The worst armies in FOG . . .

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:43 pm

batesmotel wrote:There is a definite reason why the Papal list looks so bad. I just posted a note in the support forum with a number of errors in the Condotta Papal list compared the with TT original. Basically they should get pikes and billmen and more foot in general similar to what the Condotta Naples list has and which will make them a much less pitiful list.

Chris

Very interesting, Chris. Will you lobby for a change to be made? Sorry to labour the point but the Papal mercenary English archers should also have stakes. Then with the pikes and bills they will be able to have a reasonable foot contingent in their starting line up - with the knights deployed on the flanks, maybe? At the moment you just have to try and "hide" the Papal foot somewhere.

The other thing I have noticed about the Condotta DAG lists (as a group) is that the historical periodisation is different. Milan, Naples and the two Venetian lists are 1440-1500, which seems ideal to me, but the Florentine list is just for 1424 (?) and the Papal list is for 1300-1399. I am just wondering if the all the lists could include the later period 1440-1500 by increasing the range of choices in the Florentine and Papal lists?

omarquatar · Post by **omarquatar** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:55 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
batesmotel wrote:There is a definite reason why the Papal list looks so bad. I just posted a note in the support forum with a number of errors in the Condotta Papal list compared the with TT original. Basically they should get pikes and billmen and more foot in general similar to what the Condotta Naples list has and which will make them a much less pitiful list.

Chris
Very interesting, Chris. Will you lobby for a change to be made? Sorry to labour the point but the Papal mercenary English archers should also have stakes. Then with the pikes and bills they will be able to have a reasonable foot contingent in their starting line up - with the knights deployed on the flanks, maybe?

The other thing I have noticed about the Condotta DAG lists (as a group) is that the historical periodisation is different. Milan, Napleas and the two Venetian lists are 1440-1500, which seems ideal to me, but the Florentine list is just for 1424 (?) and the Papal list is for 1300-1399. I am just wondering if the all the lists could include the later period 1440-1500 by increasing the range of choices in the Florentine and Papal lists?

does anyone know what are the sources for english mercenary archers in papal service during the 14th century?

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:01 pm

I am not sure but didnt John Hawkwoods mercenary band operate around that time in italy (mid 14c)? If so did he contract out with the Papacy? Would possibly explain English Longbowmen....

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:06 pm

Frank, TGM, I have just found this link (page 27 of text)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=20Xy ... &q&f=false

So, yes, the "Free Companies" seem to be the origin for this. (I wish I knew how to shorten links, sorry).

omarquatar · Post by **omarquatar** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:54 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:I am not sure but didnt John Hawkwoods mercenary band operate around that time in italy (mid 14c)? If so did he contract out with the Papacy? Would possibly explain English Longbowmen....

yes, you're right, but then ... i wish i could enroll the whole white company as allied ...this would solve most of the pope's problems

by the way, you could be interested in playing gaiusmarius' scenario on the battle of castagnaro (1387), featuring hawkwood and his men

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:32 am

omarquatar wrote:
TheGrayMouser wrote:I am not sure but didnt John Hawkwoods mercenary band operate around that time in italy (mid 14c)? If so did he contract out with the Papacy? Would possibly explain English Longbowmen....
yes, you're right, but then ... i wish i could enroll the whole white company as allied ...this would solve most of the pope's problems
by the way, you could be interested in playing gaiusmarius' scenario on the battle of castagnaro (1387), featuring hawkwood and his men

Thanks for the suggestion, I have played it a few times vs the AI and is a fun battle.

Hmm, The white company as a list would be pretty cool, but not sure how much differnt it would be from the Free Company.... Looking fwrd to see how the Catalan Inc. lools in the next expansion.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:27 pm

Right, so we have got the Papal States army as the nominee for SOA. So let's move on to "Rise of Rome" (ROR). So far we have had Numidians (Juba) , Pyrrhus (in Italy), the Attalid Pergamenes and the Illyrians mentioned. There are three Numidian armies and two Illyrians so we need to make sure we have identified the weakest and weaker ones respectively. I must say that I think the Attalids are quite a reasonable army though. What about anybody else from ROR?

ianiow · Post by **ianiow** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:32 pm

My ROR choice would be:

1. Numidian - Bogus. Lots of LH J and LF J, with a backbone of Av Prot HF. Whats not to hate?

2. Numidian - JubaI. Has a few more useful MF but still an awful army.

3. Suren Indo Parthian. 9-45 LH B and no decent (Roman) allies. Nuff said.

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:51 am

ianiow wrote:My ROR choice would be:

1. Numidian - Bogus. Lots of LH J and LF J, with a backbone of Av Prot HF. Whats not to hate?

2. Numidian - JubaI. Has a few more useful MF but still an awful army.

3. Suren Indo Parthian. 9-45 LH B and no decent (Roman) allies. Nuff said.

I can't disagree with any of these, they are tough armies to play. I'll have a think at home tonight and see if I can find any worse.... although I doubt it!

