Slitherine

Hi All,

I have two new players who I'm trying to get together for a few games.

One is building Early Crusader and the other Earlier period Romans (when they are all Impact foot I believe - so post Triarii).

Do people think that this is a fairly even match up?

To me, it seems so. This is my reasoning:

Romans will dominate in the foot melee.

Crusaders will dominate in the mounted melee.

Roman Legionaries vs Crusader knights will be just about even.

What's everyone else's thoughts? Is this a bad match-up for two new players? Not much I can do about it as this is the lead they've bought, but I could throw together my own lead to get more matched armies.

Ian

It will be fun as they are both armies that must get to grips, there will be no girly skirmishing. The Defensive spear will crumble against the Legio. Slowly if they survive impact, extremely quickly if they lose cohesion at impact. The roman mounted are not too badly outclassed by the knights, the romans can go 1 deep and evade to tempt the crusaders into bad places and manouver better. But the extra knight dice will show quickly after contact. Crusader Knights against legions? All on the impact and if the legio are isolated. A solid line of legio should win due to more bases, isolated legio will lose due to double dice against.
Whatever I think it should be bloody fun.

If the knights are armored as opposed to heavily armored, it's ok. If the knights are heavily armored I think the Romans will have a bad time...

IanB3406 wrote:If the knights are armored as opposed to heavily armored, it's ok. If the knights are heavily armored I think the Romans will have a bad time...

Early Crusader mate, they can only be Armoured. Late Crusader you get the choice!

Ian

The Knights will probably keep bouncing off the legions, unless they can get them to fail a cohesion test.

I understand I'm in the minority on this and was indeed speaking to one of our erstwhile moderators about it at a tournament yesterday, but I really do feel that medieval armies are a little too strong to be called an even match when pitted against ancient ones.

The earlier armies certainly can win, it's not impossible, but nevertheless IMO to call it a fair fight is mistaken. I think the Crusaders will win more times than not.

I really do feel that medieval armies are a little too strong to be called an even match when pitted against ancient ones.

If that was there case then medieval armies would be dominating open tournaments.

I think the Crusaders will win more times than not.

What makes you think that ? Armoured knights vs legionaries will be even at impact and melee. The legions will get a -1 on the CT if they lose at impact, the knights will be in more trouble if they lose a base.
The Romans are drilled so more manoeuverable, and don't have to charge, whilst the crusader knights are forced to charge. So they should end up charging unsupported and suffer overlaps in melee. The Roman supporting troops are better, and the Romans (including the legionaries) can operate much better in terrain.

I'd favour the Romans in this match-up, but it could easily go either way so should give a good game.

Polkovnik wrote:

I really do feel that medieval armies are a little too strong to be called an even match when pitted against ancient ones.

If that was there case then medieval armies would be dominating open tournaments.

I think the Crusaders will win more times than not.

What makes you think that ? Armoured knights vs legionaries will be even at impact and melee. The legions will get a -1 on the CT if they lose at impact, the knights will be in more trouble if they lose a base.
The Romans are drilled so more manoeuverable, and don't have to charge, whilst the crusader knights are forced to charge. So they should end up charging unsupported and suffer overlaps in melee. The Roman supporting troops are better, and the Romans (including the legionaries) can operate much better in terrain.

I'd favour the Romans in this match-up, but it could easily go either way so should give a good game.

Open tournaments will usually be won by better players no matter what army they have, I've no problem with that, it shows the rules are doing their job. However in the hands of average players like myself fighting other average players then I genuinely feel medievals have the edge.

I don't want to divert the OP's thread into a debate on relative points costs and efficiency of troops but a quick look at the thread here entitled "Overpowered Medievals" should illustrate the debate nicely:

viewtopic.php?t=6480&highlight=overpowered

Regards
Alan

Open tournaments will usually be won by better players no matter what army they have

Yes but surely the better players will know which armies are best and will take those to tournaments. They don't want to deliberately handicap themselves, do they ? So if later armies were best then we would see them dominating.

I read the thread in the link you gave - various different opinions, no conclusions reached.

However in the hands of average players like myself fighting other average players then I genuinely feel medievals have the edge.

I'd like to see how a knight heavy medieval army would take on a successor army (pikes & elephants) or a hoplite army (offensive spear). Most ancient armies have better heavy infantry, better skirmishers and better supporting troops than medieval armies.

Polkovnik wrote:I'd like to see how a knight heavy medieval army would take on a successor army (pikes & elephants) or a hoplite army (offensive spear). Most ancient armies have better heavy infantry, better skirmishers and better supporting troops than medieval armies.

Agreed. I'd happily (if a little nervously in the Impact Phase) take many Medievals on with my Syracusans. In fact I'd much prefer to take on a Medieval than a Roman!

Ian