View Full Version : Best Book III army
01-03-2006, 05:02 AM
Which army would be more effective in a Book III DBA tournament: Welsh or West Frankish - Norman?
01-03-2006, 02:03 PM
The West Frankish would be the more deadly of the two, under most circumstances, I'd say. However, as always, DBA being a rock/scissors/paper game, it depends on what other armies show up.
Play what you ENJOY playing, I'd say!
01-03-2006, 02:41 PM
Against each other? Against Ghaznavid? Against Seljuk Turks? Against Hindu Indian Other? Against Rus? Against Central Asian City States?
(I assume you're talking about III/19a -- the early Welsh army. The other two are book III armies in terms of their "book", but book IV armies in terms of their time period. Which leads to the question -- what armies are allowed in the Book III tournament that is relevant for your question?)
Everything is rock-paper-scissors with some dependency on aggression. I usually take off-the-beaten-path armies, mostly because I am an iconoclast, but also because fully 70 or 80% of the armies in the book are competitive when used well. If you face Rus, the Welsh (a) will be better. If you face CACS, the Normans will be better. The main thing, as Mike says, is to play an army you'll enjoy. That means play your nicest-painted army, your newest army, your coolest army, your favorite army, the army that fits your style of play best. There is no killer army, and (with very few exceptions) there is no loser army. Take a fun army, and have fun.
01-03-2006, 04:32 PM
Between Welsh and Normans/West Franks, I would tend to choose the latter, mostly because I believe Kns will be preceived as threatening by most all foes, even if they have advantages in terrain, missile troops, etc. Plus I just like impetuous armies.
Another way to think about the choice has to do with your preferred style of play and experience with particular types of armies. You'll do better with an army that you've fought with before and that you enjoy running.
The following goes beyond your question and is directed at less experienced Fanatici thinking about choosing a tournament army. Some armies require certain styles of play (e.g. LH armies, heavy foot armies, bad going armies, combined arms armies, dismounting armies, etc.) that have to be mastered before the army can be truly competitive. Some styles are easier to master than others, hence are perhaps better suited to folks just learning the game.
With that proviso, and accepting the reality that a less experienced player will be thrashed as often as not during the learning curve as they master a particular army and its tactical requirements, then I 'd second Dave's advice about choosing an army that you like (for whatever reason).
Here is a suggestion. If you've ever lost a battle and felt like the armies were poorly matched and the deck was stacked against you...try switching sides and fighting it again. If you get the same result, then it is likely a bad pairing (e.g. Sarmatians Kn vs. Libyans Ps on the open steppe). But if the result is reversed, then you'll have some confirmation not only that the army is competitive, but also that competitiveness is primarily a matter of tactical skill (and occasionally dice).
I used to think my Ancient Spanish were hopeless until I let my usual opponents use them and they beat me with them. At that point, I realized that it wasn't the armies fault I was losing. I looked carefully at my opponents tactics and realized that I wasn't using bad going properly (I was fighting too defensively and allowing my forces to become separated, making them easy targets).
[ January 03, 2006, 13:40: Message edited by: Chris Brantley ]
01-04-2006, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Chris Brantley:
I used to think my Ancient Spanish were hopeless until I let my usual opponents use them and they beat me with them. I'm glad to hear that, because I am half way through painting a Spanish army and am beginning to doubt whether they will be really worthwhile - nice looking, but not obviously effective.
If in doubt, go for the Normans. The Welsh can do well if used with skill but they do rely on knowing how to deploy and use terrain effectively, and Warband are terribly unforgiving of your mistakes because they can die so quickly and in such large numbers. Having only one mounted element in the army is also a difficult business.
01-04-2006, 07:21 AM
I have both armies and tend to fare better with the Normans (I'm not an expert player though). The Welsh took me about 1/3 of the time to paint.
[ January 04, 2006, 08:06: Message edited by: Neubauten ]
01-04-2006, 05:35 PM
Go with the Normans, they hit like hockey goons.
01-04-2006, 07:10 PM
I'm glad to hear that, because I am half way through painting a Spanish army and am beginning to doubt whether they will be really worthwhile - nice looking, but not obviously effective. You are not talking about a feudal spanish army are you? Kns, Cv, Sp and Ps?
01-05-2006, 07:14 AM
No, the ancient Spanish, Ps and Ax with an option for Wb.
01-08-2006, 10:52 PM
I was able to play 2 games with the South Welsh and 2 with the Normans. The Welsh were decisively defeated in their two games and the Normans won both of their games. So it looks like the Normans are the way to go in tournaments.
Thank for the replies,
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.