Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultiplayer)

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Lancier
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:46 am
Location: İstanbul
Contact:

Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultiplayer)

Post by Lancier » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:35 am

To experienced players... we were talking to rbodleyscott on another topic "Multiplayer - Custom Random Map Open Battle - Balanced Game?" so that was Scott suggestion:
rbodleyscott wrote:We would first have to agree what category the armies should go in.
Why don't you start a thread asking the more experienced players to rate them on a 1,2,3 basis.
One suggestion is to allow such armies slightly more points, although the current system only allows 100 point steps.
So is it possible you rate the armies (1(top) - 2(middle) - 3(low)) so new players may have more fair, balanced and enjoyable custom battles?

(on another topic i read "Vanquisher of Rome Mini Campaign", for couple of armies categorization was done like:
"The list of armies in rough order of toughness in the moderator's opinion is shown here below. Note that the upper armies tend to have pike and more diversity of troop types…allowing a general to craft an army specific to the expected enemy. The very bottom armies have less diversity and also more loose order medium foot troops (which don't do will in open ground against cavalry or heavy foot) The middle ones are hoplite based, or impact foot based or cavalry without much heavy foot)"

FOG2 Army Lists – Rise of Rome (Alphabetically)

Ancient British 60 BC - 80 AD
Apulian 420-203 BC
Arab 312 BC - 476 AD
Armenian 331 BC - 252 AD
Armenian (Tigranes) 83-69 BC
Atropatene 320-145 BC
Atropatene 144 BC - 226 AD
Bithynian 297-74 BC
Bosporan 348-85 BC
Bosporan 84-11 BC
Bruttian or Lucanian 420-203 BC
Campanian 280-203 BC
Carthaginian 280-263 BC
Carthaginian 262-236 BC
Carthaginian 235-146BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 218-217 BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 216-203 BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC
Caucasian 320 BC - 476 AD
Dacian 50 BC - 106 AD
Galatian 280-63 BC
Galatian 63-25 BC
Gallic 300-101 BC
Gallic 100-50 BC
Germanic Foot Tribes 105 BC - 259 AD
Graeco-Bactrian 250-130 BC
Greek 280-228 BC
Greek 227-146 BC 
Greek (Western) 280-49 BC
Iberian or Colchian 331 BC - 252 AD
Illyrian 350 BC - 25 AD
Indian 500 BC - 319 AD
Indo-Greek 175 BC - 10 AD
Indo-Parthian 60 BC - 130 AD
Indo-Skythian 95 BC - 50 AD
Italian Hill Tribes 490-275 BC
Jewish 167-64 BC
Jewish 64 BC - 6 AD
Kappadokian 260 BC - 17 AD
Kushan 130 BC - 476 AD
Libyan 220 BC - 70 AD
Ligurian 480-145 BC
Macedonian 320-261 BC
Macedonian 260-148 BC
Mountain Indian 492-170 BC
Nabataean 260 BC - 106 AD
Numidian or Moorish 220-56 BC
Numidian or Moorish 55 BC - 6 AD
Parthian 250 BC - 225 AD
Pergamene 262-191 BC
Pergamene 190-129 BC
Pontic 281-111 BC
Pontic 110-85 BC
Pontic 84-47 BC
Ptolemaic 320-167 BC
Ptolemaic 166-56 BC
Ptolemaic 55-30 BC
Pyrrhic 280-272 BC
Rhoxolani 350 BC - 24 AD
Roman 280-220 BC
Roman 219-200 BC
Roman 199-106 BC
Roman 105-25 BC
Saka 300 BC - 50 AD
Samnite 355-272 BC
Sarmatian 350 BC - 24 AD
Scots-Irish 50 BC - 476 AD
Seleucid 320-206 BC
Seleucid 205-167 BC
Seleucid 166-125 BC
Seleucid 124-63 BC
Skythian 300 BC - 50 AD
Slave Revolt 73-71 BC
Spanish 300-10 BC
Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70 BC
Syracusan 280-211 BC
Thracian 350 BC - 46 AD
Umbrian 490-260 BC
Vive L'Empereur!
The Wargaming Club (TWC)
https://thewargamingclub.com/

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by 76mm » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:15 am

I think that it might be hard to rank armies like this, because their performance depends on who they are fighting. I think it would be more useful to have lists of "good matchups" and "bad matchups".

