Slitherine

waldo wrote:Surely it is better for them to be average than too powerful? Using a rationale of “they beat the Arabs a couple of times” as a justification for superior makes me wonder why the Scots spears aren’t all superior, they beat the English in a couple of battles and the English never did get around to conquering Scotland (and no, I’m not Scottish). Nor are the English archers superior.

but the arabs conquered a lot of the known world. The English didn't.

waldo wrote:It might be the case .......

That you are talking as much rubbish as the rest of us. A point system works. Your western bias does not[/quote]

No Phil, they did not, Islam may have conquered a lot of the known world and as a consequence Arab culture and influence may have spread far and wide. Were the Moors in Spain Arabs not really and by the time the "Arabs" got to Central Asia and to the Talas river they were more Iranian, Turkic and only Allah knows what else but Arab no!

Because of the different Geo Political situations comparing the Medieval English lack expansion and Islam's expansion in the 8th century is crap. Once the English had the technology to overcome their Geo political situation Fish and Chips as well as Roast Beef and Yorkies travelled farther than the "Arabs".

BlackPrince wrote:Once the English had the technology to overcome their Geo political situation Fish and Chips as well as Roast Beef and Yorkies travelled farther than the "Arabs".

Ah the old english thing but what about the Haggis then? a well known Scottish Bird well travelled throughout Europaian counties and the Americias

BlackPrince wrote:

waldo wrote:Surely it is better for them to be average than too powerful? Using a rationale of “they beat the Arabs a couple of times” as a justification for superior makes me wonder why the Scots spears aren’t all superior, they beat the English in a couple of battles and the English never did get around to conquering Scotland (and no, I’m not Scottish). Nor are the English archers superior.

but the arabs conquered a lot of the known world. The English didn't.

waldo wrote:It might be the case .......

That you are talking as much rubbish as the rest of us. A point system works. Your western bias does not

[/quote]
No Phil, they did not, Islam may have conquered a lot of the known world and as a consequence Arab culture and influence may have spread far and wide. Were the Moors in Spain Arabs not really and by the time the "Arabs" got to Central Asia and to the Talas river they were more Iranian, Turkic and only Allah knows what else but Arab no!
[/quote]

No. The Arabian initital Conquest swept away in a matter of a generation All of Middle East, Half Asia Minor, all of Africa and most of Spain, they even reached India, decisevely defeating in the process the Byzantines, the Sassanids, the Indians and the Visigoths . The Moors in Spain in particular came after the initial Arabian conquest

dave_r wrote:Whilst being an unpalatable fact to some, it must be taken into account that the same army used by different players might have very different results.

Scythians come to mind!

ATXPaul wrote:

lonehorseman wrote:The other thing of course is that not all armies did well in life. Why then should all armies do well on tabletop?

Because the table top is a game and therefore should be fun for both players?

Chess is like that. Even sides, even opportunities, no inherent random factors.

No one has ever forced anyone to bring Early Nubian on one extreme, or Christian Nubian on the other, to a tournament.

Historically, with reference to the above armies, I still say it is the discovery and use of coffee that explains these two very different army profiles!

No Phil, they did not, Islam may have conquered a lot of the known world and as a consequence Arab culture and influence may have spread far and wide. Were the Moors in Spain Arabs not really and by the time the "Arabs" got to Central Asia and to the Talas river they were more Iranian, Turkic and only Allah knows what else but Arab no!
[/quote]

No. The Arabian initital Conquest swept away in a matter of a generation All of Middle East, Half Asia Minor, all of Africa and most of Spain, they even reached India, decisevely defeating in the process the Byzantines, the Sassanids, the Indians and the Visigoths . The Moors in Spain in particular came after the initial Arabian conquest[/quote]

After the Islamic Arabs stormed over there near neighbours the Sassanids, the Byzantines and non Islamic Arabs the armies after that and upto the high water mark of expansion in the mid 8th century was mostly non Arab Islamic armies albeit with its head office in Baghdad.

Don't suppose there is any chance that people could take the time to ensure that any posts they are quoting are actually shown as quotes properly? It helps when reading threads.

BlackPrince wrote: After the Islamic Arabs stormed over there near neighbours the Sassanids, the Byzantines and non Islamic Arabs the armies after that and upto the high water mark of expansion in the mid 8th century was mostly non Arab Islamic armies albeit with its head office in Baghdad.

