The most versatile wargames army?

[LawnRanger]

There are a few ARMIES that I would say are a good round bet !

 Ancient period I would say a mid/late republic army is good that would cover you from 220BC up to 25BC 200years aint bad for one army to buy and let face it they took  Cool Carthaginian's to Sad slaves    so Rotten Romans are a good shout ..

 But on the other hand if you started with a Classical Greek you could Moph it into all types of armies just adding a few units of Pike you can have a Late Macedonian army then you can go on to the Successor Kingdoms ect.......

These 2 are great for new gamers as you will always find a player at a club that can take theses 2 chaps on..


As for medieval period not sure on that but with my Mongols they can cover a large period of time from 1245 AD to 1590's with out adding a single different figure ... don't think you can have many armies that cover that period with the same troop class for such a long time .. I do have a 100 Years War English but you just cant use them for French ect... as the class of troops are all wrong !

So in my eye the nearer  you get to day the quicker armies change and so it would be less easier to find a army that covers a large period of time..

near future/modern troops. Can do anything from colonising other worlds to zombies to modern to traveling through worm holes in space and time.

 

But we are talking about Wargames Armies??
 Not  8 figures if that's the case then  8 figures  with farming tools will match your modern chaps any day of the week     they do  not have the Boom sticks but hay they cover year dot......  to moon monkeys and worm holes ...

Happy gaming  LR   

[Conquistador]

Good question is implied in these answers.

Are we talking wide range of time or wide range of Genre?  By the former  I mean Ancients, "Medieval," or "Horse and Musket", or etc., and by the latter I mean Historical, Fantasy, Science Fiction, VSF,  etc., so which is it?

There are eras I no longer play or have interest in.

The way this question is being answered implies, also, that a gamer is willing/desirous of playing any era/genre.

Gracias,

Glenn

[YPU]

The way this question is being answered implies, also, that a gamer is willing/desirous of playing any era/genre.

You make a good point. I have a few napy and pike and shot stuff from perry minis I believe which I got from a friend who got them as a bonus on a big order from somewhere. Since I am the guy who is always coming up with strange plans and crossovers he gave them to me, and tough I have used parts from them I have very little interest in playing straight up historical games. Tough I can come up with a number of uses for them they were never meant for those and thus it begs the question are they really versatile for all the options I can think of.

All that aside, on one side of the spectrum, one genre: lovecraftian horror, cultists could indeed fit into a very broad range of time. You could as easily do ancients mythos as you could do far future and everything in between.

[TheBlackCrane]

Good question is implied in these answers.

Are we talking wide range of time or wide range of Genre? 

Hmm, when I posed the first question I was thinking in terms of having one army which, within its period, could take on the widest range of opposition, including the variety of troops they might bring - hence my original thought of Republican Romans.

I did think of Napoleonic French, but, although they fought lots of nations, the style was more or less similar, so it was a lot of different nations and uniforms, but relatively symmetrical warfare, compared to say Rep. Romans vs Pyrrhic...

[Conquistador]

Ah, [paraphrasing] "against the most foes within the period" makes sense.  And by [my paraphrase] "most foes" I guess you mean most 'different' (as in asymmetrical styles of fighting) foes which would be different from most different groups/nations.  The Tactica rule set was very strict in proclaiming a limited number of foes that could be faced by another army, but most people lean more towards the DBA rainbow of match-ups than Tactica type of historical only matches for ancients.  That whole MEDANC mindset made for varied games with a veneer of history IMO.

That makes sense in a historical sense (Science Fiction, Science Fantasy, and Fantasy armies are usually based on historical tropes or stereotypes of historical armies.)

I suppose one could quibble that "barbarians" (Gauls, Germanic tribes, etc.,) could be classed as "one type" of army but I digress.

Gracias,

Glenn

[janner]

I'd taken the question as written, i.e. the army which could be used against a broad range of foes across both time (various period) and space (various theatres of war and/or genre).

[Conquistador]

Hmm, when I posed the first question I was thinking in terms of having one army which, within its period, could take on the widest range of opposition, including the variety of troops they might bring - hence my original thought of Republican Romans.

I did think of Napoleonic French, but, although they fought lots of nations, the style was more or less similar, so it was a lot of different nations and uniforms, but relatively symmetrical warfare, compared to say Rep. Romans vs Pyrrhic...

So your POV was historical only?

Nothing wrong with that, I started with historical (board) war games, just clarifying.

Gracias,

Glenn

[TheBlackCrane]

Technically yes - although a sci-fi or fantasy army is certainly versatile as one can throw it in against anything of course - I was thinking historical, on the basis of if one owns one army, how many historical opponents and styles of warfare could it come up against.

