Slitherine

waldo wrote:A quick look at the last 4 tournaments in the UK shows that out of 136 players a grand total of 1 used an army from Wolves from the Sea.

Perhaps those armies aren’t popular for a reason other than they are not competitive under the rules.

It rather depends on which tournaments you are counting. Most UK tournaments are themed to some extent. Were armies from Wolves allowed in all these tournaments?

I suspect the problem is that the armies in Wolves are not particularly good against all comers but as none of these armies historically fought much against other than armies of similar nature it is difficult to say if this is an issue with the rules or (more likey in my opinion) an issue with the concept of 'open' or even loosely themed comps.

I will happily hold my hand up and say that I don't like open comps and that I would far rather play themed events.

hammy wrote:
It rather depends on which tournaments you are counting. Most UK tournaments are themed to some extent. Were armies from Wolves allowed in all these tournaments?

I suspect the problem is that the armies in Wolves are not particularly good against all comers but as none of these armies historically fought much against other than armies of similar nature it is difficult to say if this is an issue with the rules or (more likey in my opinion) an issue with the concept of 'open' or even loosely themed comps.

I will happily hold my hand up and say that I don't like open comps and that I would far rather play themed events.

A number of themed events have in fact been not pure themes, but merged, hence something like IF/RoR, or DF/WFS or suchlike. In a competition format these mitigate against the 'barbarians' of Wolves in favour of the regular armies of D&F.

It's rather ironic that the arguably it has been the 'barbarian fringe' that has benefited from two of the most dubious list decisions (Elite Ancient brits and superior Christian nubians) - though neither is in Wolves. However the biggest issue remains the ability of the initiative winner to draw the enemy into their terrain, even when such an enemy never engaged in anything but defensive warfare. Perhaps a list should be made of armies that are purely defensive, and who therefore cannot be forced onto the steppe?

As a general point, why did the idea of forcing troop ratios disappear? - so the approach of saying 'up to x% superior, remainder average' has gone away.

azrael86 wrote:As a general point, why did the idea of forcing troop ratios disappear? - so the approach of saying 'up to x% superior, remainder average' has gone away.

??????????????????????????????? Dominate and Foederate both have this

hmmmm interesting that the bosps nubian and hungarians do not have much LH in them......... i couldve sworn they did... ... oh well, blows the theory that LH are effective I guess.

jon

The Bosporans and the Hungarians both have ample light horse available (up to 24 for the Bosporans, don't remember the Hungarian limits off hand), but the primary strength of both those lists is not in the horse archers and other shooty cavalry. It's a useful supplement to the other troops that the list can field (lancers for the Bosporans, knights or lancers, depending on dates for the Hungarians) but not the primary reason to choose the lists.

Chris

The Hungarians had qutie a bit of Light Horse in it, I actually played it, yet can't quite remember what was in it....

It was (I think)

3 x 4 Cavalry Lancers
4 x 4 Light Horse, Superior, Light Spear, Bow, Swordsmen
3 x 4 Light Horse Average, Bow
4 x LF rubbish
one or two BG's of other stuff.
Only three generals.

The Christian Nubian had one or two BG's of Light Horse.

The Bosporan had 8 BG's of Average, Bow, Swordsmen

ahhh..... interesting... though still feels LH heavy at the top places...

of course the skill of the player is the dominant factor, Im sure these guys would win games with any army.......... ell, they would if they played me!

jon

dave_r wrote:The Hungarians had qutie a bit of Light Horse in it, I actually played it, yet can't quite remember what was in it....

It was (I think)

3 x 4 Cavalry Lancers
4 x 4 Light Horse, Superior, Light Spear, Bow, Swordsmen
3 x 4 Light Horse Average, Bow
4 x LF rubbish
one or two BG's of other stuff.
Only three generals.

The Christian Nubian had one or two BG's of Light Horse.

