Is my army any good? ARMY CLASSIFICATION

[ianiow]

Just for a bit of fun, I thought I would summon my experience as a veteran FoG player and have a go at categorising the armies of FOG by how successful they are in competition play.

Lists will be divided using the Digital League's age categories of 'Classical', 'Early Middle Ages' and 'High Middle Ages' and I will classify each army as Exceptional (regular competition winners), Good (winners when played well), Average (win as many as they lose) or Poor (usually lose unless played by gifted players).

This of course is a very subjective guide, I'm not a fan of LH or shooty cav, and find one dimensional (lots of one troop type) armies tough to win consistently with. In general I think any army with lots of options (troop types) and a good number (but not too many) of Superiors will stand a good chance in any battle and these factors have been the main influences when categorising each army. Please feel free argue your case if you think I have an army in the wrong slot.

CLASSICAL PERIOD

EXCEPTIONAL ARMIES
RoR DAG
Late Republican Roman 105 – 25 BC*
Late Republican Roman (Brutus & Cassius) 55 – 46 BC*
Later Macedonian 208 – 148 BC
Later Seleucid (pre-166BC) 205 – 167 BC
Later Seleucid (post-166BC) 166 – 63 BC
Bosporan (later) 42 – 100 AD
Bosporan (218 – 284 AD)

IF DAG
Alexandrian Macedonian 355 – 329 BC
Macedonian Successor 279 – 261 BC
Seleucid Successor 279 – 206 BC
Rhoxolani Sarmatian 350 – 100 BC

LT DAG
Dacian 100 BC – 106 AD
Jewish Revolt (Josephus) 66 –67 AD*
Jewish Revolt (later) 132-135 AD*
Palmyran 258 – 273 AD

GOOD ARMIES
FoG DAG
Mid-Republican Roman (early) 280 – 203 BC
Later Carthaginian (in Italy) 216 – 203 BC

RoR DAG
Mid-Republican Roman (later) 202 – 106 BC
Gallic (early Lowland) 400 – 201 BC
Gallic (early Hill Tribes) 400 – 201 BC
Gallic (later Lowland) 200 – 50 BC
Gallic (later Hill Tribes) 200 – 50 BC
Pyrrhic 280 – 275 BC
Pyrrhic (in Italy) 280 – 275 BC
Pyrrhic (in Greece) 274 – 272 BC
Attalid Pergamene 190 – 129 BC
Later Ptolemaic (Greek) 166 – 56 BC
Later Ptolemaic (Roman) 55 – 30 BC
Pontic (early) 132 – 85 BC
Pontic (late) 84 – 63 BC
Hatran 126 BC – 225 AD
Later Jewish (Hycranus II) 66 – 64 BC
Later Jewish 48BC – 47BC
Later Jewish (Antigonus) 40 – 38 BC
Bosporan (early) 348 – 300 BC
Bosporan (mid) 84 BC – 10 AD

IF DAG
Classical Spartan 700 – 451 BC*
Later Spartan 369 – 368 BC
Early Achaemenid Persian (Plataea)
Later Alexandrian Macedonian 326 – 325 BC
Ipsos Alliance Successor 301 BC
Lysimachid Successor 323 – 281 BC
Ptolemaic Successor 217 – 167 BC
Early Sarmatian 350 – 100 BC
Galatian (Macedonian Invasion) 280 – 279 BC*
Galatian 189 BC*
Galatian (Seleucid War) 273 BC*
Graeco-Bactrian 189 BC
Thracian Client 25 BC – 46 AD

LT DAG
Principate Roman (early) 25 BC – 99 AD*
Principate Roman (100-196)*
Principate Roman (197-217)*
Principate Roman (228-259)*
Principate Roman (260-284)*
Dominate Roman (Western early) 284 – 379 AD
Dominate Roman (Western late) 389 – 425 AD
Dominate Roman (Eastern early) 284 – 379 AD
Dominate Roman (Eastern late) 389 – 425 AD
Foederate Roman (Western) 451 – 493 AD
Foederate Roman (Eastern) 467 – 493 AD
Later Sarmatian 50 – 350 AD
Early Alan 50 – 650 AD
Early Ostrogothic 260 – 490 AD
Herul 260 – 490 AD
Sciri 260 – 490 AD
Gepid 260 – 567 AD
Early Lombard 260 – 567 AD

