Field of Glory Tabletop Rankings Live!

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:11 pm

Interesting pattern is coming to light looking at the results. While the sample may not be statistically significant, the raw numbers seem to show that Later Anglo-Irish (book 2: Storm of Arrows, page 28) covering 1300 AD - 1500 AD is the best army. It has a clear lead in Singles - indeed it would be the only army with an ELO of 1800+ were it not for the poor showing by Nik as Badcon 2008 :).

Looks like we have a new tourney tiger. I must admit I that until this week I had never even looked at the list and my untrained eye can't see what it is that makes it such a good list (unless it is the kerns).

LambertSimnel · Post by **LambertSimnel** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:23 pm

timmy1 wrote:Interesting pattern is coming to light looking at the results. While the sample may not be statistically significant, the raw numbers seem to show that Later Anglo-Irish (book 2: Storm of Arrows, page 28) covering 1300 AD - 1500 AD is the best army. It has a clear lead in Singles - indeed it would be the only army with an ELO of 1800+ were it not for the poor showing by Nik as Badcon 2008 .

Looks like we have a new tourney tiger. I must admit I that until this week I had never even looked at the list and my untrained eye can't see what it is
that makes it such a good list (unless it is the kerns).

Also, Early Anglo-Irish aren't far behind them.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:29 pm

Ghaznavid and a couple of others are closer. :)

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:25 pm

timmy1 wrote:Interesting pattern is coming to light looking at the results. While the sample may not be statistically significant, the raw numbers seem to show that Later Anglo-Irish (book 2: Storm of Arrows, page 28) covering 1300 AD - 1500 AD is the best army. It has a clear lead in Singles - indeed it would be the only army with an ELO of 1800+ were it not for the poor showing by Nik as Badcon 2008 .

Looks like we have a new tourney tiger. I must admit I that until this week I had never even looked at the list and my untrained eye can't see what it is that makes it such a good list (unless it is the kerns).

Best and most successful are not the same thing. Back in the days of DBM everyone used to believe that Patrician Roman was a super army because Iain McNeil won everything in sight with it. The trouble was Iain knew how to play the army well and had the ability to deliver.

At present Later Anglo Irish is one of those armies that has been noticed by a few good players and not yet picked up by the masses. The army rating will fall when more people use it because it is the super army. Look at Dominate Roman and the graph in particular if you want an example of an army that is good when used by a player that knows how to use it.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:39 pm

Spoilsport.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:24 pm

timmy1 wrote:Spoilsport.

Sorry

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:17 pm

hammy wrote: Best and most successful are not the same thing. Back in the days of DBM everyone used to believe that Patrician Roman was a super army because Iain McNeil won everything in sight with it. The trouble was Iain knew how to play the army well and had the ability to deliver.

Not quite true as belief doesn't need to come into it; it was a damn good army up until v3.1, then it was hobbled somewhat.

Using Ethan's old army ranking system from +A to C-, I'd probably give the current incarnation as Foederate around a B, maybe B+ because of the bow cavalry. Nothing special in other words.

Dominate remains A+

Early Nomad, I can safely say, is a C, not quite C-. But fun to play

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:22 pm

peterrjohnston wrote:Dominate remains A+

So what does that make Ostrogoths. Since I don't think Graham's Dominates have come close to losing to anything else at Britcon. And that was only a slightly winning draw to the Goths.

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:12 pm

philqw78 wrote:So what does that make Ostrogoths.

Objectively? I'd give them a B+, maybe A-, as it's a bit of a one-trick armoured horse

I personally think armoured cavalry lancers are a good troop type in FoG. So as a cavalry lancers army it's fairly optimal, but the list is essentially one-dimensional.

What would you rate it as, out of interest?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:59 pm

peterrjohnston wrote:Using Ethan's old army ranking system from +A to C-, I'd probably give the current incarnation as Foederate around a B, maybe B+ because of the bow cavalry. Nothing special in other words.

Dominate remains A+

But if you go off the ELO of the army then Dominate is a fair few places lower than Foederate

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:11 am

hammy wrote: But if you go off the ELO of the army then Dominate is a fair few places lower than Foederate

It is? I've them both on exactly 1702 ELO-Points, sharing rank 17.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:24 am

peterrjohnston wrote:What would you rate it as, out of interest?

Slightly below Central Asian City States.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:26 am

Is that a clue to your Britcon encore?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:33 am

timmy1 wrote:Is that a clue to your Britcon encore?

Well I was thinking if I could get three other Loons we could enter all 4 periods.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:44 am

Well... Period 2 could be covered by some idiot taking Italian Condotta with something like

FC
2 x TC
8 BG each of 4 Knights, HA, Ave, Drilled, Lancers / Swordsmen

For 792 points.

However as they are all drilled and can dismount it might not be looney enough to count.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:47 am

Yes, just realised my error. Central Asian only goes to 1000. Back to the drawing board.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:50 am

Maybe would work in 25mm (Period 4 is it)?

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:27 am

hammy wrote: But if you go off the ELO of the army then Dominate is a fair few places lower than Foederate

As you implied yourself, the ranking takes in everyone using it, so your mixing player ability with the somewhat subjective A/B/C army "strength", for want of a better word.

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:31 am

philqw78 wrote:Yes, just realised my error. Central Asian only goes to 1000. Back to the drawing board.

Khazars perhaps? Although only 24.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:10 pm

peterrjohnston wrote:
hammy wrote: But if you go off the ELO of the army then Dominate is a fair few places lower than Foederate
As you implied yourself, the ranking takes in everyone using it, so your mixing player ability with the somewhat subjective A/B/C army "strength", for want of a better word.

The trouble is that I don't rate Dominate as an A army. It is one that when used by a good player can do well but the army is definitley no better than A- and possibly only B+

The only army that I really rate as superb and even then only in period tournaments is SHNC. That is just loverly although other people do seem to be ablt to produce some IMO genuinely garbage armies from the same gorgeous list.