Superior,Average, Poor Skilled Swordsman

[timmy1]

RBS, so very true. That is why I find FoG frustrating because it exposes my poor generalship more than any other rules as there is no real geometry to hide my lack of tactical skill. Alexander fought in the better value situations and I often don't, which is why FoG is so good at modelling it's historical original.

[Duke68]

One will always be able to find situations where one troop type is better value for points than another troop type or vice versa.

And one of the key player skills is to try to ensure that your troops fight in the "better value" situations and not in the "worse value" situations.

Yeah, but if there's a clearly advantaged list (and imho in certain books there is such list) that list kills the game or at least kills tournaments games, think about it.

[rbodleyscott]

One will always be able to find situations where one troop type is better value for points than another troop type or vice versa.

And one of the key player skills is to try to ensure that your troops fight in the "better value" situations and not in the "worse value" situations.

Yeah, but if there's a clearly advantaged list (and imho in certain books there is such list) that list kills the game or at least kills tournaments games, think about it.

If this is true, it will become apparent through tournament play and we can adjust the points values at a later date.

However, there have already been quite a large number of tournaments run under FOG. So far there does not appear to any sign of seemingly advantaged lists killing or even clearly dominating tournaments.

(Army popularity reflects seeming advantage, but the actual results are more likely to reflect actual advantage - although that too is skewed by what the better players choose to play with).

[nikgaukroger]

Yeah, but if there's a clearly advantaged list (and imho in certain books there is such list) that list kills the game or at least kills tournaments games, think about it.

Care to divulge those you think are clearly advantaged?

And do you see them as advantaged within their book or in an open environment?

[Duke68]

Yeah, but if there's a clearly advantaged list (and imho in certain books there is such list) that list kills the game or at least kills tournaments games, think about it.

Care to divulge those you think are clearly advantaged?

And do you see them as advantaged within their book or in an open environment?

Talking about advantage within their book imho Later Seleucid & Later Ptolemaic in Rise of Rome, Macedonian and their successor in Immortal Fire.

I haven't examined well the other books.

The open environment is a nonsense in my point of view because putting against each other two list separated by too many years (or hundreds of years) of warfare evolution is streching history too much (imho of course).

[rbodleyscott]

Care to divulge those you think are clearly advantaged?

And do you see them as advantaged within their book or in an open environment?

Talking about advantage within their book imho Later Seleucid & Later Ptolemaic in Rise of Rome, Macedonian and their successor in Immortal Fire.

And yet the Immortal Fire tournament at Oxford was won by Early Achaemenid Persians.

[carlos]

Care to divulge those you think are clearly advantaged?

Apparently it's average protected pikemen ... those world-beaters.

[Duke68]

And yet the Immortal Fire tournament at Oxford was won by Early Achaemenid Persians.

Clearly player experience and skill should be taken in account, and luck too.

Of course a single tournament is not a statistic, try to collect info from various tournaments and let's see if there's a bias in favour of pike-lists.

[rbodleyscott]

Care to divulge those you think are clearly advantaged?

Apparently it's average protected pikemen ... those world-beaters.

As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on these. Initially I thought that we might have underpriced these by 1 point, now I am even less sure - because their seeming cost-effectiveness isn't necessary borne out in practice.

There is an issue, however, with any points system that may be hard to resolve. That is that some troop types may be better value for points in themed tournaments than in open ones. I suspect that pikes may be included amongst the ones that are more cost-effective in the themes that Duke identifies than they are in open tournaments.

Having a different points system for themed tournament than for open tournaments is not a route we would like to go down. So it is probably inevitable that some armies will be better bets in theme tournaments than in open tournaments and vice versa.

[nikgaukroger]

Talking about advantage within their book imho Later Seleucid & Later Ptolemaic in Rise of Rome, Macedonian and their successor in Immortal Fire.

Always interesting to see peoples views and how they differ from your own - for example having used Later Seleukid and Later Ptolemaic I'd take Parthian before either in Rise of Rome

This partly, or maybe mostly, because I much prefer that style of army so feel more comfortable using it and so do better with them

[jlopez]

My personal beef (and shared by a lot of Spanish players) with the lists are that it's a no-brainer when it comes to designing them: pile on the quality and the armour for your shock troops and max out the poor LF. I can't say I've ever agonized about whether to give up one average unit to make the rest superior or better armoured.

I feel that there are either too many superior/well-equipped troops in the lists or that they are too cheap, probably the former. Average shock troops other than pike are pretty thin on the ground in competitions and usually don't do very well. Shouldn't they be in the majority as the most common troop type? One poor chap in Spain keeps getting thrashed with Ancient Spanish despite the fact he's a better player than most of his opponents. A couple of extra average scutarii units is no consolation or much use when facing LRR legionaries.

