1000 Point Army

PC/Mac : Digital version of the popular tabletop gaming system. Fight battles on your desktop in single and mutiplayer!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, NewRoSoft, FoG PC Moderator

Xiccarph
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:05 am

1000 Point Army

Post by Xiccarph » Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:32 am

My poor Pontics can't quite muster 1000 points. Buying everything I can, even fortifications and taking expensive allies only nets me 947 or points. Not an insurmountable difference mind you, but that would be a nice group of archers or three heavy cavalry. Any chance for a tweak?

petergarnett
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:01 pm
Location: Gatwick, UK

Post by petergarnett » Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:32 am

I've had the same experience wth the Later Macedonians.

ianiow
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1098
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Post by ianiow » Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:40 am

Ptolemaic (greek) are 916 maxed out.
Ptolemaic (roman) are 640!

I would totally reccommend 1000pt battles though. I am in the middle of a Ptolemaic v Late Roman battle against neil123. The battlelines dont 'disintergrate' into a free for all mess like they do in lower points battles, and even when you start losing badly in one section of your lines, you always feel the situation is recoverable with a bit of tactical manuvering because there is greater scope for deploying reserves.

If your havent tried a 1000pt game yet, do it! :D

neil123
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:08 pm

Post by neil123 » Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:14 am

yes, I would really like the lists to be made to allow 1000 points that still allow you to make significant choices (i.e like 500 now). For me somewhere around the 800-1000 seems to bring the best out of FOG, as Ian says, the battles retain their shape without being massively over-sized. But we also need maps a bit wider for these, as there is a small risk of off map evading in our battle (something I personally hate almost as much as Morbio and Deetter hate my Pontiac cavalry (just joking, I agree with all they say about units evading etc)

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Post by 76mm » Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:36 am

while we're talking about the point system, I really think that changes need to be made to the max unit allocations. In a recent game, my oponents army was made up almost exclusively of elite legions (about 20-25 BGs if I recall correctly) plus some superior hvy horse, etc.

I think that there should be much tighter restrictions on the selection of elite units, and that "all elite" armies should not be allowed; moreover he said that selecting these units was the only way he could use up his point allocation.

[post edited to make sense...]
Last edited by 76mm on Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13519
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil » Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:50 am

The lists are designed with min/max for 400-600 point armies in mind, like the tabletop.

We could scale the min/max values based on the points you have chosen but it adds some technical issues. We might have to reset the selected list to its minimums when doing this to avoid any issues. E.g. you had picked an army to 400 points, then you decided to change to 500 points. It might have to reset your list to the minimums when you make the change so you woudl have to reselect everything again.

neil123
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:08 pm

Post by neil123 » Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:50 pm

That would do it for me ! While its nice to be able to take your 400 and upgrade it I believe that I will end up playing mostly in the 800-1000 point area (opponents willing) as the battles just feel better so would be happy to take the extra "admin" - and the builder is so easy and quick anyway. I do assume of course as long as I dont change the army points size I could still edit my "epic" army. (note I am not someone who loves managing millions of units - it really just seems to play better with the larger armies)

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4675
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:29 pm

76mm wrote:while we're talking about the point system, I really think that changes need to be made to the max unit allocations. In a recent game, my oponents army was made up almost exclusively of elite legions (about 20-25 BGs if I recall correctly) plus some superior hvy horse, etc.

I think that there should be much tighter restrictions on the selection of elite units, and that "all elite" armies should not be allowed; moreover he said that selecting these units was the only way he could use up his point allocation.

[post edited to make sense...]
I have been thinking somewhat on the same lines of unit allocations in DAg battles. Keep in mind tjhis is not a gripe or complaint against any opponents I have played and gotten thrashed by, however I have noticed a pattern in many DAG battles in the armies people field. Clearly there an optimal unit mix, however the current allocation allows forces to be almost the same no matter what army you are fighting..
Examples I fight vs a Seluecid army: lots of pikes, lots of heavy drilled cats, lost of lights… vs Rome: lots of legions, lights and Cats….
Vs Parthia: lots of lights(mixed w HA) Cats and PIKES**

The pattern I am seeing is basically no matter what army you are facing, the force mix always seems to resemble a late Hellenistic army of combined arms: solid heavy infanty, light and the best heavy cavalry $ can buy…..
Again want to reiterate not complaining against players who naturally are picking the best combos that are allowed, and I too of course do this.. The only thing is the lack of diversity in fighting armies that are truly unique IE I have never encountered a pure cavalry army, nor a horde of pure heavy infantry Gauls ( I have fielded such an army and lost several times but I will continue to use it to fine tune the rather limited tactics one can use, but that for me is part of the fun..)

