Slitherine

one army at a time. Niko-Byz for now.

finnian wrote:I wanted an army that was easy to control. Now add into the mix that I was able to buy all the lead for this army for around $80.00 and one can see why I took the path towards the byzantine maze.

Well done!

I just paid over $200 for a bunch of 5th - 6th C. foot.

Your $80 Byzantines would eat them raw in most circumstances.

expendablecinc wrote:

finnian wrote:Although byzantine may mean complex etc... I wanted an army that was easy to control. Now add into the mix that I was able to buy all the lead for this army for around $80.00 and one can see why I took the path towards the byzantine maze.

I have an unpainted Norman army waiting in the wings, but I need to buy more knights to meet my needs.

As a history buff and student, I love the Byzantines, so playing them is a hoot:]

Play a late Byzantine army - with a fair bit of light horse adn frankish knights. You'll have a use for the first third of your norman army and the Byzantine army will still be manouverable but with a bit mroe bite.

Excellent advice.

rbodleyscott wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:

finnian wrote:All,
I am new to FOG and have few questions about match ups. I am used to DBM so I remember certain match ups were insane (Bow Vs. Blade). I have played a few games of FOG but have yet to understand how troops match up to one another in combat. Any advice?

If you are new to the rules ignore the tables in relation to attempts at good/bad matchups and play by first principle.

Knights dont like steady shiledwalls (defensive or offensive spearmen). If they are looking shaky that are fair game.
medium and light foot dont like fighting mounted or heavies out of terrain.
most things are going to go ok hand to hand vs massed archers.

If the rules are designed well this should work at least ok for you.
The rest you will only get a handle on by trial and error.

Anthony

And similarly, working on historical principles, Byzantine cavalry were crap against "Frankish" knights, as the Byzantines acknowledged themselves. And hence, as soon as they were able, they hired large numbers of "Frankish" knights (the Latinikon) to make up the deficiency.

The Alexiad of Anna Komnena is available in Penguin Classics and a good read. It details the weird and wonderful (failed) attempts by her father (Alexios Komnenos) to find a way to beat Norman knights. (e.g. Rolling weighted axles down a hill at them.)

Trying to beat them head on simply wasn't a realistic option.

Well to be fair, the army Alexios was working with against the Norman knights was the post-Manzikert, post civil war army. The Byzantine cavalry included in this force were pretty suspect. After his defeat at Dyrrachium, he was pretty much in terrible straits for effective troops, so however silly rolling axles down a hill sounds to us, it was probably a sign of his desperation.

The Tagmatic cavalry of Nikephoros Phokas and John Tzimiskes of the 10th century would probably have faired much better against even against the Normans of Guiscard or Bohemond. As late as the early 1040's when George Maniakes faced of against the Normans the Byzantines were able to contend on better than equal terms. Further, there is a school of thought that many of the Norman tactics derived from exposure to Byzantine types when they served as mercenaries to the Byzantines in Sicily and later in the run up to Manzikert.

Paul Georgian

The Byzantines were doing well until Manzikert. They had managed to hold there own for a rather long time and they even had the option to buy mercenaries when wanted.
After Manzikert mercenaries became a necessity. Alexious was a competent commander but his real genius was in politics. Why fight when you can have someone else do it for you? Why confront an invasion of your lands when you can just foment rebellion in your enemy’s homeland? I believe this is represented in FOG in that later Byzantine armies
are filled with mercenaries.