Slitherine

waldo wrote:

hammy wrote: OK, so you are saying that some armies are total dogs under all circumstances. What exactly makes an army a total dog?

As some American judge once said in reference to hard core p0rnography "Hard to define, but I know it when I see it."

Walter

The term is 'amateur gyneacology'

I am the sad owner of an early german army. They have a much better chance in an open tournament than in period, even against the gauls who feared them in real life. Protected impact foot are not much good against anything but bow or protected lightspear foot. They do ok vs
mounted armies as long as you don't take too many cav. That said every rule change since I have been playing (since 1977) has hurt some armies and helped others, on the whole I very much like FOG and am glad for the change from DBM. If only they were off-spear rather than impact foot.
Thanks jeff

JEFFEDBOB wrote:I am the sad owner of an early german army.

Agreed. I think it would be nive to figure out how many extra points the barbarians need for a more even game versus their historical roman opponents.

10% more
15% more

What do you think? I suspect 920 of Dacians starts to get 800 points or Romans nervous they could be in for a fair fight.

Only way you could see loads of barbarians in a tourney would be to make it a rugby tourney.

No, that's just a side effect. My problem is that army choice is too important in FoG because there are armies which are basically crap and those which are obviously good, even in open comps. It should be the player's skill + luck alone.

Play Baggamon....

nikgaukroger wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

philqw78 wrote:You mean being one of the richest lands of the Dark ages wasn't enough. They had to invent mass produced effective firearms to shoot spear toting johnny foriegner with first.

England? Rich? Dark Ages? I don't think the elizabethan age is the dark age. in the 7-9th century, england was a backwater by just about every definiation.

I believe that is rather an old fashioned view these days. As I understand it, the current view is that for most of the "Dark Ages" England was, in fact, a relatively wealthy country, and more highly monetarised than nearly all of continental Europe

Which would explain why everyone wanted to invade it.

Agreed. I think it would be nive to figure out how many extra points the barbarians need for a more even game versus their historical roman opponents.

10% more
15% more

What do you think? I suspect 920 of Dacians starts to get 800 points or Romans nervous they could be in for a fair fight.

FWIW in initial testing I found it was:

20% in a straight stand up fight - i.e., no skill just slug it out across a line and use spares to take down flanks and weakened roman BGs gradually.
10% with even playing skill and a decent barbarian commander.
A good player can beat a weaker Roman player with even points.

S