TWC
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:54 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by TWC » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:33 am

Always playing "mirror battles" for custom type MP games may be a partial but a solution in the end too. As it is not easy to find %100 balanced meetings with that various army lists with that many combinations. Whoever does better looking at both games results might be the winner of the challenge betwen players.
The Wargaming Club started a 8 player tournament with FOG II using mirror battles for rounds.
(TWC) The Wargaming Club
https://twc.redwaratah.com/

Jishmael
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by Jishmael » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:44 am

76mm wrote:I think that it might be hard to rank armies like this, because their performance depends on who they are fighting. I think it would be more useful to have lists of "good matchups" and "bad matchups".
I this is definetely doable in a reasonable way, as there are things that are more versatile, easier to use and overall "stronger" than others.


I was thinking about creating a tierlist myself along these lines:



A Tier
Everything that contains strong cores, is versaile enough to adapt to almost everything, doesnt need special understanding of the game mechanics to work. All around strong.
My example picks would be late romans, seleucids, indians, gauls. Those are just overall well rounded lists with a very tough and efficient core troop type and strong synergies.

B Tier
Armies that are still strong, but a bit less punchy, need a bit more tricky tactics to work, but are also not straight up crippled in any depatments.
Carthage would be a straight up B tier for me as theres nothing obviously wrong with the list, yet there are some quirks. Some of the early roman lists with barely any cav, but velites and triarii might go here

C Tier
for anything that can do one thing really well, but suffers in others.
Germanic Foot Tribes (Warbands are amazing, but they dont have anything else) are one, Nabateans might be one id consider for this. some early roman lists might place here as well. Some spanish lists could go here (scutarii are still good and strong, but they lack heavy foot and are terrain dependent)
Maybe some of the italian tribes, umbrians, brutians etc.

D Tier
Armies that I consider objectively bad. Doesnt mean they cannot win under the right circumstances and in the hand of a skilled player, but they have the odds stacked against them.
Pretty much anything based on irregular foot goes here, as the terrain needs to be right and they need to be played perfect to have a chance.
Also Greeks. no cav, no skirmishers, and hoplites are coinflipping trash.

Put all horse nomads and stuff like the Numidians thats basically light horse into a seperate "no fun allowed" Tier and I think this is workable
Hello there, I hope you like Warbands

Lancier
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:46 am
Location: İstanbul
Contact:

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by Lancier » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:01 am

