Slitherine

What do you think is the worst Field of Glory army? Here are my own suggestions:

26th Dynasty Egyptian - if you play it as indigenous Egyptian (as I did). Weak troops all round. It could be redeemed if you used the complement of mercenary Greek hoplites (or the allies).

Medieval French (early) - very little leeway in choice of army composition. The army is mostly made up of knights and medium foot crossbowmen. Probably fine if you face a MF army on an open battlefield but against HF it's tough going.

Condotta - Papal States - Let down by poor/average quality troops. An unsatisfying concoction.

Pecheneg - a horse-archer army needs a bit of punch to break through the enemy line and all you get is half a dozen superior, armoured horse-archers.

Numidian (Juba I/Bogus) - too many light troops.

Later Moorish - the WHOLE army is made up of light troops (Mob notwithstanding), mostly javelin-armed light horse and javelin light infantry.

I don't have the balls to bring it to a battle but I daresay the Moorish would be the worst and I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to defeat it without losing a single unit.

What thinks you?

I ran a tournament to find this out back in 2011. The Papal States Condotta army was "NAFF army" of the year then. I think we had all the books up to Eternal Empire at that stage. I now actually think that the Milanese Condotta army is a bit worse than the Papal States though. We did a long qualifying tournament, lots of players joined in the fun and then we ended up with a finals event . . .

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/forum/viewt ... 95&t=29326

I would say the worst are the light troops only or mainly armies. They have too many weaknesses, since their light troops can be trapped easily as they can't run to safety behind real troops and the enemy doesn't have to fear any real troops attacking his rear so he can concentrate on the light troops. This isn't as much the case with LF bow, but rather LF/LH Javelin, those guys are the worst. The range is so poor even HF can trap them at times, and MF can usually trap them and cavalry can always trap them. Terrible. Armies that have "real" units at least have the possibility of doing rear charges.

Swedish army from the SoA module is not that great.

Really trying to see how most of the horse archer armies can win since their matchup in attacking most foot is wanting. They cannot run forever and the foot just pin them against a board edge and eventually the horse all go into an uncontrolled advance.

Old_Warrior wrote: Really trying to see how most of the horse archer armies can win since their matchup in attacking most foot is wanting. They cannot run forever and the foot just pin them against a board edge and eventually the horse all go into an uncontrolled advance.

Horse-archer armies have become a forte of mine. It is essential to have some hard impact/melee power to go with their soft missile power to avoid getting swept off the map.

Plus, I generally only play 500 pt games and this map scale gives a good BG to map width ratio. Other map scales would make horse-archer armies much harder to find success with.

Though you can find the light armies are quite good at low point battles. Even the small maps give them room to run around and string out the enemy and defeat them piecemeal.

the_iron_duke wrote:

Old_Warrior wrote: Really trying to see how most of the horse archer armies can win since their matchup in attacking most foot is wanting. They cannot run forever and the foot just pin them against a board edge and eventually the horse all go into an uncontrolled advance.

Horse-archer armies have become a forte of mine. It is essential to have some hard impact/melee power to go with their soft missile power to avoid getting swept off the map.

Plus, I generally only play 500 pt games and this map scale gives a good BG to map width ratio. Other map scales would make horse-archer armies much harder to find success with.

Thanks for the tip, Duke!

Really, FOG is not meant for the horse archer tactics of the Middle Ages. Some of those battles were running engagements which spanned many many miles.

Either make the map larger or come up with some way to allow them to fight better.

Also seeing far too much uncontrolled advance which just kills the horse archer armies.

Would love to see some of you guys quit using the same Catalan and other similar type armies and come out and wheel and deal now and then. The "Cattle Company" as I call them usually round up my horses and sell them at the nearest port.

I use a lot of horsearcher armies and really enjoy the mobility and the fluid battles. As you guys have noted a reasonbly open map is important, as is an opponent that doesnt pick an army with wall to wall heavy foot to push you off the map.

I agree the Pechenig army is the worst HA available but there are many not much better.

Im not sure about the other armies on the list. Numidians have at least 12 impact Heavy infantry an pacs and thus have flexibility.
The early Egytpos can buy up to 16 SUPERIOR medium foot archers for dirt cheap rates(as unprotected) With stacks of cheap offensive and defensive spears , this can be a powerfull army .

How about Early Armenians? (the list with no allied options)
if you want a challenge play them in open dag with your army known..... I think I am 1-15 with that list...

Old_Warrior wrote: Either make the map larger or come up with some way to allow them to fight better.

I used to be in favour of bigger maps but have changed my opinion, partly due to changes I've made to the balance of the make-up of my horse-archer armies and also due to improved tactics. I now think the 500 pt map size is the perfect scale for all FoG army types to have a fair and equal chance at victory (of games of 400 pts and greater). There's a page on the FoG wiki that details the BG to map width ratios of the various army sizes and shows that the bigger, and some smaller, map sizes will give a much narrower battlefield, which will favour the melee-type armies.

TheGrayMouser wrote: Im not sure about the other armies on the list. Numidians have at least 12 impact Heavy infantry an pacs and thus have flexibility.
The early Egytpos can buy up to 16 SUPERIOR medium foot archers for dirt cheap rates(as unprotected) With stacks of cheap offensive and defensive spears , this can be a powerfull army .

How about Early Armenians? (the list with no allied options)
if you want a challenge play them in open dag with your army known..... I think I am 1-15 with that list...

The Numidian armies do have some useful HF and MF but even if you max out on them 2/3 of your units will be light troops. The Armenian army you mentioned is not great but at 500 pts it's got 9 cataphracts and a lot of, albeit weak, MF - enough that you can play it almost devoid of light troops. I know which one I'd take into battle of the two and if you want to test it out in a duel you are welcome.