I cant really think of any suggestions on how this could be resolved as I certainly do not want to diminish the flexibility of the army generator which allows players to do as they will… Perhaps it can be tweaked a little? For expample the Selucids seem to have the most options and can field pretty scary armies… maybe if they were forced to buy 4-6 very low quality heavy units which would be a liitle more accurate in depicting the reliance on massed levies to “flesh out” their armies?

Morbio
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1967
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Post by Morbio » Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:06 pm

I've played the Pyrrhics a few times and this certainly forces you to have some (4, It hink) Tarantines (Poor Phalanx) as well as the normal Average Phalanx.

I certainly agree that armies should have some weaker troops as well as the top troops. The challenge comes then is how to play them.

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Post by 76mm » Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:20 pm

I also certainly didn't mean to complain against any opponents, and I do the same thing.

But DAG armies seem to be made up of too many high-quality troops. I think it should be easier to buy more lower-quality troops, and much harder to buy high-quality units. Right now the only way to use point allocations, at least for larger armies, is to buy all top-quality troops, which leads to these artificial, gold-plated armies.

Also, despite the various "options" I have when creating an army, in fact my Seleucid army is pretty much guaranteed to look almost exactly like your Seleucid army, because to use all of our points there are forced to make almost identical choices.

Blathergut
Field Marshal - Elefant
Field Marshal - Elefant
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Post by Blathergut » Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:41 pm

use less points...600pt battles are huge...allowing for all the elites and such as well as other stuff...go down to 300pts...requires actual choice

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Post by 76mm » Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:55 pm

Blathergut wrote:use less points...600pt battles are huge...allowing for all the elites and such as well as other stuff...go down to 300pts...requires actual choice
I don't like playing 300 or even 400 pt battles. Why not change the unit allocations for larger battles so that we have choices in them as well??

Paisley
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:57 pm

Post by Paisley » Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:04 pm

But 300 point games are too small for some tastes. I find 400 is the lowest battle that feels big enough to me. 600 is much better - but at this point some of the army lists are creaking under the strain and at 800 almost all can be maximised for quality (and some must be simply maxed out in all units).

If beyond 500 points, the minimums were doubled and the maximums increased by say 50%, I think the bigger games would be better balanced in terms of army composition.

As it stands (and with the obvious proviso that someone like pantherboy could beat any points value army of mine with 100pts of poor quality light foot), I'd say Bosporans are 'best' pick at 500 pts, Late Macedonians at 600 and Late Republican Roman at 800, these being the levels at which one may comfortably pick all the best quality troops and not have to resort to poorer ones to make up the numbers/points.

I'd also say that being able to pick 22 elite legion units at 600 points in the Late Republican lists (and still have room for extra troops) seems a bit odd. I'd rather see the total number of legionnaries boosted to 30 (ten legions), but have the elites capped at 6 or 12. Even then at higher points totals there will be no reason to pick legionnaries below Superior quality. Perhaps the average and poor legionnaires might be picked sepaarately? i don't know if the system would allow that.

But in essence I'd see legion units in total being 16-36.

But with maximums of 12 for elite, 24 for superior, 36 for average or poor. But with the proviso that picking 12 elites would reduce the number of superiors you could pick by a like amount, and the the number of superiors fielded would reduce the total avarage and poor.

eg

6 elites, 18 superior, 12 average would be 'lawful'

as would 24 superior and 12 average

or 12 elites, 12 superior and 12 poor.

