Slitherine

Well, I wish I could tell you I made my selection after hours of exhaustive reading and study of period but the fact is I was never really into WRG or DBx and my knowlege of the ancients period is only slightly better than the education one would get watching the history channel. I got interested in Warmaster Ancients about a year and a half ago because it was getting a lot of buzz and play at my wargaming club. One of the club members painted up a classical indian army but became disenchanted with it and offered it up to the club for sale before he put it on Ebay. I bought it from him and after playing a few games to confirm that I liked WA, I rebased and touched up the figures. Recently all the ancients grognards in the club started converting over to FoG, even the DBx and Warrior holdouts so I thought I would give it a try. I really liked the game so I too have made the conversion. I had a late imperial Roman army painted for me some months ago but I have yet to play it. I really enjoy playing with my Indians win, lose, or draw.

Dave
Lone Star Historical Miniatures
http://www.lshm.net
Drop by for a virual visit!!

Certainly the random approach is a curious method - you really have no preference between any of the lists, or leaning based upon Generals/campaigns/culture? Anyway it depends on quite how you intend to develop - do you have a lot of regular opponents, or few? Do you play competitions, and are they open or themed? 'Morphing' is also a consideration, unless you are very historically-minded. The best period being successors, dark ages and medieval. In most cases you can take one army (say Medieval French) and by adding maybe another 25% figures, you have Italian condotta, Spanish or Medieval German...of course if you want that figure to be 100% accurate then that is more difficult.

Your selected Carthaginians are an example who doesn't fit this, and if you are looking for historical opponents then you only really have Romans, maybe some Spanish and Syracusans.

Anyway to answer the question, I originally chose Classical Indian having read battle reports from magazines. Next up were Medieval French, followed by successors (Antigonous and Demetrious) notice how these are all losers?

After that it gets too complex, but I proudly point out that I don't have Later Roman, or New Assyrian, nor do I have any scythed chariots!

azrael86 wrote:Certainly the random approach is a curious method - you really have no preference between any of the lists, or leaning based upon Generals/campaigns/culture? Anyway it depends on quite how you intend to develop - do you have a lot of regular opponents, or few? Do you play competitions, and are they open or themed? 'Morphing' is also a consideration, unless you are very historically-minded. The best period being successors, dark ages and medieval. In most cases you can take one army (say Medieval French) and by adding maybe another 25% figures, you have Italian condotta, Spanish or Medieval German...of course if you want that figure to be 100% accurate then that is more difficult.

Your selected Carthaginians are an example who doesn't fit this, and if you are looking for historical opponents then you only really have Romans, maybe some Spanish and Syracusans.

Anyway to answer the question, I originally chose Classical Indian having read battle reports from magazines. Next up were Medieval French, followed by successors (Antigonous and Demetrious) notice how these are all losers?

After that it gets too complex, but I proudly point out that I don't have Later Roman, or New Assyrian, nor do I have any scythed chariots!

Morphing is always a nice option.

The Carthaginians could fight Gauls, and Pyrrhus campaigned against them in Sicily--it would be the Early Carthaginian list, but that is very easy to morph to from the Late list.

to clarify

azrael86 wrote: ...The best periods being successors, dark ages and medieval. In most cases you can take one army (say Medieval French) and by adding maybe another 25% figures, you have Italian condotta, Spanish or Medieval German...of course if you want each figure to be 100% accurate (for instance the Duke of of Burgundy or the ixth legion, then that is more difficult.

I chose the Burgundian Ordonnance, back in DBM, because it was a different concept of army and no matter how bad I did, the historical record would be worse.

It had, and has, the advantage that you can use it as a basis for a Feudal Burgundian and a Maximilian German, which are both similar and yet different enough to merit being played as different styles.

Then I chose a Sertorius Ancient Spanish because I decided that in FoG I needed a true Ancient army, and it was attractive from a personal and a gaming point of view.

I am lucky in belonging to a club with quite a few armies available for use.

