Slitherine

FoG2 Multiplayer Tier List as of 1.39
Last updated 18/06/12

This is an attempt using my own perspective as a middle-upper tier player, to come up with a comprehensive tier list for armies within FoG2 so players can find appropriate armies to play against each other in friendlies and to serve as a guide for choosing armies in tournaments which allow for choosing one's own army. Much of my analysis is based on my own play experience as well as data that comes from the Stockwellpete's Field of Glory 2 Digitial League (FoG2DL) and his single elimination Knockout Tournament series which has widespread participation among the player base. This list is not intended to be the final word or gospel. It is just my own opinion after I have played a multitude of multiplayer games, most of which were in competitive settings, combined with what I feel is a good understanding of the mathematics behind the game, and a good understanding of multiplayer balance in general playing and studying other multiplayer "luck-skill" games in a variety of formats.

The two most recent DLCs, Legions Triumphant and Age of Belisarius, do not have a full FoG2DL season under its belt so there is limited data from the player base at large. However, I was fortunate enough to be in the beta test for Age of Belisarius and Legions Triumphant now has several rounds of the single elimination Knockout tournament to draw data from so my feelings on those lists are solidifying. Any armies of which I am unsure about their power level will be noted.
Some armies are not listed simply because I have not played the archetype much at all and their archetypes are not represented well in the FoG2DLS These will be added as time goes on as more data and opinions are gathered. I may break up an archetype if evidence or compelling arguments give me a reason to do so.

Assumptions

As with any ranking, there are general assumptions that must be made. They are as follows:

1) The player piloting the army intends to seek a victory via the standard methods in the game (40%+ broken, 25%+ differentials or 60% broken) outside of metagame concerns. As in the player will try their best to break the opposing army rather than playing for a draw due to factors outside the immediate game (tournament scoring etc)

2) The games are set up under player force selection at 1200 FP using current Potluck terrain generation algorithms with medium map settings.

3) Players will use their armies to their fullest potential using in-game mechanics ignoring "house rules" and/or "good sport" behaviours. Examples include things like not using skirmishers to control or deny pushbacks and other "cheesy" tactics.

4) It also assumes players proceed as close as possible to "perfect play" as in they understand the nature of matchups between unit types and will actively seek to gain the most advantageous moves possible. Some armies have an inherently higher skill floor than others where a player must possess a higher degree of "skill" and understanding of the game to take advantage of all of an armies capabilities.


A Note on Luck

Any discussion and analysis are appreciated but please attempt to leave anecdotes at the door. Any game which involves random factors will have a degree of variance. FoG 2 like any luck-skill game is, especially against relatively evenly matched players, a game where luck dominates the short run and skill and inherent power level of the armies will dominate the long run. While there inevitably will be cases of upsets, the goal of this thread is to accurately rank armies so players have a place to find armies to play that are comparatively equal for friendlies or have a good grasp on which armies they should play in a competitive setting.

I have heard comments like 'Macedonian Phalanxes seem to hold longer than others' or something to that effect when the answer is that it was due to luck and it happened to be a Macedonian Phalanx.


Tier Definitions and Metagame Considerations

I will be ranking armies based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to things like ease of use, flexibility in unit selection, playability across a range of terrain generation runouts, and efficiency of its units with respect to the points cost system. I will not be listing all armies as there are simply too many but I will usually provide example lists with that exemplify an army archetype along with a brief explanation.

Some armies have natural counters. For example, a powerhouse army like the 199BC Roman list is very strong across the board but has an acute weakness against calvary archer armies. Meanwhile, a lot of cavalry archer armies seem to have issues dealing with armies which feature a lot of massed bowman who can outrange and outshoot them. As much as possible these factors are taken into account when placing armies into tier lists. Armies with numerous weak matchups cannot by definition be listed as strong while an army like the 199BC Romans who are exceedingly strong against a wide range of opponents on potluck terrain will still be listed as a strong army despite it very noticeable blind spot.

