Leeds Issue: Thoughts on troop types
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:54 pm
Some thoughts on troops I saw in action, curious what others thought.
Light foot Bow seemed a lot better value than medium, the ability to shoot and evade removed much of the vulnerability that I thought the MF Bow had. The 5 inch move of LF seemed huge. I thought their interaction with Elephants worked well from a game mechanics point of view, they were able to grind down the elephants as long as I could protect the LF from mounted pressure.
CvS with Bow were my most effective troops able to shoot/skirmish and get stuck in, I can understand why they get good press.
Cataphracts turned out to be awful in the games I saw, against Kn they were mistakenly used single ranked as if they were a sort of KnI and they were decimated, against Sp used in two ranks they fared little better. How are people finding they perform in historical matchups?
A BG of 4 camels were very tough and influenced a wide area of combat due to the disorder effects, a very effective tool to use in combination with decent foot.
Cheers,
Gary.
Light foot Bow seemed a lot better value than medium, the ability to shoot and evade removed much of the vulnerability that I thought the MF Bow had. The 5 inch move of LF seemed huge. I thought their interaction with Elephants worked well from a game mechanics point of view, they were able to grind down the elephants as long as I could protect the LF from mounted pressure.
CvS with Bow were my most effective troops able to shoot/skirmish and get stuck in, I can understand why they get good press.
Cataphracts turned out to be awful in the games I saw, against Kn they were mistakenly used single ranked as if they were a sort of KnI and they were decimated, against Sp used in two ranks they fared little better. How are people finding they perform in historical matchups?
A BG of 4 camels were very tough and influenced a wide area of combat due to the disorder effects, a very effective tool to use in combination with decent foot.
Cheers,
Gary.