Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

request for NICT winner list reviews

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> List Lore
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
John Murphy
Legate
Legate


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:03 pm    Post subject: request for NICT winner list reviews

I think it would be interesting to see the Warrior NICT-winning lists from all the past years collected and analysed relative to one another, with comments on how they were used by the respective winners. By a reasonably competent Warrior player, which definitely leaves me out! It would also be interesting to read some reflections on how any trends have changed in NICT-winner list make-up over the years.

If I have it correct, in the Warrior era the NICT winners are...

2009 - Ewan McNay - Sassanid Persian
2008 - Dave Stier - Hohenstaufen Sicilian
2007 - Derek Downs - Early Burgundian
2006 - Derek Downs - Khmer
2005 - Dave Markowitz - Alexandrian Imperial
2004 - Derek Downs - Khmer
2003 - Derek Downs - Sillian Korean
2002 - Chris Damour - Patrician Roman
2001 - Dave Markowitz - 100 Years War

It might be of some use first to figure out which of these are based on old WRG list material and which are based on the FHE lists. Just as a note, they all would still make for an interesting inclusion in the analysis. I know we have all these on the forum here going back through 2003, and the older ones might be in the old forum stuff?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
John Murphy
Legate
Legate


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:43 pm    Post subject:

2009 - Ewan McNay - Sassanid Persian
2008 - Dave Stier - Hohenstaufen Sicilian
2007 - Derek Downs - Early Burgundian
2006 - Derek Downs - Khmer
2005 - Dave Markowitz - Alexandrian Imperial
2004 - Derek Downs - Khmer
2003 - Derek Downs - Sillian Korean
2002 - Chris Damour - Patrician Roman
2001 - Dave Markowitz - 100 Years War

Here are the ones I could find along with any notes I saw...

------------------------------------------------

2003 - Derek Downs Sillian Korean

CC + PA + 2 EHK L RA + 3 EHK L RB 207
4 LC L B RA 42
16 MI LTS SH RD 58
16 LMI B RD 42
16 LMI B RD 42
16 LMI B RD 42
16 LMI B RD 42
16 LMI B RD 42
4 LI CB RD 18
8 LI CB RD 26
12 LI CB RD 34
12 LC L B IC 85
Tang + Ps + 5 EHC L RB 135
6 HC L SH / HC L RB 70
6 HC L SH / HC L RB 70
16 HI LTS B SH / MI LTS B SH RD 90
16 HI LTS B SH / MI LTS B SH RD 90
16 HI LTS B SH / MI LTS B SH RD 90
16 HI LTS B SH / MI LTS B SH RD 90
48 MI B RD 106
SUB + 5 EHK L RB 125
6 EHK L RB / HK L RC 85

scouting 36 1/2
units 22

[Ewan]
That last line – “units 22” is the key here: a ton of regular cheap bow troops. I’m surprised to see the 12 IrrC LC make it into the list . As most will know, this list was run by Derek Downs and he won the thing, which kind of acts as all the validation needed, but note that as well as having a zillion bows, many of the bowmen have both armour and LTS, which in this context – of trying not to lose while you shoot the enemy into tiny pieces – is a reasonable weapon. On the other hand, I don’t know what Derek fought – I would have thought that something like Late Roman or even Devin’s Seleucid list, with better hth foot in reasonably large bodies, would have given big problems, and barbarian foot opponents with decent morale might also have a fair matchup. Any mounted opponent (except maybe SHC?) is going to be in for a hard time. There are weaknesses, of course: the only terrain troops are LMI B, who will not even want to think about fighting anyone in woods and will only delay in rough ground, so that an open field is going to be important for the army. And there’s only limited punch – the three units of shieldless knights. And the morale is terrible – if the army starts to lose, it’s likely to all head home pretty fast. So I don’t think this is a ‘killer’ list – it was certainly unexpected, and run by a good player. I’d give it 7-8/10: within the design philosophy, there are few weaknesses (not none – the LC are there just for scouting points, and the fact that all the LTS troops are under an ally is not the best restriction, for instance).

