Slitherine

Hi Ancients Wargamers,

Can someone suggest a few army lists that are similar to the lists I've played before?

I generally like medium infantry shooty armies, with cavalry (not exclusively lights) that can shoot and charge in a pinch. Ideally the shooty infantry has some punch in melee and don't die in a turn. Artilleryy is a plus, but not essential.

Quite obviously my favourite lists were Ottomans in Pike and Shot and Chinese armies (Qing/ Ming) in Sengoku Jidai, but also played as Hungarians briefly in FOG1 (could not get into it to much).

Overall, I think this medium foot shooty army with horse shooters is a bad idea because of the 5 shot rule , but trying to slowly wrap my head around the new POA rules. And dang it I love shooting, but coming to a place where pikes don't rule in impact and melee, and brand new unit types (offensive spear? think I heard of it before), I want to stick to something familiar and not get everything changed at once.

So far the Armenians are kinda like it, but their cavalry is better than their infantry, and I want a infantry shooter centric army. Thank you!

There are only a few armies based on ranged infantry, I think Nabataeans, Indians, Mountain Indians. Yet all of these are based on medium foot massed archers with no melee capability. At least in the base game, infantry is very specialized, and there is no pike and shot style infantry skilled at both melee and shooting.

Future DLC will probably cover some armies that you may like, such as Achaemenid Persian. Generally though, FOG2 has a great emphasis on a sprawling, brutal center of battle melee slugfest to settle things, as opposed to the maneuvering and shooting so dominant in PnS.

At the monent no army fits in your requirements but as previously posted I think a cat-and-mouse game is not working in FoGII.
The 5 shots rule is the main reason because even if both players don't want to rush against each other, soon or later you have to start a fight for the reduced shooting power and lacking of space.

Do you already have played some games?

Only single player so far. I mainly read the manual then picked the list closest to what I want, then played a couple of battles.

I did try Arabs yesterday, and I like that list better. Arabs get massed archers (medium infantry shooters), decent cavalry (camels on one side to beeline towards enemy cavalry, light horse and noble cavalry on the other). The only thing not a big fan of is the large numbers of required melee javelins. Was hoping for a medium shooter army (mostly massed archers), but seems this is as good as it gets.

Nabateans and mountain Indians sound good too, but I really got spoiled by Chinese and Ottoman lists (buy heavy art, buy shooters, cavalry does not overcommit, instead staying on the flanks within shooter range, this forces the enemy to advance under pretty withering fire). I am pretty sure this won't work at all in FOG2.

To be fair, that strategy was only really guaranteed to work against the AI. In MP, it was highly terrain dependent; the Chinese had a tough time stopping melee heavy forces like Samurai or Tibetan heavy cavalry in more open or level terrain. The Turks in PnS did well where there was rough ground for their janissaries and open space on the flanks for their cavalry, but could get bowled over on maps where they couldn't park their infantry in a good defensive position.

Likewise in FOG2, Indian style armies are very powerful if they have broken ground or hills to post their bowmen in, but in the open they can be vulnerable to cavalry charges or a concerted rush of heavy infantry. Also, artillery is sparse, so the only way to goad an enemy to attack is to use skirmishers, or advancing to within 4 squares with your archers, which is dangerous.

Against the AI, it still works very well because of the way it is programmed. If you park in a strong defensive position, the AI will just stand and wait for awhile. After a set number of turns, it will attack even if it thinks it a bad idea. In real life, such standoffs could last for days, and then no battle would occur. In MP, no human will attack such a position head on (well maybe a few but it's a lesson they'll remember), but will either try to hit it with a weighted flank, adopt their own defensive ground and settle in for a shouting match, or descend to neutral ground, daring you to come down and fight.

pot luck

MaxDamage wrote:pot luck

My favorite army list!

MaxDamage wrote:pot luck

Yeah, I know I should just bite the bullet and go potluck to understand all lists, and I know Turks/ Chinese were very situational (you need rough or trees or at the minimum some none open ground), and I know these (at least the Turks, I think Chinese lists are plenty good in SJ) are not the most competitive, but I thematically don't like the heavy infantry armies or lists that tend to dominate most wargames.

That's mostly from very bad experience in Medieval Total War (the original, not the Sega one), where in Multiplayer one pretty much had to go Catholic, 4x Chivalric Men at Arms, 4x Feudal Men at arms, knights, crossbows, and Eastern European or Muslim lists were almost unviable florins for florins. Been stubbornly avoiding lists that even look like heavy infantry armies since then.

Personal opinion, I think there is probably some modelling quirks from developers who often happen to be in Western countries. If I by chance I find a game that for example, makes non heavy infantry armies viable, it often is from Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Russia, Hungary, Turkey). Shout out to Real Warfare from Russia that actually modelled deadly point blank backwards shots from horse archers to kill chasing knights (justification was that while chasing, you are not dodging much, and the added close range makes it an even easier shot). You had to vector in knights from an off angle, chasing directly from behind was suicide.

That said, Pike and Shot and Sengoku were very kind to non heavy infantry lists, and hopefully they can be viable in FOG 2 as well.

Good news for you. I’m modding this game to include the Chinese (Warring States / Qin Dynasty / Han Dynansy).
The main line formation is Medium Foot, 50% Heavy Weapon (dagger axe), 50% Crossbow. Though the army was built to fight mounted nomads, let’s see how they fare against Western Heavy Infantry.

Stay tuned.

"Good news for you. I’m modding this game to include the Chinese (Warring States / Qin Dynasty / Han Dynansy)."

great news!

thanks!

randy44 wrote:"Good news for you. I’m modding this game to include the Chinese (Warring States / Qin Dynasty / Han Dynansy)."

great news!

thanks!

Holy Moly, I can't take all this good news! First the surprise Japanese warfare Mod in Pike and Shot, then the full Sengoku game, then adding in the Mandate of Heaven for what I think so far is the first representation of koxinga's army , and now you are already modding in Chinese lists for FOG 2 when the printing ink has barely dry. These are great times. Looking forward to it!

Thanks.

SnuggleBunnies wrote:In real life, such standoffs could last for days, and then no battle would occur. In MP, no human will attack such a position head on (well maybe a few but it's a lesson they'll remember), but will either try to hit it with a weighted flank, adopt their own defensive ground and settle in for a shouting match, or descend to neutral ground, daring you to come down and fight.

I always thought that games like this and Total War should have a 'refuse battle' option if an enemy is X-distance away and won't leave his fortifications. If you're all sitting on top of your wall you can't do anything about me leaving. It's unrealistic to force people to fight a losing battle when the other side has no ability to force them to it. But usually leaving a battle like that counts as 'losing' for some inexplicable reason.

Field of Glory 2 is pretty much a set-piece game, so whatever, but I really wish there were games where skirmishing, harassment and fortification were actually useful and helpful to win a war. Almost all strategy games focus on grand battles, which is not realistic; when did the Vietnamese ever give open battle to the Americans? It would be suicide, but they still 'won' after a fashion by harassment (and some help from American domestic dissent).

We're getting OT here, but Slitherine has published two such games - Vietnam 65 and Afghanistan 11

Cheimison wrote:Almost all strategy games focus on grand battles, which is not realistic; when did the Vietnamese ever give open battle to the Americans?

Being pedantic but the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley was more or less an "open battle" and it was a close thing, even with US air support. Also Khe Sanh.

Indo-Greek has a nice combination of being able to shoot a lot while having some robust foot and added elephants. What's not to love?