forum.wgcwar.com

The accuracy and completeness of the Meshwesh army lists can make the army composition a difficult task for a newbie (for example a teenager).

I think that adding a "typical" composition for the most common armies can be a valuable help for an inexperienced player.

Any thoughts ?

Fab

I agree that such examples could be useful - although there are *quite a lot* of 'most common armies'.

Cheers

Where can I find them ?

Any example ?

Thanks
Fab

They don't exist yet (I didn't say that they did).

My point was that there are a lot of what might be considered 'most common armies'. Not just a handful, in other words. Although even a handful of examples might be useful.

Cheers.

Fab wrote: I think that adding a "typical" composition for the most common armies can be a valuable help for an inexperienced player.

That might be worthwhile -- how much variation do you think it should have?

It would take some significant work, of course -- there are 650ish armies.

No, I don't think that each one of the 650ish armies should have a typical list.

I think that a newbie will start with some of the most common armies : I imagine Roman (Republican and Imperial), Gallic, Macedonian, Hoplite Greek, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Indian, Persian, Crusader, Medieval English and French and so on.

Having one list, just one example, for 20-30 armies or, better, for 20-30 couples of historical enemies could be helpful.

Cheers
Fab

I see Fab's point. For me, as an occasional wargamer and a newbie to the ancient period, I do not have the acumen, or perhaps even the patience, to assemble an army that is 'playable.' I have felt this everytime when I face off against a more experienced gamer who knows what they want in an army, leaving me to use unit selection criteria such as "that one looks nice" or "oh, chariots could be fun." What that functionally means as a newbie, is that I immediately step off into a game at a big disadvantage, and am handily defeated in a few moves before I even get exercise the gaming system. The only game I have done well with was the eight-player Chalon games held at Fall-in in which the army and terrain was already decided for me and 'all' I had to do was maneuver and fight my army. It was fun, and I did not win, but the competition was close enough to hold interest. Now, I know the experienced gamers may simply say that I all I need to do is learn the various types of troops and armies and go from there. Sure, but how does one do that without investing more time that one may have? What is the priority of learning - armies, rules, terrain, tactics - oh my!!? To my way of thinking, it could be useful to have starter-scenarios that pre-determine certain aspects of the game - army composition and battlefield terrain come to mind - so one can start playing and exercising tactics and having fun! Just a thought.

Regards,
Marc

Fab wrote:No, I don't think that each one of the 650ish armies should have a typical list.

I think that a newbie will start with some of the most common armies : I imagine Roman (Republican and Imperial), Gallic, Macedonian, Hoplite Greek, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Indian, Persian, Crusader, Medieval English and French and so on.

Having one list, just one example, for 20-30 armies or, better, for 20-30 couples of historical enemies could be helpful.

That sounds good, Fab. And achievable, with some work. I do think that your 40-60 armies (20-30 couples) would end up being bigger, maybe 100 armies total at the end, after all the "most common" or most memorable armies are counted in. But still quite achievable.

How much variation, though? No variation at all stuck in the list, or 2-3 choices, or?

I would suggest that the typical starter armies be matched historical pairs that give a good game.

Could there be a posting here or on Meshwesh of these typical matches? You could use the armies you have already used in the demo games at the conventions. That would give a quick 20 armies I would think where the work has already been done.

And if there were pictures of the armies (thinking photo box here) that would be even better! I'd be happy to help.

Bill

David Kuijt wrote: That sounds good, Fab. And achievable, with some work. I do think that your 40-60 armies (20-30 couples) would end up being bigger, maybe 100 armies total at the end, after all the "most common" or most memorable armies are counted in. But still quite achievable.

How much variation, though? No variation at all stuck in the list, or 2-3 choices, or?

I think just one list, no variation. Just to avoid strange choices by a newbie, as Marc pointed out, and let him play and learn the game system.

As Bill suggested, the composition of historical pairs at an important and famous battle could be interesting.

Cheers
Fab