Winning CK army

[martin goddard]

The aim of CK is to encourage  players to build armies that they enjoy using.
This is bad news for the players who comb army lists to find  the "killer combination".
They are of course perfectly correct in doing so (it is their gaming time) but that is not the target audience of CK. Therefore they are discounted from CK considerations/calculations.

Having said all the above; does anyone think they have a "best" composition for a winning CK army?
This is part of the CK consideration.

martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

Answer 1: yes, but I'm not going to tell you, as it will get penalised in the next iteration

[Colonel Kilgore]

Answer 2: I think you have achieved a nice balance between army size, units in a square, table size and victory points, Martin.

Armies big enough to cover the table won't be strong everywhere, while tougher armies never have enough troops. Which is probably as it should be. Tactics (with scenery selection and placement being crucial) and a modicum.of luck should win the day.

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

Follow-up question (for a bonus point?) - has consideration been given to allowing armies an "empty" scenery template,  that would prevent the opponent placing anything on top? This could be useful for horse and chariot armies, to give them a better chance to operate in the open?

Simon

[martin goddard]

Derek did mention the idea of an open piece.
So far the table has only had two pieces move into the central area.
The matter will maybe arise some more when some cavalry armies get into action?

martin

[Moggy]

I doubt there will be a killer combo for this game. With generalised troops types and always a shortage of points it comes down to sound decision making and the luck of the dice.

I do think the option to allow all armies to have levy aux unarmoured and unshielded at 1 point to make up the points to be available. That may make all the difference


Derek

[Brian Cameron]

Given it seems unlikely that Martin is going to produce Byzantrines and Sassanids can anyone comment on the Essex 15mm range.  I've thought their figures looked a bit short in the leg in the past and the ECW musketeers doing the splits are farcical but in the images on the website lhese two ranges look to be to a good standard.

Thaks,
Brian

[John Watson]

I have Nikephorian Byzantines and Normans for Essex and I like them. They might be slightly short in the leg but as long as you don't mix them with other makes then it is not a problem. They are nice sculpts and paint up easily. They lack a little on variety of poses.
John

[Colonel Kilgore]

I have some of the Essex Sassanids, and think they are fine.

It's now (with inks and washes) readily possible to paint up their figures to a higher standard than those on their website.

The main problem for me is that Essex light cavalry horses can be rather large, but generally I've found the Essex Ancient ranges to be fine (and physically robust, unlike some other Ancients manufacturers).

Simon

[martin goddard]

Maybe I can make a cloaked figure and do complimentary range of heads.
e.g cloaked figure with Roman head, hun head, Pontic head


martin

[Brian Cameron]

Thanks for the comments.  It's attractive as a new venture - in 54 years of wargaming I've never painted any ancients.  I was tempted after Peter Gilder's large 25s but money and time made it a non-starter.  And it would have been with WRG rules...

Brian