In fact what Jishmael said was exactly what i requested in the 1st post! appreciated.
Just if he could simply put (A tier, B tier, C tier, D tier, NFA tier) to the front of the below list armies would be great! :oops: ^^ would take 2-3 min maybe? because more armies on way with the expansion (30?) i guess so we could add them too when they come... thanks anyway for the explanation.
Ancient British 60 BC - 80 AD
Apulian 420-203 BC
Arab 312 BC - 476 AD
Armenian 331 BC - 252 AD
Armenian (Tigranes) 83-69 BC
Atropatene 320-145 BC
Atropatene 144 BC - 226 AD
Bithynian 297-74 BC
Bosporan 348-85 BC
Bosporan 84-11 BC
Bruttian or Lucanian 420-203 BC
Campanian 280-203 BC
Carthaginian 280-263 BC
Carthaginian 262-236 BC
Carthaginian 235-146BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 218-217 BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 216-203 BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC
Caucasian 320 BC - 476 AD
Dacian 50 BC - 106 AD
Galatian 280-63 BC
Galatian 63-25 BC
Gallic 300-101 BC
Gallic 100-50 BC
Germanic Foot Tribes 105 BC - 259 AD
Graeco-Bactrian 250-130 BC
Greek 280-228 BC
Greek 227-146 BC
Greek (Western) 280-49 BC
Iberian or Colchian 331 BC - 252 AD
Illyrian 350 BC - 25 AD
Indian 500 BC - 319 AD
Indo-Greek 175 BC - 10 AD
Indo-Parthian 60 BC - 130 AD
Indo-Skythian 95 BC - 50 AD
Italian Hill Tribes 490-275 BC
Jewish 167-64 BC
Jewish 64 BC - 6 AD
Kappadokian 260 BC - 17 AD
Kushan 130 BC - 476 AD
Libyan 220 BC - 70 AD
Ligurian 480-145 BC
Macedonian 320-261 BC
Macedonian 260-148 BC
Mountain Indian 492-170 BC
Nabataean 260 BC - 106 AD
Numidian or Moorish 220-56 BC
Numidian or Moorish 55 BC - 6 AD
Parthian 250 BC - 225 AD
Pergamene 262-191 BC
Pergamene 190-129 BC
Pontic 281-111 BC
Pontic 110-85 BC
Pontic 84-47 BC
Ptolemaic 320-167 BC
Ptolemaic 166-56 BC
Ptolemaic 55-30 BC
Pyrrhic 280-272 BC
Rhoxolani 350 BC - 24 AD
Roman 280-220 BC
Roman 219-200 BC
Roman 199-106 BC
Roman 105-25 BC
Saka 300 BC - 50 AD
Samnite 355-272 BC
Sarmatian 350 BC - 24 AD
Scots-Irish 50 BC - 476 AD
Seleucid 320-206 BC
Seleucid 205-167 BC
Seleucid 166-125 BC
Seleucid 124-63 BC
Skythian 300 BC - 50 AD
Slave Revolt 73-71 BC
Spanish 300-10 BC
Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70 BC
Syracusan 280-211 BC
Thracian 350 BC - 46 AD
Umbrian 490-260 BC
Vive L'Empereur!
The Wargaming Club (TWC)
https://thewargamingclub.com/

Jishmael
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by Jishmael » Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:00 am

its gonna take me longer than that because A i got stuff to do, B while i played pretty much all lsts at least once id like to review them during the tiering process C i want to write some commentary on some choices. Ill come up with a draft in the next two days though and will post it :)
Hello there, I hope you like Warbands

Lancier
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:46 am
Location: İstanbul
Contact:

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by Lancier » Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:27 am

GRAMERCY!
Jishmael wrote:its gonna take me longer than that because A i got stuff to do, B while i played pretty much all lsts at least once id like to review them during the tiering process C i want to write some commentary on some choices. Ill come up with a draft in the next two days though and will post it :)
Vive L'Empereur!
The Wargaming Club (TWC)
https://thewargamingclub.com/

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4664
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by TheGrayMouser » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:11 pm

Jishmaels comments on horse archer armies and hoplites shows just how subjective such a list can be. :wink:

A list of good line ups seems to be a better way of doing things , as 76mm suggested.

Also playing with auto unit select is a great equalizer for a mono- unit army versus a "versatile one"

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by 76mm » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:44 pm

Jishmael wrote:...and hoplites are coinflipping trash.
Heh, harsh! Ive had some hoplites do some damage to me!

Persoanlly, i dont care if a particular army is “good” or “bad”, i want fun games, which can result from match-ups of less than stellar armies. IIRC one of my favorite match ups from FOG1 was Carthag vs Pontic. Anyway, have at it and have fun.