Personally, I've found playing with overwhelmingly average shock units (Bosphoran with maximum HF) was much more exciting than playing with superior units. Something to do with spending most of the games running away from enemy supermen with "++POA AND superior" tattoed on their foreheads while I tried to win the games with the rest of the army.

Looking on the positive side, I feel this problem can be relatively easily fixed compared to DBM. The rules still work just fine.

Regards,

Julian

[diego66ro]

And yet the Immortal Fire tournament at Oxford was won by Early Achaemenid Persians.

Hi all.

Just some numbers from tournaments in which there was armylists from Rise of Rome, with "some" pikes:

- GODENDAG 2008 period Rise of Rome 16 players, 4 with Later Seleucid: 1st and 3rd place
- NATCON 2008 8 players, 1 with Alexandrian Macedonian: 2nd place
- Cold Wars FoG 14 players, 2 with Later Seleucid: 1st place and 1 with Later macedonian: 2nd place
- FoG tourney at Little Wars 9 players, 2 with Later Seleucid: 1st place and 1 with Later macedonian 2nd place
- Ziposhow 18 players, 6 with Later Seleucid 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th place
- Challenge FoG 15mm 42 players, 5 with Later Seleucid 4th and 7th place
- Challenge FoG 25mm 10 players, 2 with Later Seleucid 8th and 9th place
- Les Nerviens 2008 18 players, 3 with Later Seleucid 5th place, 2 with Alexandrian Macedonian: 3rd place and 1 with Later ptolemaic 4th place
- Oxford Doubles 2008 22 players, 5 with Alexandrian Macedonian: 3rd place
- Game Expo 2008 16 players, 1 with Alexandrian Macedonian: 3rd place
- Helsinki 2008 13 players, 1 with Later Seleucid: 12th place, 1with Alexandrian Macedonian: 9th place
- Bayou Wars 2008 23 players, 1 with Early Succesor: 14th place, 1 with Alexandrian Macedonian: 11th place, 1 with Later Macedonian: 8th place.

Sorry for this long list!!!
I don't know the exact composition of the armies, but the pikes are a good medicine for the victory

[hammy]

My personal beef (and shared by a lot of Spanish players) with the lists are that it's a no-brainer when it comes to designing them: pile on the quality and the armour for your shock troops and max out the poor LF. I can't say I've ever agonized about whether to give up one average unit to make the rest superior or better armoured.

Interesting, I have definitely felt that an extra maneuver element over your opponent gives a significant advantage.

I feel that there are either too many superior/well-equipped troops in the lists or that they are too cheap, probably the former. Average shock troops other than pike are pretty thin on the ground in competitions and usually don't do very well. Shouldn't they be in the majority as the most common troop type? One poor chap in Spain keeps getting thrashed with Ancient Spanish despite the fact he's a better player than most of his opponents. A couple of extra average scutarii units is no consolation or much use when facing LRR legionaries.

The problem may be that scutarii are not easy to get out of the way of the legions. Interestingly during development there were a lot of concerns that Spanish/Gauls/Britons had no chance against Romans so Simon took on Terry's Romans and defeated him without losing a battlegroup.

Personally, I've found playing with overwhelmingly average shock units (Bosphoran with maximum HF) was much more exciting than playing with superior units. Something to do with spending most of the games running away from enemy supermen with "++POA AND superior" tattoed on their foreheads while I tried to win the games with the rest of the army.

I used Bosphoran with only three BGs of superiors (the lancers) in the Northern league and found it particularly effective. For me I am not sure I would want to upgrade everything to superior but a few BGs of superiors in the right place makes a big difference.

Looking on the positive side, I feel this problem can be relatively easily fixed compared to DBM. The rules still work just fine.

If it turns out that superior or armoured is too effective we can always ask for a tweak to the points.

[nikgaukroger]

One thing I would add about Later Seleukid is that it is a good army to start out with - nice and solid, most of the troops operate well in a fairly simple manner, etc. - whereas other armies only start to work when you have got used to how the game plays, how the interactions work, etc.

[nikgaukroger]

I don't know the exact composition of the armies, but the pikes are a good medicine for the victory

Is it me or does this list tend to show they are dropping off in effectiveness as time goes on?

[ars_belli]

I don't know the exact composition of the armies, but the pikes are a good medicine for the victory

Is it me or does this list tend to show they are dropping off in effectiveness as time goes on?

If so, that would also nicely mirror their historical performance over time.

