Slitherine

I have played this game a lot and other wargames. From the wargaming tabletop roots the eras that tend to really pull in the crowds are the Ancient and Napoleonic periods. Of course, other eras and periods of history are also popular but these two seem to stand out.

I have mentioned before that I play a lot of the Total War games with mods and so on. Rome Total War and its sequel are really fun because you have elephants, chariots, camels, phalanx, swordsmen, peltasts and a multitude of other units. When you compare this to Attila Total War, for example, you just don't get the same diversity and colour.

I find the same with this game. The Classical army lists are really fun and the battles look great. Pikes v Romans. Carthaginians v Greeks. I just don't get the same buzz when I try out the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages armies. I also find the battles a bit samey with all the horse armies and tons of shieldwalls.

I will be very interested to see what happens with this game. Will it really take off and bring in lots of different units for the Medieval Age proper or go backwards in time?

I guess what I am really saying is that I hope it can recapture that spirit and dynamism that I find in the Classical army lists!

SLancaster wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 6:37 am I just don't get the same buzz when I try out the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages armies. I also find the battles a bit samey with all the horse armies and tons of shieldwalls.

This. I didn't even buy the Wolves DLC, just didn't appeal. I will certainly buy any Crusades-related DLCs, but other than that not sure. It is probably no coincidence that I like, and am familiar with, Classical and to a lesser extent Crusader histories, while am almost completely ignorant of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

76mm wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 5:31 pm

SLancaster wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 6:37 am I just don't get the same buzz when I try out the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages armies. I also find the battles a bit samey with all the horse armies and tons of shieldwalls.

This. I didn't even buy the Wolves DLC, just didn't appeal. I will certainly buy any Crusades-related DLCs, but other than that not sure. It is probably no coincidence that I like, and am familiar with, Classical and to a lesser extent Crusader histories, while am almost completely ignorant of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

What kind of units are you looking forward to for the Crusader period? Do you think there will be a decent variety? More than in the present Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages lists? I know it becomes a bit more subjective because you already like the Crusader period.

Personally I love all the periods, and see plenty of variety in all of them.

Late Antiquity's standouts for me are the later Romans/Early Byzantines and the Sassanids. Early Medieval has a wide variety - Byzantine, Arab, Western Shieldwall types, Irish, Dailami. There's a lot to work with. I actually find Classical to be the least interesting, because it is portrayed much more frequently in media and games than the other eras, though I do still enjoy playing it. As for the Crusader era, we will get a whole new unit type, Knights, to work with. In addition we will get the wider use of Crossbows, and perhaps some units of mixed Crossbowmen & Spearmen. As usual, the composition will be the key more than new units.

As for me, my favorite era is that covered by Pike & Shot - but really I enjoy all 3 games, and the variety they provide is what I like, more than any one period portrayed.

Nothing better than the smell of black powder with pikes (16-17th centuries).
Looking forward to the knights too.
Above all, nothing better than diversity, ie being able to alternate between Antiquity, MA and early Modern period!

(edit)
btw I really like the Wolves at the gate DLC.

SLancaster wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 5:42 pm What kind of units are you looking forward to for the Crusader period? Do you think there will be a decent variety? More than in the present Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages lists?

Honestly, I have no idea, while I've read a fair bit about the Crusades I don't think I've played any tactical-level games about them, with different troop types. That said, given the number and variety of kingdoms, armies, etc., I'm hoping for a bit of variety and a bit of color. If nothing else I will find the battles more interesting just because I've enjoyed the history.

SLancaster wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 6:37 am I find the same with this game. The Classical army lists are really fun and the battles look great. Pikes v Romans. Carthaginians v Greeks. I just don't get the same buzz when I try out the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages armies. I also find the battles a bit samey with all the horse armies and tons of shieldwalls.

I will be very interested to see what happens with this game. Will it really take off and bring in lots of different units for the Medieval Age proper or go backwards in time?

I guess what I am really saying is that I hope it can recapture that spirit and dynamism that I find in the Classical army lists!