The armies that conquered Egypt, North Africa, the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, Khurasan and made the first attacks into Sind up until the end of the Umayyad kalifate around 750AD all contained high proportions of Arabs, although with increasing numbers of mawali ("clients" I suppose would be a useful translation) who could be non-Arabs but who were Arabacised (is that a word?).

BlackPrince wrote: Once the English had the technology to overcome their Geo political situation

You mean being one of the richest lands of the Dark ages wasn't enough. They had to invent mass produced effective firearms to shoot spear toting johnny foriegner with first.

waldo wrote: I’m sure most agree with the statement “…for one-off battles that provide a reasonable opportunity for either player to win, a points system can be very useful.” [p.148]. Useful, but it is not working. There is no reasonable opportunity in many games for “either” player to win. Tournament results (and ‘friendly’ games for that matter) prove it. Victory conditions, terrain, even the board size are too heavily in favour of certain armies and against others. But I suppose that is another topic.

Walter

The problem with a point system is that it's always going to be an approximation, especially if you want to make it a fairly simple points system. The points system in the rules costs up bases and BGs, not army structure.

A BG of 8 HF undrilled average armoured offensive spear costs the same whether it's in a dark age army or my Early Persians. Unfortunately, the value of that spear unit depends on what else is in the army. If the rest of the army is also HF spear the player might find themselves wanting something different. In the early Persians the spearmen work really well in conjunction with the other elements of the army.

One solution would be to give a discount to 'monotype' armies to help out the shieldwalls. Unfortunately, that would also give a boost to some monotype armies that do very nicely already.

I agree that, in general, armies of mostly undrilled close combat heavy foot are a bit weak under the rules, at least in 15mm scale. However, it's more difficult to see how this could be fixed without causing greater problems elsewhere.

I agree there's not much evidence for the Christian Nubian foot all being superior. At least the list has the option for 'average' - not that anyone takes that.

dave_r wrote:Whilst being an unpalatable fact to some, it must be taken into account that the same army used by different players might have very different results.

Ah, that hoary old chestnut: “all armies are equal, only the skill of the player matters”. It wasn’t true back when I started in WRG 5th edition nor has it been in 6th, 7th, DBM or Field of Glory.

I have to wonder if the players who advance this nonsense actually believe it themselves. Maybe there are some young children perusing the forum who might believe it, or some particularly credulous adults. It seems more a self-serving device for those players to justify their not using bad armies.

Of course the corollary of your argument is that players who lose with barbarian foot are poor players.

There is a hole in your logic to jump from a situation: “superior player A using army X beats an inferior player B using army Y” and come to the conclusion: “therefore this shows that X and Y are equal”. Actually all this shows is that players of uneven skill have different results. To prove the theory that X and Y armies are equal you would need to have two players of an equal skill level using X and Y and see the results.

Unfortunately that is hard to do because the top ranked players seem disinclined to use these armies. Perhaps they don’t like the Dark Age period. Osprey sells quite a few books about Vikings, Saxons etc. so one might think this period is of some interest to gamers. Not to the top players apparently.

So that leaves 3 choices:
i) Admit the rules are biased against barbarian foot armies and say “Well, we did our best and you just have to live with it.” I don’t imagine in a few years there will be too many Dark Age foot armies being used, certainly not in tournaments.
ii) Admit the rules are biased against barbarian foot and make changes to bring balance.
iii) Deny there is a problem that everyone knows exists (except those at the top who almost never use these armies in competitions).

I am happy to be proved wrong, of course. I won’t hold my breath.

Walter

Usually the best players use the better armies, and manage to get a good list out of it compared to the rest of us.

waldo wrote:i) Admit the rules are biased against barbarian foot armies and say “Well, we did our best and you just have to live with it.” I don’t imagine in a few years there will be too many Dark Age foot armies being used, certainly not in tournaments.

Perhaps barbarian foot armies are pooh, and get what they deserve. Name a historically successful barbarian foot army. One that didn't get its success against other barbarian foot armies.

waldo wrote:ii) Admit the rules are biased against barbarian foot and make changes to bring balance.

Such as? Suggest some.

waldo wrote:iii) Deny there is a problem that everyone knows exists (except those at the top who almost never use these armies in competitions).

