Overpowered Medievals

[AlanYork]

To return to this topic, are Medievals overpowered? IMO yes they probably are slightly but not so much that the Ancient army can't win.

I find that when playing with a Seleucid army, my infantry are about as good as my opponent's Medievals. (He normally fields Medieval German or Medieval Danish) however my cavalry, even the Elite, Armoured Companions, are completely outclassed by his knights.

What's the answer? Field elephants seems the most obvious, they're ideal for wrecking knights. This would work but jumbos are very vunerable to unlucky Death Rolls. You simply cannot afford to fail one as you will lose the entire BG and the +1 for being an elephant doesn't really help when you roll poorly!!! Nellies seem very brittle and expensive and not worth the points because of this brittleness.

It certainly isn't a foregone conclusion, the Ancient army can beat the Medieval one, I have done it myself, but point for point, I do feel the Medievals have a small but discernable edge.

[babyshark]

I still do not find that reasoning to be convincing. As an example, I hold up the Historicon 15mm Open. The first four places were taken by four different army list books, and while the top spot went to a medieval army it was 100 Years War English. Not a knight list. In fact, the top-placing knight list was Komnenan Byz, with armored kn.

Marc

[daleivan]

To return to this topic, are Medievals overpowered? IMO yes they probably are slightly but not so much that the Ancient army can't win.

I find that when playing with a Seleucid army, my infantry are about as good as my opponent's Medievals. (He normally fields Medieval German or Medieval Danish) however my cavalry, even the Elite, Armoured Companions, are completely outclassed by his knights.

What's the answer? Field elephants seems the most obvious, they're ideal for wrecking knights. This would work but jumbos are very vunerable to unlucky Death Rolls. You simply cannot afford to fail one as you will lose the entire BG and the +1 for being an elephant doesn't really help when you roll poorly!!! Nellies seem very brittle and expensive and not worth the points because of this brittleness.

It certainly isn't a foregone conclusion, the Ancient army can beat the Medieval one, I have done it myself, but point for point, I do feel the Medievals have a small but discernable edge.

This may just be me, but from a historical sense it seems reasonable that a late medieval army like the Late Medieval Germans, Burgundian Ordnance and Medieval Aragonese would have an edge over an army 1400 or even 2000 years earlier, given plate armor, pike, long bow etc. Granted, FoG is a game and balance between armies is important but there were technological developments between Alexander the Great and Charles the Bold

[MCollett]

This may just be me, but from a historical sense it seems reasonable that a late medieval army like the Late Medieval Germans, Burgundian Ordnance and Medieval Aragonese would have an edge over an army 1400 or even 2000 years earlier, given plate armor, pike, long bow etc.

Man for man, yes, it should have an edge. But if the points system is doing its job, then at equal points medieval armies should be smaller than ancient ones by just enough to compensate.

Best wishes,
Matthew

[hammy]

The last tournament game I played was my 3rd century BC Bosphorans against Roger's 100YW English (it might have been WOTR but you get the picture). The result was a very one sided win for the Bosphorans.

Medieval armies are very strong in the right places. The trick to beating them is not to play to their strengths.

[bobman]

Man for man, yes, it should have an edge. But if the points system is doing its job, then at equal points medieval armies should be smaller than ancient ones by just enough to compensate.

However, knights get 2 dice for each front rank base in melee.

Assuming you keep your knights in a single rank, a four base battle group of knights gets 8 dice in melee, but costs quite a bit less (88 pts) than required for the same number of melee dice with classical cavalry of similar (or even lesser) capability (136 pts). If I am reading things correctly...

Example:
knights (armoured/superior/drilled/lancer/swordsmen) cost 22 points/base (88 points for 8 melee dice), whereas
Cavalry (armoured/superior/drilled/lancer/swordsmen) cost 17 points/base (136 points for 8 melee dice) ...
Non-lancer Cav (armoured/superior/drilled/LIGHT SPEAR/swordsmen) also cost 17 points/base.