Finally, tiers are more of a sliding gradient than a set of airtight compartments. I fully expect there will be times skill and luck will mean even a Tier C army will end up beating a Tier A army. Being higher tier does not guarantee victory, it just means a player with a higher tier army will generally have more options and paths to victory and be less at the mercy of variance by having the capacity to absorb a run of bad die rolls although every army can be vulnerable to bad die rolls at critical junctions. Certainly, B tier armies cannot be expected to be counted out in a 9 game tournament like a FoG2DL season.


Tier A

-Romans lists that feature the Elephant option. (ex Romans 199BC)

Impact Foot Romans, in general, are already very strong armies given their sturdy core of superior quality Impact Heavy Foot. In general Roman heavy foot is well priced and their abilities are synergistic making them efficiently costed. They also feature a good variety of good quality medium foot options to help control rough terrain. The two lists that feature Elephants, however, are a simply a cut above the rest. Even though both lists only come with the option of 1 elephant, it drastically alters many matchups by providing an anti-cavalry unit to shore up one of the Roman's biggest weaknesses. It can also be used to neutralize opposing elephants which can also present a lot of problems by taking one of them head-on. It is also an exceptionally easy army to use as its best units can often be sent in to simply bludgeon an opponent into submission without much subtlety.

-Carthaginian based lists with 3 Elephants. (ex Carthaginian 235BC)

The name of the game with the Carthaginians is flexibility. They have no stand out units but they have among the largest variety of options available to any army. It includes up to 3 elephants, a large and capable mixed cavalry arm, decent heavy infantry with a mix of impact foot and spears depending on the list, large quantities of cheap and cost-effective medium foot and a serviceable skirmisher division. You can outfit this army to meet the requirements of almost any opponent on almost any terrain that Potluck will reasonably generate for you. This comes at the cost of requiring a high skill floor to pilot. There are few if any nuclear options in the list that can be sent to in to bail you out of trouble A good understanding of movement and ZoC rules as well as a good grasp of timing attacks will be required.


Tier B

-Indian based lists with large quantities of Massed Bowman. (ex Indo-Greek 175BC) *provisional rating*

Due to the domination of Season 1 of the FoG2DL by this archetype, patch 1.39 has seen numerous changes to the units that make up this list. Chief among them is the penalty of that Massed Bowmen now face when there are enemies with close combat abilities within two tiles and not faced away from them. The penalty is roughly equivalent to negating any advantage of being in close range (2 tiles) when shooting with Massed Bowmen. Mass Bowmen are also significantly easier to rout once they have been forced to engage in close combat. Elephants have also seen a cost increase to of 10 points (50pts to 60pts) and Indian Cavalry which used to be exceptionally cost-effective flankers have now been reworked to be more expensive and play similar to regular cavalry. This combination of changes is crippling and my experience in playing against this army several times is that it is no longer a slam dunk contender as a top tier army.

I have placed this army in B Tier on a provisional basis given its wild success in Season One of the FoG2DL. Despite the changes, the mutually interlocking combination of Massed Bowman and Light Artillery backed by the power Elephants, and cheap infantry, continue to make this a tough nut to crack for inexperienced players. While the changes have reduced the sting of Mass Bowmen, they are still more than capable of punishing mistakes made by their opponent. Simply put, stumbling in front of the bowline to get shot up remains a game-ending mistake. Mass Bowman continue to outshoot mounted archery so that at least remains a favourable matchup. Good understanding of positioning is required as there is a requirement to smoothly pass melee elements out from behind the bowline on time and in good order.