José

Medieval Germans was and is my favorite army. It was the first army I started with in DBM, back in version 1.0 when the DB knights were very bad. Others in the club tried to talk me out of it, saying the list was too complicated and not very good. Too bad. I'm of German extraction and speak the language, so it was a good choice for me. The biggest problem has been to settle on a period as I have experienced era creep over the years. Originally it was going to be an early 14th century army, but now is a late 14th-early 15th century army. I feel comfortable using it for the period 1370-1440. Then I used it to form the cadre for a Low Countries army and a Medieval Danish army. Teutonics were a natural outgrowth.
With the Low Countries, the Medieval Burgundians are just a few stands of longbow short of completion. So you might say that the Medieval German army is an excellent example of a "Mighty Morphing Army" My DBR Maximillian Germans have been rebased for FoG as well. Then tiring of the same old knights, crossbow and spear armies I decided to try something completely different and did a Thracian army. Unfortunately, the once flourishing DBM scene in the Twin Cities vanished virtually overnight after version 3.0 came out and people who relied on lots of (S) troops had the rug pulled out from under them. About this time I started a family and fell away from regular gaming, losing touch with what was popular. I was hoping that FoG could have the draw power of DBM in its heyday, but its a challenge finding opponents. I'm hoping that it will catch on.

gozerius wrote:Medieval Germans was and is my favorite army. It was the first army I started with in DBM, back in version 1.0 when the DB knights were very bad. Others in the club tried to talk me out of it, saying the list was too complicated and not very good. Too bad. I'm of German extraction and speak the language, so it was a good choice for me. The biggest problem has been to settle on a period as I have experienced era creep over the years. Originally it was going to be an early 14th century army, but now is a late 14th-early 15th century army. I feel comfortable using it for the period 1370-1440. Then I used it to form the cadre for a Low Countries army and a Medieval Danish army. Teutonics were a natural outgrowth.
With the Low Countries, the Medieval Burgundians are just a few stands of longbow short of completion. So you might say that the Medieval German army is an excellent example of a "Mighty Morphing Army" My DBR Maximillian Germans have been rebased for FoG as well. Then tiring of the same old knights, crossbow and spear armies I decided to try something completely different and did a Thracian army. Unfortunately, the once flourishing DBM scene in the Twin Cities vanished virtually overnight after version 3.0 came out and people who relied on lots of (S) troops had the rug pulled out from under them. About this time I started a family and fell away from regular gaming, losing touch with what was popular. I was hoping that FoG could have the draw power of DBM in its heyday, but its a challenge finding opponents. I'm hoping that it will catch on.

Late Medieval Germans in FoG certainly interest me-- lots of variety with a core of mounted knights and decent foot. Have you had much chance to play them in FoG yet?

Thracians in FoG look very interesting--my friend Mark has considered building a Thracian army. With his painting skills, they would look very impressive.

Best of luck in finding opponents, I know it can be hard. I'm lucky in that I have a group of long-time gaming friends who are big fans of ancients and very interested in FoG.

I usually just pick an army that I think is cool. The game is balanced enough to where I don't feel like I need to pick a "Killer Army."

I also make sure and pick something were I will have historical enemies.

For instance -- a lot of people at my club had romans so I made a Gallic army.

vercingetorix wrote:I usually just pick an army that I think is cool. The game is balanced enough to where I don't feel like I need to pick a "Killer Army."

I also make sure and pick something were I will have historical enemies.

For instance -- a lot of people at my club had romans so I made a Gallic army.

That's my approach-- pick an army I like ("can love even when it loses") and learn how to play it. I also like to have historical opponents--or at least armies from the same period, roughly speaking.

Dale

We are a small unofficial group.....Longtime, old farts, friends as well as opponents.

I have approx. 3500 minies, 2000 plus are historicals. We don't worry too much about WYSIWYG. We DO try for minies that fit the stats and descriptions. The other old farts have a goodly supply of troops as well.

We started with HYW and used the starter armies. We then tried out the Roman Republic period. We are now doing the Crusades.....I wanna do a couple of battles/scenes from a certain movie from a couple of years ago.....

The random method works for me. I have no opponents, and rarely play any kind of wargame, but I love to paint and squeeze an occasional convention game. The random method has caused me to research and learn about three different military groups that I had limited knowledge of, and has turned me in to quite an amateur expert on the later Carthaginian period, the Swedish Baltic crusades and the collapse of the later Achmaenid Persians. It is really fun for me to learn about this stuff and then try and paint it.

My wife just thinks I am very weird.

We have been doing the Crusades for 3 soon to be 4 weeks now. We used a very special method to choose what armies. "Well what kind of troops have you got?" In another couple of weeks we will start another period. It's whatever mood comes over us.

Ancient Britons first , large enough so myself and the wife can play in doubles

she picked the army because she likes Boudicca and the Celtic stuff

I will later build up an Arab/Turkish army because I like Kebabs !!

Bob, exercise great care, else someone here will report that kebabs are 4,000 odds years old and there is a pot sheard of a H*tt*t* eating one at Troy, and that would never do (H*tt*t*s are not in any published list yet).

Rattleshirt wrote:you wanna do the Hundred Years War? He's British, so he obviously wanted to play the English. .

Likely, but not obviously. The Scots and Welsh both fought against the English during the HYW....