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 |