-Macedonian and Successor State lists that feature Elephants (ex Macedonian 328BC)

There are a very large number of these armies scattered across different banners and they span in power from the A- range down to C+ depending on the composition of the army list. Macedonian 328BC, for example, is what I consider an A- list. In general most of these armies are Pike based armies backed by 2 elephants and an accompanying assortment of lancer style cavalry and allied heavy and medium foot. Pikes, in general, are difficult units to use due to their high cost. Their formidable fighting ability rests on remaining in good order and limiting casualties suffered. The best lists will be those that feature a large and effective lancer cavalry arm which can rapidly find ways to move in and flank the enemy line while the Pikes and Elephants attempt to pin the opposition. They will also contain a large contingent of medium troops to choose from should terrain call for them to be deployed. Like the Carthaginian lists, their power rests on the ability to tailor the army to the opponent and terrain. The thing holding these armies back from being top tier is the fact that a significant portion of points will be invested in compulsory Pike units limiting your ability to mix and match other units like the Carthaginian player can.

Some lists on the lower end of the spectrum also have fewer options available or rely on Cataphracts as the primary mounted unit which I find to be less useful than Lancers since the mobility of the cavalry arm is of paramount importance for the Pike player.

-Republican Romans that do not have Elephants but are still Impact Foot based armies (ex Romans 280BC)

The lists covered in this category are still powerful armies but the lack of cavalry is now very much an accentuated weakness. No longer do you have a safety blanket to keep enemy cavalry and elephants at bay. Veteran Hastati/Principes are still frighteningly powerful units against almost all other infantry in open terrain but much more effort and resources will have to be spent solving potential problems that enemy cavalry and elephants will bring. Their medium foot options are also much more lacking with most lists relying on the very mediocre Italian Foot unit to cover the rough.

-Early Imperial Romans (ex Romans 197 AD) *low data*

This really covers only two lists before the Romans in the game switches them to the less effective units. These two lists are relatively untested but they do not seem as strong as the Tier A Romans for the following reasons. The lack of the Elephants is a major blow as discussed. This is balanced out by the fact that the cavalry arm is much expanded from before although the 24BC list still has a mediocre selection in terms of quality. There is also a crippling shortage of skirmishers although this is somewhat offset by the introduction of Massed Bowman Auxilia and Light Artillery. On the medium foot front, there is now less flexibility as all the medium foot are now generic Roman Auxilia. Though a step up from Italian Foot, the loss of Offensive Spearmen and Impact Foot as a capability within the medium foot part of the army is something that is sorely missed. If one of these two lists has a chance to make it to Tier A, it is most likely the 197AD list given its more capable cavalry arm. That said it is still a formidable force on the back of its Roman Legionaries which always has the chance of simply flattening enemy infantry across open terrain.

As of 1.39 there remains few results as FoG2DL Season 2 is just underway and the archetype was not a popular selection in Season 1 of the Knockout Tournament.

-Horse Archer / Skirmishing Light Horse (ex Skythian 300BC or Hepthalites 350AD)

This encompasses a vast array of armies which are based on either massed cavalry archers or massed light horse archers/javelins. Two major branches of this archetype have emerged since Legions Triumphant came out. The first is the classic Skythian style lists which feature almost pure Horse Archers in both the regular Cavalry and Light Horse skirmishing form and avoid decisive melee battles in favour of skirmishing their opponent into submission. The second is the newer versions emerging from Legions Triumphant which feature expensive but high-quality Horse Archery along with a much stronger supporting cast that commonly sees Elephants, Lancer Cavalry, and various Infantry fills out the lists. These see the Horse Archers do not have the numbers so they rely on the supporting cast to capitalize on units that have been weakened by missile fire. Though neither branch of this archetype has seen major success yet, I believe these armies remain potentially very strong metagame picks if there are not a lot of massed bow armies that can outshoot you.

These armies require patience and a good understanding of movement rules to maximize the use of horse-mounted archers.