DAF DAG
Later Visigothic (early) 419-476AD

AVERAGE ARMIES
RoR DAG
Later Carthaginian (pre-235BC) 275 – 236 BC
Later Carthaginian (post-235BC) 235 – 201 BC
Later Carthaginian (in Africa) 202 BC
Spanish (Iberian) 300 – 1 BC
Spanish (Lusitanian) 80 – 72 BC
Spanish (Celtiberian) 300 – 1 BC
Spartacus Slave Revolt (HF) 73 – 71 BC
Spartacus Slave Revolt (MF) 73 – 71 BC
Early Armenian 331 – 252 BC
Early Armenian (Tigran the Great) 83 – 69 BC
Suren Indo-Parthian 95 BC – 75 AD


IF DAG
Early Hoplite Greek 700 – 451 BC
Later Hoplite Greek 450 – 279 BC
Thessalian 450 – 279 BC
Early Achaemenid Persian (Cyrus)
Early Achaemenid Persian (Darius)
Early Achaemenid Persian (Greek wars)
Early Achaemenid Persian (later)
Lydian 546 BC
26th Dynasty Egyptian 650 – 570 BC
28th-30th Dynasty Egyptian 405 – 343 BC
Kyrenean Greek (early) 550 – 480 BC
Kyrenean Greek 313 – 308 BC
Kyrenean Greek (later) 279 – 276 BC
Early Carthaginian 550 – 275 BC
Saka 129 BC
Classical Indian 500 – 321 BC
Maurya Indian 320 – 180 BC
Late Achaemenid Persian 420 – 329 BC
Late Achaemenid Persian (Darius 331BC)
Late Achaemenid Persian (Bessos 329BC)
Early Syracusan 399 – 322 BC
Syracusan 310 – 308 BC
Late Syracusan 275 – 211 BC
Provincial Galatian 62 – 25 BC
Hellenistic Achaian 146 BC
Hellenistic Eleian 207 BC
Hellenistic Spartan 279 – 228 BC
Later Hellenistic Spartan 227 – 221 BC
Hellenistic Athenian 279 – 146 BC
Graeco-Bactrian (Mounted) 189 BC
Indo-Greek 170 BC – 10 AD
Thracian 450 – 300 BC
Gupta Indian 320 – 450 AD

LT DAG
Indo-Skythian 130 – 1 BC
Ancient British 60 BC – 90 AD
Ancient British (Cassivellaunus) 60 BC – 90 AD
Indo-Skythian 130 – 1 BC
Kushan (early) 25 – 227 AD
Kushan (late) 300 – 490 AD
Batavian 26 – 100AD
Sassanid Persian (early) 224 – 349 AD
Sassanid Persian (mid) 350 – 370 AD
Western Hunnic (Uldin) 408 AD
Western Hunnic (Attila) 433 – 453 AD

POOR ARMIES
Illyrian 385 BC
Illyrian (common) 400 BC – 9 AD
Later Carthaginian (3rd Punic) 200 – 146 BC
Numidian (Juba I) 55 – 46 BC
Numidian (Bogus) 47 BC
Numidian (Juba II) 3 – 6 AD
Parthian 250 BC – 225 AD
Parthian (Saka Campaign) 129 BC

IF DAG
Early Colonial Greek 700 – 451 BC
Later Colonial Greek 450 – 279 BC
Early Gatae 450 – 300 BC
Later Gatae 250 BC – 25 AD
Skythian 313 BC

LT DAG
Early Scots-Irish 60 BC – 480 AD
Early German 26 – 100AD
Tencteri 26 – 100AD
Caledonian 25 – 230 AD
Early Pictish 250 – 490 AD
Early Frankish 260 – 496 AD
Early Quadi 260 – 496 AD
Early Alamanni 260 – 496 AD
Early Limigantes 260 – 496 AD
Early Suebi 380 – 496 AD
Early Anglo-Saxon 260 – 525 AD
Hephthalite Hunnic 360 – 550 AD

