Slitherine

I started my first SNS game last night and I had 28 BP's and my opponent had 32 at 500 points. The unit costs are very expensive. I did not see any "Horde" armies, but I have not looked at all the lists in detail.

The crusader lists have a moderate number of knights and the byzantine and eastern lists have all kinds of mounted, plus some mediocre to poor foot. You even get some lance armed LC.

There are lots of defensive spear.

It is an interesting expansion. When it is added to the LOEG, we may want to raise the point total for it to 600. I need to play a few dozen more games to know.


Playing these various armies will require some finesse.

Thanks for the observations. I have all but S&S.

The expansion(s) give you new units--graphics and stats--but what else? Could I have changed the stats in the editor to "create" these new units myself?

I am a novice here, but have occasionally thrown a couple of medieval units into other eras, etc., and didn't really notice much difference in unit performance. Maybe I didn't look close enough?

Thanks again

Rosseau wrote:Thanks for the observations. I have all but S&S.

The expansion(s) give you new units--graphics and stats--but what else? Could I have changed the stats in the editor to "create" these new units myself?

I am a novice here, but have occasionally thrown a couple of medieval units into other eras, etc., and didn't really notice much difference in unit performance. Maybe I didn't look close enough?

Thanks again

Basically , if you only own the base game and NO expansions, you can still use the editor to build any unit you want, stat wise. What you wont get is the 1500 plus unit graphics with the 4 expansions.
There MIGHT be some features that are only available from owing one or more expansions but not sure any more with the new installers... These would be terrian like soft sand maybe fow etc..

Making fantasy battles ie anachronsitic battles works reasonbly well, knights for example do have an edge over cataphracts or other "mere" lancers.

Xiggy wrote:I started my first SNS game last night and I had 28 BP's and my opponent had 32 at 500 points. The unit costs are very expensive. I did not see any "Horde" armies, but I have not looked at all the lists in detail.

The crusader lists have a moderate number of knights and the byzantine and eastern lists have all kinds of mounted, plus some mediocre to poor foot. You even get some lance armed LC.

There are lots of defensive spear.

It is an interesting expansion. When it is added to the LOEG, we may want to raise the point total for it to 600. I need to play a few dozen more games to know.


Playing these various armies will require some finesse.

Most of the armies I have fielded and my opponents are fielding in the 5 or so Dag battles have been in the mid to high 30's range BP's wise. I like it.
The only potential horde army i have seen appears to be maybe the Serbian or Cuman ones, a lot of medium/light archers, but certainly i dont think there will be any 70-80 bp armies at the 500 ap level.

I agree the expansion has a completely differnt feel tactically, lots of lancers for everyone and defensive oriented infantry, and best of all, very few of those pesky light foot

Oddly the feel to this expansion is what I expected to get from SOA, perhaps too many pikes in SOA which made it feel very simlar to RoR (if that makes any sense)

Fair enough. I do know that RoR got us the DAG, which is pretty huge. Plus, 10 scenarios with S&S, now that I'm thinking. Plus the graphics, accurate stats, the ability to MP the new armies. So $20 sounds like a good deal! Thanks.

very few of those pesky light foot

Ha! Have you met the Greeks yet? I don't think I have ever seen that many poor archers LF in a battle as in the one I'm about to lose to ianiow. They are everywhere.
I stink at commanding horse armies, that's for sure...or maybe I stink at building them? Or both?
Will take some time to learn the new tactics

hidde wrote:

very few of those pesky light foot

Ha! Have you met the Greeks yet? I don't think I have ever seen that many poor archers LF in a battle as in the one I'm about to lose to ianiow. They are everywhere.
I stink at commanding horse armies, that's for sure...or maybe I stink at building them? Or both?
Will take some time to learn the new tactics

You mean the Nikiaians? They have a reasonable amt of light foot... But no more than the Seluecid armies in ROR... There are certainly a lot of horse armies in SaS but a suprsingly large # of infantry. I wish I knew more about the history of the era/cultures Dalaimis? Had never hard of them! Am assuming they were an eltite group of Turks?? much like the mamluks etc?