- Lancer based lists backed by competent and/or cheap Infantry (Bosporan 84BC or Roman 379AD)

This encompasses a range of armies that rely on Lancer style cavalry as the main striking arm but is backed by a sizable contingent of competent or very cost effective foot and a large body of skirmishers foot or mounted. The armies in this category can vary but all seem to be reasonably competitive in the hands of a patient player who has a good grasp on mechanics. Ideal lists, like always, will contain a large degree of flexibility allowing you to tailor your army to your opponent and terrain. Large numbers of players chose to enter Season 1 of the Knockout tournament with this style of an army and despite a large amount of fratricide, several late Roman lists have advanced deep into that tournament. An army or two from this archetype may have what it takes to be lifted into Tier A

-Light Spear / Swordsman hordes (Romano-British 407AD or Scots-Irish 50BC)

These armies are built on the basis of having access to a deep reservoir of cheap, Average quality medium foot that have serviceable unit capabilities (typically Light spear / Swordsman). With most foot units costing between 33-36 points, armies of truly staggering size can be fielded and they can expect to outnumber opposition infantry by a margin of two to one. These lists also carry with them numerous cheap cavalry elements such as light chariots which give them the ability to form massive mobile detachments to potentially flank and overrun the enemy rear as it is engaged by the infantry. Key qualities that make them successful and fun to play is the fact that a large portion, if not all of their infantry are medium foot making them very versatile and capable of dealing with a large range of terrain generation runouts. Most if not all of these units also are not classified as undrilled meaning they retain the ability to freewheel under command influence making the infantry very responsive in manoeuvring.

The skill floor required to pilot these armies is reasonably high as it will require the player to time attacks well to prevent defeat in detail against opponents that can field superior quality units and can overwhelm the army if forced to fight a battle where it cannot bring its weight in numbers to bear.

Tier C

-Warband Armies (ex Ancient British 60BC or Frankish 496AD) *low data for patch 1.39* *provisional rating*

Warband armies were found unplayable as a competitive army in patch 1.25. There have been few favourable results coming out of the FoG2DL for these armies and shockingly, none of the 8 players who picked Warband armies made it out of the opening round in Season 1 of the Knockout Tournament. Patch 1.39 gives all Warband units a small but noticeable discount on unit pricing and the extra saving should allow a Warband player to divert points towards to increase the size of the supporting wings of cavalry and skirmishers. The Frankish list can potentially be a game changer for this archetype as it will be the first in the game to weld a large number of cheap supporting foot to serve alongside the Warbands and potentially mitigate the worst of the weaknesses of Warbands.

Warband units in isolation are decent options as an impact foot unit complementing a more diverse army. However, when Warband units are forced to form the core rank and file of an army and must operate with little support they are decidedly subpar. While they boast theoretically the same unit capability loadout as Roman Legionaries with a powerful 200 PoA Impact attack, they lack the synergistic secondary traits such as armour and unit quality that give the Romans their edge over most opponents. Their unmaneuverable classification, as well as their tendency to chase broken units, means that it is also much harder for them to hunt down matchups that are favourable and are far less responsive compared to Romans. That said there will be games especially against lower tier armies with fewer quality units where a massed charge coupled with some good die rolls will quickly shatter an enemy line. This will be mainly due to their high PoA vs opposing foot on Impact as well as the -1 modifier to opposition cohesion tests in that phase of combat. Also, should the Warband charge fail but are able to fight and hold in sustained melee despite a mediocre swordsmen ability, they can leverage their deeper formation to outlast regular 480 man units.

Ideal Warband armies will be those which feature a sizable cavalry wing or supporting infantry and sufficient skirmishers. Celtic chariots are a cheap and manoeuvrable complement that can swing behind an opponent and help disrupt the enemy should the initial Warband charge fail. Close order or Loose order Warbands are a matter of personal preference. Close order units are only slightly more resilient despite the fact they do not receive their standard +1 to cohesion tests despite being Heavy Foot and Loose order units have an easier time in rough terrain. It will remain to be seen if the point cost reduction and the new Warbands lists can propel this archetype back into Tier B.

-Hoplite or Spearbased Armies (ex. Spartan 550BC or Illyrian 350BC) *low data*

The armies grouped in this archetype are lists that use units containing the Offensive Spear capability as the rank and file of their armies and do not contain a significant number of supporting troops. These armies must depend on the Spearman to be the decisive unit in battles. Like Warbands, both Heavy Foot and Medium Foot spearmen are fine units when looked in isolation. In armies such as the Roman and Carthaginian lists, they often serve as cheap, reliable, and capable line units that can hold off or stall opposition units while the more formidable part of the army carries out the offensive action.