Old_Warrior · Post by **Old_Warrior** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:08 am

Medieval Welsh or Irish. Especially the latter. Infantry is so so and they run for the hills. Only good against each other.

I also am not much on the War of the Roses armies. Yes, the archers are nice but my men at arms usually do not stand as well as I would like.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:15 am

ianiow wrote:My ROR choice would be:

1. Numidian - Bogus. Lots of LH J and LF J, with a backbone of Av Prot HF. Whats not to hate?

2. Numidian - JubaI. Has a few more useful MF but still an awful army.

3. Suren Indo Parthian. 9-45 LH B and no decent (Roman) allies. Nuff said.

Thanks for that, Ian. We'll see if there are any other suggestions in the next few days. I must say that I quite like the idea of a horde of Bogus Numidians fighting against the "pope-a-dopes" for top spot on the "podium of shame". Superbly naff, that would be!

If there are no other suggestions then we can have a few qualifying matches between the Bogus ones and the Suren Indo-Parthians to see who will represent ROR at NAFF 2011.

Gersen · Post by **Gersen** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:11 pm

Old_Warrior wrote:I also am not much on the War of the Roses armies. Yes, the archers are nice but my men at arms usually do not stand as well as I would like.

I know what you mean. The figurines for the men at arms look like they are a bunch of mean hombres too, but there must be something in their stats which make them really flakey.

As a broad generalisation, I find any army coming out of SOA which does not have a few Swiss Pike in the ranks tends to be vulnerable.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:47 pm

Gersen wrote:
Old_Warrior wrote:I also am not much on the War of the Roses armies. Yes, the archers are nice but my men at arms usually do not stand as well as I would like.
I know what you mean. The figurines for the men at arms look like they are a bunch of mean hombres too, but there must be something in their stats which make them really flakey.

As a broad generalisation, I find any army coming out of SOA which does not have a few Swiss Pike in the ranks tends to be vulnerable.

Dismounted MAA tend not to do to well, mostly due to the POA's for heavy weapons
They only get a + at impact vs foot which means at best they will be equal to most other infantry and down vs Pikes, they will be down vs lancers......
At melee at best they will be equal vs most troops... Their only saving grace is that they cancel better armour POA but that doesnt help vs Pikes!

I find knights can chew right thru even superior Heavy Weopns troops... Maybe a better way of classifying dismounted knights is light spear/sword , sword+??

deeter · Post by **deeter** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:02 pm

I think they're pretty useless as well. What good is cancelling out better armor when they usually have better armor than anyone else?

Deeter

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:53 am

There doesn't seem to be too much controversy about the Rise of Rome candidates for NAFF 2011. Either it will be the Bogus Numidians or the Suren Indo-Parthians. Anyone interested in playing a paired match or two with these two armies to sort out which is worst?

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:02 pm

stockwellpete wrote:There doesn't seem to be too much controversy about the Rise of Rome candidates for NAFF 2011. Either it will be the Bogus Numidians or the Suren Indo-Parthians. Anyone interested in playing a paired match or two with these two armies to sort out which is worst?

Yes there is! Suren Parthians?? Nah there is worse , Take a look at the Early Armenians.
No heavy infantry at all, no allies, max 9 Cats. Suren at least has some options...

No one is mentioning them because I think i am the only player that has ever used them

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:15 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:
stockwellpete wrote:There doesn't seem to be too much controversy about the Rise of Rome candidates for NAFF 2011. Either it will be the Bogus Numidians or the Suren Indo-Parthians. Anyone interested in playing a paired match or two with these two armies to sort out which is worst?
Yes there is! Suren Parthians?? Nah there is worse , Take a look at the Early Armenians. No heavy infantry at all, no allies, max 9 Cats. Suren atleast has some options...

Now he tells us!

I wish you would just concentrate on the subject and stop going on about "johnny-hats" and all the rest of it!

In that case, all right then, the Early Armenians do look extremely naff, I must admit - so we'll have a qualifying match between the Suren Indo-Parthians and the Early Armenians to see who plays off against the Bogus ones. I have volunteered you, TGM, for one of the paired games (against me), password "johnny-hats".

Anyone else feel free to join in with your paired games and put the results on here - and I will tot them all up and come to an astounding decision. Closing date, this Sunday. Next week, we'll do the play off. And after that, Immortal Fire. What excitement!!

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:33 pm

Hey, I mentioned Early Armenians on my very ist post in this thread!

We shall clash tonite , just so you know my record with Early Armenians is 1 win-30 losses before I quit using them....

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:32 am

The Early Armenians are leading the Suren Indo-Parthians 2-0 in the ROR qualifying section of NAFF 2011. The loser of this match will play the Bogus Numidians for the "honour" of representing ROR in he tournament final in October.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:30 am

The last two games between the Suren Indo-Parthians and Early Armenians should finish shortly and then we will know who will play off against the Bogus Numidians.

I have another nomination for the Immortal Fire qualifying section - Early Ach Persian (e). Apart from their Immortals, the rest of them cannot fight their way out of a paper bag!