TheGrayMouser wrote:

hidde wrote:

very few of those pesky light foot

Ha! Have you met the Greeks yet? I don't think I have ever seen that many poor archers LF in a battle as in the one I'm about to lose to ianiow. They are everywhere.
I stink at commanding horse armies, that's for sure...or maybe I stink at building them? Or both?
Will take some time to learn the new tactics

You mean the Nikiaians? They have a reasonable amt of light foot... But no more than the Seluecid armies in ROR... There are certainly a lot of horse armies in SaS but a suprsingly large # of infantry. I wish I knew more about the history of the era/cultures Dalaimis? Had never hard of them! Am assuming they were an eltite group of Turks?? much like the mamluks etc?

Latin Greece. Maybe I exaggerated...but I don't think so

That will be 26 poor LF Hidde

But looking at your Nikaian's you have the potential to build 28 poor LF! (31 if you choose bulgarian allies).

The downside is that it is hard to keep that many LF out of trouble. Some well angled charges and herding could see them die in droves as mschund demonstrated when he destroyed my 82ap Numidian army with his Romans yesterday!

ianiow wrote:That will be 26 poor LF Hidde

But looking at your Nikaian's you have the potential to build 28 poor LF! (31 if you choose bulgarian allies).

The downside is that it is hard to keep that many LF out of trouble. Some well angled charges and herding could see them die in droves as mschund demonstrated when he destroyed my 82ap Numidian army with his Romans yesterday!

Oops you are right , didnt realize they had that many! Howver there are many armies that dont have any lights at all, or very few... Herding might be a problem if the "herded" make judicious use of the evade options... Deeter has already put a cramp in my battle plans with some very ingenious use of his light foot in such a manner

ianiow wrote:That will be 26 poor LF Hidde

But looking at your Nikaian's you have the potential to build 28 poor LF! (31 if you choose bulgarian allies).

The downside is that it is hard to keep that many LF out of trouble. Some well angled charges and herding could see them die in droves as mschund demonstrated when he destroyed my 82ap Numidian army with his Romans yesterday!

I choose to put my trust in the Frankish riff raff... they should be ashamed to call themselves knights
Since this is about observations; what about maps? I think this kind of armies dominated by cavalry could benefit from larger maps. Can't say I know how a real battle between lets say Mongols and Mamluks would have played out but I feel there could be more room to make sweeping maneuvers. As it is one is still more or less restricted to move forward in a line like they were pikes or something. With all that cavalry, perhaps there should be more room to try flanking moves?

hidde wrote:(snip)....
Since this is about observations; what about maps? I think this kind of armies dominated by cavalry could benefit from larger maps. Can't say I know how a real battle between lets say Mongols and Mamluks would have played out but I feel there could be more room to make sweeping maneuvers. As it is one is still more or less restricted to move forward in a line like they were pikes or something. With all that cavalry, perhaps there should be more room to try flanking moves?

Maybe. Been trying out a Syrian army, and all the horse-archers keep getting in each others way.
On the other hand, making the maps bigger would mean an even greater advantage to horde-armies.
Imagine a Crusader army trying to hunt down 30+ BGs of 'always evade' horse archers on an expanded map......
Even if they actually managed to catch any of them, they'd be so knackered, they could only breathe heavily on them.

Lars

The Richard the first list can have a lot of BP's too. Evade moves are different, so herding will be more of a challenge.

CheerfullyInsane wrote:

hidde wrote:(snip)....
Since this is about observations; what about maps? I think this kind of armies dominated by cavalry could benefit from larger maps. Can't say I know how a real battle between lets say Mongols and Mamluks would have played out but I feel there could be more room to make sweeping maneuvers. As it is one is still more or less restricted to move forward in a line like they were pikes or something. With all that cavalry, perhaps there should be more room to try flanking moves?

Maybe. Been trying out a Syrian army, and all the horse-archers keep getting in each others way.
On the other hand, making the maps bigger would mean an even greater advantage to horde-armies.
Imagine a Crusader army trying to hunt down 30+ BGs of 'always evade' horse archers on an expanded map......
Even if they actually managed to catch any of them, they'd be so knackered, they could only breathe heavily on them.

Lars

You might be right. It was just a feeling I got after very little playing. Will play some more and perhaps things fall in place.