As an army archetype by themselves though, they fall short because they do not have any high PoA or negative cohesion test capabilities. While more reliable and cost-effective than Warbands in sustained combat, they lack the 'free wins' that Impact foot or Elephant armies often can inflict by shattering their opponents on the charge with a run of good dice rolling. Winning with spearmen will take patient and precise play. Heavy foot, especially those with good armour, will obviously be more reliable in the open while Medium Foot based armies will be more flexible with the terrain.

The armies that are under this archetype are numerous and they go from literally all Hoplites with just a few cavalry units to those with a good mix of options like Pergamene 190BC. Those lists which feature more options are almost like a lesser version of the top Carthaginian lists and could be a C+/B- army while an army like the Western Greek 280BC with far fewer options would be firmly entrenched in the middle or lower part of the C tier. Low player participation in this archetype prevents any movement of this list as of patch 1.39

*Should future tournament results show a significant spike in data and popularity that stratifies these armies into different tiers, this post will be revised and split accordingly.*

Reserved post for a history of updates.

18/03/29
- Initial release game version 1.25

18/04/01
- Updated Indian and EIR with comments relating to Light Artillery *thanks to rbodleyscott and Snugglebunnies*
- Added Warbands, Spearmen, and Light Spear/Swordsman categories

18/05/01
- Updated Light Spear/Swordsman section after receiving feedback from nyczar and having played with and against the Scots Irish. B rating is definitely warranted. Will bump to A tier if any of the three armies in the archetype make deep runs in the KO tournament

18/06/12
-Updated with patch 1.39 changes and initial rounds of season 1 of the Knockout Tournament.

With regard to the Early Imperial Romans, you did not mention the light artillery, which can be used to extremely synergistic effect with the small number of permitted skirmishers and the auxilia sagittarii for anti-cavalry and anti-elephant purposes. This factor may turn out to be enough to lift them into tier A.

No one seems to like to bring artillery. Can light arty turn and shoot? I haven’t paid attention.

jomni wrote:No one seems to like to bring artillery. Can light arty turn and shoot?

No, but they can move 2 squares. They can't shoot until next turn, but it means they can keep up with the army's advance. And, of course, they can shoot overhead, so are easy to protect - at least until the enemy gets light horse around your flank - by which time they have usually served their purpose.

Light artillery are a best buy, even if not everyone has discovered that yet.

(In case anyone is still in the dark, what they are for is to give the enemy -1 on their shooting cohesion test. This means that you usually need to shoot at the enemy with something else as well to achieve the threshold for testing, unless you get lucky. Light artillery + skirmishers or 2 units of light artillery will do the job).

I always take light artillery for the reasons Richard listed. They don't do a ton of damage, but the extra cohesion effects alone are worth their small cost.

rbodleyscott wrote:With regard to the Early Imperial Romans, you did not mention the light artillery, which can be used to extremely synergistic effect with the small number of permitted skirmishers and the auxilia sagittarii for anti-cavalry and anti-elephant purposes. This factor may turn out to be enough to lift them into tier A.

For armies not yet tested in a competitive setting, I am going to err on the conservative side. The fact that their medium foot options are worse than the two preceding lists was another reason for a B tier rating.

You could be absolutely correct though that they are A tier and I fully expect players to prove me wrong on at least some of these rankings. That army will be my first choice for Late Antiquity next season. A tier, I am reserving for battle tested winners.

Ooh! Good post Mike!

Thanks! Updated with more archetypes.

I am looking for feedback from players who have significant experience playing primarily Offensive Spear based armies and Light Spear/Swordsman armies in a competitive setting. Also open to splitting the current Spearman classification if given a good reason.