There are lots of problems. But I never use these armies in competitions because I could not stand the dullness of slowly ploddling forward and just rolling a load of dice against another army that is practically the same. No manouver, little skill, just brute force and ignorance. (The armies not the players).

philqw78 wrote:

waldo wrote:i) Admit the rules are biased against barbarian foot armies and say “Well, we did our best and you just have to live with it.” I don’t imagine in a few years there will be too many Dark Age foot armies being used, certainly not in tournaments.

Perhaps barbarian foot armies are pooh, and get what they deserve. Name a historically successful barbarian foot army. One that didn't get its success against other barbarian foot armies.

waldo wrote:ii) Admit the rules are biased against barbarian foot and make changes to bring balance.

Such as? Suggest some.

waldo wrote:iii) Deny there is a problem that everyone knows exists (except those at the top who almost never use these armies in competitions).

There are lots of problems. But I never use these armies in competitions because I could not stand the dullness of slowly ploddling forward and just rolling a load of dice against another army that is practically the same. No manouver, little skill, just brute force and ignorance. (The armies not the players).

I have horse archer armies, mediaeval, dark ages and ancient armies. I do not prefer one style over the other. I like to use different armies. I am saying that they do not have an even chance. Which is the point of playing a game, surely?

Some like weightlifting, some like ballet. To each his own.

Walter

waldo wrote:I have horse archer armies, mediaeval, dark ages and ancient armies. I do not prefer one style over the other. I like to use different armies. I am saying that they do not have an even chance. Which is the point of playing a game, surely?
Walter

But we can all come up with problems. What is the solution?

philqw78 wrote: Perhaps barbarian foot armies are pooh, and get what they deserve. Name a historically successful barbarian foot army. One that didn't get its success against other barbarian foot armies.

So we are back to the "unsuccessful armies in reality should be unsuccessful in the game" approach? Then we are also back to the start of this thread. Why exactly should Nubians be all superior again?

philqw78 wrote:There are lots of problems. But I never use these armies in competitions because I could not stand the dullness of slowly ploddling forward and just rolling a load of dice against another army that is practically the same. No manouver, little skill, just brute force and ignorance. (The armies not the players).

Why against another army that is practically the same? You'll most likely not see such armies. Instead you'll face armies with plenty manoeuvre and much skill. The best situation to prove that one is really a top player.

philqw78 wrote:

waldo wrote:i) Admit the rules are biased against barbarian foot armies and say “Well, we did our best and you just have to live with it.” I don’t imagine in a few years there will be too many Dark Age foot armies being used, certainly not in tournaments.

Perhaps barbarian foot armies are pooh, and get what they deserve. Name a historically successful barbarian foot army. One that didn't get its success against other barbarian foot armies.

Maybe if they were more literate we would have read some more about the successes of the Early Germanic peoples. Perhaps they even won some battles when they conquered France?

Walter

waldo wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

waldo wrote:i) Admit the rules are biased against barbarian foot armies and say “Well, we did our best and you just have to live with it.” I don’t imagine in a few years there will be too many Dark Age foot armies being used, certainly not in tournaments.

Perhaps barbarian foot armies are pooh, and get what they deserve. Name a historically successful barbarian foot army. One that didn't get its success against other barbarian foot armies.

Maybe if they were more literate we would have read some more about the successes of the Early Germanic peoples. Perhaps they even won some battles when they conquered France?

Walter

I'm sure they won many. But what were they fighting?

phil wrote: I could not stand the dullness of slowly ploddling forward and just rolling a load of dice against another army that is practically the same. No manouver, little skill, just brute force and ignorance. (The armies not the players).

Mehrunes wrote:Why against another army that is practically the same? You'll most likely not see such armies. Instead you'll face armies with plenty manoeuvre and much skill. The best situation to prove that one is really a top player.

Because the points would be 'remedied' to make such armies 'competetive'. So there would be lots of them.

philqw78 wrote:

waldo wrote:I have horse archer armies, mediaeval, dark ages and ancient armies. I do not prefer one style over the other. I like to use different armies. I am saying that they do not have an even chance. Which is the point of playing a game, surely?
Walter

But we can all come up with problems. What is the solution?

I think more experienced players than I would have better insight into the solution. Actually I believe you started with "the point system works"? Do you still hold to that?

Walter.