Jishmael
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by Jishmael » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:04 pm

Well firstup I do agree I might be giving Hoplites a harsh time, but my Experience with them in MP and even SP has been less than stellar.
Horse Archer Armies are definetely fun to play against each other (might have to be ranked seperatly), and are a unique challenge, I'm just working under the subjective assumption that most people, that includes me, do not enjoy mp games that mostly consist of chasing cav around. I think there was some strong feedback on this in one of the early tournaments as well.

It always comes down to taste as this game is neither meant to be balanced, and the competitive side is managed through mirror matches. I just thought its a fun exercise ^^

And while I do think each and any matchup can be fun, I'd say playing mostly armies fromwithin 1 tier of each other could enable the kind of more balanced games that Lancier is looking for.

Below is my first draft, prepare for wall of Text with bad formatting (i hate BB code sometimes...).





Jishmaels Tierlist Draft 1


All Armylists are tiered based on Experience and Review of Medium Battle Size OOBs.
Lists inside the Tiers are sorte Alphabetically
This is not in any way regarding periods or geography but is a simple gameplay perspective.
This is a first Draft and in no Way definitive or even based on a good Data Set., Feedback would be highly appreciated.
Phalanx Lists like Macedonians or Seleucids might be underrated, but I do consider them a bit tricky to use at times.

A Tier
Strong core Units.
List is versatile and contains Answers to a lot of Matchups and Terrains.
No Hard Counters (Nomads don't count)
Easy to use.

B Tier
Still Strong and Versatile
Either Weakness in a Single Area or higher Skill Ceiling.

C Tier
Either Average or Really good at a Single thing, but not at anything else.

D Tier
Always at a disadvantage, Except in very advantegeous Terrain when handled well.
Does not excel in any category of troops or focuses on one Type of Subpar Unit.

NFA Tier
No Fun Allowed. Horse Nomads, Armies that are all Skirmishers.
These are technically strong and can be davastating to A Tier Armies.
They just are horrible to play against as their playing Style does not include any decisive Engagements


Tierlist


A Tier:

Gallic 300-101 BC
Gallic 100-50 BC [both Lists are Warbands supported by big cav wing. Which is a very strong combo. Earlier List has Chariots which might make it better in Open Terrain]

Indian 500 BC - 319 AD [Archers are great, Indian Cavalry is cheap and versatile. Elephants counter cav. One of the few Lists where Artillery can be amazing]

Indo-Greek 175 BC - 10 AD [same as Indians but with Phalanxs thrown in]

Roman 219-200 BC [amazing list. Veterans, a Warband, the odd scutarii, raw legions, Velites are top tier skirmishers]

Roman 199-106 BC [Same as above, but with Elephants.]

Roman 105-25 BC [straightup one of the strongest and most straightforward Lists. Legions are downright amazing. Has enough mediums to be flexible]

B Tier:

Ancient British 60 BC - 80 AD [Warbands are a strong core, loose Order means terrain versatility, high amount of Chariots leads to difficult use and terrain problems)

Armenian (Tigranes) 83-69 BC

Bosporan 84-11 BC [B because of Imitation Legions, possibly B- to C?)

Carthaginian 280-263 BC
Carthaginian 262-236 BC
Carthaginian 235-146BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 218-217 BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 216-203 BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC

Dacian 50 BC - 106 AD

Galatian 280-63 BC [Picked Warbands are amazing, possible Points Problems, no LC]
Galatian 63-25 BC

Graeco-Bactrian 250-130 BC [Pikes and Lancers are good, a little Reliant on Cav]

Greek 227-146 BC  [Phalanxes are good, Lancers help, still possibly C-]

Macedonian 320-261 BC [Pikes and Warbands with added Mediums for Flexibility. B because low numbers and options make it tricky. Possibly A?]

Macedonian 260-148 BC [More Streamlined, overall same considerations as the early List, No Lancers or Elephants so Bs probably appropriate]

Pergamene 190-129 BC [Might be C, but is just so versatile. Maybe B-?]