No mention of the Achaemenid Persians?
I went 7-2 in div D with the 545-480 Persian list, while their success can be very dependent on terrain I would easily class them in the Tier B list and against those elephant heavy armies you seem to like maybe even Tier A with all the arrows the Persians have it is unlikely the elephants even get into the fight before fleeing in terror.

MikeC, really great post, a pleasure to read. One big comment is that it seems to me the rankings could be relative to the opponent. For example, in league play, at least in my division, 6/9 players took heavy infantry based armies. Many players like to recruit the best heavy infantry units available in the Pontic/Seleucid/Ptolemaic/Mac/Lysimachid, so they end up with about 12 core units in the army, and the prevalence of that army type skews the results both in the stats and intuitively as we think about the game. In my view, however, against either Roman or Indian based armies, it will be difficult to win with that selection of 12 or so strong units, largely for the reasons you explore in the post. As Indo-Greek I was recruiting 24 infantry units in match (only 1/2 of which were archers btw), so outnumbered the heavy infantry folks 2 to 1, plus cav and elephants and ranged ability.

Although I chose Indo-Greek in league play and seemed to match up favorably against the "12 core infantry unit type" heavy infantry type army, it seems to me that Italian Hill Tribes could recruit 28 or so Italian Foot. Does anyone think 12 heavy infantry are going to consistently prevail against 28 MF even on flat terrain where the MF player knows how to play? I don't. Furthermore, that's HILL tribes meaning rough ground plus hills would be the base terrain. If anyone wants to do a scrimmage on Med Hilly terrain with either Roman or "12 core infantry unit type", I'll take Italian Hill Tribes, Slave Revolt even others with MF as the base unit, and lets play it a few times and see what happens. I at least strongly prefer outnumbering the opponent 2 to 1 and think its possible to prevail with those armies consistently against a non cavalry opponent.

Hence, I can be onboard with your rankings where we specify the opponent is a "12 core infantry unit" type army, or even a hoplite army. But the rankings are relative. Italian Hill Tribes or Etruscan (late) are also going to often beat Indian-based armies in my view. Its just that nobody took those armies in league play so we don't observe it.

So, to rank armies we need a table with relative rankings, not a list, where it is accordingly NOT, A defeats B, B defeats C, therefore, A defeats C.

Finally, I really liked a few of your comments on (i) warbands (ii) horse archer range.

(i) Warbands (loose order). Why do Loose Order Warbands cost 63? This is the same price as Close Order Warbands. With all other infantry types "loose order" reduces the price as between heavy and medium foot. This makes Loose Order Warbands a very expensive unit. It seems to me Loose Order Warbands should cost 57 or so?

(ii) Horse Archers Range. I've tried to use horse archer based armies as the core of the army, and the result is the archery is not effective enough to prevail on its own due to the short range, except possibly against certain types of Roman armies. So, I agree with you that foot archer armies just dominate horse archer armies, and this is unrealistic in historical terms. It seems to me that the range of horse archer (steppe) cavalry should be the same as foot archers (or even greater), which I think is historically more accurate. The steppe cavalry were using bone and other advanced recurve-type bow components, plus the momentum of the horse, to get an extra range and punch to the archery, not less. So, in gameplay it should be possible for horse archers to pepper an opponent from long range and not to approach to 2 squares.

I've posted some test matches on multiplayer if anyone wants to play test these rankings:

Roman v Slave Revolt, Med Hilly
Indian v Etruscan, Tropical
Roman v Italian Hill Tribes, Med Hilly

Password: variable

MikeC, Here is an example of a Table with relative rankings. N=Neutral, A=Advantaged, D=Disadvantaged. I generally agree with your rankings that Roman and Indian are advantaged over Greek Hoplite or Phalanx. However, as illustrated in the table Medium Foot should be advantaged over Indian and Neutral to Roman, but nobody plays Medium Foot because it would be heavily disadvantaged against Greek Hoplite or Phalanx.