TheGrayMouser has accepted my challenge - a gentleman never declines a duel.

I have come to the opinion that, except for the English Longbow/Stake army, that the missile weapon units, probably are overpriced. Missile units get in 1-3 shots before being chased away and then the armies clash. Once that happens you might as well move them to your own board edge or use 1-2 to go after the enemy camp if an opening is there.

Everyone ever tried the Hussites and took a win away? I tried about 15 times right now and have no idea how to get a win. When you take troops and less wagons you never have enough troops to withstand, when you take more wagons the opponent picks on one end and beat the hvy wooden wagons easily with the swords!!!! of their knights or cav into pieces....

chris6 wrote:Everyone ever tried the Hussites and took a win away? I tried about 15 times right now and have no idea how to get a win. When you take troops and less wagons you never have enough troops to withstand, when you take more wagons the opponent picks on one end and beat the hvy wooden wagons easily with the swords!!!! of their knights or cav into pieces....

Yes, I've won with them, although I don't use them much. I personally don't think battle wagons are that effective for their cost so I use as few as possible (and the same goes for artillery), although they are useful against knights. You may need to use their allies to minimise the number of battle wagons you have to field, if you go down that route. The rest of the army is a pretty decent melee army, although there's no MF and few light troops.

OK! I will trie this!

Actually 26th dynasty egyptians are not THAT bad. I recently played with them and defeated a medieval scottish army and an army of Italian Ostrogoths. But yeah, its one of the more challenging armies. Especially fi your foe has armored spearmen or any pikes.

Italian SoA armies are weak. Most cavalry only armies are underpowered. Albanian SoA armies are poor. Achemenids are imho underpowered as well.

Have to agree 26th Dynasty are weak.Still a rookie at the game,getting there though but i took them for my very first ever FOG and got obliterated,only managed to get 3 points and i think that was only thanks to some kind dice.I haven't been near them since.

Brindlebane wrote:Have to agree 26th Dynasty are weak.Still a rookie at the game,getting there though but i took them for my very first ever FOG and got obliterated,only managed to get 3 points and i think that was only thanks to some kind dice.I haven't been near them since.

Well, they are not easy. But its worth noting that defensive spearmen armies have to be played very differently from offensive spear or pike armies. You have to force the ennemy to attack you, not the other way around. Its something I learned by playing later Hungarians in Eternal Empire.

Still, if your opponent has some pikemen, or good offensive spearmen - the 26th dynasty will usually fail. And of course a longbowmen army in hard terrain will be pretty much unbeatable by egyptians, but hey - a longbowmen (or superior medium archers for that matter) in heavy terrain are a nightmare for the vast majority of opponents.

As for all-horse armies, theya are weak although I shoudl brag that I'm just playing a MP game where my all-horse achaemenid army is just about to rout a classical spartan army

Sabratha wrote:

Brindlebane wrote:Have to agree 26th Dynasty are weak.Still a rookie at the game,getting there though but i took them for my very first ever FOG and got obliterated,only managed to get 3 points and i think that was only thanks to some kind dice.I haven't been near them since.

Well, they are not easy. But its worth noting that defensive spearmen armies have to be played very differently from offensive spear or pike armies. You have to force the ennemy to attack you, not the other way around. Its something I learned by playing later Hungarians in Eternal Empire.

Still, if your opponent has some pikemen, or good offensive spearmen - the 26th dynasty will usually fail. And of course a longbowmen army in hard terrain will be pretty much unbeatable by egyptians, but hey - a longbowmen (or superior medium archers for that matter) in heavy terrain are a nightmare for the vast majority of opponents.

As for all-horse armies, theya are weak although I shoudl brag that I'm just playing a MP game where my all-horse achaemenid army is just about to rout a classical spartan army

Are you guys perhaps thinking of 28-30th Dynasty? They have lots of def spears and seems weak(have never played them). 26th Dynasty on the other hand is an old favourite of mine
I have used them twice in LOEG. Just checked and the result was 18-6 in win/loss ratio. As far as I can remember it's a shooty army. Armoured off spears are decent but they need help from the bowmen.

Later Moorish from D+F - all LH/LF and Mob. A truly shocking army!

hidde wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

Brindlebane wrote:Have to agree 26th Dynasty are weak.Still a rookie at the game,getting there though but i took them for my very first ever FOG and got obliterated,only managed to get 3 points and i think that was only thanks to some kind dice.I haven't been near them since.

Well, they are not easy. But its worth noting that defensive spearmen armies have to be played very differently from offensive spear or pike armies. You have to force the ennemy to attack you, not the other way around. Its something I learned by playing later Hungarians in Eternal Empire.

Still, if your opponent has some pikemen, or good offensive spearmen - the 26th dynasty will usually fail. And of course a longbowmen army in hard terrain will be pretty much unbeatable by egyptians, but hey - a longbowmen (or superior medium archers for that matter) in heavy terrain are a nightmare for the vast majority of opponents.

As for all-horse armies, theya are weak although I shoudl brag that I'm just playing a MP game where my all-horse achaemenid army is just about to rout a classical spartan army

Are you guys perhaps thinking of 28-30th Dynasty? They have lots of def spears and seems weak(have never played them). 26th Dynasty on the other hand is an old favourite of mine
I have used them twice in LOEG. Just checked and the result was 18-6 in win/loss ratio. As far as I can remember it's a shooty army. Armoured off spears are decent but they need help from the bowmen.

26th has some greek armoured spearmen. Other than that is all protected light spears or defensive spearmen, plus some archers, javelinmen and chariot archers.