Pontic 110-85 BC [this has all the good things, similar Issues to Macedonians]
Pontic 84-47 BC

Ptolemaic 320-167 BC
Ptolemaic 166-56 BC
Ptolemaic 55-30 BC

Pyrrhic 280-272 BC

Roman 280-220 BC [Strong core units and solid mix, cav wing is a little small, High reliance on italian foot makes this one a bit harder to play]

Sarmatian 350 BC - 24 AD [difficult to pull of right, but this many lancers must be good. Right?]

Seleucid 320-206 BC
Seleucid 205-167 BC
Seleucid 166-125 BC
Seleucid 124-63 BC

Spanish 300-10 BC [strong medium impact with some warbands, decent cav wing and very strong javelin line. Possibly C?]

Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70 BC [better version of the above. Anchor of Legions and Warbands make this a clear B]

C Tier:

Apulian 420-203 BC

Armenian 331 BC - 252 AD [possibly C- cause of irregulars)

Atropatene 320-145 BC [C-]

Atropatene 144 BC - 226 AD

Bithynian 297-74 BC [Thracians are tricky, has picked Warbands, possibly C+ to B?)

Bosporan 348-85 BC [Possibly C+ to B because of Lancers?)

Bruttian or Lucanian 420-203 BC

Germanic Foot Tribes 105 BC - 259 AD [Warbands, but crippled in anything else]

Greek 280-228 BC [thureoporoi make a weak core, basically no cav, still C because not as bad as irregulars or hoplites]

Italian Hill Tribes 490-275 BC

Jewish 167-64 BC [Pikes and Lancers keep this out of D]
Jewish 64 BC - 6 AD [Imitation Legions keep this one up, might be C+ to B?]

Kappadokian 260 BC - 17 AD [wipes the floor with Ds cause Warbands and Cav. Still probably C-]

Mountain Indian 492-170 BC [Lots of Javelinmen, few Elephants, nothing fancy. Archers keep this out of D. So maybe C- to D+?]

Nabataean 260 BC - 106 AD

Pergamene 262-191 BC

Pontic 281-111 BC [candidate for C+ to B-. Put here for Javelinmen]

Samnite 355-272 BC [The Impact foot makes this a strong candidate for C+]

Scots-Irish 50 BC - 476 AD [easy C+ for chariots and warbands in the mix]

Syracusan 280-211 BC [So many hoplites...but some good stuff too might be C+ or B?]

Umbrian 490-260 BC

D Tier:

Arab 312 BC - 476 AD [D+ because of Camels and Cav)

Campanian 280-203 BC [possibly D+ to C- because of Italian Foot?]

Caucasian 320 BC - 476 AD

Greek (Western) 280-49 BC [Hoplites are so bad, will beat Javelinmen in open Terrain, but loose anywhere else, no Cav]

Iberian or Colchian 331 BC - 252 AD [possibly D+ because Lancers]

Illyrian 350 BC - 25 AD

Libyan 220 BC - 70 AD

Ligurian 480-145 BC

Slave Revolt 73-71 BC [no play experience with these, input welcome]

Thracian 350 BC - 46 AD [heavy weapon alone does not make a good infantry. Tons of LC, borders to NFA?]

NFA:

Indo-Parthian 60 BC - 130 AD
Indo-Skythian 95 BC - 50 AD
Kushan 130 BC - 476 AD
Numidian or Moorish 220-56 BC

Numidian or Moorish 55 BC - 6 AD [Very strong combination that id rank B or higher, but so many LC made me classify it as NFA]

Parthian 250 BC - 225 AD
Rhoxolani 350 BC - 24 AD
Saka 300 BC - 50 AD
Skythian 300 BC - 50 AD
Hello there, I hope you like Warbands