Roman Greek Warband Indian Cataphract Medium Foot

Roman > - A N D A N

Greek Hoplite > D - N D A A

Warband > N N - D D A

Indian Archer > A A A - A D

Cataphract > D D A D - A

Medium Foot > N D D A D -

Thanks Mike. bbogensc i love you...

i find macedonian 260-168 bc army list to be most op, just crush with pikes , and then burn every single village and city after that. i find carthage amongst weakest unique factions

lapdog666 wrote:i find macedonian 260-168 bc army list to be most op, just crush with pikes , and then burn every single village and city after that. i find carthage amongst weakest unique factions

would you care to test your hypothesis? I'll post a battle with carthage against mac....PW crush

bbogensc wrote:MikeC, really great post, a pleasure to read. One big comment is that it seems to me the rankings could be relative to the opponent. For example, in league play, at least in my division, 6/9 players took heavy infantry based armies. Many players like to recruit the best heavy infantry units available in the Pontic/Seleucid/Ptolemaic/Mac/Lysimachid, so they end up with about 12 core units in the army, and the prevalence of that army type skews the results both in the stats and intuitively as we think about the game. In my view, however, against either Roman or Indian based armies, it will be difficult to win with that selection of 12 or so strong units, largely for the reasons you explore in the post. As Indo-Greek I was recruiting 24 infantry units in match (only 1/2 of which were archers btw), so outnumbered the heavy infantry folks 2 to 1, plus cav and elephants and ranged ability.

In my opinion, this is largely a matter of a skill check at the troop selection level. As I have mentioned in Post Game Analysis videos, troops selection literally can win or lose you the game before the first move is made. I suspect that many had trouble vs the Indian bow lists precisely because they failed to select appropriate troops to handle their opponents. Quality is a relative trait. It would be absolutely incorrect to spend points on lots of Pikes for those armies you mentioned in that matchup vs Indians or other horde-ish armies because you don't need that kind of power to deal with Bowman and Javelinmen. What you actually need is to sink a lot of points to buy large numbers of troops that are *good enough* at taking out these units and match them with relative numbers.

Bowmen don't care if you are superior or average or raw quality when they shoot you. Its all the same to them. Given that they have no close combat abilities, even Raw Pikemen and Militia Thuerophoroi are going to beat them once they get in close. I have long been a critic of raw quality units but it was precise because I recognized the need to simply field a large number of units against the Indo-Greek player as the Romans that allowed me to eke out a victory in the division-winning game against them. This is why a put a premium on valuing armies with flexibility in troop selection and that is reflected in the Tier listing.

bbogensc wrote:Although I chose Indo-Greek in league play and seemed to match up favorably against the "12 core infantry unit type" heavy infantry type army, it seems to me that Italian Hill Tribes could recruit 28 or so Italian Foot. Does anyone think 12 heavy infantry are going to consistently prevail against 28 MF even on flat terrain where the MF player knows how to play? I don't. Furthermore, that's HILL tribes meaning rough ground plus hills would be the base terrain. If anyone wants to do a scrimmage on Med Hilly terrain with either Roman or "12 core infantry unit type", I'll take Italian Hill Tribes, Slave Revolt even others with MF as the base unit, and lets play it a few times and see what happens. I at least strongly prefer outnumbering the opponent 2 to 1 and think its possible to prevail with those armies consistently against a non cavalry opponent.

Hence, I can be onboard with your rankings where we specify the opponent is a "12 core infantry unit" type army, or even a hoplite army. But the rankings are relative. Italian Hill Tribes or Etruscan (late) are also going to often beat Indian-based armies in my view. Its just that nobody took those armies in league play so we don't observe it.

You are correct and as I explained in the metagame heading, these are taken into account when assigning tiers to armies. A large horde army may be good but as of yet, not many has had the guts to put their money where their mouth is so to speak and take one into the FoG2DL. The only exceptions are Ruskicanuck who piloted a Thracian army to a 7-0-2 record in Division A of Late Antiquity and nyczar who piloted Scots-Irish in Division D of the same section. What I was told however was that Ruskicanuck was playing it more as a massed light horse army maxing out javelins and archers with some Medium Foot as the backup rather than a Medium Foot army with strong skirmishing backup. So is that really an example of a Medium Foot army doing well or is it actually an example of the Horse Archer archetype doing well?

