Big
By
David Kuijt and David Schlanger
Updated:
Preamble
While discussing Big Battle DBA strategy and tactics online we have had
occasion to assess which Big Battle (BB) armies are more effective, and which
are less so. The use of allies, and the different mechanics of Big Battle DBA,
means that the effective armies can be quite different from those that are
effective in regular DBA. There are a great variety of effective armies in Big
Battle. The II/28 Bosporans combined 0 aggression, Knights, and Auxilia; II/15
Alexander Imperial with II/3 Classical Indian ally may be one of the premier
combined-arms forces in Big Battle DBA; I/22(b) New Kingdom Egyptian has an
excellent mix of Blade and Bow with a mobile chariot arm; II/42(b) Tamil Indian
takes brute force to a new level with Elephants and Blades; and so on. This
effectiveness assessment is based entirely upon our experience in open
tournaments -- in theme tournaments or against historical enemies, most armies
with low ratings will perform better. The larger army size in Big Battle makes
it more difficult to support themed tournaments and restrict battles to
historical matchups, such that all the Big Battle DBA tournaments we have
participated in since the publication of DBA 2.0 have been open tournaments.
This assessment also includes the tactical complexity of each army listed in
the rulebook.
The Big Battle DBA rules amplify the complexity of the game, as each
army consists of three times as many elements. The ability to separate specific
elements into commands, allows for more interesting troop interactions, as well
as mission specific goals. We consider the tactical skill that each army
requires in a variety of situations. Some armies are just plain more
challenging to play well than others. We consider II/22(d) Characene with
II/23(a) Arab Nomad and II/37 Parthian allies to be one of the best
"trick" armies out there -- Aggression 0 Dry, with lots of Camels,
and a great mix of troops. But it is also a very difficult army to play well,
and will likely be very frustrating for less advanced players. On the other
hand, triple II/33 Polybian Roman is a very good heavy-foot army that will be
rewarding even for relatively new players if they understand a few basic
principles about Big Battle DBA.
In the discussion that follows we examine a broad spectrum of notable
Big Battle armies, giving each an effectiveness
rating of A-F, a complexity
rating of 1-5, and a commentary regarding our
reasoning behind the ratings. An effectiveness A
army offers crushing potential in the hands of many players, while an effectiveness F one may be doomed from the start
regardless of the level of player. A complexity 1
army offers little tactical complexity and challenge (it may not be easy to
win, but is easy to play), while a complexity 5
army includes multiple troop types with complex troop interaction (difficult to
play). An approximation of complexity levels is as follows:
1 - Very simple armies; monotype
armies without complication
2 - Simple armies. More
complicated monotype armies (LH monotype, bad-going monotype armies), or armies
based around two troop types that work well together.
3 - Average complexity. Easy
combined-arms armies; armies with two common troop types that don't work easily
with each other.
4 - Complex. Combined-arms armies
without very difficult element types
5 - Very complex. Armies that combine lots of Pikes, Elephants,
War-wagons, Artillery, and trapeze artists.
Note that some troop types have
inherent complexity - they are difficult to get to do what you wish to do with
them. Any troop type that takes an extra pip to move falls in that category, as
do Pikes. LH are that way as a primary troop type, but are actually easier to
use in small numbers. The same is true for auxilia and psiloi.
A 
marker
acknowledges that a particular army would be an extremely gutsy entry in any
open BBDBA event because of glaring weakness in one or more areas. We do not
assign these ratings lightly; just because an army has low effectiveness does
not make it a wheelbarrow army - it must also have aspects of funkitude and
glory.
Note that this is of necessity a very brief assessment. If you are
choosing a Big Battle army based upon this article you should consider other
factors as well, as we ignore some very important issues. Some players will be
better at gaining advantages through terrain-placement than others; they would
do well to seek out lower aggression armies. Other players might be very adept
at getting a deployment advantage, and very flexible -- they should seek out a
high-aggression combined-arms army like Later Carthage or Alexander Imperial.
Some element types, like Pike, Light Horse, Elephants, or Artillery, are
difficult to master and may not be for all players. Similarly for massed Bow --
they can be competitive against almost anything but massed blade, but you can't
just line them up and hope if you're facing enemy heavy spear. Some players
will play better with a very mobile army; or with a stolid heavy foot army. And
of course, there is no substitute for playing an army that you love!
One more aside -- the Big Battle DBA board as listed is very cramped.
This makes maneuver armies with lots of Cav and LH fight at a significant
disadvantage compared to regular DBA (and they had a big disadvantage on a
24" square map too!). We recommend you try playing on a 5x2 board; We
think it improves the game.
Finally, with the release of DBA 2.2 we see changes to the deployment
rules for Big Battle DBA that prove to be detrimental to the game's delicate
balance. All of the ratings below are based on our special rules for BBDBA that
can be found here - Official NASAMW Big Battle Rules.
These special rules take the best of DBA 2.0 and 2.1, without the problems
rampant in 2.2 - the changes are slight but quite significant in effect. If you
wish to use the published DBA 2.2 deployment rules without modification, you
should modify our ratings for effectiveness slightly. As a rule of thumb,
combined-arms armies with high aggression will tend to do slightly better with
the 2.2 deployment against non-monotype armies; and non-monotype armies with
high aggression will tend to do slightly better against low-aggression
combined-arms armies.
Book
I Armies
|
I/1
Early Sumerian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
3000-2800BC |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
2799-2500BC |
B |
2 |
|
(c)
2500-2334BC |
B |
3 |
|
(d)
2250BC |
C |
4 |
Effectiveness: Each list can be improved one
rating by adding an ally. The (a) list is a slow-as-dirt bow army, improved
slightly with Zagros or Bedouin allies. The (b) list and (c) list have a fairly
nice troop distribution -- a strong pike wall with supporting Kn and Bd is
pretty good. They are helped significantly by adding an ally, and all their
allies are all nice additions. The (d) list weakens somewhat but their ally,
although also slow, is quite interesting.
Complexity: The (a) list bow wall is probably
the easiest Early Sumerian list to use as a monotype army, however bow is not
the most simple troop type to use effectively, and staying alive against heavy
foot will require subtle play. Adding the Zagros or Bedouin ally provides some
added mobility and terrain use. The (b) and (c) list both offer some challenge
due to the high number of pike, although (c) offers more combined arms
complexity. List (d) is the most difficult to use, as a plan is needed to fight
with only 10 elements or else find something useful for the Horde despite their
vulnerability and extra PIP needs.
|
I/2
Early Egyptian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
3000-1640BC |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
1639-1543BC |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: The (b) list gets a higher rating
because of its greater proportion of blade and the addition of a few chariots
for mobility. Blade and bow is a nice combination, but these guys need some
sort of mobility component.
Complexity: Both lists have some complexity, in
that they require bow/blade interaction. Both lists have the benefit of psiloi
supported blade, and suffer from the strain of three elements of Horde. The a
list choice of a Lit general command stand presents even more complexity. This
army should be played with a Lit C-in-C, just because.
|
I/3 Nubian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
3000BC-1480BC |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: A bow army with a bit of Wb to
threaten heavy foot. Not too bad, but you gotta like bow.
Complexity: A mostly-simple army with a little
added complexity from the Warband double move and support options. Using more
psiloi presents a more complex plan development with potential first bound
ambush and more potential for terrain advantage.
|
I/4
Zagros and Anatolian Highlanders: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Any 3000-2251BC |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
Guti 2250-2112BC |
D |
2 |
|
(c)
Hurrians, Kassites, Nairi 1780-950BC |
D |
2 |
|
(d)
Gasgans 1650-950BC |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Aggression 3 is very rough for
Ax/Ps armies or Wb/Ps armies. The Guti have some nice allies, though, all of
which are a big help. One ally would raise their grade to C, both allies B. If
you take both the Elamites and Melukhans as allies, you have a nice combined
arms force that is only slightly lacking in mobility.
Complexity: All four of these lists are fairly
simple to play, although adequate use of terrain is needed to succeed in all
cases. Adding the ally or allies to the Guti list bumps up their complexity to 3, as it becomes a combined arms effort.
|
I/5
Early Susiana and |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
3000-2601BC |
C |
2 |
|
(b)
2600-2101BC |
C |
2 |
|
(c)
2100-1401BC |
C |
2 |
|
(d)
1400-800BC |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: The (c) list with Melukhan allies
get a rating increase to B. The (c) list has
some nice allies, of which the best are the Melukhans who give them a bit of
heavy-foot stiffening. Massed bow armies don't mind having high aggression.
Complexity: These are simple straight forward
bow monotype armies. The (a) and (c) list ally possibilities add some
complexity, but not much.
|
I/6
Early Bedouin: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Any 3000-1500BC |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
1499-1000BC |
D |
2 |
|
(c)
999-312BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: High aggression and Ax/Ps again.
The (c) list is interesting with some camels to provide mobility and stand off
enemy Cavalry and Knights, and taking the Assyrian ally gives some more variety
and a pinch of heavy foot.
Complexity: Lists (a) and (b) are simple except
for the need to play in terrain. The (c) list is much more complex in its mix
of the camel troop type with light infantry. All of the allies listed add some
complexity to the (a) list. The (a) list should increase to a rating of 3 and the (c) list 4
with the use of their allies - the Assyrian ally being both the most
challenging and exciting to play.
|
I/7
Early Libyan: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
3000-1251BC |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
1250-660BC |
C |
3 |
|
(c)
659-200BC |
D |
2 |
|
(d)
200BC-70AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: The (b) list with Sea People ally
gets bumped up to a C rating, perhaps a B rating for experienced players. Very high aggression
for the first two lists, although the Wb/Bw mix give the (b) list something
interesting and matches well with their Sea People ally, but it is still an
awful lot of psiloi for a high aggression army. The second two lists are
zero-aggression psiloi armies. Without zero aggression we would give them an F
rating! Even with zero aggression they probably can't win.
Complexity: Lists (a), (c), and (d) all present
similar complexity, and all rely on advantageous terrain despite a high
aggression. Probably the only thing keeping lists (c) and (d) from earning a 1 complexity is the challenge of trying to find
something useful for 33 elements of psiloi to do, besides die. List (b) is the
only Early Libyan list to call for complex troop interaction, and multifaceted
planning. Adding the Sea People ally to this list even goes a step further,
notching a 4 rating.
|
I/8
Makkan, Dilmun, |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
2800-1301BC |
C |
2 |
|
(b)
Makkan 1300-312BC |
C |
4 |
|
(c)
Others 1300-312BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Nice little Ax army for (a), and
Wb army for (b), but not a killer by any means. The (c) list is essentially a
low-aggression Early Bedouin army with a few blade -- nice! With the Bedouin
ally or the Kassite Ally this is a pretty nice little list. The Makkan might
rate a C+ or even a B
if you like Warband -- the Camels and Bow give the normal good-going enemies of
Warband (Knights, Elephants) some pause, and the Warband give similar good
support for the enemies of Camels and Bow (i.e., Heavy foot).
Complexity: The (b) list offers a fairly
unusual mix of troop types. The
combination of Warband, Camelry, Bow and Psiloi presents an interesting
interactive challenge.
|
I/9
Early Syrian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
2700-2200BC |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Aggression a little too high; too
many Ax/Ps; not enough troops that fight in the open and too slow. The Sumerian
ally is a nice addition, and raises their rating to C.
Complexity: Adding some pike here actually
gives some stability and a good going center to a bad-going army; that doesn't
really increase the complexity of the army much, and in some ways it simplifies
things.
|
I/10
Melukhkhan and Pre-Vedic Indian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
2700-1500BC |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: A very nice combination of
psiloi-supported spear and bow. The only thing that stops this from being an
A-quality army is its lack of mobility.
Complexity: An easy army to play. No
significant speed differences; no bad-going issues.
|
I/11
Akkadian and 3rd Dynasty of |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
2334-2193BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
2112-2004BC |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice heavy foot army. The (b)
version is slightly better. The Elamite ally is a nice addition. A bit too many
psiloi, and not enough mounted, but a nice mix of pike and bad-going flank
support otherwise.
Complexity: Supporting pikes with bad-going troops
isn't always easy, and that's what you need to do here, but there aren't a lot
of different troop types to complicate the basic task.
|
I/12
Sumerian Successor States: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
2028-1460BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Another fair heavy foot army. The
Elamite ally is nice, but the Later Amorite ally is probably more useful, and
garners an improved B rating. Like all armies
from this period, too slow.
Complexity: Drop this down to a 2 complexity rating if no pike are taken.
|
I/13
Hsia and Shang Chinese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
2000-1300BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
1299-1017BC |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Blade and bow is a nice
combination. Slow, of course. The Chinese Border Tribe ally is a fun addition.
For the later list, the Chou ally is quite powerful. Whether or not you take
allies, the auxilia are a good choice.
Complexity: Drop this down to a 2 complexity if you don't take any auxilia.
|
I/14
Early Northern Barbarian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Chinese border tribes 2000-401BC |
F |
3 |
|
(b)
Chinese border tribes 400-315BC |
D |
4 |
|
(c)
Europe 2000-1401BC |
D |
4 |
|
(d) |
C |
4 |
|
(e) |
D |
4 |
Effectiveness: Aggression too high; slow
monochrome armies. The (d) list has some nice foot and a blade-spear mix isn't
bad. The (a) list should definitely go with the Chou ally, which brings it up
to a C rating.
Complexity: As mostly-monochrome armies these
are all fairly easy to run, with only a few mounted to integrate into the
overall battle plan.
|
I/15
Later Amorite: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1894BC-1595BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Psiloi-supported blade is a nice
basic troop type. Slow.
Complexity: With auxilia, blade, psiloi, and
some mounted or bow, this is a fairly well-rounded (and therefore moderately
complex) foot army.
|
I/16
Hittite Old/Middle Kingdom: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1680BC-1380BC |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Psiloi-supported spear with a bit
of mobility. Not bad. It will have some trouble against armies with bad-going
troops and low aggression, though.
Complexity: Nice and easy, by and large.
|
I/17
Hyksos: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1645-1591BC |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
1590-1537BC |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: The (b) list with more mobility
is better; the (a) list has too much Bgo troops for its aggression. With the
addition of the Early Egyptian ally this is a nice little army, probably even
deserving of an A rating.
Complexity: The (a) list needs to integrate
auxilia with psiloi-supported blade; the (b) list needs to integrate light
chariots with the same troops. Different problems, but about the same complexity.
|
I/18
Minoan and Early Mycenean: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1600BC-1250BC |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A good sized pike block and a
bunch of mixed chariots with some Bgo troops. A nice army.
Complexity: Moderate. The list has the usual
problem - supporting the flanks of the pike block, and integrating the strike
of the mounted troops with the push of pikes.
|
I/19 |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1595BC-1274BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Not much punch, but a good
maneuver army. It won't do poorly in any situation, whether heavy terrain or
light, but it hasn't got much kick. We may be a bit harsh; it might deserve a B rating. Certainly a very good army played against
historical opponents.
Complexity: Moderate - how to give appropriate
bad-going support to a mass of light chariots.
|
I/20
Syro-Canaanite or Ugaritic: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a) |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
Others |
C |
4 |
Effectiveness: A bit too high-aggression for the
number of Bgo troops. The Ugarit list with HCh punch is better; with the
addition of the Hittite ally (giving it a good line of psiloi-supported spear
for the open) it should be quite effective and maybe a rating of A.
Complexity: The typical problem of Book I
armies - a main battle line of fairly light troops, and integrating a bad-going
attack with chariots.
|
I/21
Kassite and Later Babylonian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1595-890BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
889-747BC |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: A fairly nice Bgo army. The
allies don't really fix the only problem with this army, which is that it
doesn't have any heavy foot. Aggression 0 would have been nice, too.
Complexity: More of the same - integrating
bad-going troops with mounted or chariots.
|
I/22 |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1543-1200BC |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
1199-1069BC |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice blade/bow mix with a
mobile chariot arm. We like the (b) list with the warband slightly better for
surprise punch, but not much different. We used this list to win the BBDBA
Doubles competition at Historicon 2003.
Complexity: Blade and bow and chariots in
approximately equal proportions - a very effective form of combined arms, but
not easy to run. Integrating the speed and maneuver of the chariots into an
attack based upon a mixed blade/bow wall is not easy.
|
I/23
Vedic Indian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1500-900BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
899-512BC |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: The (a) list with LCh and Bw is
weak against any heavy foot army, but otherwise OK. The (b) list is better,
with the addition of an Elephant and a HCh to provide some anti-foot punch. An
interesting mix of troops.
