Slitherine

just a general question .Do you think they are getting better as the books go? Do you think there are any prejudice's? I think the lists are getting better ,but I think there are Armys that recieve better attention than others most of the moslem armys are well done however the western armys in general are a bit onthe dull/vanilla side .The Roman armys are well done but as a fan of the succesors armys I find myself disappointed and too restricted . I think that in the lists a player should get a small amout of free choice to upgrade maybe one BG to elite status as a fun factor .I find some of the armys will never be played in an open/period tourney which is also disappointing. I hope you guys will take another look at some of these armys at a later date .What lists would you want to change ? Pyrrhic ,ealy successor more lists from this one generic list (eumenid).Byzantines .Not disrepect intended just fanbase info .

pyrrhus wrote:just a general question .Do you think they are getting better as the books go? Do you think there are any prejudice's? I think the lists are getting better ,but I think there are Armys that recieve better attention than others most of the moslem armys are well done however the western armys in general are a bit onthe dull/vanilla side .The Roman armys are well done but as a fan of the succesors armys I find myself disappointed and too restricted . I think that in the lists a player should get a small amout of free choice to upgrade maybe one BG to elite status as a fun factor .I find some of the armys will never be played in an open/period tourney which is also disappointing. I hope you guys will take another look at some of these armys at a later date .What lists would you want to change ? Pyrrhic ,ealy successor more lists from this one generic list (eumenid).Byzantines .Not disrepect intended just fanbase info .

I'm playing an Early Successor list myself now (based on Antigonus Gonatus), and I don't find it restrictive at all. I've built the army pretty much how I imagine it historically, and I'm having a reasonable amount of success with it (especially given my limited abilities <grin>).

Peter C

I would like to be able to have elite unprotected heavy foot longbow heavy weapon with portable obstacles in all my armies

More seriously there aren't many places where I think the lists have particularly punished armies compared to their historical prototype.

I am not sure what you mean by most of the Western armies are dull / vanilla. The point is that Western armies at the time of the Crusades were well dull and vanilla. Knights, spearmen and archers or crossbow were about all you would see.

The lists aren't going to change without historical justification, where do you think a significant troop type has been missclassified or omited?

Its not so much a list thing but maybe a rule thing. I think wheeled towers should shoot from the front edge only rather than the side edge only. Its insignificant in the scheme of things but looks a bit silly on table as the wheeled tower models all face towards their narrowest edge.

pyrrhus wrote:just a general question .Do you think they are getting better as the books go? Do you think there are any prejudice's? I think the lists are getting better ,but I think there are Armys that recieve better attention than others most of the moslem armys are well done however the western armys in general are a bit onthe dull/vanilla side .The Roman armys are well done but as a fan of the succesors armys I find myself disappointed and too restricted . I think that in the lists a player should get a small amout of free choice to upgrade maybe one BG to elite status as a fun factor .I find some of the armys will never be played in an open/period tourney which is also disappointing. I hope you guys will take another look at some of these armys at a later date .What lists would you want to change ? Pyrrhic ,ealy successor more lists from this one generic list (eumenid).Byzantines .Not disrepect intended just fanbase info .

hammy wrote:I would like to be able to have elite unprotected heavy foot longbow heavy weapon with portable obstacles in all my armies

Can I have these in BGs of 2? Thanks

Well I think the _ONE_ BG of elites wouldn't be too crazy and NO eumenid list should be addressed .( I didnt mean to imply fantasy troops but only an upgrade too elites of troops that were already in the list)

pyrrhus wrote:just a general question .Do you think they are getting better as the books go? Do you think there are any prejudice's? I think the lists are getting better ,but I think there are Armys that recieve better attention than others most of the moslem armys are well done however the western armys in general are a bit onthe dull/vanilla side .The Roman armys are well done but as a fan of the succesors armys I find myself disappointed and too restricted . I think that in the lists a player should get a small amout of free choice to upgrade maybe one BG to elite status as a fun factor .I find some of the armys will never be played in an open/period tourney which is also disappointing. I hope you guys will take another look at some of these armys at a later date .What lists would you want to change ? Pyrrhic ,ealy successor more lists from this one generic list (eumenid).Byzantines .Not disrepect intended just fanbase info .

Well, as most who've read my previous posts will know, I'd change the Byzantine lists. All of them. They are too inflexible and lack adequate numbers of standard troop types (allowed numbers of spear armed HF are way to low in most of the lists except for the Nikephorian possibly). Also, their ability to have superior morale options (such as for First Rate Thematic Cavalry or veteran Justinianic bow armed cavalry). Or if lists are going to be restricted and inflexible, then all should be. So no all superior armored Daylami, required average morale Sassanid Clibanari, division of allowed Ghulams into Senior (Superior) and Junior (average) morale classes, some recognition that not all barbarian cavalry (Ostrogoth, Vandals etc) are Superior Noble types.

Paul Georgian