Slitherine

Just though I 'd ask a general question
Which armys types Do you feel have a harder time winning
a. Combined arms
b. one dimensional mounted
c. one demensional foot

Just for discusion add more army types or refine them if you wish

If one must pick an order,

c
b
a

but it depends of course on the armies and circumstances. (b) is probably the easiest to handle, not necessarily to win with

Well as the BHGS Challenge last year was won by a 100 years war English army with I think no mounted and the early period at Britcon was won by an Italian Ostrogothic army with only skirmishing foot and the late period at Britcon was won by an Ottoman army with a reasonable mix of troops I think the answer is all of the above.

Essentially pick an army that suits your style and make a plan on how to use it. Starting with a combined arms force will give you a better idea of the options but all are viable.

MikeK wrote:If one must pick an order,

c
b
a

but it depends of course on the armies and circumstances. (b) is probably the easiest to handle, not necessarily to win with

If B is shock its the hardest to handle, charging off in all directions, and intercepted from all sides.

If we take the winning-ness out of the equation, I disagree in that undrilled shock mounted are not that hard to handle if you let them do what they want to do rather than getting clever - not that many options.

I think that for a beginner, one-dimensional mounted would be the easiest to learn to use. I find the one dimensional foot armies much more difficult to have success with, even for experienced players. A combined arms force is among the most powerful in the game system, but if you are a newbie, it is going to be difficult to learn how to make all the moving parts work, and throughout the learning curve, there will be many disappointing loses.

Peter C

One dimension, undrilled foot, possibly especially heavy foot, is probably the hardest to get a handle on (though an undrilled knight dominated army could be tough as well).

One strength of FoG vs DBM at least is that foot armies are much easier to handle for a beginner. Foot was good in DBM, but really was unforgiving to run.

MikeK wrote:If one must pick an order,

c
b
a

but it depends of course on the armies and circumstances. (b) is probably the easiest to handle, not necessarily to win with

Agreed. Skythian/Alans were a great intro to FoG army for me. Easy lists, few troops types, very forgiving armies.

This Christmas I got a lot of Dominate Roman foot to add to the mix for a Bosporan army though. Switching to offense.

pcelella wrote:I think that for a beginner, one-dimensional mounted would be the easiest to learn to use. I find the one dimensional foot armies much more difficult to have success with, even for experienced players. A combined arms force is among the most powerful in the game system, but if you are a newbie, it is going to be difficult to learn how to make all the moving parts work, and throughout the learning curve, there will be many disappointing loses.

Peter C

I'm not big on the merits of (lots of) combined arms - I find it can distract you into wasting units taking terrain for no real gain, and make you overly focus on engineering matchups that at best give you a +1 POA advantage.

Far better to have big chunks of broadly similar troops that enjoy decent all round POAs against almost all opposition.

ethan wrote:One dimension, undrilled foot, possibly especially heavy foot, is probably the hardest to get a handle on (though an undrilled knight dominated army could be tough as well).

One strength of FoG vs DBM at least is that foot armies are much easier to handle for a beginner. Foot was good in DBM, but really was unforgiving to run.

Ethan, that is probably the most sucinct (sp?) summary of the difference I have come across. Really has led to more of that type of army getting more table time.

Tim

Nice idea 'Far better to have big chunks of broadly similar troops that enjoy decent all round POAs against almost all opposition' - would that work best for b or c options? Any favourites for consideration for someone with a 100% record in FoG (a 100% losing record that is)?

pyrrhus wrote:Just though I 'd ask a general question
Which armys types Do you feel have a harder time winning
a. Combined arms
b. one dimensional mounted
c. one demensional foot

Just for discusion add more army types or refine them if you wish

d. Any army I try to use.

Mike B

madaxeman wrote:Far better to have big chunks of broadly similar troops that enjoy decent all round POAs against almost all opposition.

Would you mean MF, Armoured, Average, Drilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen in BGs of 4, by any chance?

mbsparta wrote: d. Any army I try to use.

Mike B

madaxeman wrote:I'm not big on the merits of (lots of) combined arms - I find it can distract you into wasting units taking terrain for no real gain, and make you overly focus on engineering matchups that at best give you a +1 POA advantage.

To be fair, that sounds more like a personal weakness of the general, not a problem of that type of army.

madaxeman wrote:Far better to have big chunks of broadly similar troops that enjoy decent all round POAs against almost all opposition.

Easier to learn to handle for sure, but far better?

Ghaznavid wrote:

madaxeman wrote:I'm not big on the merits of (lots of) combined arms - I find it can distract you into wasting units taking terrain for no real gain, and make you overly focus on engineering matchups that at best give you a +1 POA advantage.