Complexity: Bow and light chariots isn't all
that complicated for the (a) list, but adding Elephants to the mix really
complicates things - they don't move the same speed as the bow or the light
chariots, and they cost more pips to move, and their destructive recoils cause
restrictions on placement in the friendly backfield.
|
I/24
Hittite Empire: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1380-1275BC |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
1274-1180BC |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A very nice psiloi-supported
spear army with mobile chariots. We like the (b) list with HCh best. The
Complexity: Good proportions of heavy-foot wall
and mounted make for a fairly easy army to play.
|
I/25
Middle Assyrian and Early Neo-Assyrian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1365-883BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
882-745BC |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice army and a nice mix of
troops. The only problem is that half the army are Ax/Ps and it is aggression
4, which means they will have to make part of the good going battle line out of
them. The ally doesn't add anything new.
Complexity: The usual problem again - how to
integrate light foot, heavy foot, and mounted into a single cohesive and
effective whole.
|
I/26
Later Mycenean and Trojan War: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Achaian 1250BC-1190BC |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
Trojan 1250BC-1190BC |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: Dismounting chariots and
psiloi-supported spear, very nice. We like the (a) list better, but they are
both good.
Complexity: The major complication here is the
dismounting troops; the base of a good psiloi-supported spear wall is simple
enough. Downgrade the (a) list to complexity 3
if no pike or warband are taken.
|
I/27
Early Hebrew: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1250-1000BC |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: Far too high an aggression and no
foot capable of standing against cavalry or knights in the open.
Complexity: An army made of mostly bad-going
troops isn't a simple tactical problem.
|
I/28
Sea Peoples: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1208BC-1176BC |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: The only two knocks against this
army are that psiloi-supported blade are a big risk against knights in open
terrain resulting from their high aggression, and that the army is pretty darn
slow. The Vikings of the Bronze Age are good other than that.
Complexity: The difficulty with Sea Peoples is
having faith in your wall of psiloi-supported blade against mounted. Once you
get past that anxiety, it is easy enough to run these guys.
|
I/29
Philistine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1166-1100BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
1099-600BC |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: The Early Philistines are nice,
although a little slow and vulnerable to knights. The later version with
psiloi-supported spear are a little better overall. The Canaanite ally is
valuable for the early list; the allies are all interesting for the later list
but have their advantages and disadvantages.
Complexity: The (a) list is very close to their
Sea People origins; the (b) list converts to spear, but still is the same
general concept of a strong good-going heavy-foot wall with mounted and
bad-going support.
|
I/30
Dark Age and Geometric Greek: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1160-901BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
900-725BC |
C |
4 |
|
(c)
724-650BC |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: The dismount-as-warband LCh
general is cool for the earlier two lists, but the middle list has way too many
auxilia and psiloi to be aggression 2, and the early list has a bit too many of
both to be aggression 2. The late (c) list with psiloi-supported blade has
better chances at that aggression.
Complexity: A complicated speed/power/bad-going
integration in the (a) list becomes a relatively standard bad-going army in the
(b) list, and finally a simple psiloi-supported spear army.
|
I/31
Neo-Hittite and Later Aramaean: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1100-901BC |
D |
3 |
|
(b)
900-710BC |
D |
4 |
Effectiveness: With aggression 2 and between 9
and 11 auxilia or psiloi, these guys don't have what it takes to win
non-historical matchups.
Complexity: :A normal bad-going tactical
problem for the (a) list becomes more complicated by adding a second chariot
type and some desperately-needed heavy foot in the (b) list.
|
I/32
Western Chou and Spring & Autumn Chinese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1100-701BC |
A |
3 |
|
(b) Wu
or Yueh 584-480BC |
A |
4 |
|
(c)
Others 700-480BC |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: Nice mixes of psiloi-supported
heavy foot and heavy chariots with some bow. The allies look like fun, too.
Complexity: Not too bad. Upgrade the (b) list
to a 4 complexity if warband are taken.
|
I/33
Villanovan Italian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1000-800BC |
F |
3 |
|
(b)
799-650BC |
C |
4 |
Effectiveness: The early list is a monochrome 11
warband army. The later list is a nice mix of warband and auxilia, with some
useful mounted troops. Either list will truly suffer if they don't win the
terrain roll.
Complexity: Monochrome lists are pretty simple
to run, although warband lists somewhat less so. The mix of warband and auxilia
adds some complexity to the later list.
|
I/34
Later Hebrew: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1000-969BC |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
968-800BC |
C |
3 |
|
(c)
799-587BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: These guys can be competitive if
they defend, and at aggression 1 they'll do that fairly often, but they still
are too short in good-going troops even for that task and they're doomed if
they lose the terrain roll.
Complexity: The Later Hebrews offer the
complexity of most bad going dependant armies. Nothing special here.
|
I/35
Cypriot and Phoenician: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1000-901BC |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
900-680BC |
B |
4 |
|
(c)
679-490BC |
A |
4 |
|
(d)
489-332BC |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: The first two lists are more
bad-going armies, although with aggression 0 they're good at that. Take the
Geometric Greek ally for the (b) list. The (c) list is a very nice
psiloi-supported spear force; none of its allies add anything new. The (d) list
is similar, but significantly less mobile. On the other hand, some of the spear
can now be taken as auxilia, which is quite nice.
Complexity: The spear-wall (c) list is the
easiest; the complexity of the (d) list depends upon what mix of troops is
taken. If all spear (no artillery or auxilia) the list is only complexity 2; if you take artillery and a mix of spear and
auxilia, complexity 4 is a better measure of
how difficult it is to coordinate the disparate troop types in this army.
|
I/36
Italian Hill Tribes: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1000BC-290BC |
F |
3 |
Effectiveness: Much too high an aggression for
an all auxilia or all warband force -- either way you're likely to be screwed
against any enemy.
Complexity: Monochrome is easy, although
monochrome bad-going not quite as easy.
|
I/37
Mannaian and other Taurus/Zagros Highlanders: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a) 950-750BC |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
749-610BC |
C |
4 |
Effectiveness: The bow option makes these guys a
little more competitive in the open, and they have some nice supporting
mounted, but all-auxilia armies are still a one-trick pony.
Complexity: Not an easy mix of foot.
|
I/38
Libyan Egyptian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
946BC-712BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: A strange mix.
Complexity: Oy. One of the most complicated
armies you could have without pikes or "+1 pip to move" elements.
|
I/39
Urartian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
880-780BC |
D |
3 |
|
(b)
779-585BC |
D |
4 |
Effectiveness: Way too high an aggression for an
auxilia army.
Complexity: As shown.
|
I/40
Medes, Zirkirtu, etc.: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
835-670BC |
D |
3 |
|
(b)
669-621BC |
C |
4 |
|
(c)
620-550BC |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: The early version is an
interesting Cav/Aux mix, but not enough punch. Take the Skythian ally, or
better the Assyrians, and they deserve a slight upgrade. The middle version
gets some good psiloi- supported spear, but still has little punch and maybe
too many psiloi. The Taurus Highlander ally as Aux/Bw makes a good addition, as
does the Skythians -- perhaps even enough to upgrade the estimate to a B rating. The later version is a nice mix of mounted
troops around a psiloi-supported spear and bow core. The allies are interesting,
but don't give an upgrade in the rating.
Complexity: This is a different take on an even
mounted/foot split.
|
I/41
Phrygian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
800BC-676BC |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: Aggression 1 with an all-auxilia
army, even if a couple of cav and light chariots are in there. By all means
take the Skythian ally for a C rating.
Complexity: Nothing complicated here.
|
I/42
Neo-Elamite: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
800BC-639BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: The cool dismounting option
doesn't solve the primary problem -- no heavy foot, and nothing that can fight
against heavy foot. Aggression 2 doesn't help, either. This is a good army
against its historical enemies, but not in open tournaments. Slightly more
effective with the Neo-Bab ally.
Complexity:The dismounting makes this army more
interesting, and more complex, than it would otherwise be.
|
I/43
Skythian or Early Hu etc.: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
750-301BC |
D |
3 |
|
(b)
300BC-50AD |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: Aggression 4 with 8 elements of
light horse? Grim. Any of its allies is a big improvement and warrants a C effectiveness-- they are all auxilia-heavy except
the spear-heavy Greeks. But this army still has the wrong aggression for a
monotype army.
Complexity: LH armies ain't ever easy - adding
the infantry doesn't alter the complexity of the basic problem.
|
I/44
Neo-Babylonian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
746-605BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
604-482BC |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice Biblical-era bow army with
good supporting troops. Lacking in heavy foot, though. The Mede ally is a very
nice addition, possibly deserving an upgrade to A
effectiveness.
Complexity: The (b) list might even be worthy
of a 5 complexity rating.
|
I/45
Neo-Assyrian Empire: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
745BC-681BC |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: Lots of mounted and lots of bad
going troops make it hard for the enemy to take advantage of its aggression 4,
and make it easy for these guys to avoid the worst matchups. With that said,
however, the army needs some heavy foot -- psiloi supported spear would
slaughter it. None of the allies solve that problem, with the possible
exception of the funky Libyan Egyptians, but they are too odd to give it an A effectiveness rating with their assistance.
Complexity: Horde as a main-line troop type is
nothing like easy.
|
I/46
Kushite Egyptian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
745-728BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
727-593BC |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: These guys have a good mix of
troops, but maybe a little too much variety. If you like combined arms they
could do well, but they seem like a weaker mix than armies like Later Carthage,
Alexander Macedonian, or the good Successor armies.
Complexity: Another army that might rate nearly
a 5 complexity, just because of the wacky mix
of foot.
|
I/47
Illyrian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
700BC-10AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Aggression 3, with 11 elements of
bad-going troops. Certain to bring you
to glory. Short-lived glory.
Complexity: The theory is easy enough; the fact
that battles will often be on a pool table makes it even simpler for the
prospective Illyrian general.
|
I/48
Thracian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
700BC-46AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: With lots of mounted and lower
aggression these guys are a pretty good bad-going army. Take lots of light
horse, and by all means use the allies to get some good-going punch and an A effectiveness rating.
Complexity: Lots of LH makes the basic BGo
mission a bit more complicated here.
|
I/49
Early Vietnamese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
700-207BC |
D |
3 |
|
(b)
206-111BC |
C |
4 |
|
(c)
135-247AD |
C |
4 |
|
(c)
248-938AD |
C |
5 |
Effectiveness: Warband, some heavy foot (blade
or spear), and some bow; a mix that might work in theory, but probably not so
well in practice. Very slow. The latest list with the Khmer ally is the best of
the bunch, perhaps deserving a B effectiveness
rating.
Complexity: When virtually all the troops are
foot you can't really call it "combined arms", but that is the level
of complication that this army exhibits.
|
I/50
Lydian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
687-546BCBC |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice mix of troops, with some
Kn, LH, Sp, and psiloi support. The Greek ally is probably worthwhile if you
like more heavy foot, otherwise just use the triple Lydian army.
Complexity: A fairly simple mission, fairly
easy to understand, but with some finesse needed.
|
I/51
Neo-Assyrian Later Sargonid: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
680-609BC |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Aggression 4 isn't bad when
you've got the tools to fight in bad or good going, and these guys do. They
have a number of good allies, too. The Medes (b) and Saitic Egyptians with
psiloi-supported spear are the best, filling in the major hole of the Later
Sargs -- not enough heavy foot, and raising the Sargonid effectiveness to A. The Elamites are very interesting, as are the
Skythians for a different reason. The auxilia-heavy allies aren't worth
considering for an aggression 4 army that already has lots of bad-going troops.
Complexity: These guys aren't easy to run well.
|
I/52
Early Hoplite Greek: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Argive 680-450BC |
C |
1 |
|
(b)
Spartan 668-450BC |
C |
1 |
|
(c)
Thessalian 668-450BC |
C |
3 |
|
(d)
Theban 668-450BC |
C |
1 |
|
(e)
Athenian 668-541BC |
C |
1 |
|
(f)
Athenian 540-450BC |
C |
2 |
|
(g)
Asiatic Greek 668-450BC |
C |
1 |
|
(h)
Phokian or Aitolian 668-450BC |
C |
2 |
|
(i)
Italiot or Siciliot 668-450BC |
C |
1 |
Effectiveness: Spear walls are good as the basis
for an army, but for effectiveness overall you need some punch, some maneuver
elements, some bad-going elements, and some psiloi support to help fend off
knights, elephants, and other nasties. These armies mostly have too much spear
and not enough support elements.
Complexity: Spear monotype armies are easy; the
variety of support troops for Athens give it a bit more depth, and the wad of
LH or Ps complicate the mission for Thessaly and Phokia.
|
I/53
Saitic Egyptian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
664BC-335BC |
A |
2 |
Effectiveness: An excellent mix of support
elements around a psiloi-supported spear core. The allies are worth
investigating too.
Complexity: Solid and simple.
|
I/54
Early Macedonian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
650BC-355BCBC |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: Take the maximum spear and this
is an excellent bad-going army. The Argive ally is good to give more
psiloi-supported spear for a main battle line in good going; the Thessalian
ally gives a bit of additional spear and a number of useful maneuver elements;
both are nice additions.
Complexity: Not so complicated if you can
remember to use your Knights as a knockout punch, rather than leading with
them.
|
I/55
Latin, Early Roman, Early Etruscan, etc.: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Etruscan 650-600BC |
B |
2 |
|
(b)
Roman 650-578BC |
C |
1 |
|
(c)
Latin 650-401BC |
B |
1 |
|
(b)
Latin 400-338BC |
B |
2 |
|
(c)
Umbrian 650-290BC |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: A mix of spear and blade is good
if supported by some psiloi and some maneuver elements. The early Romans suffer
from the Early Hoplite problem -- not enough psiloi support and not enough
cavalry. The Umbrians have too high an aggression for their eight bad-going
elements.
Complexity: Easy heavy-foot armies overall.
|
I/56
Kyrenean Greek: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
630-314BC |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
313-74BC |
A |
2 |
Effectiveness: Dismounting chariots adds a nice
touch to a psiloi-supported spear army. The later
Complexity: Relatively easy to use and
forgiving.
|
I/57
Etruscan League: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
600-400BC |
B |
1 |
|
(b)
399-280BC |
A |
2 |
Effectiveness: The early list is fine, although
not quite as good as I/55(a). The later list is even better as a basis. Taking
the ally adds some variety and strength to either list (giving it increased
bad-going ability with auxilia, or increased anti-heavy-foot punch with
warband) but aggression 3 makes it possible for the enemy to tune the terrain
against the ally.
Complexity: Heavy foot forms the troop-type
basis for the easiest-to-use armies.
|
I/58
Meroitic Kushite: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
592BC-350AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice mix of troops, although
perhaps a little slow. Dry and Aggression 1 allows the Nobades ally a lot of
chance to use its camels to good effect.
Complexity: Maybe not combined-arms, but having
multiple infantry types introduces lots of complexity by itself.
|
I/59
Tullian Roman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
578BC-400BC |
B |
1 |
Effectiveness: A nice psiloi-supported spear
army, but no anti-blade punch and aggression too high to be able to gain much
advantage against mono-type armies.
Complexity: Easy.
|
I/60
Early Achaemenid Persian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
550-466BC |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
546BC |
C |
5 |
|
(c)
465-420BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Some nice troop types, but it is
difficult to win with a bow army and no heavy foot to support it in case enemy
heavy foot intervene. The Mede army helps a bit. With aggression 3 they won't
be able to place terrain very often, so can't really take advantage of their
good complement of bad-going troops.
Complexity: Ignoring Cyrus, these are
bow-oriented complicated armies. Cyrus himself may set the mark for the most
complicated army out there, fighting for the title with the Khazars perhaps.
|
I/61
Early Carthaginian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
550-410BC |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
409-275BC |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice psiloi-supported spear
army for the (a) list; combined-arms built on a basis of psiloi- supported
spear for the (b) list. The Siciliot ally is worth experimenting with if you
want a bit more spear. The (b) list might be a bit better, as combined-arms
armies tend to do better with high aggression.
Complexity: The (b) list is starting to get
towards the Cartho Combined-arms complication - tools for everything, if only
you can deliver the right tool to the right job.
|
I/62
Lykian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
546BC-300BC |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: A fair bad-going army, but it
needs more maneuver troops and more stand-in-the-open troops, and it is only
aggression 1. Either of the hoplite allies help quite a bit with the
stand-in-the-open troops and give a C rating.
Complexity: A bit of foot variety doesn't
detract from the basic bad-going mission here.
|
I/63
Paionian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
512BC-284BC |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness:Aggression 3 doesn't work well for
bad-going armies. The Successor ally (Kassandros) helps a lot warranting a C, but most of this army is still pretty weak in the
open, which is where it will fight most of its battles.
Complexity: Complication is not why this army
won't win - what to do is pretty clear, the problem is actually achieving it.
Book
II Armies
|
II/1
Republican Indian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
500BC-321BC |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Lack of much heavy foot is the
only real problem in this bow-heavy army.
Complexity: Enough troop-type variety to
warrant a moderate complexity rating.
|
II/2
Mountain Indian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
500BC-170BC |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: A very nice bad-going army. If it
had been aggression 0 it might have deserved an A rating.
