of the SoA doubles in Leeds where I will be able to dust off my chariots for the weekend.

dude... the first three are predominantly LCh with different flavours of MF. granted the assyrian is broader, but...

don't be toey with me because your editing was dubious.

[hammy]

[I have four biblical armies all of which are covered by this book and to describe Sumerian, Early Libyan, Mittanni and Later Assyrian as the same is IMO just plain wrong.

I am really looking forwards to the next round of the SoA doubles in Leeds where I will be able to dust off my chariots for the weekend.

dude... the first three are predominantly LCh with different flavours of MF. granted the assyrian is broader, but...

don't be toey with me because your editing was dubious.

Err since when has Libyan been mostly LCh with MF support? My Libyan army is pre 650 BC so can only have 12 Ch maximum and the rest of the army is masses upon masses of unprotected foot.

Sumerian can only have 8 chariots total and they are poo. Then there is the small matter of 102 bases of heavy foot spearmen to consider.

Mittanni I will grant you are massed LCh and I have about 40 which I fully intend to use some time.

Assyrians are a mix of HCh, cavalry and decent foot and nary a LCh to be seen.

Saying these are samey is like saying that later armies have chaps on horses and chaps on foot so they are all the same anyway.

[footslogger]

Now.

Let's not start talking about these armies until everyone has their copy of the list book, OK?