[ianiow]

(Copy and Pasted from page 2)

LATE MEDIEVAL (Storm of Arrows) compiled by Jonathan

EXCEPTIONAL ARMIES
Anglo Irish (early) 1300 – 1400 AD
Anglo Irish (later) 1415 – 1500 AD
Swiss 1400 – 1424 AD
Swiss (Burgundian War) 1476 – 1477 AD

GOOD ARMIES
HYW English (Continental) Allied 1340 AD
HYW English (Continental) Late 1415 – 1455 AD
HYW English (Britain) Early 1320 – 1350 AD
HYW English (Britain) Late 1415 – 1455 AD
Medieval Irish (early) 1315 – 1318 AD
Medieval Irish (later) 1415 – 1500 AD
Medieval Danish (later) 1488 – 1500 AD
Medieval German (later) 1457 – 1500 AD
Medieval Crown of Aragon (early) 1365 AD

AVERAGE ARMIES
HYW English (Continental) Early 1320 – 1414 AD
Wars of the Roses Lancastrian 1455 – 1485 AD
Wars of the Roses Yorkist 1455 – 1485 AD
Wars of the Roses Richard III 1455 – 1485 AD
Wars of the Roses Tudor 1485 – 1500 AD
Wars of the Roses Yorkist Pretender 1485 – 1500 AD
Medieval Welsh 1405 AD
Scots in Britain (later) 1404 – 1437 AD
Scots (Continental) 1418 – 1429 AD
Later Scots Isles and Highlands 1300 – 1493 AD
Medieval French 1350 – 1399 AD
Medieval French (later) 1400 – 1455 AD
Ordonnance French (later) 1480 – 1500 AD
Later Granadine 1450 – 1492 AD
Low Countries (Maximilian) 1478 – 1500 AD
Medieval Burgundian (early) 1430 – 1449 AD
Medieval Burgundian (later) 1450 – 1471 AD
Swiss (early) 1291 – 1359 AD
Medieval German (early) 1425 – 1449 AD
Medieval Danish (early) 1300 – 1387 AD
Later Medieval Swedish 1450 – 1500 AD
Free Company 1444 AD
Condotta - Venice 1440 – 1500 AD
Medieval Crown of Aragon 1410 – 1449 AD
Medieval Crown of Aragon (later) 1462 – 1472 AD
Medieval Portugese 1367 – 1390 AD
Medieval Castilian 1410 – 1450 AD
Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian 1482 – 1497 AD

POOR ARMIES
Scots in Britain (early) 1385 AD
Medieval French (early) 1300 – 1349 AD
Ordonnance French (early) 1455 – 1465 AD
Navarrese 1350 – 1378 AD
Low Countries 1300 – 1450 AD
Ordonnance Burgundian 1471 – 1477 AD
Condotta - Florence 1424 AD
Condotta - Milan 1440 – 1500 AD
Condotta - Naples 1440 – 1500 AD
Condotta – Papal States 1300 – 1399 AD
Condotta - Venice (outside Italy) 1440 – 1500 AD

[ianiow]

reserve

[Morbio]

Not wanting to spend hours commenting on all selections I'll focus on the exceptional armies.

I agree with all the choices with the possible exception of the Carthage army. A very good army for sure and has options for all terrain. However I think it struggles against pike armies in open terrain, but I guess the response there is to fight in less open terrain where the pikes will be poor.

I see your main classical selections this time round are merely average, so there's hope for the rest of us this time around!

[ianiow]

Hi Ade,
Surprisingly I have yet to play any of the Carthage list in the League and was just going by memory of them seeming to be popular. I've just had a look at the Carthage lists again and have to agree with you. The 'in Italy' list has some nice troops but they don't have the same 'umph' as the other Exceptionals. I will therefore place the 'in Italys' down to good. I also feel the need to demote the 'pre', 'post' and 'in Africa' down to average and the '3rd Punic' down to poor if nobody has objections.