Complexity: Bad-going army with LH and
Elephants - it isn't a standard form of combined-arms, but it sure isn't easy.
|
II/3
Classical Indian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
500BC-545AD |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: A really nice troop mix -- one of
the power armies of regular DBA, and a very fine Big Battle army too.
Complexity: Possibly the most complex example
of "Indian Combined Arms" based upon Elephants and Bow.
|
II/4
Warring States and Ch'in Chinese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Ch'in 350BC-221BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
Yueh 480BC-333BC |
B |
3 |
|
(c)
Chao 307BC-202BC |
A |
3 |
|
(d)
Ch'u 480BC-202BC |
A |
3 |
|
(e)
Others 480BC-202BC |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: Some nice mixes of troops. The
(a) list has too many warband and too high an aggression; the (b) list has too
many heavy foot and not enough mobility (although it might deserve upgrading
for a player who is good with warband as a support troop type). The other three
lists are all very nice mixes.
Complexity: All of these are good examples of
Chariot Chinese Combined-arms based upon Cb, melee foot, and Chariots. Armies
that take large numbers of warband probably deserve an upgrade to difficulty 4.
|
II/5
Later Hoplite Greek: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Spartan 450BC-275BC |
C |
1 |
|
(b)
Athenian 450BC-275BC |
B |
2 |
|
(c)
Theban 450BC-275BC |
A |
2 |
|
(d)
Thessalian 450BC-275BC |
A |
3 |
|
(e)
Aitolian or Akarnanian 450BC-275BC |
C |
4 |
|
(f)
Phokian 450BC-275BC |
C |
5 |
|
(g)
Italiot 450BC-2235BC |
A |
2 |
|
(h)
Siciliot 450BC-235BC |
C |
2 |
|
(i)
Others 450BC-275BC |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Spartans are high aggression and
too much spear without much mounted or psiloi support.
Athenians have medium aggression with some nice support troops, but still a bit
too much spear. Same for Siciliots and Others.
Thebans, Thessalians, Italiot are more effective due to a few more elements of
mounted or other support troops.
Phokians and Aitolian/Akarnanian do not have enough heavy foot.
Allies can help these a lot -- adding a Phokian ally to a Spartan army, for
example, upgrades them to an A.
Complexity: The spear basis for most of these
armies is pretty simple to run. Exceptions are the mounted of the Thessalians,
the psiloi-heavy Aitolian army, and the artillery with bad-going troops of the
Phokians.
|
II/6
Bithynian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
435BC-74BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Nice bad-going army, although
they'd be better if they were aggression 0. Take the Galatian mercenaries.
Complexity: Same as most bad-going armies with
a bit of mounted support.
|
II/7
Later Achaemenid Persian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
420BC-329BC |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice mix of troops.
Complexity: This is true combined arms.
Probably should be rated a 5 complexity if you
take more than one Scythed Chariot.
|
II/8
Campanian, Apulian, Lucanian or Bruttian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Bruttian or Lucanian 420BC-203BC |
C |
2 |
|
(b)
Campanian 420BC-203BC |
B |
3 |
|
(c)
Apulian 420BC-203BC |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: The (a) list has too many
auxilia; upgrade them to a B with the Camillan
ally. The (b) list has a nice mix of troops, although a little lacking in
spark. The (c) list has better mounted, but no heavy foot.
Complexity: Bad-going army complexity for (a)
and (c); mixed foot complexity for (b).
|
II/9
Syracusan: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
410BC-210BC |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A really nice spear army with
lots of variety troops to support them. The Cartho ally is very nice, too.
Complexity: Just figuring out the army list
deserves a 4 complexity.
|
II/10
Camillan Roman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
400BC-275BC |
A |
2 |
Effectiveness: Good psiloi-supported heavy-foot
army. A little slow. The Samnite ally is worth considering if you want more
speed in bad going.
Complexity: A benchmark for simplicity.
|
II/11
Gallic: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
400BC-225BC |
D |
3 |
|
224BC-50BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Enough mounted to do quite well,
but still weak against any army with bunches of knights or elephants. The
Spanish ally is worth considering, and upgrades the high-aggression army to a C It's hard to say whether it better for this army to
be high aggression or low aggression -- against monotype armies choosing
terrain would be quite important, but against combined-arms armies they'd do
better to place their commands (and their matchups) last.
Complexity: Not too complex overall, beyond the
usual problems of integrating slow bad-going troops with Light Chariots.
|
II/12
Alexander Macedonian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
355BC-320BC |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: Excellent. The Thessalian ally is
worth taking, too.
Complexity: With Alex Impy, this army is one of
the benchmarks for complexity.
|
II/13
Samnite: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
355BC-272BC |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Way too monotype. I'm not sure
these guys could even win the battles where they place terrain. With a good
ally they could upgrade to a C.
Complexity: Bad going army without much else.
|
II/14
Ariarathid Kappadokian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
330BC-322BC,
300BC-17AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: An excellent bad-going army. The
Armenian ally with cataphracts is worth having. This might even be an A army.
Complexity: A nice mix of mounted and bad-going
power gives additional punch without increasing difficulty too badly.
|
II/15
Alexandrian Imperial: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
328BC-320BC |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: This is an impressive array of
power. Good by itself, and one of the
top ten armies in Big Battle DBA with the Classical Indian ally, although like
all combined-arms armies you have to know how to use it well. This list with
the Classical Indian ally won the Big Battle Doubles competition at Historicon
2002.
Complexity: Massed pike, massed bow (with
Classical Indian ally), elephants, artillery, knights, light horse, bad-going
troops - this army has everything, and that is why it is so powerful and so
difficult.
|
II/16
Asiatic Early Successor: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Antigonus 320BC-301BC |
A |
5 |
|
(b)
Demetrios 315BC-285BC |
A |
5 |
|
(c)
Alketas 320BC |
D |
4 |
|
(d)
Eumenes 320BC-316BC |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: Good successor combined arms,
except for Alketas who suffers badly from high aggression and too many
bad-going troops. Alketas with an Antigonid ally is worth a C rating.
Complexity: It ain't easy to be a Successor.
|
II/17
Lysimachid: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
320BC-281BC |
C |
4 |
Effectiveness: Successor combined arms, but with
aggression 2 and 15 bad-going troops in the triple army, plus no elephants, it
is vulnerable to many mounted armies or armies with good heavy foot lines and
low aggression. Allies raise it to A status.
Complexity: No elephants, but not much easier
than anyone else in the Successor pantheon.
|
II/18
Macedonian Early Successor: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Antipatros 320BC-319BC |
A |
5 |
|
(b)
Polyperchon 319BC-310BC |
A |
5 |
|
(c)
Kassandros 318BC-298BC |
A |
5 |
|
(d)
Ptolemy Keraunos 280BC-279BC |
A |
5 |
|
(e)
Antigonos Gonatas 277BC-260BC |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: A bunch of nice Successor
combined-arms armies. The Hellenistic Greek allies of army (e) are nice if you
prefer some psiloi-supported spear to pike for your heavy foot.
Complexity: The usual Successor complexity.
|
II/19
Seleucid: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
320BC-280BC |
A |
5 |
|
(b)
279BC-205BC |
A |
5 |
|
(c)
204BC-167BC |
A |
5 |
|
(d)
166BC-83BC |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: More nice Successor combined-arms
armies.
Complexity: More complicated Successor
combined-arms armies.
|
II/20
Ptolemaic: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
320BC-275BC |
A |
5 |
|
(b)
274BC-167BC |
A |
5 |
|
(c)
166BC-54BC |
A |
5 |
|
(d)
53BC-30BC |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: Still more nice Successor
combined-arms armies. The (c) and (d) lists are especially interesting with
their mix of pike and blade. One note -- for strong combined-arms armies like
this it is usually better to be high aggression, like the Asiatic Early
Successors or Seleucid, rather than low aggression like the Ptolemaic.
Complexity: Still more of the complicated
Successor combined-arms armies.
|
II/21
Ch'iang and Ti: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
315BC-302AD |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
301AD-417AD |
D |
3 |
|
(c)
Former Ch'in 351BC-394AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: Way too many auxilia for
aggression 3. The Former Ch'in list does much better, with only slightly too
many auxilia for their aggression.
Complexity: Relatively standard bad-going
problems for the (a) and (b) lists, although with the knights complicating the
issue for the (b) list. The Former Ch'in have a nice-looking combined-arms
force that resembles a Medieval Mix; like most combined-arms, it won't be
particularly simple to run.
|
II/22
Arabo-Aramean: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a) |
B |
3 |
|
(b) Emesa
51BC-72AD |
B |
3 |
|
(c)
Hatra 126BC-240AD |
B |
3 |
|
(d)
Characene 126BC-222AD |
B |
3 |
|
(e) |
B |
3 |
|
(f)
Any above if earlier: |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Strong bow-heavy armies all, with
good supporting troops and excellent 0 aggression that allows them to maximize
their use of the fact that bow are simultaneously excellent bad-going troops
and good in the open against mounted. The three armies that have Parthian
allies get some extra kick and maneuver thereby allowing an A rating. The Characene gain particular advantage with
Parthan and Arab Nomad allies both -- the three- army combination is perhaps
the most complicated mix available, and also one of the most powerful in the
right hands. It ended up in a three-way tie for first place in Big Battle
Doubles at Historicon 2001.
Complexity: Generally these are bow armies with
significant and various supporting elements. Adding an ally brings the
complexity up by one, and Charax with both Arab and Parthian allies is nearly a
6 in the complexity scale of 1-5.
|
II/23
Later Pre-Islamic Arab: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Nomad |
B |
4 |
|
(b)
City |
B |
2 |
|
(c)
Yemeni |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A very interesting mix of camels
and blade for the Nomad army; a wall of blade for the City army and a good
auxilia army for the Yemeni. The Nomads can combine with either Sassanid or
Maurikian Byzantines as an ally; either one gives a good supporting cast. The
City army does well with gaining a Nomad ally (take the Nomads with as many
camels as possible). The Yemeni gain a very good ally for their auxilia mix in
the Sassanids. All of these allies boost the LPIA to an A effectiveness rating.
Complexity: The nomad mix of camels and blade
is powerful and effective in the right hands, but is also quite difficult - the
best matchups for blade are often the worst for camels and vice versa; the huge
difference in speed makes it hard to keep the disparate forces supporting each
other. The City armies of psiloi-supported blade are much simpler to run well.
The auxilia of the Yemeni are typical of all bad-going armies, taking some
skill to use well.
|
II/24
Early Rhoxolani Sarmatian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
310BC-100AD |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: Monotype mounted with aggression
3.
Complexity: Monotype armies aren't as difficult
as combined-arms, but cavalry armies aren't as easy as most monotype armies -
they have maneuver ability rather than power.
|
II/25
Bosporan: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
310BC-107BC,
46BC-375AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: This may be our favorite
auxilia-army mixture, especially at aggression 0. The Alan ally is the best;
you don't really need any ally, though.
Complexity: Even parts auxilia and knights?
They can both support each other, but they are oil and water most of the time.
Adding artillery to the mix is very nice for effectiveness, but makes the army
even more complex for the general.
|
II/26
Siracae, Iazyges, Later Rhoxolani Sarmatian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
310BC-375AD |
F |
1 |
Effectiveness: Monotype knights with aggression
3. Glorious but doomed. Take the Early Ostrogothic ally, or even one of the
monotype warband allies, for an upgrade to a powerful D
rating.
Complexity: Running these guys isn't difficult;
first roll low for aggression, then charge and pray for high rolls.
|
II/27
Pyrrhic: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
300BC-281BC |
A |
4 |
|
(b)
280BC-272BC |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: The early list, with no light
horse, no auxilia, and no elephant, is weaker. The later list in particular is
a very good successor army, perhaps even as good as Alexander Imperial.
Complexity: The early list is "just"
a difficult heavy-foot army; the later list is as complicated as any other
Successor army.
|
II/28
Early Armenian and Gordyene: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Tigranes 83BC-69BC |
C |
5 |
|
(b)
Other Armenian 300BC-244AD |
B |
4 |
|
(c)
Armenian 245AD-627AD |
B |
4 |
|
(d)
Gordyene 147BC-255AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: These are nice mixed
auxilia/maneuver armies with fairly low aggression (which is important). The
(a) list of Tigranes is an even nicer troop mix, but suffers significantly from
its higher aggression 3. If you don't like auxilia and light horse, though,
these armies are not for you.
Complexity: Integrating the Kn/LH mix with the
bad-going Auxilia and Psiloi is not easy; the mixed force of Tigranes is even
harder. Taking more than a single Artillery probably upgrades the (d) list to
complexity 5.
|
II/29
Tien and K'un-ming: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
295BC-45AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: Who would expect to see a Chinese
pike army? Take LH and Wb and Cb to get some variety -- you've got enough heavy
foot already. This army could really use a good Kn/LH ally, but even without it
is an excellent army, especially at aggression 0 to use terrain to make good
channels for its pike.
Complexity: Pike armies are complex.
|
II/30
Galatian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a) 280BC-273BC |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
272BC-48BC |
D |
2 |
|
(c)
47BC-25BC |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: These guys do well against their
historical opponents, but without any tools that can stop knights or elephants
in the open, or can stop auxilia or bow or blade or even psiloi in bad going,
and with aggression 4 so it always gets the terrain that it most hates, the
Galatians aren't going to do well. Without their strong mounted arm they'd do
even worse!
Complexity: Easy enough to run - use a Cav
reserve and/or wing, everything else is psycho warband. The tactics involve
using a lot of prayer, but they aren't complex.
|
II/31
Hellenistic Greek: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Boiotian 275BC-246BC |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
Boiotian 245BC-146BC |
A |
3 |
|
(c)
Spartan 275BC-225BC |
A |
2 |
|
(d)
Spartan 224BC-223BC |
A |
3 |
|
(e)
Spartan 222BC-149BC |
A |
3 |
|
(f)
Achaian 275BC-208BC |
B |
3 |
|
(g)
Achaian 207BC-146BC |
A |
3 |
|
(h)
Athenian 275BC-146BC |
A |
3 |
|
(i)
Eleian 275BC-146BC |
B |
3 |
|
(j)
Aitolian 275BC-146BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: At aggression 0, the
peltast-heavy lists will still do well. The other lists are very nice with
psiloi- supported spear or pike using a strong peltast support contingent. We
especially like the g and h lists with knights to provide some punch.
Complexity: not so complicated overall; the
spear-heavy early list is the simplest (although probably not the most
effective).
|
II/32
Later Carthaginian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
275BC-146BC |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: Combined-arms with high
aggression is a good army. Difficult mix of troops to use, as with many
combined-arms armies. The Siciliot ally is nice; the Syracusan ally is even
better. The auxilia-strong allies aren't so good because of the high aggression
of the Cartho army. The Carthos came second in Big Battle Doubles at Historicon
2002, and won in 2004.
Complexity: A difficult mix of troops to use,
as with many combined-arms armies.
|
II/33
Polybian Roman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
275BC-105BC |
A |
1 |
Effectiveness: Perhaps the easiest general
heavy-foot army to use. The Pergamene or Spanish allies are worthwhile if your
army is low aggression; the Numidian ally is worthwhile all the time.
Complexity: Very simple.
|
II/34
Attalid Pergamene: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
263BC-129BC |
C |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice mix of mounted, but no
heavy foot and aggression 1 is risky. The Achaian ally is very worthwhile, and
pushes this list up to a B.
Complexity: Mixed mounted and bad-going troops.
With the Achaian ally call it a 5 complexity.
|
II/35
Later Macedonian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
260BC-148BC |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A conservative, but nice,
Successor mix. The army for the combined-arms Successor general who just can't
get his elephants to integrate into his tactical plan.
Complexity: Lack of elephants makes this army
simpler than many of its brethren, but it is still a mixture of Pike, Knights,
and bad-going troops - a challenging mixture.
|
II/36
Graeco-Bactrian and Graeco-Indian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Graeco-Bactrian |
A |
5 |
|
(b)
Graeco-Indian |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: The (a) list is a good Successor
mix with slightly stronger mounted than most Successor armies. The all-mounted
version lowers to a D. The (b) list is really
fun -- a Successor army with some bows! Quite a different flavour from most
Successor armies. The Classical Indian or Kushan allies for the (b) list are
nice ally options if you want more mounted punch.
Complexity: Having every tool in the toolbox
means having to know how every tool works with every other tool.
|
II/37
Parthian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
250BC-225AD |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: Nearly a monotype army with
aggression 2 -- very awkward. The Arabo-aramaean and LPIA allies are quite
nice, filling major holes in the army list. The Sarmatian ally isn't much help.
The Armenian ally is a bit of help, but the best is the Commagene ally. Helpful
allies can raise this list to a C or B.