To be fair, that sounds more like a personal weakness of the general, not a problem of that type of army.

madaxeman wrote:Far better to have big chunks of broadly similar troops that enjoy decent all round POAs against almost all opposition.

Easier to learn to handle for sure, but far better?

While it seems that he is making a human factor argument I think he has a real strategic point.

Specialist units have a few excellent match-ups in exchange for many mediocre->poor ones. If each unit in the army is different then one must get those match-ups to have a favourable result.

The opponent gets to play too. While you have more control over which of your troops are in battle, the opponent will still have some. And as randomly selected combats will tend to be in the interest of the generalist he will have pressure over a wide area of the field while the specialists redeploy.

Even getting the prefered match-up is not such a victory. One is unable to pile in more of the same to exploit as one doesn't have them. If one's target flees it is dangerous to pursue lest one be isolated and defeated in detail.

Ghaznavid wrote:

madaxeman wrote:I'm not big on the merits of (lots of) combined arms - I find it can distract you into wasting units taking terrain for no real gain, and make you overly focus on engineering matchups that at best give you a +1 POA advantage.

To be fair, that sounds more like a personal weakness of the general, not a problem of that type of army.

madaxeman wrote:Far better to have big chunks of broadly similar troops that enjoy decent all round POAs against almost all opposition.

Easier to learn to handle for sure, but far better?

I guess my definition of combined arms is the classic Hellenistic army, with some pikes, some MF thracians, good quality lancer cavalry, maybe some cataphracts, a few LH, some LF and maybe some elephants. However at Warfare 2008 I fought almost all of these types with a simple line of legionaries and was at evens POAs against the whole lot.... so I guess I thought what's the point of too much diversification!

Armoured Light Spear Swordsmen foot seem to give you the best chance of being +1 or evens in melee and impact against most things, and Armoured is the most important of the three categories in giving repeated multi-round benefits against lots of opponents in both shooting and melee. Lancer armoured cavalry swordsmen likewise, although armoured Bw/Sw are also almost as good against all possible opponents.

Spears give you an occasional +1, but once they go DISR they tend to collapse instantly, and they all tend to be protected which means anyone with armour cancels their spear + anyway. Hvy Weapon men will cancel enemy armour, but their Hvy Wp POA is netted out by any enemy weapon so they are usually at best at evens ... which is a mugs game.

Ghaznavid wrote:

madaxeman wrote:I'm not big on the merits of (lots of) combined arms - I find it can distract you into wasting units taking terrain for no real gain, and make you overly focus on engineering matchups that at best give you a +1 POA advantage.

To be fair, that sounds more like a personal weakness of the general, not a problem of that type of army.

madaxeman wrote:Far better to have big chunks of broadly similar troops that enjoy decent all round POAs against almost all opposition.

Easier to learn to handle for sure, but far better?

And I thought this was a dig at you Tim

madaxeman wrote:I guess my definition of combined arms is the classic Hellenistic army, with some pikes, some MF thracians, good quality lancer cavalry, maybe some cataphracts, a few LH, some LF and maybe some elephants. However at Warfare 2008 I fought almost all of these types with a simple line of legionaries and was at evens POAs against the whole lot.... so I guess I thought what's the point of too much diversification!

Armoured Light Spear Swordsmen foot seem to give you the best chance of being +1 or evens in melee and impact against most things, and Armoured is the most important of the three categories in giving repeated multi-round benefits against lots of opponents in both shooting and melee. Lancer armoured cavalry swordsmen likewise, although armoured Bw/Sw are also almost as good against all possible opponents.

Armd Bw Sw. Do such troops exist? (not consigned to rear rank)

madaxeman wrote:[Spears give you an occasional +1, but once they go DISR they tend to collapse instantly, and they all tend to be protected which means anyone with armour cancels their spear + anyway. Hvy Weapon men will cancel enemy armour, but their Hvy Wp POA is netted out by any enemy weapon so they are usually at best at evens ... which is a mugs game.

Armoured Lt Sp Sw give more bang for buck. But looking at their results it takes a good player to use them effectively

Phil's comment

'
Armoured Lt Sp Sw give more bang for buck. But looking at their results it takes a good player to use them effectively
'

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

timmy1 wrote:Phil's comment

'
Armoured Lt Sp Sw give more bang for buck. But looking at their results it takes a good player to use them effectively
'

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Tim try one dimensional Mtd and foot. Tibetan. Cataphracts or HA Off Sp. Plus against almost everything.