Slitherine

I'm in the process of trying to whittle down my long-list of armies I want to play into a short-list and before I buy the requisite sourcebook I'd like to know if all the armies across FoG are balanced against each other, in theory at least? By which I mean if an 800 point Imperial Legion were to take on an 800 point late-Sumerian army would each have an even chance of winning (player skill notwithstanding) or is the actual historical superiority of the Roman army factored into the army list?

In theory they are balanced. In practice of course some armies have better synergy, and some match-ups are lopsided.

no points scoring system is perfect is the starting point.
So it is probably fair to say that all armies ar equal but that some armies are more equal than others!
Whilst your sumerian army might not consistently beat the roman army, it might well consistently beat other armies which the roman might not.
On average a diverse army will do better in the hands of s skilled general than a one dimensional army.
Some one dimensional armies can do exceptionally well in the hands of a poor general - typically, in FOG offensove spear armies are very forgiving.
I would still suggest that if you are looking for your first army that you pick something which has 3 or 4 troop types to play with to develop your skills and to have more fun with. Something like a roman army is a good force to learn with - drilled troops, decent skirmishers, excellent heavy foot and some cavalry. It also has the scope to try different versions of the armies, penal legions look like typical legions, look like experienced elite legions...
I enjoy using unusual armies and it is fair to say that whilst I am no tournament tiger I regularily beat better ranked players by throwing them, using camels or scythed chariots or 120 bases of inferior medium foot... or whatever. But learn the game first then play around a bit. It is disheartening losing because you havent got to grips with the system. Losing because you are learning is far easier to bear!

oh one last point - there is a definite three era split in my opinion - bronze age/chariot, classical, mediaeval. Each period in my opinion works best and is most balanced in those three areas. Some armies can compete cross period, but not all. I am confident that most armies within those bands have at least a crack at winning against each other.

redben wrote:I'm in the process of trying to whittle down my long-list of armies I want to play into a short-list and before I buy the requisite sourcebook I'd like to know if all the armies across FoG are balanced against each other, in theory at least? By which I mean if an 800 point Imperial Legion were to take on an 800 point late-Sumerian army would each have an even chance of winning (player skill notwithstanding) or is the actual historical superiority of the Roman army factored into the army list?

The best answer is "sort of, but not really". FoG isn't a "designed" game with made up lists, it's based on historical armies, and they weren't equally matched. The points system goes some way to setting a level playing field, but sometimes you will still find yourself playing with X points of "paper" vs X points of "scissors".

The best bet for a "good" game is to stick within each army supplement book, of pick those from other books of similar date. Other matches can be good too, but also might be grim. At least if you get a grim match in-book, you can console yourself that it's "historically so" !!!

Theyre reasonably balanced IMHO, though big variations of troop types or army list styles can cause big swings in game play. Suppose theyre all balanced in that a poor player will make any army poor! speaking from experience there!
jon

The points system creates balance across the range of opponents, so most armies would have relatively even win-lose records against a variety of opponents in the hands of average players.

However, particular one-on-one match-ups can be very unbalanced with virtually no chance of one side winning (again, if the players are of similar ability).

Being a solid high quality heavy foot army, the various Roman armies tend to do better in a lot of these one sided match-ups.
For example - Romans Vs Gauls - favours the Romans as they are ++ in melee and more manoueverable.

Another example - I recently fought Romans vs Gepids (mainly protected lancer cavalry) - I had an easy win with the Romans, and I can't see how the Gepids could have any chance of winning.