Complexity: You know what you need to do, but
how to achieve it? Large amounts of LH require a certain level of fluid
movement tactics to support the punch of the Knights.
|
II/38
Hsiung-nu or Juan-juan: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Hsiung-nu 250BC-304AD |
F |
2 |
|
(b)
Southern Hsiung-nu 304AD-439AD |
C |
3 |
|
(c)
Juan-juan 308AD-555AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: The (a) and (c) lists are nearly
monotype light horse. The (b) list has some cataphract punch and some good
auxilia, making it much more difficult to find an easy terrain answer for it,
although it still lacks heavy foot. The (a) list has two good allies -- Ch'iang
providing good auxilia and Han giving an excellent Chinese combined-arms mix.
Adding one of the allies makes the Hsiun-Nu much better - C; adding them both makes it a very competitive army -
A.
Complexity: The (a) list is complexity 3 with either ally; complexity 4 with both.
|
II/39
Ancient Spanish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Iberian |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
Celtiberian |
B |
3 |
|
(c)
Lusitanian |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: A bit of mounted to support a 0
aggression bad-going army. Not quite enough mounted, and the armies are too
light to have any troops that can fight in the open.
Complexity:
|
II/40
Numidian or Early Moorish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
215BC-25AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: This army might have deserved an A rating if it had been aggression 0 instead of 1. A
very nice supporting cast for what is basically a light-horse/auxilia mix. The
Roman ally is very worthwhile.
Complexity: Light Horse and Auxilia aren't oil
and water, but not far from that. With elephants this army might be nearer a 5 than a 4.
|
II/41
Han Chinese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
202BC-9AD |
A |
4 |
|
(b)
10AD-189AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice Chinese combined-arms mix.
The (a) version is a bit better with heavy chariot punch. The all-mounted
version is a loss at aggression 3, and reduces the rating to D.
Complexity: Combined arms without pikes -
effective, but not simple.
|
II/42
Tamil Indian and Sinhalese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Tamil 175BC-300AD |
B |
4 |
|
(b)
Tamil 301AD-1370AD |
A |
3 |
|
(c)
Sinhalese 175BC-300AD |
A |
3 |
|
(d)
Sinhalese 301AD-1515AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: Tremendous elephant power. Blades
and elephants can get it done. Elephants also provide excellent good-going support
for the warbands of the earlier lists. The (b) list with the Hindu ally won the
Big Battle Doubles competition at Cold Wars 2002.
Complexity: Elephants in large numbers aren't
easy.
|
II/43
Maccabean Jewish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
168BC-104BC |
B/D |
3 |
Effectiveness: Good mix of bad-going support for
the pikes. The B rating is for the pike option,
D is for the Auxilia.
Complexity: Not as bad as you might expect.
|
II/44
Commagene: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
163BC-17AD,
38AD-72AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: One of the last remnants of the
Successor armies, and an interesting mix of Successor pike/knight/light horse
and local bows.
Complexity: Effective? Yes. Easy? No.
|
II/45
Sicilian and Italian Slave Revolts: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1st Servile War 135BC-132BC |
C |
2 |
|
(b)
2nd Servile War 103BC-99BC |
B |
3 |
|
(c)
Spartacus 74BC-71BC |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: You should definitely watch
Spartacus if you want to do these armies justice. The changes to Warband in DBA
2.2 make these quality lists because of the Aggression 0. There is still a lack
of mobility, but the warband double move charge helps make up for it. And there
is a significant glory factor.
Complexity: Some good bad-going troops; the
issue is integrating them with the open-field troops effectively.
|
II/46 Kushan: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
135BC-51BC |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
50BC-410AD |
A |
4 |
|
(c)
411AD-477AD |
B |
3? |
Effectiveness: Three different flavours, but all
fairly nice. The late list is a little too light-horse heavy.
Complexity: Moderate; more than one Elephant
for the (a) or (c) list should probably upgrade their complexity to 4.
|
II/47
Early German: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Cimbri and Teutones 113BC-102BC |
F |
2 |
|
(b)
Ariovistus's in 58BC |
F |
2 |
|
(c)
Batavi in 69AD |
D |
2 |
|
(d)
Other Batavi |
F |
2 |
|
(e)
Cherusci |
F |
2 |
|
(f) Tencteri |
F |
2 |
|
(g)
Others |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Giving the c-g lists a
"D" rating might be too high - if they don't win terrain they are
pretty-much sunk. The (c) list with supporting auxilia is probably the only one
that really deserves a D rating overall. These armies just do not have enough
supporting elements - they are warband monotype armies, and aggression 2 is too
high.
Complexity: It's not hard to know what to do
with these guys. Their effectiveness rating shows how difficult it is to
achieve, but the task itself is not complex.
|
II/48
Mithridatic: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
110BC-47BC |
A |
5/3 |
Effectiveness: Last of the Successor armies.
Quite nice, either in the pike version or in the blade version.
Complexity: Complexity for the blade version is
3; for the pike and scythed chariot version 5.
|
II/49
Marian Roman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
105BC-25BC |
A |
1 |
Effectiveness: Psiloi-supported blade is good,
although very risky against knights. Still, there is enough support to make a
very good army overall. Most of their ally choices are very nice additions --
Arabs, Judaean, Moors, Armenians, Bithynians all deserve mention.
Complexity: Easy.
|
II/50
Hasmonean Jewish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
103BC-63BC |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Too many psiloi. Take the pike version
and the ally to get up to a B rating; take the
auxilia without the ally and the army deserves a D.
Complexity: Moderate.
|
II/51
Late Judaean: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
63BC-6AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Too many psiloi still. Take as
many blade as you can and one of the Parthian or Marian allies. The Parthian or
Marian ally pushes it to B; the EIR ally a C.
Complexity: Easy to understand; less easy to
complete.
|
II/52
Dacian and |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
60BC-106AD,
106AD-380AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Nice support for an army built on
a warband basis. Take the Sarmatian ally for some punch and a B rating.
Complexity: Warband problems aren't too bad,
compared to more awkward things like pike and elephants and artillery.
|
II/53
Ancient British: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
55BC-75AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: Very nice combination of mobile
elements and warband. The Roman ally helps a bit against some armies.
Complexity: This isn't an easy army to play -
without any "killer" elements you need to show finesse, and putting
out enough (but not too much) terrain takes some practice.
|
II/54
Scots-Irish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
55BC-432AD |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
433AD-846AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Cruelly high aggression for an
army based on Auxilia.
Complexity: Bad-going army complexity.
|
II/55
Nobades, Blemmye or Beja: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
30BC-200AD |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
201AD-831AD |
A |
3 |
|
(c)
832AD-1500AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: Nice heavy foot/bow/mounted mix.
Complexity: We're not certain that the (a) and
(b) lists don't also deserve a 4 complexity
rating - the combination of troops is complicated even if the troops themselves
may be relatively straightforward in isolation. But the (c) list certainly
deserves a 4 rating - mixing camels and large
amounts of LH into a blade/bow mixture is getting pretty complex.
|
II/56
Early Imperial Roman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
25BC-197AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Excellent against most armies,
but vulnerable to knight armies in the open. Take the Commagene or
Arabo-Aramaean allies, or both together, to get some anti-knight ability and
possibly an A rating. EIR with Commagene ally
ended up in a three-way tie for first in Big Battle Doubles at Historicon 2001.
Complexity: Bad-going complexity, or else
trying to use auxilia effectively on a pool table if you lose terrain. Increase
the complexity rating to 4 with the Commagene
or Arabo-Aramaean allies.
|
II/57
Later Moorish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
25AD-696AD |
F |
4 |
Effectiveness: Too light. Maybe a D rating if you catch us in a better mood, not an F,
we're not sure.
Complexity: LH and Psiloi? Oy! Getting this
army to do what you want (and understanding what it is capable of doing)
involves internalizing two totally different approaches that don't integrate
with each other very well at all.
|
II/58
Alan: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
50AD-1500AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Knights and blades and light
horse is interesting, although there are too many light horse here for the
standard-sized board.
Complexity: LH armies aren't easy, but the
addition of knights and blades here give simpler tactical objectives for
subunits, which counteracts the increased complexity of more unit types \ with
different speeds.
|
II/59
Jewish Revolt: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
66AD-70AD,
132AD-135AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Surprisingly effective; pity it
has no mounted.
Complexity: Just a bad-going army - not
complicated, as there is only one tactical problem to understand and only one
real approach to take.
|
II/60
Caledonian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
75AD-211AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Not as nice as the Ancient
British army, but still a fair mix of chariots and warband.
Complexity: These guys might even deserve a 2 complexity, it is hard to say.
|
II/61
Hsien-pi, Wu-huan, Pre-dynastic Khitan or Hsi: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Wu-huan or Hsien-pi 90AD-316AD |
F |
2 |
|
(b)
Mu-jung Hsien-pi 300AD-431AD |
A |
3 |
|
(c)
Other Hsien-pi 317AD-431AD |
D |
2 |
|
(d)
Khitan or Hsi 350-1000AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: The (b) list is a nice mix of
troops; the others suffer from far too many light horse.
Complexity: Mostly simple LH or all-mounted
tactical problems; the combined-arms (b) list is a little more complicated.
|
II/62
Abyssinian & Horn of |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
100AD-1529AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice supporting complement for
a warband base; suffering a bit from its high aggression. The two Arab allies
(Yemeni and Nomad) are both very nice, as are the Kushites and Nobades. Might
even deserve an A if taken as the center of
either two-ally version.
Complexity: Increase the complexity to 4 if more than a single Elephant is taken, or if you
take any ally.
|
II/63 |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
189AD-316AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: Nice Chinese combined-arms mix.
Complexity: Decrease the complexity to 3 if no artillery are taken.
|
II/64
Middle Imperial Roman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
West 193AD-324AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
East 193AD-324AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: As with the Early Imperial Roman
army, this is a good list that is a little weak against knights. The Arab Nomad
ally is worthwhile.
Complexity: Nearly identical to the EIR.
|
II/65
Early Visigothic: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
378AD only |
C |
2 |
|
(b)
Other times 200AD-419AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Stronger than it looks with
knights and warband, but pretty crippled against some opponents. The Dacian
ally is good; the Early Ostrogothic ally likewise; the Late Imperial Roman ally
is probably the best bet. The allies push the Visigoths to a B rating.
Complexity: Impetuous followup troops all over!
Increase the complexity to 3 with any ally.
|
II/66 Early
Vandal: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
200AD-442AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Too many warband at aggression 3.
Alan ally pushes the rating to C.
Complexity: Same as the Early Visi - psycho
attack isn't too complicated, although adding the Alan ally with a slew of LH
increases the complexity to 3.
|
II/67
Early Ostrogothic, Herul, Sciri or Taifali: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Radagaesus 401-406AD |
D |
3 |
|
(b)
Others 200AD-493AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Great fun, however brief. The
allies are nice, though and bump the rating to B.
Complexity: What a strange mix! This takes a
significant mental shift; knights and psiloi actually integrate quite well with
each other, although some of the maneuvers take some practice (psiloi and
knights can pass through each other in the movement phase, and recoil through
each other in combat). It might be more fair to give these guys a 4 rating the first time you try them, and only
downgrade to a 2 after some practice.
|
II/68
Pictish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
211-499AD |
B |
2 |
|
(b)
500-846AD |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: Good psiloi-supported spear. The
Scots-Irish are a good ally for these guys.
Complexity: A fairly simple army to run.
|
II/69
Sassanid Persian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
220AD-651AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: A great army, with some nice
troops, but aggression too high for a mostly-mounted army. Arab ally is an
excellent addition, as are the Armenians, Kushan, or Alan which increase the
Sassanids to a B. Don't bother with the Hun or
Turkish allies, though.
Complexity: increase the complexity to 4 if you take any significant number of knights,
auxilia, or elephants, and especially if you take several of each.
|
II/70
Burgundi or Limigantes: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Burgundi 250-534AD |
F |
2 |
|
(b)
Limigantes 250-359AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Warband monotype armies are not
competitive in open tournaments, especially at high aggression.
Complexity: This army would even be a 1 complexity rating if it was not for the bad-going
ability of Warband and their double-move capability.
|
II/71
Gepid: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
250AD-566AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: A fun mix of knights, warband,
and psiloi. Perhaps not very competitive, but fun! If these guys were a little
lower aggression, they'd be pretty cool.
Complexity: See earlier comments about the Early
Ostrogoths.
|
II/72
Early Frankish, Alamannic, Quadi, Suevi, Rugian or Turcilingi: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Quadi 250AD-406AD |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
Alamanni 250AD-506AD |
C |
2 |
|
(c)
Suevi 250AD-584AD |
C |
2 |
|
(d)
Others |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Generallly speaking, allies upgrade
these lists one level. The Quadi need their Sarmatian ally desperately. The
Alamanni have some bow to protect their warband from mounted; an Alan or
Ostrogothic ally makes them quite interesting -- perhaps even a B rating for a player that likes warband. The Suevi
are also nice with an Ostrogoth or Late Roman ally. The "others" list
is a warband monotype list with high aggression -- not much chance.
Complexity: As with the Burgundi/Limigantes,
these monotype armies would be given complexity 1
except for some of the innate complexities of the warband troop type.
|
II/73
Old Saxon, Frisian, Bavarian, Thuringian or Early Anglo-Saxon: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
250AD-804AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Warband monotype list. Doomed
unless their opponent is
Complexity: As above for Franks etcetera.
|
II/74
Palmyran: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
60AD-271AD |
A |
4 |
|
(b)
271AD-273AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A keen combination of bow and
knights with some light horse and other support. The Nomad ally is very
worthwhile, upgrading the (b) list to an A
rating and improving the (a) list as well.
Complexity: Combined arms based upon a
Knight/Bow core. The (b) list should be upgraded to a 4
complexity if you take the Nomad ally.
|
II/75
Paekche and Kaya Korean: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
300AD-660AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice mix of troops.
Complexity: Relatively simple combined-arms.
|
II/76
Koguryo Korean: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
300AD-668AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: Slightly different, but also a
nice mix of spear, bow, and mounted.
Complexity: Relatively simple combined-arms.
|
II/77
Silla Korean: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
300AD-520AD |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
521AD-935AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: Still another variation on the
same theme as the previous two.
Complexity: Relatively simple combined-arms,
like the previous two Korean lists.
|
II/78
Late Imperial Roman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
West 307AD-425AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
East 307AD-425AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: Slightly too high aggression and
slightly too many bad-going troops to deserve an A
rating, but with Alan allies (West) or Arab Nomads (East) they get some more
mounted strength and more blades and truly warrant the A.
The East list with Arab Nomad allies won the Big Battle tournament in
Complexity: Mounted, heavy foot, and auxilia in
approximately equal proportions. Upgrade the (a) list to complexity 4 with an Alan ally, or if you take more than one
Artillery.
|
II/79
Chinese Northern & Southern Dynasties: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
North 317AD-589AD |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
South 317AD-589AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice mix of troops. Avoid the
all-mounted version of the Northern Dynasty -- that gets a D rating.
Complexity: Nice balanced Chinese
combined-arms. Upgrade the complexity of the (b) list to 5 if you take a significant number of Elephants.
|
II/80
Hunnic: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Attila's army 433-453AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
Sabir 463-558AD |
F |
3 |
|
(c)
Hephthalites in |
C |
4 |
|
(d)
Others 356AD-553AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Atilla's army with its mix of
subject forces is quite nice, although still a bit LH heavy. The Sabir huns are
wacked. The White Huns in
Complexity: LH maneuvering involves significant
complexity in pip management, and forms the basis for the complexity of all
these armies. The (a) and (b) lists add warband or warband/knight
complications; the (c) list has the greater complications of triple elephants
with bow support - three different troop speeds, three different attack
philosophies, and three different troop management requirements.
|
II/81
Sub-Roman British: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
407AD-428AD |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
429AD-441AD |
B |
3 |
|
(c)
442AD-539AD |
A |
2 |
|
(d)
540AD-945AD |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: The (a) list is a bad-going army
with aggression 1; upgrade it to a C with Late
Roman allies. The (b) list has a proper spear-wall; upgrade it to an A rating with Patrician Roman allies. The (c) list
(Arthur!) has some punch in addition to the spear wall. The (d) list is the
same without the punch, but might deserve an upgrade with a Viking ally. Still
pretty slow, though. Take at least a couple of LH no matter which list you
have.
Complexity: Reduce the complexity of the (b)
list to 2 if few warband or spear are taken.
The first two lists are bad-going armies; the later pair of lists are
psiloi-supported spear with mounted support; almost opposite in focus, but
approximately the same overall difficulty.
|
II/82
Later Visigothic: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
419AD-621AD |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
622AD-720AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: Warband don't really complement a
cav/knight army, which is why the early list is only a C
rating. Upgrade it to a B with either Lombard or
Byzantine ally. The later list is a nice mix of troops.
