Byzantine List?

[ShrubMiK]

It never ceases to amaze how many people ardently believe it is near impossible to win with inferior troops.

As Obi Wan would say, use your (extra) forces, Luke.

I do agree that it is curious that there seems to be a blanket rule that anything non-Roman automatically gets to be Superior if you shove a horse under ity, whereas anything Roman (and of course I include "Byzantine" in tat category) might be allowed to be Superior if it is really lucky, is expensively equipped, and has trained for at least 500 years.

[waldo]

It never ceases to amaze how many people ardently believe it is near impossible to win with inferior troops.

As Obi Wan would say, use your (extra) forces, Luke.

I do agree that it is curious that there seems to be a blanket rule that anything non-Roman automatically gets to be Superior if you shove a horse under ity, whereas anything Roman (and of course I include "Byzantine" in tat category) might be allowed to be Superior if it is really lucky, is expensively equipped, and has trained for at least 500 years.

I'm not sure the complaint is that it is near impossible to win, just that Superior are, well, Superior.

Completely agree with your second point though.

Walter

[LambertSimnel]

I do agree that it is curious that there seems to be a blanket rule that anything non-Roman automatically gets to be Superior if you shove a horse under ity, whereas anything Roman (and of course I include "Byzantine" in tat category) might be allowed to be Superior if it is really lucky, is expensively equipped, and has trained for at least 500 years.

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if the thought process went something like this:

Early Saxon nobles are their best troops so have to be Superior HF to differentiate them from the Average HF masses

Early Vandals are the same as Early Saxons except the nobles have horses, so they are Superior Cavalry

African Vandals are all on horses and the cavalry of a horsey people shouldn't be worse than the cavalry they had when they were mostly pedestrians, so the whole army is Superior Cavalry

[peterrjohnston]

It never ceases to amaze how many people ardently believe it is near impossible to win with inferior troops.

As Obi Wan would say, use your (extra) forces, Luke.

It's not what the argument is, but if you use the extra forces, as you suggest:
A BG of Thematic average lancers is 56AP. An historical equivalent of Abbasid superior lancers* is 64AP. So you "save" 8AP. You would need 6 BGs of Thematic lancers facing off 6BG of Abbasid lancers before you saved enough points to gain "extra forces". Not exactly bargin of the month.

Now you could argue the Thematic lancers get to shoot before impact. Normally that'll be one round of shooting. Two average shooting dice at 4s? Scary, not. Even less so if it were me, I use Abbasid with 7BG of lancers with a full-on Death Star force shield standing behind them .

Then in combat and melee the Abbasid have an equivalent 1/2 POA for being superior, plus re-rolls on CTs. Personally I know what side I'd rather be on!

I do agree that it is curious that there seems to be a blanket rule that anything non-Roman automatically gets to be Superior if you shove a horse under ity, whereas anything Roman (and of course I include "Byzantine" in tat category) might be allowed to be Superior if it is really lucky, is expensively equipped, and has trained for at least 500 years.

Umayyad and Abbasid can have lancers as superior, average or poor. But as there are no limits, naturally everyone takes superior. I have considered taking massed poor lancers for fun, but I wouldn't expect to win much...(Early North African Dynasties would be best for this, you could have 11 BG of armoured poor lancers).

[ShrubMiK]

Err, hold on. A minute ago I thought we were talking about average lancers vs. superior lancers. (i.e. post-1042 Nikephorians was specifically mentioned)
Now you've moved the discussion into whether the earlier mixed lance/bow BGs are cost-effective, which is a whole different matter.
Oh, and also drilled vs. undrilled appears to have sneaked into your comparison without being acknowledged as an advantage worth paying points for

It's 4 points to make armoured cav superior vs. average. That's 33% extra cost for those armed with a lance if undrilled, slightly less if drilled. So, waving hands slightly, 4 BGs of average plays 3 of superior.
Or alternatively 2 BGs of superiors face 2 BGs of average plus 32 points spent on a BG of LH bow.
Not too shabby, IMO. I'd certainly have some ideas how I might be able to try to make the extra numbers pay.

[davidharvey1]

oh dear have not looked at the forum for some months or played FOG, this reminds me why. i should remember that it is only a game and that this is my problem (angry of constintinople! )

But i can't let some of the comment above pass by. A most basic history text for 15 year olds will point out that the Empire under Justinian and for much of the reign of Heraclius ie the time of 2 of the least successful FOG armies covered most of the mediteeranean basin and won and lost many wars against serious regional powers and superpowers such as the Sassanians and the Caliphate. Whereas the empire after 1204 was a tiny rump that fought wars for scraps of territory against brigand kinglets and local emirs.

The more FOG I played, fun as it is, clever as it is, the more I have felt uncomfortable with one size fits all rules and the competition focus; have had lots of fun recently with Shattered lances attempts to simulate middle eastern warfare in the C10th, C11th, 12th and 13th and does so based in in depth use of sources.

Do we have any list erratas yet? i did fire off contemporary source material which raises a number of questions about the Byzantine lists though I am conscious I have not managed to get round to penning the alternative list, for which apologies.

happy new year

David

[nikgaukroger]

Do we have any list erratas yet? i did fire off contemporary source material which raises a number of questions about the Byzantine lists though I am conscious I have not managed to get round to penning the alternative list, for which apologies.

As you will see from the lists post in the v2 forum now would be a good time to make sure you have posted the evidence in the Player Designed Lists forum - don't miss your chance

[davidharvey1]

Just posted Nik!

Happy New year

David

[nikgaukroger]

Just posted Nik!

Happy New year

David

Many thanks

[expendablecinc]

...anything Roman might be allowed to be Superior if it is really lucky, is expensively equipped, and has trained for at least 500 years.

I asked my dad once why people didnt rob trains from horseback any more like they did in the cowboy days.
He said it was becasue the trains are newer these days... and the horses are older.


Maybe all of those Byzantine horses are 'trained out'