Armies: Better and worse under V2

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by marty » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:41 pm

Of course now we've done with moaning about the publication, we can get on with moaning about the changes in the rules "such and such was far better in v1". Hopefully by wild extrapolation from some freak occurence in one game.
I dont need to be asked twice :D

What armies have people got sitting on the shelf, or that thay played purely out of love, in V1 that they think will be significantly better now?

Conversely what armies did you use in V2 that may now become dust collectors?

Personally I think my Germanic foot horde (Visigoth et al) will be more viable. This is not just because of the change in their interaction with Romans but an accumulation of many minor effects. Deploying 12" in, becoming slightly more manouverable, many opponents becoming less manouverable, larger units been more resilient and the boost in the importance of the impact phase all works in their favour in minor ways.

On the more negative side of things I dont think the Inca will get much of an outing any more. They sort of worked under V1 because of the incredible manouverability of the drilled MF/LF and the sling fire of the LF. Both of these things have taken a major hit (turn/expand and move changes, LF move 4", sling range 3", etc). I'm not too bothered as frankly they way they won in V1 (dancing around the opponent while slowly slinging him to death) was unhistorical and not much fun. I can also still use them as a FOG R army (they dont really work there either but I only play FOGR outside of competition).

What are other people packing away or searching for in the dark recesses of cupboards?

Martin

Robert241167
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by Robert241167 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:10 pm

Hi Martin

Just one point of clarification, light foot still move 5".

I've found light foot bow still being able to shoot at 6" to be a pain as they are still at little risk of being caught if charged.

Rob

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by marty » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:23 am

Good news. Doesn't really change the overall analysis.

I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the book and playing my first comp at the worlds in Canberra.

Martin

gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by gozerius » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:08 am

Any army I field under 2.0 will be worse. Every army fielded by my opponents will be better.
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians

ShrubMiK
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:37 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by ShrubMiK » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:11 am

:lol:

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2989
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by grahambriggs » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:59 am

I'm hoping that my "Invasion of Greece" Early Persian with the hoplites and the undrilled MF will be more viable. On the other side of the coin the "dancing" version of immortals, cavalry and bow skirmishers is likely not so good.

I'm looking forward to getting my sub-romans/merovingians on the table again and also my Dacians and classical indians. The aztecs might be a bit compromised but I want to see what the armour POA changes are first.

The armies i'd really like to see the back of are those which are 3BGs of power troops and loads of skirmishing types.

One of the best features of new rules editions is that it takes a while before you can really work out what's viable and wht isn't.

paullongmore
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:12 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by paullongmore » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:51 am

IMO

Big winners

Han, Medieval Swedish/ Danish
Hvy Wpn front rank (no longer trumped by Sk sword) missile troop rear rank (no - for impact support shooting)

decent shooters - Longbows, Immortals, janissaries (no - for impact support shooting)

Elephant armies (3 dice at impact - which is also more important)

Non-armoured undrilled armies - reduction in importance of armour and manoeuverability of drilled troops improves these.

bow/ sword cav armies (they can back up)

Big losers

swarms (BG limit) especially Dom Rom which also has aux changed to 6s.
LH bow armies who cannot change to cav (eg parthian)

I find optimum armies depends upon troop density (points and table size) but it looks like a lot more armies will be competitive.

IanB3406
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:06 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by IanB3406 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:57 pm

I'm really thinking the Foederate Romans are much better now.....

3X Roman Bw Sword Cav...(not a bad buy as average either maybe....)
3X Protected Superior Lancers!!!!!
Barbarian Impact Foot
A couple Superior protected Liqht Spear Sword (taken as Heavy Foot)
A couple light horse + filler
+4 initiative....with IC...

But frankly.....
I reallyreallyreally hope to start playing on a 5 ft by 3ft table at 800 points.....and frankly wouldn't mind 900 points on a 6foot by 3foot. Games are too long otherwise. I hope that the average game will finish in 2.5 hours....not interested in 3X 3 hour+ slogs in one day anymore....if tables don't shrink or the game isn't sped up this will affect my attendance at tournaments....the price of the rules is a pittance really.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Said:
The armies i'd really like to see the back of are those which are 3BGs of power troops and loads of skirmishing types. ----
----------------------------------------------------------
Light horse replaced by protected or unprotected Cav should replace these types.....did I say I thought protected Cav was a good buy now (hehe)

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:23 pm

IanB3406 wrote: Light horse replaced by protected or unprotected Cav should replace these types

LH can still do things that Cv cannot and so I very much doubt they will be replaced - although the Cv types may well be used more now. So maybe a partial replacement.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

peterrjohnston
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by peterrjohnston » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:23 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
IanB3406 wrote: Light horse replaced by protected or unprotected Cav should replace these types
LH can still do things that Cv cannot and so I very much doubt they will be replaced - although the Cv types may well be used more now. So maybe a partial replacement.
Drilled should be better, undrilled are awkward to manoeuvre if they need to expand/contract or turn and move and turn back.