Complexity: These two armies show the
glimmerings of combined-arms, but aren't quite there yet.
|
II/83
Patrician Roman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
West 425AD-493AD |
A |
4 |
|
(b)
East 425AD-493AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: This is a combined-arms army that
will take some practice, but it can really perform if you know how to use it.
Lots of good allies, too -- Alans, Arabs, SRB, and Early Ostrogoths are all
neato.
Complexity: Roman combined arms, evenly split
between mounted and foot with significant bad-going efforts. The DBA Roman army
evolution from little complexity to high complexity is complete.
|
II/84
African Vandal: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
442AD-535AD |
F |
1 |
Effectiveness: Glorious, but at aggression 3,
they'll die. Take the Moorish ally and maybe get a C!
Complexity: What could be simpler? Roll high
and pray!
Book
III Armies
|
III/1
Early Slav: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Wends 580AD-1218AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
Bohemians 830AD-1003AD |
B |
2 |
|
(c)
Others 476AD-985AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: The (a) and (c) lists are auxilia
armies; the Wends in particular have some nice supporting troops and reward aggressive
play. The Bohemian (b) list is psiloi-supported spear with some bite to it, and
their allies are a nice complement.
Complexity: Monotype Auxilia army complexity
for the (c) list; the additional complexity of more mounted and some
interesting supporting troops for the (a) list; and a fairly easy
psiloi-supported spear type army complexity for the (b) list. The Saxon ally
doesn't change the complexity much for the (a) and (c) lists, but both LH-heavy
allies of the (b) list raise the complexity to a 3.
|
III/2
Early |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
489AD-584AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: This is nearly a monotype army --
looks strong, but if something goes wrong and your knights have nothing to do,
you are toast. The Avar ally helps quite a bit by providing some variety and
maneuver and bad-going troops all in one. Definitely take at least some warband
as bad-going troops, and in case you face a psiloi-supported spear wall that
can eat everything else in your army. Pray you only face historical enemies, too
-- against a bow army or elephants you can kiss your army goodbye.
Complexity: Sufficient non-knight troops to
bring this up to a complexity 2. With any of
the allies this becomes a complexity 3 army;
maybe even complexity 4 with both the Avar and
Middle Frankish allies at the same time.
|
III/3
Italian Ostrogothic: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
493AD-561AD |
A |
2 |
Effectiveness: This is a better mix than the
Complexity: Similar to the Early Lombards
above; complexity 2 with no ally and complexity
3 with the Middle Frankish ally.
|
III/4
Early Byzantine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
493AD-549AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
550AD-578AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: This is a strong B; the only reason we don't give them an A is the cramped nature of the standard big-battle
board. The early list with Nomad ally is quite effective; the later list with
Complexity: A nice mounted army with a bit of
strong foot as an anchor; good integration of the abilities of these disparate
troop types warrants a 3 complexity rating.
|
III/5
Middle Frankish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Austrasian or Burgundian 496AD-639AD |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
Neustrian, Aquitanian or Provencal 496-639AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: These lists are poor Medievals --
spear and knights, but not enough psiloi support, no bad-going troops, and high
aggression. Take the spear option with the early list; take the warband option
with the later list.
Complexity: The (b) list might warrant a 3 complexity if you take many warband and/or the
Visigoth ally.
|
III/6
Emishi: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
500AD-699AD |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
700AD-1100AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Monotype armies, but with
aggression 0 they could be interesting.
Complexity: If these weren't monotype we might
recommend as high as a 4 complexity.
|
III/7
Pre-Samurai Japanese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
500AD-644AD |
D |
3 |
|
(b)
645AD-900AD |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: High-aggression bow armies
without an answer for enemy blade or spear lines.
Complexity: Middling difficult.
|
III/8
Central-Asian City States: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
500AD-1000AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Zero aggression helps these guys
deal with heavy foot. The Umayyad ally is worth taking.
Complexity: The Knight version of this list
with no Umayyad ally is more like complexity 2.
|
III/9
Burmese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
500AD-1043AD |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
1044AD-1526AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: The early list has too few
elephants; the later list can use its many elephants to protect its
crossbow/auxilia mix from enemy mounted. The Yuan ally for the later list is an
excellent addition.
Complexity: These troop types don't mix easily…
|
III/10
Hindu Indian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Harsha 606AD-647AD |
A |
4 |
|
(b)
Rajputs 747AD-1300AD |
A |
3 |
|
(c)
Others 545AD-1510AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: All of these lists are good; the
first and last elephant-emphized combined-arms; the Rajputs a nice
knight-strikeforce army with good heavy foot component and elephants for spice.
The allies of the (c) list are also interesting.
Complexity: Combined arms with only one
weirdness (the elephants); not as complicated as they might have been, but
certainly not simple.
|
III/11
Central Asian Turkish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Uighurs 860AD-1330AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
Others 550AD-1330AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: The Uighur army has a nice mix of
troops; a Tibetan ally strike force might even upgrade it to an A rating. The "others" CAT army is high
aggression monotype LH -- basically doomed. Most of its allies give it
additional options and a D; taking both Tibetan
and Umayyad Arab allies makes a good combined-arms force and a C.
Complexity: The (a) list gains complexity
because of troop mix; the (b) list more because of the inherent difficulty of
the LH troop type. Upgrade the complexity of the (b) list to 3 with the Umayyad or Tibetan allies.
|
III/12
Christian Nubian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
550AD-1500AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: Aggression 1 dry army with camels
-- keen. The Blemmye/Nobades ally is definitely worthwhile. The warband and bow
and camels mix is a little too light to deserve an A
rating.
Complexity: Warband, bow, camels - We're not sure
it is possible to get much more complex without any "extra-pip" type
elements.
|
III/13
Avar: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
553AD-558AD, 631AD-826AD |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
558AD-631AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: High aggression monotype cavalry
army cripples the (a) list, although the Bulgar ally is a bit helpful in giving
some bad-going ability and a C. The (b) list is
much better, although still a little light -- the additional punch provided by
the Sassanid ally (especially with an elephant and cataphracts) is very welcome
and warrants a B.
Complexity: Moderate complexity for the (b)
list, especially with the Sassanid ally. The cavalry/LH mix is simpler to run
(although not more effective).
|
III/14
Early Bulgar: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
559AD-674AD |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
675AD-812AD |
D |
3 |
|
(c)
813AD-1018AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: The early list is a typical
monotype LH army. The middle list gets more bad-going troops to match with its
cavalry/light horse mix, but still has no punch and no main battle line. The
later list with a good spear line that can stand in the open has some chances,
but still no punch.
Complexity: The mix of LH and bad going troops
is a bit of oil and water, complexity-wise, which is why the (b) list is rated
as higher complexity than the other two.
|
III/15
Tibetan: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
560AD-1065AD |
D |
1 |
Effectiveness: Monotype high-aggression
cataphracts. The Nan-chao or CACS ally upgrades them to a C.
Complexity: Easy. Upgrade them to complexity 2 with either ally above.
|
III/16
Khazar: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
568AD-1083AD |
D |
5 |
Effectiveness: We love this army in regular DBA,
but it is among the most complicated mixes of troops available, with three
different troop types that require +1 pip to move, and none of them work well
with each other.
Complexity: We love this army in regular DBA,
but it might be the most complicated army out there, with three different troop
types that require +1 pip to move, and none of them work well with each other.
|
III/17
Maurikian Byzantine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
575AD-650AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice heavy-foot battle line
supporting a good mix of cavalry and light horse with a few knights for punch.
Most of their allies are worth investigating, too.
Complexity: This is a low 3 - almost a 2, in
spite of the speed differential between the small foot battle line and the main
cavalry/LH mass of the army. Most of the allies bring it up to a solid 3 complexity rating (maybe even a 4 with the Khazar ally).
|
III/18
Breton: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
580AD-1072AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: No foot and no punch. Upgrade to
at least a C, maybe even a B, with the Carolingian ally; upgrade to a C with a Viking ally.
Complexity: Maybe complexity 3 if you take any Horde; certainly complexity 3 with the Carolingian ally. The Viking ally still
leaves the army pretty simple at complexity 2
even with the introduction of the extra mass of blade types.
|
III/19
Welsh: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
580AD-1099AD |
D |
3 |
|
(b)
South 1100AD-1294AD |
C |
3 |
|
(c)
North 1100AD-1420AD |
C |
1 |
Effectiveness: Three very different armies --
warband alone for the (a) list, warband-supported bow for the (b) list, and
psiloi-supported spear for the (c) list. Very useful allies, by and large which
upgrade each list to a C, B, and B respectively.
Complexity: Upgrade the (c) list to complexity 2 with any of its allies.
|
III/20
Sui and T'ang: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Sui 581AD-623AD |
F |
5 |
|
(b)
T'ang 618AD-755AD |
B |
2 or 3 |
Effectiveness: Horde! Love 'em or hate 'em, this
is way too much of 'em. The (b) list has the kernel of some good foot.
Complexity: The early list is a basic Chinese
combined-arms troop mix, except for the huge batch of Horde. The later list is
complexity 2 if you go all-mounted; 3 otherwise.
|
III/21
Italian |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a) 584AD-774AD |
C |
2 |
|
(b)
775AD-1076AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: The early list is more than a bit
monotype knights, but taking the Early Slav or Avar ally fixes the bad-going
problem and warrants a B. The later list is on
the way to being a good Medieval mix; the Early Muslim North Africa ally adds
some nice variety and reaches A territory.
Complexity: Upgrade the (a) list to complexity 3 with the Slav or Avar allies.
|
III/22
Maya: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
600AD-987AD |
C |
2 |
|
(b)
988AD-1282AD |
B |
2 |
|
(c)
1283AD-1461AD |
B |
2 |
|
(d)
1462AD-1546AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Zero aggression is good for a
monotype auxilia army like the (a) and (d) lists, but it is still hard to
actually win any battles. The (b) and especially (c) list has a little bit of
something else to add to the mix.
Complexity: The (b) and (c) lists with a few
extra troops might be a smidgen more difficult than the others, but the
difference isn't significant enough to rate upgrading their difficulty to 3.
|
III/23
Khmer and Cham: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
605AD-1400AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: This will be a hard combination
of elephant, bow, and auxilia to play well, but it has the tools to succeed.
Complexity: This might merit a 5 complexity; certainly if you take two or three
artillery.
|
III/24
Middle Anglo-Saxon: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
617AD-700AD |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
701AD-1014AD |
D |
1 |
Effectiveness: The shield wall does not win many
fights on its own. The Welsh ally is interesting, but doesn't help this army
escape from being slow and monotype.
Complexity: Wall of spear is easy to use.
Criticisms of this army are focused on its ability, not its complexity.
|
III/25
Arab Conquest: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
622AD-638AD |
D |
3 |
|
(b)
639AD-660AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: This army can succeed and even do
well, but you better know how to fight with warband. The (a) list has waaaaay
too few mounted.
Complexity: Warband and cavalry is a bit of a
difficult mix; as a two-type army you would normally expect this to be
complexity 2.
|
III/26
Early Serbian or Croatian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Serbian 627AD-1089AD |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
Croatian 627AD-1180AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Nice mounted support for a
bad-going army. This might even deserve the B
rating, but aggression 1 is a bit higher than you'd like for an army with 24 or
27 bad-going troops.
Complexity: Knights are more difficult to
integrate into a bad-going army than Cav are, which is why the (a) list gets
complexity 3.
|
III/27
Rshtuni Armenian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
639AD-717AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A very nice bad-going army, with
some nice allies, all of which add something useful and an A. My favorite is the Arab Conquest, although the
Maurikian ally is nice too.
Complexity: It takes a bit of care to integrate
cavalry speed and bad-going troops effectively, but isn't desperately
difficult, ergo the moderate rating in complexity.
|
III/28
Carolingian Frankish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
639AD-888AD |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: A nice knight/spear army,
although a little high-aggression; taking the Slavs as an ally will give you
some important bad-going strength and an A.
They'll also give you some troops capable of doing something more useful than
weeping if you come up against an Elephant opponent!
Complexity: Upgrade to complexity 3 with the Slav ally.
|
III/29
Thematic Byzantine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
650AD-963AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: This is a very nice cavalry army.
Take all the foot you can, and take the Moorish or Slav ally for an A.
Complexity: If Maurikian Byzantine are a low 3, these guys are a high 3,
maybe even a low 4 for complexity mainly due to
the pike. Downgrade them to a 2 if they have no
pike and no allies; probably a 4 if they take
pike and a bad-going ally.
|
III/30
Magyar: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
650AD-895AD |
F |
2 |
|
(b)
896AD-997AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Too many light horse and too high
an aggression. The later list has some very useful foot, and a useful ally in
the Early Slavs.
Complexity: Not bad - the only significant
difficulty is the inherent complexity of bulk light horse.
|
III/31
Umayyad Arab: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
661AD-750AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice cavalry/bow/spear combined
arms force; the Tibetan ally gives some real punch and maybe an A.
Complexity: The moderate complexity of an
Arab-style combined-arms force without any particularly difficult-to-handle
troop types.
|
III/32
|
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
675AD-1237AD |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: Not enough foot worth having.
Complexity: If it wasn't for the horde these
guys wouldn't be difficult at all.
|
III/33
Early Muslim |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
696AD-1160AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: A little too light, but a fair
mix of troops. The Byzantine ally adds some much-needed punch and a B rating.
Complexity: A reasonable mix of troop types
with the simple complexity of Arab combined-arms.
|
III/34
Andalusian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
711AD-765AD |
F |
2 |
|
(b)
766AD-1172AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: 24 psiloi and aggression 3 is a
catastrophe, not an army! The (b) list, especially with one of the two
fairly-decent allies, is barely acceptable.
Complexity: It isn't the complexity of this
army that makes it hard to win with. Upgrade the (b) list to complexity 3 with either ally.
|
III/35
Feudal Spanish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
718AD-950AD |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
951AD-1200AD |
B |
3 |
|
(c)
1201AD-1340AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: Evolving from too-many-psiloi to
a nice mix of Feudal troops with a bit of light horse.
Complexity: Medieval combined arms complexity
in the (c) list; Knight/Bad-Going complexity in the (a) list, and half of each
in the (b) list. Not brain surgery, but not simple addition either.
|
III/36
Nan-Chao: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
728AD-1253AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A very interesting troop mix! The
Vietnamese or Burmese allies bring something nice to the table too, as does the
Tibetan cataphract horde, but the tools the Nan-Chao have are good by
themselves.
Complexity: Isn't this a Successor army? It
sure looks like one. Upgrade to complexity 5
with the Burmese ally.
|
III/37
Abbasid Arab: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
747AD-835AD |
A |
3 |
|
(b) 836AD-945AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: The early list with spear is
stronger than the later one without. Take the warband either way to deal with
enemy heavy foot.
Complexity: Hey, it could be worse. This is a
relatively normal version of the Arab combined-arms army.
|
III/38
Arab Indian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
751AD-1206AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Good foot, but uninspired mounted
troops. Not bad, though.
Complexity: Arab combined arms is one of the
least difficult combined-arms types available.
|
III/39
Late T'ang and Five Dynasties Chinese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
755AD-979AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: Nice heavy-foot army. The Tibetan
ally adds some nice punch if you want knights.
Complexity: Chinese combined-arms with a lot of
foot - on the simpler end of the difficulty spectrum for combined arms armies,
but certainly not easy.
|
III/40
Norse Viking: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Viking 790AD-849AD |
C |
1 |
|
(b)
Viking 850AD-1280AD |
C |
1 |
|
(c)
Leidang 790AD-1070AD |
B |
2 |
|
(d)
Leidang 1070AD-1280AD |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: Blades out the wazoo! Without
enough psiloi support, and with no mounted and high aggression, the (a) and (b)
lists are pretty weak. The Leidang lists are stronger, especially the (d) list
with Medieval German ally.
Complexity: Wall O' Blade - what could be simpler?
The (c) and (d) lists should be downgraded to complexity 1 if you take fairly few auxilia; the (d) list might
be as high as complexity 3 if you take as mixed
a force as possible and throw in the Medieval German ally.
|
III/41
Dog Peoples and |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
800AD-1500AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Doomed.
Complexity: Doom isn't very complicated, as
such things go…
|
III/42
Sha-t'o Turkish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
808AD-883AD |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
884AD-951AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: The (a) list is in the
high-aggression mounted monotype army hole and a few bow or psiloi don't save
it. The (b) list has some nice foot, and with a Khitan-Liao ally to provide
some more (and some knights) they might actually win some battles with a B rating.
Complexity: The (a) list mix of Ps/Bw and
Cav/LH might be nearly a 3 complexity rating -
a difficult 2, perhaps. With more foot variety,
and especially with the Khitan-Liao ally, the (b) list is a solid 3 complexity rating.
|
III/43
Khurasanian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Tahirids 821AD-873AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
Saffarids 861AD-1003AD |
B |
4 |
|
(c)
Samanids 900AD-999AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: Nice mixes of cavalry, spear,
bow, and bad going troops. We like the small amounts of light horse and warband
in the mix. The Samanids, with an elephant for punch, are probably the best.
