Slitherine

Some friends and I will begin playing Field of Glory soon, and we are all picking armies from the "classical" period (Immortal Fire, Rise of Rome, Legions Triumphant). Having read through a ton of threads on this forum, I've decided to go with an all-mounted list, and am having a hard time deciding between the two below. While I've played other historical miniatures games, I haven't played FoG yet, and I'm worried I'm missing or overlooking something important while drawing up the lists. Any advice would be appreciated. My primary opponents will be Mid-Republic Roman, Gauls, and Pontic.

Bosporan List 601 points
3 x TC
2 x 6 Lancers (CAV/armored/sup/undrilled/-/lance & sword)
3 x 4 Lancers (CAV/armored/sup/undrilled/-/lance & sword)
2 x 4 Horse archers (LH/unprot/avg/undrilled/bow/swd) for skirmishing
2 x 4 Horse archers (CAV/unprot/avg/undrilled/bow/swd) for shooting damage
9 Battle groups

The basic idea is to weight one flank and charge in, hoping to win at impact. The horse archers harry the other flank. I like the cavalry in this army because it seems fast and maneuverable, and more tactically flexible than cataphracts. I'm worried about enemy archers. I like that my own horse archers have swordsmen.

Sassanid List 597 points
3 x TC
1 x 6 Cataphracts (CAT/hvyarmor/sup/undrilled/-/lance and sword)
2 x 4 Cataphracts (CAT/hvyarmor/sup/undrilled/-/lance and sword)
2 x 4 Armored Horse Archers (CAV/armored/sup/undrilled/bow/sword)
3 x 4 Horse Archers (LH/unprot/avg/undrilled/bow/-)
8 Battle groups

The basic idea is the same as the Bosporan. This army has one fewer BGs, but is better armored. I'm not 100 percent sure what to the do with the armored horse archers. They are a very expensive required choice, and I'd like to get the most value from them. I like the cataphracts because they should do well in both the impact and melee phase, although they feel slow. I would like to have 2x6 cataphracts instead of just the one, but at 600 points I'm not sure if the trade-offs are worth it.

Is there anything I could do to tweak either list? Does either list have any glaring flaws or advantages?

Thanks in advance for any advice!

BadMood

To tweak the Sassanid list use the drilled version. (If that is allowed in your time frame).

Drop the 2x6 of Bosporan lancers to 3x4. More BG and less base losses to shooting. I would also take all your unprotected guys as LH. Far more useful than the unprotected Cav who suffer badly from being undrilled.

For an all mounted army in this era I prefer Greaco Bactrian.

For the Bosporans I'd drop one of the BGs of 4 armoured lancers in exchange for two BGs of 8 poor LF archers and one BG of 8 LF slingers. They will provide your lancers with a screen against shooters, are a threat in themselves and generally a bloody nuisance to your opponent as well as increasing the size of the army.

I've failed to make a decent list with Sassanids so I won't comment.

Julian

The 6 stand cataphract is going to be difficult to manouver. I would drop it to 4 stands freeing up 32 points which would give you a 4 stand light horse unit and raise your BG total. Conversely, you could use the extra points for a 6 stand light foot archer or an 8 stand light foot slinger.

This is the list I used in Atlanta last November where I finished 2nd. It is drilled but might be something to consider.

3 Hephalite Hun Light horse (unprotected, superior, undrilled, bow, sword) - 4 stands each
2 Persian Light horse (unprotected, average, undrilled, bow) - 4 stands each
4 armoured horse archers(armoured, superior, drilled, bow, sword) - 4 stands each
Cinc - tc
Heph Hun ally general - tc
2 Persian sub-generals - tc

642 points for a 650 point tourney

Thanks for all the advice. It gives me something to think about. I'll check out the Graeco-Bactrian list in particular, and will consider adding some LF to the list, too. Aesthetically, I like the idea of going all with all mounted battlegroups, but I can see where some support would come in handy.

BadMood