|
Post by nangwaya on Apr 26, 2019 14:05:27 GMT
As Cangames approaches, I am starting to re-think about bringing my Albanian IV/69 army, for the DBA open tournament that will be held.
It is my first 15mm army that I painted, but man, they are a tough army to play.
So I am thinking perhaps of fielding my late Philistine I/29b army instead, as they have more muscle than the Albanians.
However, the Philistines have an aggression of 3, so doubt I will be defending much.
Do you tend to avoid fielding high aggression armies in open tournaments, or are other factors more important to you?
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 26, 2019 15:27:19 GMT
As Cangames approaches, I am starting to re-think about bringing my Albanian IV/69 army, for the DBA open tournament that will be held.
It is my first 15mm army that I painted, but man, they are a tough army to play.
So I am thinking perhaps of fielding my late Philistine I/29b army instead, as they have more muscle than the Albanians.
However, the Philistines have an aggression of 3, so doubt I will be defending much.
Do you tend to avoid fielding high aggression armies in open tournaments, or are other factors more important to you? Depends on the flexibility of the army, and any “cunning plan” involving aggression. eg would rarely consider Mongols or Skyths for an open tournament, as they struggle in bad terrain, and will usually invade (Aggr. 4). An army with a mix of good going and poor going troops can cope far better. If it’s likely to be Littoral army v Littoral army action then high aggression can be a bonus. eg the Sea Peoples army with Aggr 4 will usually be the invader and thus will land second in many games, which can be a distinct advantage - if your opponent doesn’t plan a landing, then you have free rein, but if he does land, then you get the chance to squish the opponents landing next bound 😎.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Apr 26, 2019 16:10:38 GMT
Tournament at Historicon appears to let the attacking (more likely with high aggression) army choose board size, 30 in vs. 24 inch square. Some thinking may be necessary. For example, a high aggression cavalry army might be preferable to a low aggression cavalry army to get more maneuvering room. I haven't played many games on the 30 inch square boards.
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Apr 26, 2019 19:40:29 GMT
It's the primary consideration for me. I have found that simple plans that rely on a largely plain board work very well in general in 3.0, and they are also less likely to result in drawn game (in theory...) The current terrain rules are so rubbish that the defender can do pretty much what he wants in term of board width, BGo/RGo density, oddities (WWay, Forts). Very few armies can cope well with all the extreme of terrains that are advantageous to others. There is a new challenge in 3.0: RGo. Traditional good "combined arms" armies (Alex, or the like) are now stuffed when attacking a "fast" army that has carpet bombed with RGo: their solid foot and mounted are slowed to a crawl (and the fast elements can match-up optimise at will, even if the solid/mounted don't enter the rough), and their BGo corp is very vulnerable to 3Bd. Another new hard test for any army in 3.0 is "What the heck can it do vs defending Qaramita III/54b".
There are a few exceptions though. If I plan on using Art aggressively, it's probably better to attack, and having the single dismounting "/" probably works a tad better for the attacker (not entirely sure). Also as Martin already mentioned, in Lit. vs Lit. battles, the 2nd person to land has an advantage. And there are a few very balanced "fast" armies, that are equally at ease on a billiard table or in the jungle (really not many I have found though). But fortunately, there are many very good Agg. 0 armies
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Apr 26, 2019 21:48:18 GMT
I plan on playing a couple of battles this weekend using the Philistines against non-historical opponents, and see how they do.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 27, 2019 7:00:18 GMT
It's the primary consideration for me. I have found that simple plans that rely on a largely plain board work very well in general in 3.0, and they are also less likely to result in drawn game (in theory...) The current terrain rules are so rubbish that the defender can do pretty much what he wants in term of board width, BGo/RGo density, oddities (WWay, Forts). Very few armies can cope well with all the extreme of terrains that are advantageous to others. There is a new challenge in 3.0: RGo. Traditional good "combined arms" armies (Alex, or the like) are now stuffed when attacking a "fast" army that has carpet bombed with RGo: their solid foot and mounted are slowed to a crawl (and the fast elements can match-up optimise at will, even if the solid/mounted don't enter the rough), and their BGo corp is very vulnerable to 3Bd. Another new hard test for any army in 3.0 is "What the heck can it do vs defending Qaramita III/54b".
There are a few exceptions though. If I plan on using Art aggressively, it's probably better to attack, and having the single dismounting "/" probably works a tad better for the attacker (not entirely sure). Also as Martin already mentioned, in Lit. vs Lit. battles, the 2nd person to land has an advantage. And there are a few very balanced "fast" armies, that are equally at ease on a billiard table or in the jungle (really not many I have found though). But fortunately, there are many very good Agg. 0 armies So would you approve a Late Pre-Islamic arab army dragging along some Byzantines with artillery as a worthy army to take on defending Qarmetians?lol It is a shame that armies such as Alexandrian Macedinian have difficulty in Bad and Rough going as historically they ammended their fighting order to coap with it. Fast Bd are an element type to be reckoned with as their fighting factors and speed are one hell of an advantage,but it could be considered that these advantages can be partly negated by the Bad and Rough going as then element types such as Ax and Wb can match them?Wb especially as they still retain the QK. Back to the Qarmetians you can consider 4Ax to be more than a match for the Cm in dunes...pips allowing you to move in line as individual elements.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 27, 2019 7:41:01 GMT
....and then the camels morph into Sp or Bw....there’s the rub.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 27, 2019 8:05:21 GMT
....and then the camels morph into Sp or Bw....there’s the rub. But in the Bg the Sp would be poor and the Ax and Wb can match the Sp and Bw who now have the same pip problem and have to move individually or form column.
|
|