FOG army oppinions

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:36 pm

philqw78 wrote: Armd Bw Sw. Do such troops exist? (not consigned to rear rank)

As cavalry, erm yes... quite a few I believe

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:39 pm

madaxeman wrote:
philqw78 wrote: Armd Bw Sw. Do such troops exist? (not consigned to rear rank)

As cavalry, erm yes... quite a few I believe

The closest you get with foot are Persian Immortals. Drilled, Armoured, Superior, MF, Bow, Light Spear

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:42 pm

madaxeman wrote:
philqw78 wrote: Armd Bw Sw. Do such troops exist? (not consigned to rear rank)

As cavalry, erm yes... quite a few I believe

But average armd cav are not nearly as cost effective as average armd foot

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:30 pm

philqw78 wrote:
madaxeman wrote:
philqw78 wrote: Armd Bw Sw. Do such troops exist? (not consigned to rear rank)

As cavalry, erm yes... quite a few I believe
But average armd cav are not nearly as cost effective as average armd foot

True. I'd almost discount any form of average cavalry anyway - their small unit sizes, the superiority of most other cavalry and the fact they are shot at evens makes them too vulnerable.

pyrrhus · Post by **pyrrhus** » Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am

I thought FOG was rather bland now these single troop type armies comfirm it (just kidding ) I agree that the combined arms helenistics seem to suffer a greater learning curve than I thought . I am so glad these happen to be my favorite armies ,guess I could try the pike wall/steamroller but painting 64 stand of pike sorta sucks