Not that I have anything against games matching up forces from the same era which never faced each other, or fantasy/crossovers/sci-fi etc or anything like that, just general musing really!

[maxxon]

Tactica type of historical only matches for ancients.  

Tactica was horrible! It even forbade historical matchups either due to lack of easy evidence (IIRC the Indians can't have a civil war in Tactica, they must wait for Alex to invade) or because the system couldn't cope with widely varied fighting styles (foot legions vs. horse archers -- never happened according to Tactica).

The (roughly) 100-500BC period around the med is very hard to match in longevity and variance of armies. All the other "contestants" that pop into mind basically come from this period also (they pretty much all fought each other at some point or other, at least in minor battles).

In most other cases, either there weren't a whole lot of different opponents, or the opponents were very similar. E.g. one medieval or dark age army looks pretty much like the next one. Or take the ever popular Early Imperial Romans. By that time they had pretty much eradicated all "civilised" opponents, so it was these hairy barbarians or those hairy barbarians with the occasional spice of Parthians. Actually, one of the most common opponents was other Roman legions in one of the numerous civil wars, but curiously no one seems to want to play those battles...

[LawnRanger]

Glad I never got into Tactica If that's the case !

Tactica was horrible! It even forbade historical matchups either due to lack of easy evidence (IIRC the Indians can't have a civil war in Tactica, they must wait for Alex to invade) or because the system couldn't cope with widely varied fighting styles (foot legions vs. horse archers -- never happened according to Tactica).

sounds a bloody poor set of rules so you telling me that the romans never fought Skythain Cav  ect..!  glad I am playing FOG !

Not sure I would say that one medieval looks pretty much the same maxxon  my  Hundred Years War English is the complete opposite of my Mongols ! that's why I have them, you have to play SO MUCH OF a DIFFERENT type of game when you play with them !

 Are club play  Roman civil wars they are  Bloody good games East v West Roman empire

But you will NOT get me playing with a Rotten roman army . Am happy to give them a good bashing with my Carthaginians though 
Think you will find that the more you research a period the more in depth the army becomes .
That's why are hobby is so bloody good you never know what you will start gaming next....

Happy gaming LR

[TheBlackCrane]

But you will NOT get me playing with a Rotten roman army . Am happy to give them a good bashing with my Carthaginians though 

Couldn't agree more!
My interest in ancients is motivated purely by the desire to crush Rome! Next year in 10mm, either Philip V's Macedonians or Pyrrhus. After that, Mithradates.

(I suppose I'll have to do a Roman army too, but only to have something to beat) 

[Conquistador]

<snip> Actually, one of the most common opponents was other Roman legions in one of the numerous civil wars, but curiously no one seems to want to play those battles...

I think that is because if the two armies are evenly matched you either have to blame the dice or admit you were "out-generaled."      

Gracias,

Glenn

[maxxon]

Not sure I would say that one medieval looks pretty much the same maxxon  my  Hundred Years War English is the complete opposite of my Mongols !

Yes, but your medieval French, Burgundians, Germans, Italians, Lancastrians, Yorkists etc. all look pretty much the same if you discount colors and flags.

So the medieval variance is pretty much generic European knights and footsloggers vs. each other and maybe the mongol invasion (keeping things in Western Europe). Whether the mongols are pillaging through Bavaria or Burgundy doesn't make a huge impact.

Admittedly it also depends on what one means by variance. I'm a modeler, so my first interest is in the look: you might mistake a Spartan hoplite army for an Athenian one, but you won't mistake it for a Roman legion -- even unpainted.

Likewise, you could say there is a wide variety of Napoleonic uniforms. And this would be true if you mean color schemes. But that is pretty much all -- they all wear the same funny hats more or less, have the same muskets and backpacks and the cut of the uniforms is pretty much the same.

[LawnRanger]

Yes, but your medieval French, Burgundians, Germans, Italians, Lancastrians, Yorkists etc. all look pretty much the same if you discount colors and flags.

You could say that with 90% of wargaming , ECW, TYW , SYW, AWI ,Napoleonic's, ACW need I go on     
they all look pretty much the same !


I Do think that If you took a greater look at the armies of the time YOU could tell the difference between a french,English  scot and  German   Army.. Its what in the army that you could tell the main difference but even the armour of the time is different !

Happy Gaming LR   

[maxxon]

You could say that with 90% of wargaming , ECW, TYW , SYW, AWI ,Napoleonic's, ACW need I go on     
they all look pretty much the same !

My point exactly.