The Samanids also have the best ally in the Ghaznavids.
Complexity: The (a) list is fairly standard
Arab combined-arms difficulty. The (b) list starts to get a bit bizarre with
their troop mix; the (c) list is a bit more controllable with a solid spear
wall but the addition of the elephants keeps it in the awkward complexity
stage.
|
III/44
Tribal Mongolian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
840AD-1218AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Monotype light horse army with
aggression 2. The Qara-Khitan ally offers a bump up to D.
Complexity: Appropriate difficulty for a
monotype LH army. Probably still a 2 even with
the Q-K ally, because you still have to work the LH magic to make the army go.
|
III/45
Pre-Feudal Scots: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
846AD-1051AD |
B |
2 |
|
(b)
1052AD-1124AD |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: Nice psiloi-supported spear army.
Take as many mounted as possible -- the SRB ally is worthwhile, too. Take a
bunch of warband for bad-going troops. With the SRB ally this army might be
nearly an A rating, although still suffers from
being dead slow.
Complexity: These armies are nice! We'd
recommend them to anyone making the transition from solid (and stolid)
spearwall to something with a taste of combined-arms support for a spearwall
base.
|
III/46
Norse Irish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
846AD-1300AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Auxilia army with no mounted and
aggression 1. The Anglo-Norman ally is formidable and provides an upgrade to B.
Complexity: Bad-going complexity here; upgrade
to a 3 with the Anglo-Norman ally.
|
III/47
Pecheneg: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
850AD-1122AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Aggression 2 light horse army.
The warwagons and bow are good, though.
Complexity: Upgrade to complexity 3 if you take more than a few war wagons. On the
other hand, taking a wad of war wagons brings the army up to Effectiveness of C.
|
III/48
Rus: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
860AD-1054AD |
B |
1 |
Effectiveness: A nice psiloi-supported spear army.
All of its allies are very different from it, and so can provide a very nice
addition to this army and an A rating.
Complexity: Upgrade to 2
with any of its allies.
|
III/49
Tulunid or Iqshidid Egyptian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
868AD-905AD,
935AD-969AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Cavalry and bow together leaves a
lot of gaps -- a spear or blade army could basically eat these guys.
Complexity: These guys are hard to assess -
they might be as high as complexity 3. But
probably not.
|
III/50
Bagratid Armenian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
885AD-1045AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A slightly disorganized mix of
troops, but with the germ of a good army. The allies are useful, too.
Complexity: An interesting variation on
combined arms - in some ways this army is more similar to Patsy Roman than its
contemporaries. The mix of the three major mounted types, plus a spear wall
with psiloi support and warband, is probably like a high 3 in complexity.
|
III/51
West Frankish or Norman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
888AD-1072AD |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: All three allies are worthwhile
additions, giving some variety and infantry to this knight-heavy early medieval
mix and an upgrade to A.
Complexity: Knights with some support troops -
not difficult to run; just pray you don't meet lots of Bows.
|
III/52
East Frankish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
888AD-1106AD |
A |
2 |
Effectiveness: A strong early medieval army with
a bit of Swabian dismounting. The allies are definitely worthwhile. Taking the
all mounted version leads to an F rating.
Complexity: Downgrade the all-mounted version
to complexity 1; upgrade the others to 3 if you take an ally.
|
III/53
Dynastic Bedouin: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
890AD-1150AD |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: Too light, but does warrant a C with an ally.
Complexity: LH with support - not
super-complex, but way worse than easy.
|
III/54
Early Samurai: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
900AD-1300AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Nice looking troops, but not a
lot of punch, and weak in heavy foot, and too many auxilia.
Complexity: A combination of troops that are
simple to use individually, but awkward in combination.
|
III/55
Khitan-Liao: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
907AD-1125AD |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: Strong mounted, but very poor
foot. And worse still if all-mounted.
Complexity: This is a very awkward 3 rating, but since most players will leave their
horde in the backfield it is probably justifiable as no higher. The all-mounted
version of the army should be downgraded to complexity 2.
|
III/56
Koryo Dynasty Korean: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
918AD-1392AD |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: A nice army based on a good heavy
foot core. This might even be worth an A rating;
I'm not sure. Adding either of the allies gives a mobile strikeforce to this
otherwise mostly-foot army, upgrading them from a high B
to a solid A.
Complexity: Upgrade to complexity 3 if the army has more than one artillery.
|
III/57
Buyid or other Dailami Dynasties: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a) |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
Dailami tribal rebels |
F |
2 |
|
(c)
All others 927AD-1090AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: The (a) list is reasonable, but
has a lot of light foot for an aggression 3 army. The (b) list is a total loss.
The (c) list has some stiffener in its elephant, but nine elements of auxilia
or psiloi is still tremendously rough. Both allies give some reasonable
good-going troops to make it more competitive and a C
rating.
Complexity: Upgrade the (c) list to complexity 3 if you take elephants and/or an ally.
|
III/58
Toltec: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
930AD-1168AD |
D |
1 |
Effectiveness: Immobile and fragile against
opponents with knights; no maneuver and poor aggression...
Complexity: ...but easy to run!
|
III/59
Medieval Vietnamese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
939AD-1527AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: A difficult combined-arms mix in
elephants and auxilia and psiloi, but fairly effective if you learn how to use
them together, and some bow and blade to give some more stiffening good-going
strength. The artillery might be worthwhile for a refused wing or static
command.
Complexity: Elephants are complicated;
elephants and artillery even more so. This might rate a 5 complexity if the army has two or three artillery.
|
III/60
Dynastic Kurdish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
950AD-1085AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Cavalry monotype army. Take the
5Wb and the Buyid ally for a B upgrade, and this
should be a fun mix.
Complexity: Upgrade the difficulty to 3 with the Buyid ally; downgrade to a 1 for the army with few or no infantry.
|
III/61
Sung Chinese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
960AD-1279AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A very nice heavy-foot mixed army
with enough mounted for a useful reserve or small striking command. The Khitan
or Hsi ally is a thought if you want more maneuvering, but a tradeoff for an
army whose strength is really in the blade/bow combination.
Complexity: Mandatory Artillery adds difficulty
to what would otherwise be a relatively normal Chinese combined-arms mixture.
|
III/62
Early Polish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
960AD-1200AD |
A |
2 |
|
(b)
1201AD-1335AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: Both lists have a nice
combination of psiloi-supported spear and bow with a good mounted strikeforce.
The (b) list has more punch and might be a little better overall; both lists
have some nice allies in the Early Hungarians and Medieval Germans or Teutonic
Order, among others.
Complexity: Simple enough to run the (a) list;
the (b) list is a good Medieval combined-arms force with the appropriate
complexity.
|
III/63
Ghaznavid: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
962AD-1001AD |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
1002AD-1186AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: Very nice combined-arms lists.
The Rajput ally is very interesting for the later list, too.
Complexity: Upgrade the complexity of the (b)
list to 5 with the Rajput ally; downgrade the
(a) list to 2 if few or no elephants are in the
army.
|
III/64
Nikephorian Byzantine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
963AD-1042AD |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: Cavalry and bow is a tough
combination with high aggression. The two best allies (Armenian or Georgian)
reduce the damage somewhat by providing some heavy foot that can fight it out
in the open against other heavy foot as well as an upgrade to B.
Complexity: It is interesting how closely this
resembles an Arab combined-arms army.
|
III/65
Fatamid Egyptian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
969AD-1171AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Cavalry and bow again, although
with lower aggression. The Crusaders provide some heavy foot punch and some
knight punch, both useful against enemy heavy foot and bumping it up to B.
Complexity: See the comment above for the
similarity to their historical enemy, III/64 Nikkie Byz.
|
III/66
Hsi-Hsia: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
982AD-1227AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: I'm surprised to find such a good
mix of troops and mounted variety wandering around the steppe in book III.
Complexity: A really nice combined-arms force
with power and punch; no complicated elements and not too many element types.
Highly recommended for those who want to make the transition from simple armies
to combined-arms.
|
III/67
Early Hungarian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
997AD-1102AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
1103AD-1245AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: The early list has too many light
horse; the later list adds some more punch and some more heavy foot. The Early
Polish ally is worthwhile.
Complexity: Supported LH complexity for the (a)
list; Medieval combined-arms complexity for the (b) list.
|
III/68
West Sudanese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1000AD-1591AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: All-bow or all-auxilia is
awkward, and neither is an answer for enemy heavy foot.
Complexity: Funky.
|
III/69
Tuareg: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1000AD-1880AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Monotype camel army -- very
funky. Without the camel trick this would be an F
rated army -- can't answer any heavy foot or most armies when it loses the
terrain roll.
Complexity: Very Funky.
|
III/70
Georgian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1008AD-1089AD |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
1090AD-1120AD |
B |
3 |
|
(c)
1121AD-1683AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice mix of mounted and heavy
foot support, although a bit too many light horse in the two later armies.
Complexity: Medieval combined-arms for the
first two lists; Arab combined-arms for the third.
|
III/71
Anglo-Danish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1014AD-1075AD |
C |
1 |
Effectiveness: Little psiloi support and no
mobility.
Complexity: It could be simpler, but not by
much!
|
III/72
Communal Italian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1029AD-1199AD |
B |
4 |
|
(b)
1200AD-1320AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice medieval mix, hurt a bit
by the horde. The German ally provides an A
rating.
Complexity: With war wagons and horde, these
guys almost deserve a 5 complexity rating. But
since horde are usually an inactive part of the army, we'll give these guys
just a 4.
|
III/73
Seljuq Turk: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Rum 1200AD-1243AD |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
Others 1037AD-1276AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: The early list is the better, but
the later list has better allies and some upgrade to C. Both lists suffer from
way too many light horse, especially at aggression 3. The Ghaznavid ally made
as heavy as possible is a good ally, as is the Ghurid, and both together merits
a B rating.
Complexity: LH complexity with a variety of
support elements adding some difficulty for the (a) list.
|
III/74
Fanatic Berber: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1039AD-1529AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Interesting, but not exactly full
of punch.
Complexity: A slightly lighter version of Arab
combined arms.
|
III/75
Konstantinian Byzantine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1042AD-1071AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: The Georgian ally is worthwhile.
A very nice mobile army with a bow and some heavy foot supporting group.
Complexity: Upgrade to 4
if the army has more than a single artillery.
|
III/76:
Papal Italian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1049AD-1320AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice medieval mix. Some allies
provide an upgrade to A.
Complexity: Upgrade to a 4 difficulty with two allies.
|
III/77
Scots Isles and |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1050AD-1493AD |
D |
1 or 2 |
Effectiveness: Too many blade, with little else.
Complexity: The higher complexity is for the
army with Bw and Wb; the lower is for the all-blade version.
|
III/78
Early Russian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1054AD-1246AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Fairly nice mix, especially with
a little punch and a little more heavy foot from an ally. Upgrade to B with Early Polish or Early Hungarian ally.
Complexity: Cavalry and psiloi-supported spear
is an easy duotype army to run.
|
III/79
Cuman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1054AD-1394AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Way too many light horse for
aggression 3. Alan ally upgrades these guys to a D.
Complexity: Monotype LH complexity.
Book
IV Armies
|
IV/1
Komnenan Byzantines: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1071AD-1149AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b) 1150AD-1204AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice combined-arms mix, but a
bit unfocused and a bit lacking in heavy foot. The Kn/Sp/Bw combination of the
Later Crusader ally adds some good punch and an A
rating. Treasure this Byzantine army, as they have a reasonable chance at
victory.
Complexity: Standard complexity for a combined
arms mounted heavy army.
|
IV/2
Cilician Armenian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1071AD-1375AD |
A |
2 |
Effectiveness: A nice psiloi-supported spear and
knight army. A little slow, but an ally command of Seljuqs of Rum or of
Ilkhanid can give it a fast-strike maneuver command.
Complexity: Taking all spear and no auxilia
would downgrade these guys to a 1 rating. The
Seljuk Turk or Ilkhanid allies upgrade the Armenians to a 3.
|
IV/3
Anglo-Norman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1072AD-1181AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A good Medieval mix of knights,
spear, and bow, with the added benefit of psiloi support and dismounting. Too
bad it doesn't have one element of light horse or cavalry. The allies are nice,
but don't change the complection of the army much.
Complexity: It would be historically wrong and
just bad form to take more than one War Wagon element, so no increase in
complexity there. With little to no mobility to speak of, the Anglo-Normans beg
for a 2 rating, but the added complexity of
dismounting options keeps us from downgrading it.
|
IV/4
Feudal French: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1072AD-1150AD |
A |
2 |
|
(b)
1151AD-1330AD |
A |
2 |
Effectiveness: Knights and psiloi-supported
spear is a good one-two punch. The Communal or Crusader allies are much the
same, with the addition of a little bow. The Feudal Spanish ally is much
better, with some speed in light horse and some nice bad-going troops.
Complexity: The Feudal French are basically
just knights and spear with some psiloi support. The Feudal Spanish ally adds
some nice complexity amongst its complimentary troop types and a 3 rating, as does the Communal Italian ally.
|
IV/5
Sicilian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1072AD-1194AD |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
1195AD-1235AD |
C |
3 |
|
(c)
1236AD-1442AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: Aggression is too high for an
army with half the troops psiloi and horde. The (c) list is the best, and is
probably worth an A rating if you take the Later
Crusader ally.
Complexity: For lists (a) and (b) you better be
competent using psiloi and knights together. The possibility of a Littoral
landing offers some interesting options. The added balance and troop options in
the (c) list makes it a more complex list, as well as having to work with the
6Kn wedges.
|
IV/6
Syrian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1092AD-1286AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Sorta cool, but not enough punch
and not enough heavy foot. Either of the Crusader allies would help quite a bit
and warrant a B.
Complexity: Upgrade the Syrians to a 3 if they take an oddball Khwarizmian ally.
Otherwise, these guys aren't particularly remarkable for their tactical
complexity.
|
IV/7
Early Crusader: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1096AD-1128AD |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: This army might deserve an A, it is close. The army is a little slow and poor in
bad going troops, and all of its allies provide a solution to one or both those
holes and a ratings upgrade.
Complexity: The crusaders are borderline 2 or 3 in complexity. Definitely bump them up to 3 if an ally is used.
|
IV/8
Ghurid: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1100AD-1215AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice little army. Go with
mostly pike, some psiloi-supported spear, and the rest bow. Good mobile
elements to support the heavy foot.
Complexity: The choice between spear and pike
in this list determines whether we rate it as a 2
or 3 - the pike being the more complicated
choice. The army does best and is most interesting with a mix of the two types.
|
IV/9
Eastern |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1100AD-1620AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Warband and psiloi do not an open
tournament army make.
Complexity: See IV/71 Chimu.
|
IV/10
Mound Builder American: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1100AD-1701AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Too slow, but you could make an
army out of these guys if you know how to use warband well.
Complexity: This is a fairly complex force with
three Lits, and a somewhat combined arms foot force. No mounted means little
mobility, but you could find enough here to put together a reasonably
interesting command structure and plan.
|
IV/11 North-Western
American: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1100AD-1770AD |
D |
1 |
Effectiveness: Helpless against most heavy foot.
Complexity: See IV/ 72 Amazonians. These guys
are marginally more complex in that you can do a Littoral landing with Bow or
Psiloi.
|
IV/12
Polynesian or Melanesian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Polynesian 1100AD-1785AD |
C |
1 |
|
(b)
Melanesian 1100AD-1785AD |
C |
1 |
|
(c) |
C |
1 |
|
(d)
Maori 1100AD-1785AD |
C |
1 |
Effectiveness: Monotype armies aren't
game-winners in big battle.
Complexity: Wall O' Blade mania or Melanesian
Spear! We think it's boring. At least you may get to try a littoral landing.
Let's see, might we have heavy foot in that landing party?
|
IV/13
Medieval German: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1106AD-1235AD |
A |
3 |
|
(b) 1236AD-1450AD |
A |
3 |
|
(c)
1450AD-1478AD |
A |
5 |
|
(d)
1479AD-1519AD |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: A whole batch of nice medieval
combined-arms armies. The (a) list dismounts, which is always nice. Their
allies are fun, too. The other lists don't dismount but still have a nice group
of troops -- the pike are quite useful. The (b) list allies are also nice.
Complexity: The Medieval Germans offer a full
variety of troop types in these four lists. Lists (c) and (d) are cumbersome
juggernauts in regular DBA, and translate to that in BBDBA as well. They are
difficult to play, but offer a really interesting challenge to an advanced
player. The (a) list seems to be the most popular because of the dismounters,
but it would be nice to see more of the later lists and their knight wedges in
competition!
|
IV/14
Jurchen-Chin: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1114AD-1125AD |
F |
1 |
|
(b)
1126AD-1234AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: The high aggression cripples the
early list, which is all mounted. The later list has some nice supporting
troops for their cavalry, but not enough to bring it to the first rank of
cavalry armies. Still, it would deserve an upgrade on a larger map.