Condotta got a lot better, a compulsory 220AP of crap replaced by 230AP of good.

I'm less optimistic about infantry armies, unless there's a move to 5x3 tables. I think the restrictions on the number of BGs that can moved by commanders hurts them more than mounted armies, which can play catch-up more easily. Same for the turn and move restrictions - mounted units are generally smaller so can replace this with wheeling and faster movement. And why-oh-why they dropped the LH/LF movement reduction, which everyone liked in the beta, is beyond me.

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by marty » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:47 pm

But are condotta knights "Mercenary"? Doesnt the change say that average knights described as "mercenary" can be taken as undrilled superior. I know condottierie were mercenaries but the list doesn't use the word. Similiar questions could be asked of some other average knights (Burgundian Ordnance Gendarmes for example).

Martin

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:34 pm

marty wrote:But are condotta knights "Mercenary"? Doesnt the change say that average knights described as "mercenary" can be taken as undrilled superior. I know condottierie were mercenaries but the list doesn't use the word. Similiar questions could be asked of some other average knights (Burgundian Ordnance Gendarmes for example).

Martin
If you look at the list you will see they are "Mercenary men-at-arms" :)
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Jilu
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by Jilu » Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:51 pm

peterrjohnston wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
IanB3406 wrote:
Condotta got a lot better, a compulsory 220AP of crap replaced by 230AP of good.

.
what do you mean by this??

thx

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by marty » Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:22 am

They used to have to take the compulsory knights as average (widely considered a bad option). Now they can take them as superior.

Martin

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by bahdahbum » Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:50 pm

Ever tried a BG of 6 drilled average KN ...just do it and look at your oppenent trying to cope with it ....

Now one army that is a real winner : all armies with longbow . It's a real killer . I really think longbow is too effective against infantry . I think we will see some langobow armies in tournaments and armies designed to kill the LB armies .

Jilu
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by Jilu » Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:42 pm

bahdahbum wrote:Ever tried a BG of 6 drilled average KN ...just do it and look at your oppenent trying to cope with it ....

Now one army that is a real winner : all armies with longbow . It's a real killer . I really think longbow is too effective against infantry . I think we will see some langobow armies in tournaments and armies designed to kill the LB armies .
Ordonance french, and all longbow armies will become even more deadly, you do not even need to take the stakes anymore...KN base with 2 dice at 4-5-6 VS LB base with 2 dice 5,6 and 1 at 4,5,6 add a general to the LB and these are extreemly hard to beat. IMHO way to strong without stakes, stakes are obsolete and not worth the points. LB armed troops should get more expensive. OR ùake stakes compulsary...as these should be and for evey base not just 1/2 a unit lenght.

hoodlum
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:30 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by hoodlum » Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:10 pm

I think you will find the knights are at 3,4,5,6 to hit - they will also be superior - so will reroll 1's add a general as is the customary practice - reroll 1s,and 2s.

Sure LB have improved but the edge is still with the knights. 8 to 7. plus better rerolls.

ShrubMiK
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:37 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by ShrubMiK » Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:42 pm

And any analysis that stops at the end of the impact phase is a bit flawed.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by ravenflight » Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:15 am

Jilu wrote:LB armed troops should get more expensive. OR ùake stakes compulsary...as these should be and for evey base not just 1/2 a unit lenght.
Blow me down with a feather.

The hard copy set of rules haven't even been dispatched (so far as I'm aware) and we're already trying to get v3 happening?

I mean seriously - they said in the v1 to v2 discussions that points would NOT be changed. So what makes you think that they would change the points now?

Making stakes compulsory is just plain idiotic. Middle Platagenet English cannot have stakes - what do we do with them?

I'd suggest we see if Longbow become the new 'Roman Swarm' before deciding that the rules are broken.

ethan
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:40 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by ethan » Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:25 pm

I think elephants are the big winners, in V 2.0 I suspect they are strong enough at impact to warrant building around.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”