Keep the critiques coming!

ps Yep, I was going to choose Palmyrans for the League but had a change of heart. It's too much pressure to do well when you have a top army. This season I'm going to have some fun with something forgotten and neglected. Go Lusitanians!!!

[Londo]

Hi Ian! My 2 cents ...

(1) Do your ratings take into account allies? For example, some of the Hunnic armies can have a bunch of Goth lancers and impact foot as allies, making them quite dangerous - certainly deserving better than Poor IMHO. Likewise, Thracian Client can have a Roman contingent along for the ride, making a nice balanced force of Romans, Thracian MF, and cavalry.

(2) I would definitely rate as Poor all armies primarily dependent on Protected Off Spear - including most of the later Greek Hoplite and Kyrenean armies. They're slow and fragile, prone to anarchy charging, with little to recommend them. You never see anyone take them in leagues.

(3) I'd rate Early Achaemenid Persians as Poor, apart from the versions with armoured hoplites. I'd also rate Indian armies as Poor, except Classical Indian as Average, due to the bow, swordsman MF.

(4) I don't think Gallic deserve Good, I'd classify them as Average. Romans will carve them up with ease, and pike and cavalry armies should do fine against them as well, unless they're quite unlucky.

(5) As for Exceptional, I would only include armies with high BP numbers. For example, Seleucid gets 6 levy mobs at 2 points a piece, so they'll always have a few more BP than other Macedonian-style armies - which will come in handy in a close game. Later Bosporan certainly also counts as Exceptional, and maybe Jewish Revolt, though I think the latter is too vulnerable in open terrain (but I've never played it).

(6) The problem with Palmyran is low BPs, often around the 25 to 30 mark for a 400 point game. A pike army should usually beat them, and even Sassanids have a reasonable chance. (Incidentally, Sassanids have gone AWOL from the list; I'd rate them as Average.) Palmyrans are Good but not Exceptional IMHO.

[TheGrayMouser]

Thracian Client should be exceptional not poor...

[fogman]

the elephant in the room is terrain. an 'average' army like mf spartacus would overwhelm an 'exceptional' army like post 166 seulecid on rough enough terrain. the biggest determining factor is the initiative die.

also 'poor' armies like frankish were never meant to fight post 166 seleucid, but other similarly 'poor' armies like alamani. they are 'poor' only in relation to a fantasy matchup that ignore the fact that armies develop according to what they would encounter historically and geographically. by having franks fight seleucids that normal check and balance is ignored, so that mismatches are actually artificially produced, and not inherent to the system. it may be more 'fun' to play non historical encounters but then so is playing with elves, dwarves and orcs.

[ianiow]

Hi Paul

(1) Do your ratings take into account allies? For example, some of the Hunnic armies can have a bunch of Goth lancers and impact foot as allies, making them quite dangerous - certainly deserving better than Poor IMHO. Likewise, Thracian Client can have a Roman contingent along for the ride, making a nice balanced force of Romans, Thracian MF, and cavalry.

I have tried to take into account allies as far as possible but I must confess I have lots of holes in my knowledge with some of the armies on this list and I am relying on you guys to pick up on stuff I've overlooked. I will have a look at the Hun and Thracian lists again.

(2) I would definitely rate as Poor all armies primarily dependent on Protected Off Spear - including most of the later Greek Hoplite and Kyrenean armies. They're slow and fragile, prone to anarchy charging, with little to recommend them. You never see anyone take them in leagues.

Slow and fragile - yes! Their plus points are the armour on the early lists and the 'hordishness?' of the later lists (although MF armies and those armies with lots of cheap LF make better horde armies imho). There is also the factor of Spartan allies to beef them up so I would place them at the lower end of the average armies rather than the higher end of the poor armies because of this. But I am happy to be out voted on this matter. As a guide to deciding. Take the army you are looking at and compare them to all the other armies in their group. Would they win as many games as they lose? EDIT: I'm keeping EHG and LHG in average because of the Spartan allies. The ECG and LCG are hopeless so down to Poor they go.

(3) I'd rate Early Achaemenid Persians as Poor, apart from the versions with armoured hoplites. I'd also rate Indian armies as Poor, except Classical Indian as Average, due to the bow, swordsman MF.