The Bosporan had 8 BG's of Average, Bow, Swordsmen

Would you be willing to post your list? With 8 BGs, I assume you had an allied Scythian contingent. I'd be interested in seeing how it compares with the Scythian list you were using for a while. ( I run Bosporans in FoG PC, but haven't tried them on the table yet. Skythians mostly the other way around.)

Chris

though still feels LH heavy at the top places

On the other hand very little LH in the top 3 of the Late period and none at all for the Exotics. Maybe that's why Dave thinks we're Loonies...

Jon

I suspect LH has little or nothing to do with it. If you asked the attendees to pick likely winners without telling them which armies were choosen, I suspect that Briggs, Dalby, Dader, and Drummond would all have been in the top 5 or 6 places.

heh... yeah.... though the later period does have some armies that can provide LH.... Im not that familar with the players or the lists in those periods to pass comment....
will have the take a look

being cynical for a while.... LH win early period... so swarm or drilled MF win later.......


jon

You could be rigth Timmy... Ive played Dader before.... when I say played I mean I got to watch him destroy my army with ease.... to say I played him is a little generous for me, not even sure he know he was in a game.... was more a like a demo of the rout section of the rules!

jon

And on Sunday, Oliver held on for a 10-10 against Pete...

cant see much link between the generic lists for the top 3 late period .......


1 french ord
2 hyw cont
3 swiss

suppose if depends on what the armies had in them though as they could be made of anything..............

accepting that the winners will be winners with most armies of course!

jon

chubooga wrote:cant see much link between the generic lists for the top 3 late period .......


1 french ord
2 hyw cont
3 swiss

suppose if depends on what the armies had in them though as they could be made of anything..............

accepting that the winners will be winners with most armies of course!

jon

All primarily Drilled

1 and 2 have LB
1 and 3 can have Swiss Pike
1 and 2 will have Kn

batesmotel wrote:Would you be willing to post your list? With 8 BGs, I assume you had an allied Scythian contingent. I'd be interested in seeing how it compares with the Scythian list you were using for a while. ( I run Bosporans in FoG PC, but haven't tried them on the table yet. Skythians mostly the other way around.)

Chris

1 x 6 LF, Poor, Bow
1 x 6 LF, Poor, Sling
6 x 4 LH, Average, Bow, Swordsmen
2 x 4 LH, Average, Bow, Sworsmen (Skythian)
1 x 4 Cv, Undrilled, Armoured, Superior, Lancer, Swordsmen (Skythian)
4 x 4 Cv, Undrilled, Armoured, Superior, Lancer, Swordsmen
3 x TC
1 x Allied TC

timmy1 wrote:And on Sunday, Oliver held on for a 10-10 against Pete...

Or vice versa as Pete had lost 2 of his 3 generals by about half way into the game ...

azrael86 wrote:

chubooga wrote:cant see much link between the generic lists for the top 3 late period .......


1 french ord
2 hyw cont
3 swiss

suppose if depends on what the armies had in them though as they could be made of anything..............

accepting that the winners will be winners with most armies of course!

jon

All primarily Drilled

1 and 2 have LB
1 and 3 can have Swiss Pike
1 and 2 will have Kn

2 will have knights but on foot ...

azrael86 wrote:

chubooga wrote:cant see much link between the generic lists for the top 3 late period .......
1 french ord
2 hyw cont
3 swiss

All primarily Drilled

All from Storm of Arrows....

Last year the late period was won with an Ottoman army and the army that won the early period had 1 BG of LH IIRC

The main point is that if you look at pretty much any rankings system going the top players seem to be the same old faces with the possible exception of Paul Brandon who has not played that many FoG comps but was a good performer under DBM

It was interesting to see Paul take down an Ancient British army and a Dominate Roman army along the way.

Nik

Don't disagree with 'Or vice versa as Pete had lost 2 of his 3 generals by about half way into the game ...' but Pete explained it to me differently on Sunday evening... something about 'winning 10-10'...

Regards
Tim