I have placed a provisional B Tier ranking for Light Spear/Swordsman horde armies based on nyczar's performance. I am not sure whether a few games will do much but I am open to testing. Though if you are a strong believer in these types of armies, the knockout tournament that is fast approaching is an ideal time to test it out. Or Season 2 of FoG2DL. I am not in a major hurry to make massive revisions until we get a lot more data. FoG2 as a game is still maturing and the player base is improving all the time so I expect these rankings will evolve. This Tier list in its current form is meant as a snapshot of the metagame at this particular time on this particular patch, with revisions as evidence comes in. I certainly expect more players to start considering armies like the Scots-Irish in the future though.

bbogensc wrote: (i) Warbands (loose order). Why do Loose Order Warbands cost 63? This is the same price as Close Order Warbands. With all other infantry types "loose order" reduces the price as between heavy and medium foot. This makes Loose Order Warbands a very expensive unit. It seems to me Loose Order Warbands should cost 57 or so?

Do not underestimate the ability for them to fight in rough terrain. Given how unresponsive Warbands and other unmaneuverable troops already are, being able to ignore rough terrain as a penalty is a big deal. Unit cost justification will have to come from RBS though.

bbogensc wrote:(ii) Horse Archers Range. I've tried to use horse archer based armies as the core of the army, and the result is the archery is not effective enough to prevail on its own due to the short range, except possibly against certain types of Roman armies. So, I agree with you that foot archer armies just dominate horse archer armies, and this is unrealistic in historical terms.

I do not recall any major battles where these two traditions squared off and decisively proved one greater than another.

lapdog666 wrote:i find macedonian 260-168 bc army list to be most op, just crush with pikes , and then burn every single village and city after that. i find carthage amongst weakest unique factions

Carthage, as I mentioned, is very demanding on the player. But if one has a good understanding of all facets of the game, their opponent's list, as well as their own, they can be tailored to exploit the weakness of any opponent. I am sure klayeckles will demonstrate this to you in short order.

SpeedyCM wrote:No mention of the Achaemenid Persians?
I went 7-2 in div D with the 545-480 Persian list, while their success can be very dependent on terrain I would easily class them in the Tier B list and against those elephant heavy armies you seem to like maybe even Tier A with all the arrows the Persians have it is unlikely the elephants even get into the fight before fleeing in terror.

I am unfamiliar with the Persian lists. My gut feeling is that if you want to play Bowmen, you should be playing Indians. Persians seem to come with a lot of extra cost for not a lot of benefit. They also lack light artillery and elephants. The results besides yours are also decidedly mixed. I was going to wait for another season and see if Persians would do well before entering them into the Tier list. If I was to assign a provisional ranking, it would definitely be a B or C Tier army in my opinion.

If you, or anyone else, wants to pump their particular pet favourites up , feel free to continue to invest time with those armies in competition, climb the ladder and prove them worthy .

I did go up against one Indian army with them and manage to win a very close bloody fight, the deciding factor in the end was the immortals being able to hold off the Indian horde long enough on one flank while the 6 Iranian Armoured Bow cavalry units (the hammer of this army) managed to smash the other flank and roll the Indian army up.
The Indian elephants had basically no impact, which is pretty much par for the course for elephants when they are fighting missile armies.

I don't know if I will use them next season as I like to try different things, but with so many of the choices being the same hoplite/successor armies I just might. Though I really like the Samnites or is that just me being a masochist.

Elephants can actually be lethally effective against bow armies if they can be screened properly. Put something between them and the archers until you're within charge range, then send them rampaging through. Assuming you hit something soft like Indian Archers or Sparabara Foot, you should leave a hole the size of a canal in your enemy's lines.