So, except on impact (where an eight base CAV group can get more dice - but knightly lance POA trumps other lance) it costs only 11 points per melee dice with knights as opposed to 17 points per melee dice with equal capability Cav.

Knights seem a VERY good value.

[bobman]

Knights seem a VERY good value.

Oops, I meant to say:
Knights seem a VERY good value

[shall]

Knights seem a VERY good value.

Yes they do at first you are quite right ... but once you have used them a lot and play against people who have got the hang of FoG tactics you may find this view changes.

Over here in testing the view that Knights were the best prevailed at the beginning, it is a very natural early impression. Then it was shooty cav armies, then something else.

But it hasn't settled on any single view - even for people who have now played 40+ competition games, or for us lot having played maybe 200 games now including testing.

Hopefully this means the points system and rules have struck a good balance in terms of troop and army power - time will tell.

So far so good as they say.

Si

[hammy]

If a BG of 4 knights charges into 8 cavalry there is a good chance that a base of knights will die. OK there is a higher chance that a base of cavalry will die but one base dead on each side and the knights don't look anywhere near as good. They lose 2 dice and are at -1 on all subsequent cohesion tests.

[rogerg]

Hammy, thanks for reminding me of that loss. Not a particularly good example because I had an unbalanced army to make the Northern League class one category. However, the general point is still reasonable. Medieval armies are often very small and slow. They can have a very bad time on a completely open field.

I am very much looking forward to Britcon. I expect this will be the largest open list competition for FoG and we will see what happens there. Even then, there are still several list books to come so it is still too early to get any conclusion on which armies are the best, if any.

[dave_r]

This may just be me, but from a historical sense it seems reasonable that a late medieval army like the Late Medieval Germans, Burgundian Ordnance and Medieval Aragonese would have an edge over an army 1400 or even 2000 years earlier, given plate armor, pike, long bow etc.

You tell that to the Aragonese army my Lydians whumped 25-0. I am still awaiting the match report from one Corporal Nobbs, but I am told it isn't going to happen.....

Personally I think the balance is just fine - they may have plate armour, Pike and longbow, but they don't get armoured offensive spearmen

[whitehorses]

The SantaHermanthingummybob do

[dave_r]

The SantaHermanthingummybob do

Yeah, but they are rubbish

[whitehorses]

Not if you take the 1495 version
Admittedly in Italy, but still the SantaHermanthingummybob Boys

[dave_r]

Don't rate any of the Santa Hooey Doodahs at 800 pts. 1000 pts is a different matter entirely...

At 800 they are just too small.

[bobman]

If a BG of 4 knights charges into 8 cavalry there is a good chance that a base of knights will die. OK there is a higher chance that a base of cavalry will die but one base dead on each side and the knights don't look anywhere near as good. They lose 2 dice and are at -1 on all subsequent cohesion tests.

Absolutely, but while that Cav is fighting the Knights, the army with the Knights has another 48 points (maybe a 8 base group of MF Archers, e.g.) somewhere else on the field.

My point is that:

But if the points system is doing its job, then at equal points medieval armies should be smaller than ancient ones by just enough to compensate.

does not seem necessarily true. One cannot count on later armies being any smaller (in terms of bases or BGs) than earlier armies.

[philqw78]

Then they must be filled with less effective troops elsewhere

[dave_r]

Like for instance an 8 base BG of Average, Undrilled, MF, Bowmen. Whom at 6 pts a go are just a moving target.

[bobman]

Then they must be filled with less effective troops elsewhere

Like for instance an 8 base BG of Average, Undrilled, MF, Bowmen. Whom at 6 pts a go are just a moving target.

They could be an 8 base BG of HF pikes, or even 2 poor mob 12 base filler BGs, or whatever -
they still count toward the total number of BGs.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will ) but given the point for point efficiency of knights, isn't it going to be difficult for the opposing army to have a free BG to chase down that extra BG in the knight army?

[carlos]

Poor or average LF w/ shooty things run circles around the knights while laughing. If things get tough they go up a hill or into a swamp and laugh even harder.