Complexity: The simplistic (a) list will be
difficult to play because of their aggression, not their complexity. The (b)
list offers a more varied selection of troops (including Arty) and a useful
ally.
|
IV/15
Qara-Khitan: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1124AD-1211AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Too high aggression for an
all-mounted army, even if it has a nice mix of mounted troops. The Uighur ally
gives it some essential foot troops and a C
rating.
Complexity: This is about as complex as an all
mounted force can get, unless it has a bunch of Elephants or Scythed Chariots
which the Qara-Khitan do not.
|
IV/16
Scots Common: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1124AD-1512AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: This army is nearly an A rating, but its lack of mobility and almost any
mounted troops is a bad fault - Take the warband and bow, by all means.
Complexity: The Scots are a challenging pike
army, with little in the way of mobility. As a result, they are not very
forgiving. We recommend featuring the Highland Rabble in any plan of battle.
|
IV/17
Later Crusader: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1128AD-1303AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A Medieval knight/spear/bow army.
Almost an A rating, but lacks a bit of spark.
All of its allies are interesting, and any of them provide the variety to
upgrade the rating to A.
Complexity: Pretty standard mix, except lacking
any psiloi support. The allies make the Crusaders more interesting, if not more
complex.
|
IV/18
Lithuanian or Samogitian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1132AD-1435AD |
D |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice mix of LH and bad-going
troops that almost manages a C rating. Lacks
punch, like many maneuver armies. Has very good allies -- Teutonic Order or
Post-Mongol Russian or Later Polish all give it an upgrade to B; Golden Horde an upgrade to C
because of the bow.
Complexity: Because of the nice balance of
mounted mobility and bad going troops, you can have a reasonable plan for any
terrain. Making use of the terrain or lack thereof is the challenge. The allies
have a significant impact on the effectiveness, if not the complexity.
|
IV/19
Tarascan or Toltec-Chichimec: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1168AD-1521AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: A bow army with some nice
supporting heavy foot, but still slow as molasses.
Complexity: This Bow and Blade mix is a mostly
simple and powerful troop interaction, however planning for the lack of any
real mobility will cause some difficulty.
|
IV/20
Ayyubid Egyptian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1171AD-1250AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice cavalry and light foot
army. Too bad neither of its allies are heavy-foot oriented.
Complexity: Nothing particularly crazy here.
The Khwarizmian ally provides an upgrade to a 4,
assuming you take the oddball troops options.
|
IV/21
Anglo-Irish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1172AD-1300AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
1301AD-1394AD |
B |
3 |
|
(c)
1395AD-1489AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: An interesting mix of medieval
combined-arms and the light foot usually lacking in those armies.
Complexity: Combined arms with mounted, bow,
blade, and bad going troops.
|
IV/22
Serbian Empire: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1180AD-1459AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice knight/light horse mobile
force with bow and spear infantry support. Ottoman and Condotta allies are both
worthwhile improvements.
Complexity: Non-heavy foot combined arms
complexity.
|
IV/23
Feudal English: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1181AD-1322AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: This army is an extreme version
of the typical Early Medieval combined-arms mix of knight, bow, and spear. In
this case almost no spear, and horde instead. The North Welsh ally gives some
very useful psiloi-supported spear to provide some heavy-foot bulk and an A. The other allies have too many bad-going troops to
be much use for an aggression 3 army.
Complexity: The only reason we are tempted to
give the English a score higher than the standard medieval combined-arms mix is
because of the mandatory four or six elements of Hordes. It's not quite enough
to warrant the higher rating though, and the allies don't present too much of a
tactical challenge, since the most useful one is psiloi-supported spear.
|
IV/24
Khwarizmian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1186AD-1246AD |
C |
4 |
Effectiveness: Not bad, but really needs some
more foot troops. The Knights in the Qara-Khitan ally are a nice addition.
Complexity: The Elephant, Hordes, and 5Wb
options are enough to push this Cavalry and Light Horse force to a high
complexity score. Those oddball support troops present the Khwarizmian
commander with some difficult decisions. If you don't take the oddballs,
downgrade these guys to a 2.
|
IV/25
Later Bulgar: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1186AD-1395AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Knights and light horse are a
cool combination, but aggression 2 is a little high for an army to be
successful without much foot. The Serbian Empire ally are a significant
improvement and a B; the Golden Horde ally would
be fun, but not much use on a 4x2 board.
Complexity: Nothing too special here - Knights
and Light Horse. The Serbian ally increases the complexity
|
IV/26
Lusignan Cypriot: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1192AD-1489AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: This is a really keen mix of
troops supporting what is basically a bow army. It is likely to be a difficult
army in practice, but with real potential. We can see this army being
overlooked. The Mamluk ally is quite worthwhile.
Complexity: This is a fairly standard
complication combined arms force with a bow base. Nice balance.
|
IV/27
Estonian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1200AD-1227AD |
F |
2 |
Effectiveness: Last of the Warband armies. Take
the Early Russian ally if you want to have any chance (probably a D army with them). A monotype warband army with no
mounted and high aggression -- if your enemy wins the terrain roll and has
anything but lots of heavy foot you are pretty much out of luck.
Complexity: See IV/71 Chimu. Most monotypes
would automatically get a 1 rating, but we view
playing Warband as an art form that just requires a little too much creativity
for the lowest rating.
|
IV/28
Prussian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1200AD-1283AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Cousin of the Estonians, but a
lower aggression and better mix of troops. If you aren't comfortable with your
anti-heavy-foot strike force being warband, though, you should avoid these
guys. Early Pole ally upgrades to B.
Complexity: If you take Auxilia and the Early
Polish ally, upgrade these guys to a 3.
Otherwise, it's just bad going exploitation often against historical enemies
that will ride down warband in the open. These same enemies often show up in
open tourneys.
|
IV/29
Tupi: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1200AD-1601AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Warband and Bow. It may be fun,
but it isn't fast, and I'm not sure it is effective either.
Complexity: This perfect balance of Bow and
Warband - eighteen elements of each - feels almost like a monotype because of
its simplicity. We can't rate it as a 1 though.
There are some subtleties to playing Bow and Warband in complimentary roles.
|
IV/30
Teutonic Orders: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1201AD-1522AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A very nice medieval
combined-arms army. The wide range of allies is also nice, but not particularly
necessary. A bit light on heavy foot for some, but it has very nice cavalry and
light horse components to make up for it. Teutonic Order with an early Medieval
German ally ended up in a three- way tie for first in Big Battle Doubles at
Historicon 2001, and DS used it for a victorious run at NashCon 2004.
Complexity: The Teutonic combined arms presents
a fairly typical complexity for a mounted heavy combined arms force. Taking one
of the later Medieval German allies (c) or (d) increases their rating to 4. The same thing can be said for taking the Hordes
option, instead of the very useful bad going troops. Real men take Hordes.
|
IV/31
Nikaian Byzantine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1204AD-1261AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: This army is typical of what we
call Byzantine combined-arms -- a mix of troops that always seems to under-perform,
somehow. A little too light, not fast enough, and not hard-enough hitting.
Still, it seems like a nice mix of troops on paper, and the allies are worth
experimenting with.
Complexity: These guys are built very similarly
to the Epirot Byzantines, and present a similar Byzantine challenge and
complexity.
|
IV/32
Romanian Frank: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1204AD-1311AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Knights and psiloi, without the
glory of the Early Ostrogoths. The Seljuk ally is interesting, and the Catalan
Company ally likewise, but this army still has no real way to beat a wall of
spear or a wall of bow.
Complexity: Knights and psiloi interaction is a
little complicated, but can be very effective. Take an ally for an upgrade to
complexity 4.
|
IV/33
Epirot Byzantine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1204AD-1340AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Not enough heavy foot, but it
seems like a good force mix on paper. The Sicilian ally is worth exploring, too
- unless you feel like just giving up because you are Byzantine.
Complexity: The Epirot Byzantines are just
begging to succeed despite their Byzantine nature. Focusing primarily on
success with their nicely balanced mounting strikes us as the key to it. This
is still a fairly challenging task, given that they are Byzantine and lack much
in the way of useful foot. The Sicilian ally probably increases their
complexity to a 4.
|
IV/34
Trapezuntine Byzantine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1204AD-1461AD |
C |
4 |
Effectiveness: A little too light, and not
enough of anything -- the typical Byzantine problem. Maybe the most pitifully
challenging combined-arms armies are all Byzantine?
Complexity: The option of a Littoral landing
force with the Trapezuntine adds complexity to what is already a difficult mix
of troops to succeed with. Perhaps it is the lack of shock troops or an
inclination to emulate their historical past, but we see most of these Later
Byzantine armies as tragically doomed from the start.
|
IV/35
Mongol Conquest: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1206AD-1266AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: On the 4x2 board, these guys
cannot play battles of maneuver. Both their allies are good additions to their
force mix with big batches of bow and heavy foot (spear for the Koryo, blade
for the Sung) and a C upgrade. The artillery can
really be fun for a light horse army, though.
Complexity: The option of three Artillery to
compliment Cavalry and Light Horse is a challenging tactical puzzle; increase
the complexity to 4 if you go with more than a
single artillery. It's definitely a great use against massed Bow or a BUA, but it's
just SO slow compared to the mounted. Besides, does anybody still use BUA's
these days?!?
|
IV/36
Later Muslim Indian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1206AD-1315AD |
B |
4 |
|
(b)
1316AD-1526AD |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: The early list is a little
lacking in punch, but the later list is an enemy-muncher that splits very
easily into a refused-wing command (lowpip with artillery), a central mounted
command, and a flanking wing command, with enough bad going troops to assign to
either the central or flanker command and give them the highpip dice.
Complexity: Both (a) and (b) Later Muslim
Indian lists have quite the eclectic mix of troop types. The (b) list goes a
step further with the addition of three mandatory Horde, three Artillery, and
possibly three Knights! Command structure and PIP planning is crucial for the
later list.
|
IV/37
Indonesian or Malay: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Malay or Sumatran 1222AD-1511AD |
B |
4 |
|
(b)
Moluccan 1222AD-1511AD |
D |
2 |
|
(c)
Javanese 1222AD-1511AD |
C |
3 |
|
(d)
Others 1222AD-1511AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: The Malay/Sumatran list has the
elephants to protect its warband from enemy knights or cavalry; two of their
allies (Ming Chinese and Sinhalese) are very good additions. The Javanese list,
especially with the Khmer/Cham ally, has enough elephants to try to protect its
warband (but probably fail). The other two lists aren't going to compete in
open tournaments very well.
Complexity: Generally speaking, the elephant
and warband troop interaction is fairly complicated and challenging, especially
with the 2.2 changes to warband. Terrain choice is critical, as there may be
too few PIPs to go around. The Malay or Sumatran rate complexity 4 because of the extra elephant beyond the Javanese.
The three light horse available to (a), (c) and (d) also present some
interesting tactical options.
|
IV/38
Granadine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1232AD-1492AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: This is an interesting mix, but
with spear and lots of crossbow it has solid heavy foot, and lots of LH for
maneuver. The Fanatic Berber allies are useful. An enjoyable army for a general
with lots of skill with LH, but not for the timid. Aggression 0 is helpful.
Complexity: The Spear and Bow mix of the
Granadine army form a nice base for the mobile LH to maneuver around. This will
call for a fairly skilled gamer to find success.
|
IV/39
Navarrese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1234AD-1327AD |
C |
2 |
|
(b)
1328AD-1378AD |
C |
3 |
|
(c)
1379AD-1430AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: An odd combined-arms army with
bad-going emphasis. The (b) list has the best chances. If you're looking for a
Medieval auxilia army, this is a good one, but it will have trouble if it
doesn't get terrain, and at aggression 1 it could be better.
Complexity: While there are significant amounts
of Auxilia in all three lists, (a) is really just a bad going focus medieval
army. Lists (b) and (c) are more balanced which results in their higher rating.
|
IV/40
Siamese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1238AD-1518AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: Warband, Auxilia, Elephants -- a
good combination, but it would take some practice and skill. No matter which
way you go (choosing auxilia or warband) you should probably take the ally with
the other type of troop (Malay with warband, or Burmese with auxilia) to give
you flexibility.
Complexity: Warband, Auxilia and Elephants
present some serious gameplay challenges, PIP allocation, command structure,
terrain issues. etc.
|
IV/41
Early Swiss: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1240AD-1400AD |
B |
1 |
Effectiveness: Against opponents without knights
this might be a low A army; against opponents
with lots of them, more like a C. Psiloi
supported blade is just a bit too risky as your only open-ground troop type.
Not enough mobility, either.
Complexity: The Über-Blade army, you get twenty-seven elements of 6Bd in a
BBDBA army. That's a definite monotype.
|
IV/42
Islamic Persian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1245AD-1393AD,
1499AD-1520AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Aggression 0 is nice; on a larger
board these might be worth a B rating. But on a
standard 4x2 board they just don't have any way to fight armies with a wall of
heavy foot.
Complexity: The Islamic Persians are almost
entirely Cavalry, which qualifies them as one dimensional. As a bonus they get
a mandatory three Hordes elements. Cavalry and Horde mix so well in a battle
line, don't you think?
|
IV/43
Later Hungarian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1245AD-1395AD |
C |
2 |
|
(b)
1396AD |
A |
3 |
|
(c)
1397AD-1526AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: The early list is too light and
not enough foot for its aggression, although with the German ally it is much
better - B rating. The Nicopolis list is fairly
nice if you don't let the French Ally do anything stupid (unlike the historical
battle). The later list is quite nice, although be warned that it is a fairly
difficult combined-arms army to run.
Complexity: The 6Kn wedges in the (b) and
especially the (c) list are difficult to maneuver and use effectively. The War
Wagon options in the (c) list even further compound the challenges that the
Later Hungarians present with their interesting mix of troops. Ultimately, the (a)
and (b) lists are reasonably simple in their approach as compared to the (c)
list with War Wagons.
|
IV/44
Post Mongol Russian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1246AD-1380AD |
B |
2 |
|
(b)
1381AD-1533AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: These two lists do very well on a
larger board. The (b) list with light horse is better. They suffer from a lack
of a central foot battleline.
Complexity: Both lists bump up a notch to 3 and 4 respectively
if any number of War Wagons are taken. Otherwise, the (b) list's trade of
Cavalry for LH makes it just a little more complicated.
|
IV/45
Mamluk Egyptian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1250AD-1517AD |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: Aggression is a bit high, and
number of foot is very low.
Complexity: Lots of Cavalry monotype doesn't
offer much in the way of complexity, the Syrian ally might add a little.
|
IV/46
Ilkhanid: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1251AD-1355AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Aggression is too high for a LH
army with no foot to speak of. The Cilician Armenian ally really comes in handy
and warrants a B.
Complexity: Mostly a LH army, the Ilkhanid are
a monotype maneuver army. The Cilician, Armenian and Syrian allies bump it up
to a 3 rating.
|
IV/47
Golden Horde: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1251AD-1556AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: High aggression and lots of LH.
The PMR ally adds a bit of punch and a C.
Complexity: This is basically a Cavalry and
Light Horse army. These mounted are difficult to play with effectively, but we
aren't looking at much complex troop interaction here - just dodge and weave.
|
IV/48 Yuan
Chinese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1260AD-1368AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: A nice maneuver army. With the
addition of Koryo or Malaysian allies to give it something to do against enemy
heavy foot, this army is quite nice. Not enough heavy-foot punch to make the A ratings list, though.
Complexity: Taking the Warband option bumps
this list to a 4 rating. Otherwise, it is a
fairly even balance of mobile mounted and Blade with Bow. The Malaysian ally
would also bump it to a 4 because of the
addition of Warband and a possible Elephant General.
|
IV/49
Anatolian Turkoman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1260AD-1515AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: A light-horse army with good
bad-going contingent. This army could do well in the hands of a LH expert, but
not on a 4x2 board, and not at aggression 2. The Mamluke or Ottoman allies add
a bit of something, but not enough.
Complexity: Combining advanced Light Horse
tactics with bad going efficiency is a fairly difficult task.
|
IV/50
Palaiologan Byzantine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1261AD-1384AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice little cavalry army with
perhaps a little too much of everything else, and not enough of anything in
particular that isn't cavalry. Serbian Empire is a good ally.
Complexity: This Byzantine Cav based army has
too many little bits of everything else, and that's why it is so difficult to
play effectively.
|
IV/51
Morean Byzantine: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1262AD-1346AD |
D |
4 |
|
(b)
1347AD-1460AD |
D |
4 |
Effectiveness: These fellows will perform
historically -- defeat after defeat.
Complexity: This is another odd Byzantine mix.