SnuggleBunnies
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:26 pm

Frankly I don't think this sort of exercise is practical or at all useful. The effectiveness of an army is hugely dependent on terrain and the enemy. Yes, the medium foot javelinmen based armies are not very good. But otherwise, it really depends on the situation. I also wholly disagree with the idea that warband armies are A tier, or that Greek armies are terrible. That just has not been my experience at all. And really, the thread is going to create debates of that nature, that are basically impossible to resolve. So yes, Romans are better than, say, Bruttians. But are Indians better than Romans? Are Gauls better than Carthaginians? It's impossible to say, because the true answer is: it depends, on terrain and the opposing army comp.

klayeckles
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:47 am

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by klayeckles » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:38 pm

i just want to say..."well done". having played FOG1 for 6 years, you've hit it on the mark. certainly we could all quibble on the rankings...but i won't go there as there are too many nuances and "If" statements. not sure the gauls are the BEST, but i'm in a campaign now with the gauls and finding them quite deadly...their little "gaul-buggies" trundling around until something tasty and vulnerable appears...

I will say as an "experienced" player, my preference is the swiss army knife army...something for every situation. some HF with punch (warband or pike), some MF for rough terrain, some cav for manouverability, and some skirmish to mess with 'em. and the list here recognizes that element.

the Big Boy armies...the ones with lots of pike or superior impact foot are the easiest to play, as they can go straight forward and beat whatever they run into. but a great adage...if both armies are marching straight ahead; somebody's misplaying their army. and to that point...i don't sell the hoplite armies quite so short...true they are fairly one dimensional and will lose head to head against the "punch" armies...but even the ligurians can win against a punch army if played with the right finesse....and hoplites are going to need some finesse. all in all i agree and support your excellent work here.

there are definitely a few stinkers on the list, but i think good play is the most important factor in determining the winner, anyone that disagrees i suggest needs some more game time :P

if you are losing matches...think about this:
are you payi;ng attention to what's causing you to lose?
are you getting attacked in the flank?
are you marching forward with most of your force?
are you positioning your MF in rough terrain?
are you hiding in the woods with MF in order to ambush?
are you thinking 3 turns ahead?
are you ever turning tail and running from the enemy (a great tactic against punch armies)
is your set up intended to take advantage of your stengths or hide your weaknesses?
are you patient...setting up your facings to force your opponent to turn when he charges and thus expose a flank?
if you have cav are you spreading out, and Threatening flanks rather than piling in (a free cav on a flank might keep 3 units busy by NOT attacking)

and of course...we can always ask ourselves...are we rolling good dice? :wink:
Last edited by klayeckles on Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lancier
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:46 am
Location: İstanbul
Contact:

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by Lancier » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:00 pm

In fact that would be an answer to my question on other topic as well, thanks a lot Jishmael & klayeckles. We as beginners will make use of your posts no doubt!
Jishmael we are looking forward to see your next posts on this issue i nthe future, Draft2 etc. ^^
Vive L'Empereur!
The Wargaming Club (TWC)
https://thewargamingclub.com/

Jishmael
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by Jishmael » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:02 pm

well, first off, I enjoy looking at games this way, I dont mean to impede on anyones fun, start any negative debates or impose my opinion on anyone who doesnt agree. This is not an "But i crunched the numbers im right! X IS OP!!!" kind of approach, but very subjective.

Second: I intentionally did not rank or would even try to rank lists against each other within the same tier. As I think thats pushing this too hard

Third: I consider Warbands high tier because they are strong head on, they have the numbers and characteristics to be relatively forgiving, they overall end up winning most even fights by the numbers of soldiers in a unit alone, even some uneven ones. Loose Warbands are basically same, but for rough terrain.
When this is combined with the rest of the army being versatile and maneuvarable, I think it makes for an easy to play and strong army, like imho gauls. I've rated Germans comparatevely low because they only have warbands and not the other elements that make them strong.