Cheers,
Scott

[jlopez]

I still haven't come across a case of mass compensating for quality. I took a Free Company list consisting entirely of Superior, HA HF or Kn with one unit of Bidets and another of Peasants (usually hiding in woods) to the Vilches competition and not once did an opponent manage to prevent me contacting the bulk of his infantry with my HF. A column of drilled HF on each flank backed up by two knight BGs in reserve were all it took counter outflanking moves long enough to get stuck in the center.

The only problem I encountered was an Andalusian army composed almost entirely of skirmishers and with its baggage and HF hiding behind terrain. More balanced armies were no problem for my one-dimensional army (I hit you on the head with a big axe, you die).

Please tell me you didn't test the relative strengths of Romans and barbarians with just one game between Simon and Terry. My experience of using the barbarians is that with an IC and rear support, contacted BGs can last a few turns losing a base a melee before collapsing. Meanwhile, a couple of flank guards was all it took to ensure the centre was given enough time to finish off the enemy. The barbarians just couldn't exploit a flank advantage fast enough to make a difference.

Regards,

Julian

[hammy]

I still haven't come across a case of mass compensating for quality. I took a Free Company list consisting entirely of Superior, HA HF or Kn with one unit of Bidets and another of Peasants (usually hiding in woods) to the Vilches competition and not once did an opponent manage to prevent me contacting the bulk of his infantry with my HF. A column of drilled HF on each flank backed up by two knight BGs in reserve were all it took counter outflanking moves long enough to get stuck in the center.

The only problem I encountered was an Andalusian army composed almost entirely of skirmishers and with its baggage and HF hiding behind terrain. More balanced armies were no problem for my one-dimensional army (I hit you on the head with a big axe, you die).

Please tell me you didn't test the relative strengths of Romans and barbarians with just one game between Simon and Terry. My experience of using the barbarians is that with an IC and rear support, contacted BGs can last a few turns losing a base a melee before collapsing. Meanwhile, a couple of flank guards was all it took to ensure the centre was given enough time to finish off the enemy. The barbarians just couldn't exploit a flank advantage fast enough to make a difference.

I am sure that Simon, Terry and Richard played this through more than once and I have played with Visigoths against Romans more than once and been able to hold the legions at bay long enough to win the game elsewhere. I have also beaten Roman armies with slave revolt which is not that different to a normal barbarian army.

Man for man there is no comparison between a legionary and your run of the mill barbarian but the legionaries cost twice as much.

I still consider the Early Visigoths to be a decent army in open competition and when I next get a chance I may even try them out again. The last time I sued them was at the first beta comp and they did OK, including beating Bruce's Ghaznavids. Since then the various tweaks to the system have definitely improved the army.

[nikgaukroger]

I still haven't come across a case of mass compensating for quality. I took a Free Company list consisting entirely of Superior, HA HF or Kn with one unit of Bidets and another of Peasants (usually hiding in woods) to the Vilches competition and not once did an opponent manage to prevent me contacting the bulk of his infantry with my HF. A column of drilled HF on each flank backed up by two knight BGs in reserve were all it took counter outflanking moves long enough to get stuck in the center.

The only problem I encountered was an Andalusian army composed almost entirely of skirmishers and with its baggage and HF hiding behind terrain. More balanced armies were no problem for my one-dimensional army (I hit you on the head with a big axe, you die).

Are we expecting a Spanish contingent at Britcon to show us how its done?

[dave_r]

I still haven't come across a case of mass compensating for quality. I took a Free Company list consisting entirely of Superior, HA HF or Kn with one unit of Bidets and another of Peasants (usually hiding in woods) to the Vilches competition and not once did an opponent manage to prevent me contacting the bulk of his infantry with my HF

Just exactly how many troops do you get with this? Superior, HA HF are 14 pts each, Knights are 23 pts each. That doesn't stretch very wide.

I faced just such a mob with the Scottish Prot, Off Spear and battered them. What happens is that I have big BG's of 10 and you run in and I will slowly lose, but having a general and rear support, I don't normally lose cohesion but I do lose bases. Then every once in a while I get lucky and win. Then these Sup, HA, HF suddenly don't look so good any more whe they are disrupted / losing bases themselves.

Every time I have played with the Skythians against Romans I have given them an absolute kicking. I only have 8 elements of troops that are superior - and these are Bow, Swordsmen so don't normally charge anyway.

I also don't mind facing Pikemen as they are susceptible to shooting, can't manoever and are apt to getting pulled apart when they win.

In fact I would contend that the best armies tend to have masses of Average Armoured Foot - these are very prevalent with some mounted support.