This sounds reasonable. EAP definitely need some HF backup. Im not familiar with the Indian armies. I know that Pantherboy won Div A with the Guptas but that was Pantherboy after all! I will look at them again. Cheers.

(4) I don't think Gallic deserve Good, I'd classify them as Average. Romans will carve them up with ease, and pike and cavalry armies should do fine against them as well, unless they're quite unlucky.

Maybe this is my personal bias showing. I like the Gallic lists and have done well with them, but I take your point about Romans - Superior SSw armies have unfair advantage over Average Sw even with fewer number. Should the Gauls be at the lower end of the 'Good' table or the higher end of the 'Average' table?

(5) As for Exceptional, I would only include armies with high BP numbers. For example, Seleucid gets 6 levy mobs at 2 points a piece, so they'll always have a few more BP than other Macedonian-style armies - which will come in handy in a close game. Later Bosporan certainly also counts as Exceptional, and maybe Jewish Revolt, though I think the latter is too vulnerable in open terrain (but I've never played it).

The armies in the 'Exceptional' list are certainly not equal. But they are all better in their own ways than the armies in the 'Good' list, and this has been my main reasoning. Stockwellpete's house rules about limiting LF and massed numbers of Superiors has gone a long way in balancing these monster armies. But games outside of the League will have to take things as they stand.

(6) The problem with Palmyran is low BPs, often around the 25 to 30 mark for a 400 point game. A pike army should usually beat them, and even Sassanids have a reasonable chance. (Incidentally, Sassanids have gone AWOL from the list; I'd rate them as Average.) Palmyrans are Good but not Exceptional IMHO.

The trick with Palmyrans is to resist the temptation of buying all the Cataphacts! Max out the HF and MF and the army is good enough for all but the 'hordiest' of horde armies

Good stuff Paul!

[ianiow]

Thracian Client should be exceptional not poor...

I will look at the Thracian clients again, just for you TGM.

[TheGrayMouser]

Thracian Client should be exceptional not poor...

I will look at the Thracian clients again, just for you TGM.

haha, I rate them high because in comp play:
*can buy TONS of cheap medium troops and run circles around pike armies
*obviosly a medium foot army will do good in any terrain
*can buy a large amount of superior armoured legions if you need to AND still have a large BP army
*just enough cavalry to give some flexibility
*also, I did really well with them like 10 leagues ago

[ianiow]

Hi Christian

the elephant in the room is terrain. an 'average' army like mf spartacus would overwhelm an 'exceptional' army like post 166 seulecid on rough enough terrain. the biggest determining factor is the initiative die.

Yep. Terrain is the big spanner in the works. Generally, MF or Lancer armies have to cater for the expense of buying an Inspired General to help them win initiative and therefore control over the map, and even if they win they must be careful not the make the terrain advantage too impregnable or the opponent will just hang back and wait for the draw or for you to come out of the terrain (or a rematch in case of a League game). When I take a MF or Lancer army I will assume that I will have to fight on the enemies terms most of the time and have factored this when placing them in their groupings.

also 'poor' armies like frankish were never meant to fight post 166 seleucid, but other similarly 'poor' armies like alamani. they are 'poor' only in relation to a fantasy matchup that ignore the fact that armies develop according to what they would encounter historically and geographically. by having franks fight seleucids that normal check and balance is ignored, so that mismatches are actually artificially produced, and not inherent to the system. it may be more 'fun' to play non historical encounters but then so is playing with elves, dwarves and orcs.

Pantherboy was going to run the next League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with historical and geographical groupings in mind but interest in this seems to have wained in favour of the geographical freeforall groupings of the main League. I for one would like to give PB's idea a go still - if you are reading this Steve. I am guessing fogman would like to second the motion.

[ianiow]

Thracian Client should be exceptional not poor...

I will look at the Thracian clients again, just for you TGM.

haha, I rate them high because in comp play:
*can buy TONS of cheap medium troops and run circles around pike armies
*obviosly a medium foot army will do good in any terrain
*can buy a large amount of superior armoured legions if you need to AND still have a large BP army
*just enough cavalry to give some flexibility
*also, I did really well with them like 10 leagues ago

You argue your case well Sir. Definitely not a poor army. Would you put them in the Good or Average list? How well would they do against all the other armies in those two lists?