Fourth: I'll personally take any combination from Tier A to C into an MP match and look forward to having a good time and a fair chance of winning, based on the players abilities, the terrain and the usual bit of luck. I dont think any of the lists here beat each other "by default", but I feel that the bigger the difference in tiers, the more finesse is required by the lower tier armys commander and mistakes or misuse of troops becomes more costly. Its also a ranking from versatile and flexible down to onesided and dependent on terrain. Or at least those were my ideas.
(Heck I'll even play the D tiers against anything as long as you don't make me play that greek list ever again)

Five: I do admit I dislike Hoplites (at least as soon as they become more than a supplementary choice), they are sluggish, confined by terrain, any contact with impact foot is a coinflip between sticking and slowly grinding them down, or dropping cohesion and routing 2 turns later. There is no bad design in this, and its not imbalanced or anything like this. I find the western greeks exhausting and incredibly hard to play as they cannot contest terrain, and are not really good in the open either, theyre movement needs a ton of planning ahead as they dont turn well.
they dont have significant amounts of lights or cav to actively maneuver around either.
I'm sure with the right battle plan and in the correct situation they can excel, I straight up admit I haven't found that plan :D

I do think Hoplites as a Unit are completely fine (Heck I even put the greeks with phalanxes in B) I do however have negative experience with them and a strong personal frustration with the western greeks.


So yeah sorry if this thing came off as lecturing or fruitless, I just wanted to have some fun theorizing, looking through army lists and maybe helping newer players with finding easy and fun matchups. (also agree with everything klayeckles has said about things to examine when loosing and marching straight at each other mostly being a mistake. Its still one I like to commit)
Hello there, I hope you like Warbands

TWC
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:54 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by TWC » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:54 pm

Yes, thanks gentlemen for this small pathfinder so 2 friends new to the game can set some custom games now instead of the epic battles. 8)

By the way giving some force size advantage to some lower Tier armies while playing against higher ones, like when playing a C against an A, may be useful for more enjoyable games too?

...And most of you playing medium map 32x32 - medium force size armies for custom MPs ? or you prefer wide-large ?
(TWC) The Wargaming Club
https://twc.redwaratah.com/

eddieballgame
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:53 am

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by eddieballgame » Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:04 pm

For now, I suspect the only one who could answer this question is the designer of this fabulous game. Certainly the "pro" players could offer a viable opinion, but with so many variables to consider even their thoughts would, no doubt, vary.
The question for me is ; "what numbers/statistics correlate to being a superior army"? Just like when analyzing a sport team for betting purposes, what are the numbers to look for that one could use to make a profitable decision.
If the computer could fight both armies then multiple simulations could offer some viable data under numerous terrain conditions.
For now, being a rookie at this game, my sense is the weakest army on the field is the one under my command. :)

Lancier
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:46 am
Location: İstanbul
Contact:

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by Lancier » Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:12 pm

I think the designer is Scott right? and his reply was "opening a topic and asking experienced player" which i did already :wink:

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 45#p688845
eddieballgame wrote:For now, I suspect the only one who could answer this question is the designer of this fabulous game.
Vive L'Empereur!
The Wargaming Club (TWC)
https://thewargamingclub.com/

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10278
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:18 pm

Lancier wrote:I think the designer is Scott right?
Richard Bodley Scott :D
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

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by MikeC_81 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:10 pm

The proposed rankings are reasonable to me but I would say most of the A tier lists aren't necessarily much better than the B tier lists, but B tier simply have a less straightforward baseline gameplan.

I di think you are selling Pikes and Hoplites short though
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

eddieballgame
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:53 am

Re: Rate (categorize) FoG II Armies please!? (CustomMultipla

Post by eddieballgame » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:11 pm

Lancier wrote:I think the designer is Scott right? and his reply was "opening a topic and asking experienced player" which i did already :wink:

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 45#p688845
eddieballgame wrote:For now, I suspect the only one who could answer this question is the designer of this fabulous game.
Yes he is, & an active competitor per this game. Thus, I would give his opinion on this matter the most weight.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”