Both the (a) and (b) lists sport five elements of Psiloi. - that's fifteen
elements in a triple army! That's enough reason to take an ally each and every
time.
|
IV/52
Later Nomadic Mongol: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1266AD-1508AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Too high aggression for a Cav/LH
army with no useful foot.
Complexity: This is basically an all Cavalry
and Light Horse army. These light troops are difficult to play with
effectively, but we aren't looking at much complex troop interaction here -
just feint and counter-feint.
|
IV/53
Mixtec or Zapotec: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1280AD-1523AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: A nice little auxilia army, but
no good way to win any fights in good going. The Tarascan ally is definitely
worth having to allay that lack a bit and a C.
Complexity: Auxilia monotype bad going army
that can at least mostly count on winning terrain with an Ag: 1, so plan
accordingly and don't let DK roll for initiative. Adding the Tarascan ally
might bump it up to a 3, but we are not sure.
|
IV/54
Medieval Scandinavian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Danish 1350AD-1390AD |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
Union 1391AD-1523AD |
A |
3 |
|
(c)
Swedish 1391AD-1523AD |
A |
2 |
|
(d)
Others 1280AD-1523AD |
A |
2 |
Effectiveness: All of these armies are a good
mix of heavy foot (blade and spear with psiloi support plus crossbow) with some
knights for punch. The artillery is a nice addition for a lowpip refused wing.
The Medieval German ally is probably worth having, especially the earlier dismounting
version.
Complexity: The (c) and (d) lists are the simpler
troop mixes of the four lists. Despite the Arty in list (c) the Swedes fall
just short of a 3 rating. The (b)
|
IV/55
Ottoman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1281AD-1361AD |
D |
2 |
|
(b)
1362AD-1512AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: The early version with a huge wad
of light horse and no allies will do poorly on the compressed Big Battle board,
even on the rare occasions where it gets to choose terrain. The later version
desperately needs an ally, and has several nice ones (Serbian Empire is the
best; Wallachian gives it useful Bgo troops) but still will need a brilliant
general to do well on the small board.
Complexity: The (b) list Ottomans present a
more balanced mix of troops and the challenge of Artillery, so warrant the
higher complexity rating. Adding the Serbian empire ally may be effective, but
does not really present much of an additional tactical challenge. The Wallachians
probably do.
|
IV/56
Order of |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1291AD-1450AD |
C |
3 |
|
(b)
1451AD-1522AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Too many psiloi. The Armenian
ally is a very nice addition, though and upgrades it to a B.
Complexity: Both lists are two faceted - a
mostly standard medieval mix with a pack of Psiloi. There must be an army
structure and mission decision regarding the Psiloi and how to use them
effectively to compliment the generic medieval troop types. A high pip command
of Knights and Psiloi is one possibility.
|
IV/57 |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1297AD-1329AD |
A |
3 |
|
(b)
1330AD-1410AD |
A |
3 |
|
(c)
1411AD-1478AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: All three of these lists are nice
pike armies. They'd be better with a bit more mobility, perhaps a couple of LH,
but with aggression 0 they can choose terrain that makes their flanks secure
and gives them a situation where they can get their pike into something meaty.
Complexity: These three lists are similar in
many ways, including complexity. Despite being fairly monotype, there is still
the ongoing challenge of the pike troop type. The (b) and (c) lists have the
added benefit of Artillery, and so are slightly more challenging to use well.
|
IV/58
Medieval Irish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1300AD-1487AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: A fun army, but hard to win
fights in good going against non-historical opponents.
Complexity: This is a fairly ordinary bad going
capable army with low aggression. The list changes slightly depending on if you
want the Scots command or the Irish command contingents. Although, we don't
really think this impacts the complexity much.
|
IV/59
Post-Mongol Samurai: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1300AD-1464AD |
B |
2 |
|
(b)
1465AD-1542AD |
B |
2 |
Effectiveness: These guys would be nice if they
had just a bit of psiloi support or an ally with some mobility.
Complexity: This is a fairly simple army that
probably lives or dies with the strength and toughness of its Blade. The (b)
list at least offers the option of some shock troops with the 5Wb which provide
nice bad going capability or the hopeless Horde, both options resulting in an
upgrade to complexity 3. Hey, we challenge you
to try to find something useful to do with 12x7Hd besides die miserably.
|
IV/60
Catalan Company: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1302AD-1388AD |
F |
3 |
Effectiveness: Aggression 4 Auxilia army. What
more need be said? Much better with the Alan ally - D,
but still almost incapable of winning a battle without brilliance or treachery
or incompetent enemies (and historically they had all that).
Complexity: It's hard to discuss complexity
when the army list is doomed. Pretend that you will win terrain, and we suppose
there might be issues of complexity to discuss. However, in the real world -
you lose terrain and die die die. On the brighter side, you can make use of a
small mounted command with light foot support moving at the same speed as the
knights and the LH flitting around. This might be worth something to think
about, in our dreams.
|
IV/61
Italian Condotta: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1320AD-1495AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: A very nice medieval
combined-arms force with some good allies. Early Swiss ally is great, adding
some powerful blade; Later Swiss ally is perhaps even better with massed pike;
Free Company ally with dismounting knights is powerful and flexible. What's not
to like? This army list with the Later Swiss ally won the Big Battle Doubles
tournament at Cold Wars 2003.
Complexity: This is an interesting mix of troop
types with a significant Knight force. The various options provide slightly
more or less complexity, but taking the Later Swiss ally definitely deserves an
upgrade to a 4 complexity rating. Playing the
Condotta as Littoral and using the 8Cb deep elements would also possibly
warrant an upgrade.
|
IV/62
Hundred-Year's War English: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1322AD-1455AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: One of the best bow-heavy armies.
High aggression doesn't hurt bow, and the support troops are good. Like most
armies with dismounting knights, this one is slow and rewards methodical play.
Complexity: Bow are a little bit more difficult
than most troop types to use effectively, and the 100YW English have plenty of
them. This is predominantly a Bow and dismounting Knight mix, with a little
support from other types.
|
IV/63
Aztec: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1325AD-1521AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Take the bow option, and the
Tlaxcalan ally, if you want to have a chance in an open tournament and a B. High aggression is good for these guys, giving them
a better chance of putting their mass of Wb into some meaty heavy foot. No
mobility except the psychotic Warband charges!
Complexity: Due to their high aggression, they
will frequently find themselves on open terrain with absolutely no mobility. A
careful plan is needed, and the Tlaxcallan ally is quite useful and offers an
upgrade to a 3 rating with the introduction of
a significant number of Bow to the mix.
|
IV/64
Medieval French: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1330AD-1345AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
1346AD-1418AD |
A |
3 |
|
(c)
1419AD-1445AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: The two later lists are good
dismounting knight armies. We like the (c) list with the Scots pike best; there
are trade-offs with taking them as an ally or embedded in the army itself. The
early list is a typical knight army without sufficient heavy foot to make the A rating. All these lists, like most dismounting
knight medieval armies, are slow moving.
Complexity: Fairly standard medieval Knight
army complexity. Taking the (b) list 5Wb option results in an upgrade to a 4. The Pikes in the (c) list whether ally or embedded
and possibly an Arty result in a slightly higher rating.
|
IV/65
Wallachian or Moldavian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1330AD-1504AD |
D |
4 |
Effectiveness: Take the ally to get a C. This is a fun army, but with no heavy foot and too
much psiloi. The Later Hungarian ally is an excellent addition, as is the Later
Poles. The two Cav army allies (Golden Horde and Ottoman Turk) also work
surprisingly well, as the only way to shut down their mobility is to put enough
terrain that suddenly the psiloi of the main army are useful. But at the end of
the day, you'll need brilliance and luck to pull off a win with these guys.
Complexity: An army primarily built on
skirmishers that can delay and move effectively calls for a brilliant
commander. The (c) list Later Hungarian ally adds a lot of complex troop types
and possibly a 5 rating.
|
IV/66
Later Polish: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1335AD-1510AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: This is a fine army, and we nearly
gave them an A rating. A very nice mix of
troops. The only problem is a shortage of infantry of all types. Against
elephants, massed bow, warwagons, low-aggression pike armies, or
psiloi-supported spear these guys will have serious problems. The Lithuanian
ally helps with the lack of foot, as does the Later Hungarian (c) ally, but not
quite enough for an A rating.
Complexity: The (c) list Hungarian ally
promotes this list to complexity 4 just based
on its wacky array of troop types. Otherwise, the Later Polish are a fairly
average complexity mix of troops with the WWg being a bit of an oddball
element. Lots of mounted mobility may leave the foot straggling behind without
implementation of a good plan.
|
IV/67
Jalayarid: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1336AD-1432AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: LH armies without any foot have
problems, and this one is no exception. The Turkoman ally, or even better the
Georgian ally, help a little and just enough to warrant a C rating.
Complexity: All Cav and Light Horse, this is
basically a maneuver mounted monotype where the allies provide a little variety
and complexity.
|
IV/68
Medieval Spanish or Portuguese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
Spanish 1340AD-1485AD |
A |
4 |
|
(b)
Portuguese 1340AD-1485AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A very nice combined-arms mix of
troops. Better bad-going troops and better mobility with the LH than most late
medieval armies.
Complexity: The better bad going troops and
mobility allow for a more complicated and multi-faceted plan than most late
medieval armies. Compared to them the Portuguese and Spanish don't have to worry about
the PIP drain and complexity of handling any Artillery or difficult pike. On the flip side, they have more LH and
you must master BGo troops to use these puppies.
|
IV/69
Albanian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1345AD-1430AD,
1443AD-1479AD |
D |
4 |
Effectiveness: A very light army with nice
support troops. In the right hands this army could do very well, especially
with the Condotta ally -- it might deserve upgrading to a C or B rating with
ally. But it still has an awful lot of light troops, so if maneuver and delay
and psiloi/LH cleverness is not to your taste, seek elsewhere.
Complexity: Maneuver, delay and Psiloi/LH
cleverness call for a very complex plan and advanced play.
|
IV/70
Chanca: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1350AD-1440AD |
C |
2 |
Effectiveness: Psiloi-supported spear is a
surprisingly good general troop type. If these guys had any mobile elements
we'd upgrade them to a B, but they don't. Take
the Wb option to deal with enemy pike or blade or spear, and also to use as a
surprise mobility aspect if you have the pips.
Complexity: The 2
rating is based on taking the Lit, Warband, and Auxilia options. After all, who
wouldn't take them? Okay, maybe not all of the Lit, but at least one as the
CinC. Not taking a Lit CinC would just be plain wrong. Otherwise, Spear with Psiloi
support is about as simple as it gets.
|
IV/71
Chimu: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1350AD-1464AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: These guys do well against their
historical enemies, but a Wb/Ps army without any other troops is likely to get
slaughtered in most open tournaments. It'll give you fast results, though!
Complexity: We decided to rate the Chimu as a 2 because Warband are a difficult troop type to
master, and with twenty-seven of them you better find a way.
|
IV/72
Amazonian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1350AD-1662AD |
D |
1 |
Effectiveness: Even Agg 0 won't help these guys
win many battles. They better hope they're fighting against Later Sarmatians.
Complexity: Monotype Bow, just line them up and
shoot… maybe.
|
IV/73
Ming Chinese: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1356AD-1598AD |
A |
5 |
Effectiveness: A nice mix of Bd, Bw, Cv, LH. The
Burmese ally is an excellent addition. Note, however, that artillery can be a
very difficult element to use, and the Ming have six!
Complexity: The Ming highlight a complex
tactical problem - how to employ six Arty effectively, despite the downgrade to
+2 in close combat that came with DBA 2.2? Despite reducing the mandatory Arty,
taking the Burmese ally presents its own tactical issues with regards to PIP
supply. This would be a problem for any ally with significant Elephants and
predominantly bad going troops.
|
IV/74
Free Company: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1357AD-1410AD,
1444AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: Dismounting Knights make good
tools for high aggression. This army is slow and methodical, but certainly
strong.
Complexity: Not much else beyond the Knights
and the Bow, really, although we would recommend taking a couple of Psiloi and
perhaps one Arty. It's still a reasonably complicated mix, if not too varied.
|
IV/75
Timurid: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1360AD-1506AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: If you like Cav armies and
maneuver, this one would be fun. Unfortunately, at aggression 4, there may be very little room on the board for your
superior mounted mobility to operate.
Complexity: Take the maximum of three Elephants
for more effectiveness and complexity.
|
IV/76
Early Burgundian: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1363AD-1471AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: The purest dismounting-knight
army. Go with maximum pike. More than a little slow, though.
Complexity: Maximum pike provides more
complexity, otherwise a fairly standard medieval combined arms mix - just heavy
on the dismounting knights.
|
IV/77
Black and White Sheep Turkoman: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1378AD-1504AD |
D |
2 |
Effectiveness: Another high-aggression Cav army
without any heavy foot.
Complexity: We are looking at a quick attack
forces with mounted and a low pip blocking bow and Horde command. Not too many
other options. The allies don't present much else to add to the equation. These
guys would be difficult to use effectively, but not particularly complex in
nature.
|
IV/78
Yi Dynasty Korean: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1392AD-1598AD |
B |
4 |
Effectiveness: A nice mix of troops, with a good
"place-last maneuver command" potential. Needs some heavy foot other
than pike -- the Ming Ally is a good addition.
Complexity: This mix of speedy mounted and
awkwardly slow foot presents some real complexity, command structure
challenges, and PIP issues.
|
IV/79
Later Swiss: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1400AD-1522AD |
C |
3 |
Effectiveness: Pike do well in Big Battle, but
this army is much better as an ally for a non-pike-using main army than as a
triple. LH and Arty are both essential for mobility and as a bow-counter
respectively. Too bad they are in such short supply, as are other useful
supporting troop types. Aggression 3 doesn't help much either.
Complexity: Monotype pike armies are one of the
most challenging monotypes, just because pike are so difficult to use
effectively under normal circumstances.
|
IV/80
Hussite: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1419AD-1434AD,
1464AD-1471AD |
B |
5 |
Effectiveness: This one is hard to rate. If you
lose the terrain roll you will never get the bulk of your armies into combat,
as most of your army can't enter Bgo at all. Against some armies it will be
unbeatable; against others it cannot win. You will have a lot of drawn games in
tournaments.
Complexity: Effectively using fifteen elements
of War Wagons is obviously a significant challenge. 50% of the Hussite army requires +1 PIP for
command control and can't initiate contact with the enemy - good luck!
|
IV/81
Inca: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1438AD-1534AD |
F |
3 |
Effectiveness: Don't take this out against
anything but its historical enemies unless you love it. Agg 2 without any heavy
foot or any way to deal with mounted, except perhaps a wall of Lit to delay the
inevitable.
Complexity: How does one use a Lit(Gen)
effectively, or the possibility of three? We are not sure, but would like to
try to find out!
|
IV/82
French Ordonnance: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1445AD-1464AD |
A |
4 |
|
(b)
1465AD-1503AD |
A |
3 |
Effectiveness: The (a) version is a
less-aggressive Free Company with good allies. The Italian Condotta is a very
nice addition (take the LH). A good dismounting-knight army. The (b) version is
no longer dismounting, but the pike option (or the pike ally) is a useful
addition.
Complexity: The (a) version with maximum Arty
and the Italian Condotta ally with LH warrants a 5
complexity. The non-dismounting, non-ally version of the (b) list is less
complex, but taking a full Swiss ally bumps the (b) French to a 4 rating.
|
IV/83
Wars of the Roses English: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
(a)
1455AD-1485AD |
B |
3 |
|
(b)
1487AD |
B |
3 |
Effectiveness: Blade and Bow is a strong
combination, but this army ends up very slow. Take at least one or two cavalry.
The Scots Common ally is an excellent improvement, possibly making it an A army. The 1487 no-bow version as a triple army has
real potential as a pike-blade mix with good Bgo troops and psiloi support --
possibly an A army in the right hands.
Complexity: Both the (a) and (b) WotR English
lists offer slightly less complexity than the medieval standard due to the lack
of dismounting knights. Taking the Scots Common ally's massed pike warrants a 4 rating. Taking the pike, auxilia and psiloi mix
option in the (b) list would also push the rating to a 4.
|
IV/84
Burgundian Ordonnance: |
Effectiveness |
Complexity |
|
1471AD-1477AD |
A |
4 |
Effectiveness: A good late-Medieval
dismounting-knight army, especially with maximum pike. For a more Bow heavy
option, take the WotR English ally. Lack of mobility is a factor though in
either case. Generally speaking, the high aggression combined arms dismounting
knight armies are particularly effective in BBDBA.
Complexity: The Burgy Ordonnance presents a
fairly high level of complexity because of the mix of dismounting knights, bow,
pike and Arty. The pike may be more potent, but is also more challenging than
the more bow heavy mix option.
The authors may be contacted at kuijt@umiacs.umd.edu
or buckynduke@comcast.net. Please do not use any pictures or
text from this page without permission.