Slitherine

I'd like to thank my opponents (dave, andy, hugh, robbo and paul f and paul j) for their kind consideration, and the organizers for their assistance. The w/e was what i needed.

spike

chubooga wrote: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

No shortage of armies with LH in later, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Polish (featuring Lithuanians), Fatimid and of course Ottoman. I'd guess they struggled against Swiss/Fr Ord/HYW/C Nubians with SMG...

Though mostly a combo of LH/Cv/Kn in varying proportions rather than full-on LH.

Drilled MF - depends if you count LB!

yep I would count longbow..... in fact any drilled MF in Bgs with 6 or less elements......

do the top three armies meet that criteria?

apprecite the insight gents, as a non tourney goer (for now), its the only way I get a feel for whats going on with the big cheeses....

jon

dave_r wrote:
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

That's a departure from the norm fr you Dave. Whatever came over you to pick that sort of army ?

Also very different to the Hungarians too by the looks of it

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'...

Quite so - a 10-10 at that stage against Olivier felt like a victory!

He'd lost 10 APs and 1 General - I'd lost 9 APs and 2 Generals. It was a thoroughly enjoyable game - as indeed all 6 were. Britcon is definitely my favourite competiton and it was great to see so many overseas players there this year.

madaxeman wrote:

dave_r wrote:
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

That's a departure from the norm fr you Dave. Whatever came over you to pick that sort of army ?

Also very different to the Hungarians too by the looks of it

Hey, after you kill the 5 BGs of lancers you only need another 2 1/2 BGs of skirmishers to beat this list. Sounds like it should be much more of a pushover than the Skythians were where you needed 5 1/2 more BGs after you kill the 3 lancers

Chris

madaxeman wrote:

dave_r wrote:
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

That's a departure from the norm fr you Dave. Whatever came over you to pick that sort of army ?

Also very different to the Hungarians too by the looks of it

The jealous comments of the Ne'er do well's are music to my ears

"Ne'er do well's" or "Ne'er do turn up's"? :)

chubooga wrote:yep I would count longbow..... in fact any drilled MF in Bgs with 6 or less elements......

do the top three armies meet that criteria?

apprecite the insight gents, as a non tourney goer (for now), its the only way I get a feel for whats going on with the big cheeses....

jon

Nearest to a swarm I saw was the nubians, though mostly quite big units 6-8 except for mounted.. 16 and 17 bg's respectively. Nice to hear that my 8 base drilled MF are not deemed morally bankrupt.

azrael86 wrote:

chubooga wrote:yep I would count longbow..... in fact any drilled MF in Bgs with 6 or less elements......

do the top three armies meet that criteria?

apprecite the insight gents, as a non tourney goer (for now), its the only way I get a feel for whats going on with the big cheeses....

jon

Nearest to a swarm I saw was the nubians, though mostly quite big units 6-8 except for mounted.. 16 and 17 bg's respectively. Nice to hear that my 8 base drilled MF are not deemed morally bankrupt.

Battlegroups of 8 Undrilled Medium Foot are not usually referred to as swamrs

dave_r wrote:

Battlegroups of 8 Undrilled Medium Foot are not usually referred to as swamrs

Not as in 'there's fahsands of them!'? "Dropped by, swarmed by more like"

Im really interested in the armies winning tourneys, not that bothered who the player is, Im sure theyre all better than me.......

Hope its ok for a ne'er turn up to ask about the armies wining though, Im hoping the victors dont mind talking about there success with some pride?

But hey, np if its a sore subject and beyond a bystanders interest.......

hey ho....

chubooga wrote:Im really interested in the armies winning tourneys, not that bothered who the player is, Im sure theyre all better than me.......

Hope its ok for a ne'er turn up to ask about the armies wining though, Im hoping the victors dont mind talking about there success with some pride?

But hey, np if its a sore subject and beyond a bystanders interest.......

hey ho....

