Slitherine

I've got a Komnenan Byzantine army that I've had pretty good luck with. The combination of heavy armoured superior knights and those nasty axe swinging varangians backed up by good quality light horse has won a number of games for me. In any event it's put me in the top five in two turnaments I've played in.

But now I'm tinkering with the new Nikephorian list. The elite cataphracts, Bow* superior lancers, and mixed bow/spear units look like they have potential. It certainly looks to be a much larger army than my Komnenans. in any event the two armies "morph" fairly well and many of the same figures I am using will be at home in both forces. This makes painting to be less of a chore.

Anyway, which of these two Byzantine armies do you prefer? Which one looks to be better/more powerful (all things considered) in open competition? What do you think the pros and cons of each are?

TR

I choose the one that my Turks can shoot and run away from the best

Kevin S

The Nikephorian elite cats will score a lot of hits, and the Sp+Bw BGs look to be very good against enemy mounted. I am not sure how the army fits together, though. The Komnenans are a pretty good list, IMHO.

FWIW, I am a fan of the Early Byz list, at least until I get to run it in a comp and have its unseen flaws exposed.

Marc

I think the unanswered question here is how good are the various mixed lancer/bow (or lancer Bw*) BGs in practice? I really just have no feel for how they actually will play.

I think they should be very good against enemy Cv/LH types and basically good against most foot BUT they are weak against Knights, spears, pikes which the more "standard" Ghilman types are good or at least better against.

The next problem I then see for Byzantines is they have nothing to make up for these weaknesses. You could argue that they can try to outmaneuver the knights but they don't have much to go at the foot with. Sure they can ride up and shoot, but you are always risking being forced to charge...

ethan wrote:I think the unanswered question here is how good are the various mixed lancer/bow (or lancer Bw*) BGs in practice? I really just have no feel for how they actually will play.

I think they should be very good against enemy Cv/LH types and basically good against most foot BUT they are weak against Knights, spears, pikes which the more "standard" Ghilman types are good or at least better against.

The next problem I then see for Byzantines is they have nothing to make up for these weaknesses. You could argue that they can try to outmaneuver the knights but they don't have much to go at the foot with. Sure they can ride up and shoot, but you are always risking being forced to charge...

I think that the Sp+Bw BGs will do well enough against Kn (assuming that they stay steady). And the Nikephorians also get Varangians and Menavletoi which will both be useful against heavy foot.

Marc

Played vs kommenan @ 800 pts with the following:

4xlh bow/swd
4xlh bow/swd
4xlh bow/swd
4xlh blw/swd
8xlf bow
6xlf bow
6xkn avg
4xkn sup
8xhf avg prot DS
8xhf elite HA/HW
2xTC
IC

The lh gives one the ability to create space but it needs the battlefield to be compressed somehow. Not sure how it would do vs a steppe force, but when its flanks were secure via terrain/lf it did well.

Madcam.

I would also like to see how an early Byz plays vs Nikephorian. Dont understand the differences in the units after 1042, I have been digging through my books trying to find what changed in that year, but no real luck.

ethan wrote:I think the unanswered question here is how good are the various mixed lancer/bow (or lancer Bw*) BGs in practice? I really just have no feel for how they actually will play.

I think they should be very good against enemy Cv/LH types and basically good against most foot BUT they are weak against Knights, spears, pikes which the more "standard" Ghilman types are good or at least better against.

The next problem I then see for Byzantines is they have nothing to make up for these weaknesses. You could argue that they can try to outmaneuver the knights but they don't have much to go at the foot with. Sure they can ride up and shoot, but you are always risking being forced to charge...

The easy answer to this is don't play anachronistic games. Within their period (the "Decline and Fall" theme), lancer/bow cavalry are very effective.

Some troop types, such as spears, pikes and shooty cavalry types are better able to cope with anachronistic opponents than others. These are often the troop types that continued in use during the later periods. So in that sense, they are not anachronistic at all. Where troop-types went out of use in favour of other types, it is reasonable to expect the rules to reflect their obsolescence in favour of those types.

In devising the points system, we have tried to reflect a balance between cost effectiveness within theme and cost effectiveness in open tournaments. However it isn't possible using a single points system to make all troop-types equally cost-effective both in themed games and in anachronistic games. Certain troop types, such as cataphracts, are particularly cost effective in certain themes ("Legions Triumphant" particularly), and much less cost effective in open tournament because of the existence of severely unfavourable match-ups. Other types, such as spears and pikes are equally plain vanilla, and equally cost-effective, in themed and open tournaments.

Lance/bow cavalry are most effective within their own theme. (In the case of Byzantines, literally )

The answer would depend on who is the enemy.

If it is everyone, I would go with the Komnenan. If it is those godless Bulgars, or those pesky caliphate troops I would take a Nikephorian.

José

It has more to do with the number of knights in the Komnenan, isnt it?

Komnenan: up to 16 bases of superior drilled knights , up to two BG's of Varangians, plenty of good bow armed LH, LF & MF, and some very useful allies. This is a quite powerful combination.