Slitherine

Hi all,

Just wondering what most players tend to use - an army composed along historical fact or one that is adjusted thru trial and error?

I certainly fall into the latter category. After a defeat, I adjust my army's composition based upon its performance - adding/subtracting MF, HC, etc. until I arrive at an army that I feel gives me a fighting chance against most armies/terrains.

For those of you who do favor historical armies, do you have any recommendations for good sources for developing an historical army?

Regards,

Ken

Well, with full deference to 'our sponsor' The Osprey books would certainly be the place to start to get information about the historical composition of your army of choice in the major battles in which it is involved.
As for your first question, presumably for tournaments people maximize effectiveness at the expense of historicity, while in friendlies against people you know you simply have to feel out your opponent.
The digital system is VERY flexible (its different when you have to paint up figures) and games range from attempts at an accurate simulation of what would happen if, say , Alexander faced Caesar, (which, after all, is the whole point of the thing and why we all got into this hobby in the first place), to contest involving 'hard' lists sacrificing historicity for effectiveness.

For some armies (ie Brutus' Romans) a historical army is about as effective as it gets. For others - bringing a Pict army and leaving behind the Attecotti (whatever in heck THEY were) simply means bringing a not very competitive list. Another example - English longbow armies generally bring German knights for some punch. It would be interesting to see the battle where THAT combination was used. Yes, the Venetians COULD have used Swiss pike, as could the Medieval Germans. And the Italian Ostrogoths COULD have taken the field with the Merovingian Franks, ( for some reason now called Burgundians), for decent shock infantry . But they didn't.