No problem with asking about the armies. I am sure that several of the winners will post their lists. What does seem to wind people up is being told that only army type X or Y works in FoG and that the game is in some way biased towards troop type A or B

One of the key things though that I have found with FoG is that lists really need to suit the player, far more so than with DBM. I used to be able to write a DBM list and play well from the get go with almost army I chose to go for. With FoG I can write what I think is a perfectly good army list but then it simply just doesn't suit me and ends up performing really badly.

I soooo know what you mean

I really cant find an army that works for me at the moment.

I'm happy to share my Aztec army list. It was:

6 LF Ave Dr U/P Sling
6 LF Ave Dr U/P Sling
6 LF Ave Dr U/P Sling

8 MF Ave Dr Prot I/F Sw Jav
8 MF Ave Dr Prot I/F Sw Jav
6 MF Sup Dr Prot I/F Sw Jav

6 MF Sup Dr Prot I/F Sw Jav
6 MF Sup Dr Prot I/F Sw Jav
6 MF Sup Dr Prot I/F Sw Jav


6 LF Ave Dr U/P Bow
6 MF Elite Dr Prot I/F Sw Jav
6 MF Elite Dr Prot I/F Sw Jav

IC
3xTC

Kevin

hammy wrote: One of the key things though that I have found with FoG is that lists really need to suit the player, far more so than with DBM. I used to be able to write a DBM list and play well from the get go with almost army I chose to go for. With FoG I can write what I think is a perfectly good army list but then it simply just doesn't suit me and ends up performing really badly.

There's a technical term for that. Practice.

hammy wrote: No problem with asking about the armies. I am sure that several of the winners will post their lists. What does seem to wind people up is being told that only army type X or Y works in FoG and that the game is in some way biased towards troop type A or B

I have already donated my list.

Don't know exactly what was in Paul Brandon's list, but it was something like

1 x IC, 3 x TC
2 x 4 Cv, Armoured, Superior, Undrilled, Lt Spr, Swd
2 x 4 LH, JLS
184 x 8 MF, Superior, Unprotected, Bow

dave_r wrote:
I have already donated my list.

Don't know exactly what was in Paul Brandon's list, but it was something like

1 x IC, 3 x TC
2 x 4 Cv, Armoured, Superior, Undrilled, Lt Spr, Swd
2 x 4 LH, JLS
184 x 8 MF, Superior, Unprotected, Bow

Not so much a swarm as an infestation. Presumably you meant 14?

hammy wrote:

chubooga wrote:Im really interested in the armies winning tourneys, not that bothered who the player is, Im sure theyre all better than me.......

Hope its ok for a ne'er turn up to ask about the armies wining though, Im hoping the victors dont mind talking about there success with some pride?

But hey, np if its a sore subject and beyond a bystanders interest.......

hey ho....

No problem with asking about the armies. I am sure that several of the winners will post their lists. What does seem to wind people up is being told that only army type X or Y works in FoG and that the game is in some way biased towards troop type A or B

One of the key things though that I have found with FoG is that lists really need to suit the player, far more so than with DBM. I used to be able to write a DBM list and play well from the get go with almost army I chose to go for. With FoG I can write what I think is a perfectly good army list but then it simply just doesn't suit me and ends up performing really badly.

Perhaps FoG should be subtitled “Wargaming rules in the world of Animal Farm”. You could use some of the lines:

“All armies are equal but some are more equal than others.”

Or the short, yet accurate:

“Four legs good, two legs bad.”

I'm not sure who Napoleon is but we certainly have the odd Squealer. Don't we, Dave and Phil?

Walter

waldo wrote: I'm not sure who Napoleon is but we certainly have the odd Squealer. Don't we, Dave and Phil?

Walter

Obviously Dave is Napoleon, as Napoleon is always right. I'll just be one of the dogs. What was the sixth again???? I can't quite remember. I don't know if either of us have the decency or honesty to be Sqealer.