Slitherine

His this list correct?

Condotta - Florence - 1424

Commanders
Cic - Troop (Florence)
Ally - Troop (Venice)
Ally - Troop (Pisa)
Ally - Troop (Swiss)

1 - Handgunners - LF 4
2 - Handgunners (Swiss)- LF 4
3 - Crossbowmen - LF 4
4 - Xbowmen (Swiss) - LF 4
5 - Militia Crossbowmen - LF 6
6 - Mounted Xbowmen - LH 4
7 - Mounted Xbowmen - LH 4
8 - Hungarians - LH 4
9 - Swordsmen - MF 6
10 - English Archers - MF 4
11 - Militia Spearmen - HF 6
12 - Pikemen - HF 8
13 - Halberdiers (Swiss) - HF 8
14 - Pikemen (Swiss) - HF 8
15 - Mercenary-Men-at-Arms - KN 6
16 - Mercenary-Men-at-Arms - KN 4

I don't have the books with me, but I would be suspicious.

1) Each BG that is required of the ally sholud be noted. ie where are teh mandatory Pisan allied troops?
2) Check to see f you can take that variety of allies.

I just looked at my copy of the Condotta list, and it looks like the 3 ally build is legit unless there is a global limit on allied commands in the main rules. I cannot tell is the BGs are kosher, since they don't break out what command the different BGs are in.

Sure smells funny, though.

Looks OK, but I haven't pointed it out.
As long as the Hungarians are assigned to the Florentine contingent, the English archers are with either the Florentines or the Venetians, and all the Swiss are under the Swiss, it loks like you can mix and match to your heart's delight. Seems odd that the allied commands in this list do not require at least 1 BG of core troops.

gozerius wrote: As long as the Hungarians are assigned to the Florentine contingent, the English archers are with either the Florentines or the Venetians, and all the Swiss are under the Swiss, it loks like you can mix and match to your heart's delight. Seems odd that the allied commands in this list do not require at least 1 BG of core troops.

Yes, oddly that seems to be the case. You could spend 100AP on allied field commanders who command nothing. So an allied commander can have any or none of the core troops and optional troops, plus a minimum sized BG of any of the troops listed for a city.

A relatively complicated list, which probably doesn't represent how Condotte armies were structured.

The army is handicapped by the fact the men-at-arms are classified as ordinary, when every other army under the sun has their knights classified as superior. Curious about the reasoning on that.

But possibly overall too many knights are classified as superior.

peterrjohnston wrote:
The army is handicapped by the fact the men-at-arms are classified as ordinary, when every other army under the sun has their knights classified as superior. Curious about the reasoning on that.

But possibly overall too many knights are classified as superior.

It appears to be because they aren't nobles. There are very few other armies who have only average knights - HYW english, low countries, scots spring to mind - but they invariably aren't the main troop type.

Quite why knights are so universally superior is a very good question - as the French nobility were widely acknowledged to be the best in europe, why aren't most German knights average?

You can make a case for military orders and household knights, but making everyone with a horse between his legs superior remains the biggest problem with Fog, as evidenced by the force of nature that is (for example) Central Asian Turk.

In response to the OP, Condotta is the sort of army that is likely to be lethal if you are a top 10 player, because it has lots of manoevreabilty but very little staying power. Nine of your units are average in 4's - so lose a base and you're immediately in big trouble because of autobreak - and then tests for seeing that - and trying to rally with a hotch potch of allied generals...

Well I think when you look how averse people are to taking Average Knights even drilled that tells you why knights ought to often be superior.

I think the need for something between average and superior is shown here and in Ghilman types. The leap turns out to be significant.

Maybe something as odd as drilled average knights always count as if rear supported.
Or Average Knights with a TC in combat can re-roll 1s as if superior on a CT test.

Neither are ground breaking but average knights are not seen.

When I run my 4 Kn Teuton list i use the average knights as basically an ablative shield that will fail.

But possibly overall too many knights are classified as superior.

My impression of the missing average knights thing is that knights where superior troops, and effective as a result.
In other words I think so many knights are superior in FoG because troops are not graded relative to other troops of the same kind, but graded relative to everything.
Also: not to the same extent, but I see alot of superior cavalry too.

Back to topic, try to find some superior knights or consider not having knights.

Fluffy wrote:

But possibly overall too many knights are classified as superior.

My impression of the missing average knights thing is that knights where superior troops, and effective as a result.
In other words I think so many knights are superior in FoG because troops are not graded relative to other troops of the same kind, but graded relative to everything.
Also: not to the same extent, but I see alot of superior cavalry too.

Back to topic, try to find some superior knights or consider not having knights.

But then you'ld be playing an army that is not Italian Condotta.
I do play Germans with average knights. What a refreshing change from a previous ruleset. Also average knights can appear in my Low Countries and Danish armies, as well as my Burgundian armies, though these get to dismount as superior.

Well Condotta Armies are Mercenary armies so it is logical that they are Average, except for the swiss they will not fight to the death

Jilu wrote:Well Condotta Armies are Mercenary armies so it is logical that they are Average, except for the swiss they will not fight to the death

Absolute tosh. By the same logic all conscripted troops should be poor. You know, like Janissaries.

peterrjohnston wrote:Absolute tosh. By the same logic all conscripted troops should be poor. You know, like Janissaries.

Conscripts are very different to mercenaries. The French army is conscripted. They do it for the love of France. The British army do it for the love of money or not being on the dole.

philqw78 wrote: The French army is conscripted. They do it for the love of France. The British army do it for the love of money or not being on the dole.

lol

philqw78 wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Absolute tosh. By the same logic all conscripted troops should be poor. You know, like Janissaries.

Conscripts are very different to mercenaries. The French army is conscripted. They do it for the love of France. The British army do it for the love of money or not being on the dole.

Very funny. But the French dropped conscription 10 years ago.

And here's a question. Is the "Légion étrangère" a mercenary force?

But my point was being mercenaries doesn't automatically make troops average. It sounds more like one of those self-propagating myths, like 19th century marching rates.

azrael86 wrote:- and then tests for seeing that - and trying to rally with a hotch potch of allied generals...

Thats true, the moral tests are a nightmare in this list, I´m trying a list more streched and more resilient in numbers, the big handicap, oponents with lots of fire, even if I use the LF and LH as protective wall for the rest, still in face of an avalanche of fire they drop easily in cohesion, and at that point I cant afford the generals to make the rally tests because they are needed in the subsequent impact phase.

Certainly most Knights would be superior soldiers.
Italian Condottiere have always been classified as 'less superior' than the French (or Spanish) they were fighting against, probably because they were more inclined to more formalised relatively less sanguine contests. Fornovo is often used as the classic example of superior martial ardour overcoming superior 'cunning maneuver'.

FWIW, some comments I noted from an active FOG Condottiere that might be of interest said they "depend heavily on outmaneuvering and "wrong footing" the enemy with their drilled knights and LH. They will lose repeatedly if you just charge head on with them. . . . better when run with pikes, knights, and light horse as a combined arms force."