I feel 100% the same. Classical had 4 different major PoAs for infantry as well as a lot of elephants, bow armies, and large differentiation in unit quality. The armies played very differently from each other. The allies have definitely homogenized things though but Classical remains the best gameplay-wise. Late Antiquity has so many armies that just have either Impact or Light Spear/swords. Little to no elephants, almost everything is just average or below average. Anything that features anything remotely interesting is cost-ineffective most of the time like late roman infantry.

Wolves at the gate brought back spears and Impact in some Muslim lists but it seems everyone has spears and the one cool thing they did have, Lancer-Archers in the Byzantine lists are generally lackluster and their terrible infantry make them a joke of a list. The super late Byzantine lists with the Tiger tanks and Varangian guards are decent though. But yeah, a lot of shield walls everywhere.

Probably would have signed up for EMA if it wasn't for 1600 points but I am looking forward to High and Late Middle Ages. Pikes should make a comeback in both those periods and we get bow armies again with the English.

Indians and Sassanids bring elephants to the table. Late Roman infantry is a good supplemental force, though not good for building a battle line. The 50% Bow Byzantine Lancers are in the game starting in Late Antiquity, and I actually went 7-2 with them in Division A. And in fact, relatively speaking, their infantry isn't bad - 1200pts allow for 2 each of Noble and Armored Dismounted Lancers, and along with that you can select Comitatensis or Limatanei to spread the line. I do agree that the later Byzantines with their 50% Bow Skoutatoi are better than those with only Defensive Spear, but the late list is quite good.

Biblical also plays quite differently from Classical with its emphasis on chariots, and many lists lack of HF.

Really I think I find Classical the most boring (relatively) because there are so many armies that have that little bit of everything. I think I find it more enjoyable to fight battles in which I have pretty severe limitations, and so do my opponents.

Well, this 'little bit of everything' I think can lead to some great battles. If both armies are reasonably balanced then you are likely to have a decent engagement. Fighting a cavalry army with an infantry based army in Late Antiquity is really tough and not so enjoyable. I remember this from my time with the Franks.. the imbalance becomes quite tedious for me.

Yes, I am looking forward to playing more Biblical match-ups.

Continuing with my Total War analogy, Medieval II was a lot better than Attila and one of the best Total War games!

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 3:46 am Indians and Sassanids bring elephants to the table. Late Roman infantry is a good supplemental force, though not good for building a battle line. The 50% Bow Byzantine Lancers are in the game starting in Late Antiquity, and I actually went 7-2 with them in Division A. And in fact, relatively speaking, their infantry isn't bad - 1200pts allow for 2 each of Noble and Armored Dismounted Lancers, and along with that you can select Comitatensis or Limatanei to spread the line. I do agree that the later Byzantines with their 50% Bow Skoutatoi are better than those with only Defensive Spear, but the late list is quite good.

Biblical also plays quite differently from Classical with its emphasis on chariots, and many lists lack of HF.

Really I think I find Classical the most boring (relatively) because there are so many armies that have that little bit of everything. I think I find it more enjoyable to fight battles in which I have pretty severe limitations, and so do my opponents.

I highly distrust any list that doesn't have a single MF option which the early Byzantine lists suffer from. Whenever potluck throws rough in abundance life gets miserable and passive real quick for me. Not saying that it is impossible to win with, any list can win any division at any time with just decent rolls in combat and terrain but its far from ideal. Sassanid lists are ok its just that there are so few of them and with the DL being a restricted army choice with no repeats and the fact that you can't sandbag your list with multiple of the same "nation" means that it can be hard to play the playstyle you want in LA. In CA, if I want to play Elephants, I know I can fill up a list with elephants that meet the rule. If I want to play Impact, I can do that too. Tons of pike armies to pick from as well or you can ally into pikes. No suck luck in LA.

I personally despise Skoutatoi without bow. If someone can make those lists work, I'd like to see it.

I guess not knowing what kind of army I'm going to roll is something I actually like about the League format.