[fogman]

Pantherboy was going to run the next League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with historical and geographical groupings in mind but interest in this seems to have wained in favour of the geographical freeforall groupings of the main League. I for one would like to give PB's idea a go still - if you are reading this Steve. I am guessing fogman would like to second the motion.

well, i took matters into my own hands with the lords tournaments. not meant to be a league though, more like a small gathering. give it a try one of those days.

[stockwellpete]

Pantherboy was going to run the next League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with historical and geographical groupings in mind but interest in this seems to have wained in favour of the geographical freeforall groupings of the main League. I for one would like to give PB's idea a go still - if you are reading this Steve. I am guessing fogman would like to second the motion.

I would be interested in considering this for future seasons of the FOG Digital League. Given that we are having to wait so long for the new Unity version (and then the upgrade to FOG 2.0), I feel the FOGDL needs to embrace innovation as much as possible to keep things interesting.

Maybe one way forward would be to have a small working group that could come up with a plan for one of the core sections (CA, EMA or HMA) for Season 4 (starting October 1st)?

[Jonathan4290]

Pantherboy was going to run the next League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with historical and geographical groupings in mind but interest in this seems to have wained in favour of the geographical freeforall groupings of the main League. I for one would like to give PB's idea a go still - if you are reading this Steve. I am guessing fogman would like to second the motion.

I would be interested in considering this for future seasons of the FOG Digital League. Given that we are having to wait so long for the new Unity version (and then the upgrade to FOG 2.0), I feel the FOGDL needs to embrace innovation as much as possible to keep things interesting.

Maybe one way forward would be to have a small working group that could come up with a plan for one of the core sections (CA, EMA or HMA) for Season 4 (starting October 1st)?

I could help form this working group in late August if Ianiow or anyone else is interested.

I will also be running another expansion-themed tournament similar to my ROR tournament in Septemberish.

[ianiow]

Pantherboy was going to run the next League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with historical and geographical groupings in mind but interest in this seems to have wained in favour of the geographical freeforall groupings of the main League. I for one would like to give PB's idea a go still - if you are reading this Steve. I am guessing fogman would like to second the motion.

I would be interested in considering this for future seasons of the FOG Digital League. Given that we are having to wait so long for the new Unity version (and then the upgrade to FOG 2.0), I feel the FOGDL needs to embrace innovation as much as possible to keep things interesting.

Maybe one way forward would be to have a small working group that could come up with a plan for one of the core sections (CA, EMA or HMA) for Season 4 (starting October 1st)?

I could help form this working group in late August if Ianiow or anyone else is interested.

I will also be running another expansion-themed tournament similar to my ROR tournament in Septemberish.

Count me in on the focus group I do think that Pete's Themed league does a good job satisfying my 'historical matchup' needs. Invading the other sections might be a step too far for many people (as it was when PB suggested it last year). I will look forward to discussing this with you guys in the future.

[ianiow]

P.S. I was intending to classify the EMA and HMA armies too but have less time on my hands at the moment. If anyone else would like to have a go then please feel free!

[fogman]

there are only a few issues at hand:

should armies that are not in the same time frame be fighting one another.
should armies that are not in the same geographical setting be fighting one another.

to be more precise:

should armies that are that in the same time frame but in different geographical settings (e.g. medieval french vs medieval swedish) be fighting one another.

the answer of this will hinge on how you see FoG, either

A. as a historically flavoured game: therefore anything goes. In addition the 'anything goes' applies to army composition and settings.

B. as a historical simulation: therefore matchups cannot be historically impossible, either chronologically or geographically. In addition, army composition and settings must be restricted.

We already know the asnwer: the grognards in this forum are a tiny minority. You're more likely to find them on Napoleonics and WW2 games forums.

[JocaRamiro]

Personally, I have no objection to geographically separated armies fighting. However, when they mix across time periods, it does make me uncomfortable.