|
Post by carl on Feb 13, 2009 17:20:03 GMT
Ok mate i'll play with the Warlord Romans, if no-one has any objections. i know you are painting them but dont forget who got them for you to use, for free!
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Feb 13, 2009 18:48:43 GMT
No denying that and thanks - but its a lot of effort to do so small mercies?
|
|
|
Post by loki on Feb 13, 2009 23:35:03 GMT
If the deadline is september then I sould have a Mongol army by then (with a bit of luck)
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Feb 13, 2009 23:51:39 GMT
Yep sounds good - Mongol army full of steppes cavalry lots of archery on horseback - nice. However has to be pre-1066.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Feb 14, 2009 14:04:05 GMT
Ick Mongols, by reputation the most difficult WAB army to beat as the horse archers are nearly impossible to pin in combat.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Feb 14, 2009 15:55:46 GMT
Yes I totally agree, they can just stand back and shoot - parthian shot, flee and shoot and reform - infantry units haven't a chance. I will have a look at the rules for these to fair them up against Roman / Greek / Persian units and limit a few units IF it proves a little unbalanced.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Feb 14, 2009 17:39:11 GMT
if we are going to have a league / campaign then as long as the army is legal then i dont think there should be any restrictions placed on them just because they may be a bugger to pin down or play against.
if someone is going to the trouble of buying them etc then in my opinion they should be allowed to field whatever they want as long as it is in the book and conforms to the army restrictions / list.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Feb 14, 2009 19:42:34 GMT
Strictly the armies are only reasonably balanced against other armies of their period, as they've been designed to fight against each other.
Once you get outside that you can have some fairly odd games.
The armies in the 300 BC - 300 AD period match up reasonably well against each other. Romans, Greeks, Celts, Carthaginian, Persians, Parthians, etc.
I don't mind playing against the nomadic hordes list out of the main rulebook. That army is good, but will be small, due to the expensive of the cavalry units.
I do know of several people however who won't play against Mark's Mongol's as they find the games very boringly one-sided.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Feb 14, 2009 20:29:19 GMT
i see that loki is a new member, who is LOKI though?
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Feb 14, 2009 22:25:15 GMT
I do believe its the Norse God of Mischief - also depicted in the Mask films (prattle prattle).
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Feb 14, 2009 22:36:20 GMT
Strictly the armies are only reasonably balanced against other armies of their period, as they've been designed to fight against each other. Once you get outside that you can have some fairly odd games. The armies in the 300 BC - 300 AD period match up reasonably well against each other. Romans, Greeks, Celts, Carthaginian, Persians, Parthians, etc. I don't mind playing against the nomadic hordes list out of the main rulebook. That army is good, but will be small, due to the expensive of the cavalry units. I do know of several people however who won't play against Mark's Mongol's as they find the games very boringly one-sided. Totally agree with you there Steve on the issue of eras. Mongols against Ancient Persians (not Sassanids) would be almost one sided. There is a section at the back of the WAB books that make for ideal pairings although a Norman Army facing off a Roman army would be amusing. I agree with Carl that people do fork out the cash and spend lots of time preparing and painting these armies - so best said now than on the 29th of August 2009 - as I believe Loki has not quite decided on a purchase as yet. Not that there's is anything stopping him but there may be restrictions on certain units to balance things. I'm sure if you were playing Romans Carl against the Mongol Horde of Cavalry Bowmen you would not last long no matter how good you are. You would not catch them and you would certainly not get much in the way of combat. As Steve says a rather boring and tedious affair - unless you have an army that could match them - Parthians are quite good for this ;D- oops did I say something wrong? Steve if you can photocopy that list from the army book I would be grateful - is it the same as the one in the Armies of antiquity book? As I have this one. I have just noticed that the Nomadic hordes are compatible with everything except Trojan, Hittite, Egyptian, Sea Peoples and Sumerians from that end of scale - and are not compatible with Normans, vikings, saxons and carthage possibly for geographical reasons rather than era. I'll read more and make a decision.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Feb 14, 2009 22:55:06 GMT
the Parthians should be gone next week and the cash from that and most from the chaos sale is earmarked for the new Warlords plastic ECW range, as for kelmarsh 2010 i would like to run an ECW game, especially as it is SO close to Naseby.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Feb 14, 2009 22:57:32 GMT
English paliamentarians against Mongols - Hmmm there's a thought?
|
|
|
Post by Brinkman (Roddy) on Feb 15, 2009 22:34:45 GMT
I had a look at the rules this weekend, looks good. I am really drawn towards Arthurian Britains. I'm no ancients expert but I beleive they are around the 400-500 AD era.
Any ideas on if there will be a limit to the timescale that armies in the campaign will be allowed? Before I go and spend a ton of cash on those lovely Foundry figures!! ;D Wouldn't want to find that they would have no one to fight once their all painted up!
Roddy
mmm...just re read the above post - will wait and see what the decision is ref periods - cheers
Roddy
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Feb 15, 2009 23:34:14 GMT
That ought to be ok with the various armies we already have.
In terms of historical accuracy, Arthurian Britons against Cathaginian's, Greeks and Persians might be a little off, but the armies ought to be reasonably balanced.
Might be worth having a look at the Arthur army book and comparing it to say Hannibal, Fall of the West and Alexander, but it should be ok.
|
|