That kind of thing.

deeter
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by deeter » Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:56 pm

If the lists are optimised for 400-600 pt. games (and I rather like the 600 pt. size) why not double everything above 600 pts. and halve everything below 400 pts. On the TT forum, players have been talking about using smaller armies for quicker games and on standard adjustment is to have fewer commanders allowed. Makes sense. It would also make sense to allow more commanders at higher levels. And definately, camp vps. should be tied to the size of the game.

Deeter

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Post by 76mm » Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:41 pm

I agree with paisley's comments...

grumblefish
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:46 pm

Post by grumblefish » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:48 pm

I actually like the low point battles for some reason; all I need is a nice little line of phalanxes, and then perhaps one or two skirmishers and a horse. However, I find my 200-400 battles wind up with me facing an almost all-skirmisher army, which is literally the most annoying force imagineable.

Just say no to skirmishers! :evil:

SRW1962
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Wolves

Post by SRW1962 » Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:16 am

Having read all of the preceding posts I would like to make a few points:

1. If the army lists are really designed for 400-600 point armies then why give the ability to make 1,000 point armies? That just seems silly to me and it gives rise to everyone quite rightly assuming that all armies should be able to be 1,000 points if they wish them to be. A simple fix though, just take off the unit cap on some of the lower quality/more available troop types that could conceivably been fielded to bulk out a larger army, the elites and historically costlier troops could remain the same.

2. When it comes to competitive wargaming beit tabletop or computer generated, players will ALWAYS pick the best troops available to them, its simply the nature of the beast. Army lists were and still are made primarily for competitive use so they need to try to strike a balance with each armies ability to field certain troop types. There is nothing wrong with the lists in the respect of what they allow to be fielded really, although I do have a few gripes about certain favourite armies (not enough cavalry or velites in Mid Republican Roman armies and not enough elephants in Carthaginian in Africa armies), but then I guess so may most people, but generally they serve a purpose which is to stop players from picking super armies.

3. A lot of the armies do feel very hellenistic because this is the hellenistic period and a lot of armies were using very similar troops or variations of a theme. If you really want to experience the best of all worlds why not play a campaign that is based upon a historical model, for instance I am going to play a punic wars campaign with a mate of mine based upon the brilliant board game Hannibal. FOG and Hannibal work perfectly together and then army lists are fairly irrelevant except for giving a guide to the types of troops available, the only problem being that the lists won't accomodate some of our wishes on the pc version using the DAG so we may have to use the senario designer to make the battles work.

jamespcrowley
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Arundel, U.K.

Post by jamespcrowley » Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:25 pm

As a counterpoint to the 1000 pt army, it would seem to be impossible to have an army of less than 200 pts (there are a few at 150 pts but not many). So you cannot have, what would essentially be, skirmishes or small all-cavalry based encounters in DAG. Even with 200/250 pt armies there is very little choice to be had because most of the points have already been allocated to 'minimum' requirements.

So it seems that DAG is really only fully effective for 400 to 600 point armies; which does beg the question, aked in the previous post, why bother offering the upper and lower end options if they cannot be utilised?

petergarnett
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:01 pm
Location: Gatwick, UK

Post by petergarnett » Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:37 pm

So far I've not encountered any problems in the range 400-900. With only one expansion out isn't it a little early to decide there is no point?

Looking at some of the biblical armies in Swifter than Eagles (TT) some rarely have units costing over 4 or 5 points each base so probably will not be able to field high point armies but would still look good as a 400 point army & would numerically outnumber say a medieval army at 400 points by a considerable amount.

Just my tuppence worth.

IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13519
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil » Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:41 pm

Anyone who thinks a standard hellenistic army is the way to go with combined arms and heavy foot is welcome to challenge me with my 400 point Bosporans :)

The reason for allowing differnt points is that different armies are at their best at different points values. Cavalry armies will struggle if there are no flanks to play with.

I think a lot depends on the tactics you use and everyone is just lerning the basics at the moment. It was the same when the tabletop first came out. As for maxing out the Elite legion - they are so expensive he cant have had anythign else. If you went in to that frontally you are going to get anihiliated. You ened to take out teh flanks and avoid engaging where you can't win.

I'm assuming most of the people posting here are not used to playing tabletop games where you can pick any size using the same restructions we have in place here? I'm sure you'll get used to it :)

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”