2004 - Derek Downs - Khmer

CC  1 w/ JLS/B + 1 w/ JLS PA El IB + Ele 1 w/ JLS/B       
2x Elephant  1 w/ JLS/B IB                 101         
16 LHI JLS SH RC                           106       
16 LHI JLS SH RC                           106        
16 LMI B  RC                                58       
16 LMI B  RC                                58
16 LMI B  RC                                58        
6 HC JLS SH RC                              70         
4 LI JLS SH RC                              26        
4 LI JLS SH RC                              26
SUB 2x ELE 1 w/ JLS/B  Ps  IB               92  
SUB 2x ELE 1 w/ JLS/B  Ps  IB               92  
SUB 2x ELE 1 w/ JLS/B  Ps  IB               92  
Ally 3x ELE 1 w/ JLS + 1 w/ B IB           165  
3x ELE 1 w/ JLS + 1 w/ B IB                151  
3x ELE 1 w/ JLS + 1 w/ B IB                151  
12 LI 1/2 JLS 1/2 B IC                      49  
12 LI 1/2 JLS 1/2 B IC                      49  

[Ewan]
***As is probably known, this is the list that won. As is probably also known, that would not have been the case if Derek had had a camp model, so we’ll move swiftly over that. Anyone detecting the tang of somewhat acidic vine fruit is obviously hallucinating.
So, given that, what do I think? I think that the main command is lacking a little in LI, but that’s hardly a major complaint. I like the mix of troops: massed elephants really fear only massed bowfire or decent JLS-armed foot, and against the first the LHI are great troops. On the other hand, a Late Roman should go through this like a hot knife… but then I would have said that about both Todd’s Berbers (somewhat) and Alex’s Mixtecs (utterly), too, and Derek beat both of them. Maybe there’s a role for skill in here somewhere?  I guess I do think this is a little one-dimensional. That’s actually a good thing if you’re aiming to win, though, sometimes: if you *don’t* come up against your nemesis(es), then you’re golden because you’re optimised against others. Elephants don’t do well in terrain, and there are only two units of LHI – I would have taken more, because I think they match up SO well against the weaknesses of the El. Being outscouted every time is a negative, too And the number of generals means that commands are small – hence the problem with the camp. So I don’t really rate it that highly – largely because I think there are a lot of things it will have trouble killing enough of to get 5-point wins, and a couple of really bad matchups. 19 El do look intimidating, though, and that’s worth something. 7-8 /10. Which again underscores the achievement of going through the tournament so well.

2005 - Dave Markowitz - Alexandrian Imperial

[EDITORIAL NOTE FROM MURPHY]
There are 5 Alexandrian Imperial lists in that year's NICT and they are not noted who ran which list, so the file is on the forum but no way to tell unless someone remembers?

2006 - Derek Downs - Khmer

1 2 IB CnC Ele 2w/ JLS,B 164 0
2 3 IB Ele JLS,B / JLS 129 10 detachment
3 6 RD LMI B 48 10
4 4 RD LMI B 32 10
5 4 RD/4RC LHI/LMI JLS SH 68 10
6 4 RD LMI B 32 10
7 4 RD LMI JLS B SH 64 10
8 2 RC LC JLS SH ep 36 10
9 2 RC LC JLS SH 32 10
10 2 RC LI JLS 1/2 SH 14 10
11 2 RC LI JLS 1/2 SH 14 10
12 2 RC LI JLS 1/2 SH 14 10
13 2 RD LI B 8 10
14 2 RD LI B 8 10
15 2 IB SUB JLS,B / JLS 104 104 detachment
16 4 RD LMI JLS SH 48 10
17 3 IB SUB JLS,B / JLS 104 147 detachment
18 3 RD LMI B 24 10
19 3 IB/ IC Ele 3 w/ JLS,B 3 w/ B 238
20 9 ID LI JLS SH 36 10 detachment
21 2 IC Ele 3 w/ JLS,B 3 w/ B 126 25
22 9 ID LI B 18 10 detachment

[Ewan]
*** Not clear to me exactly what is detached to what, but I think it's all rear-rank stuff for elephant units, with the elephants actlayy being the detachments. So, that gives 6 elephant units, two of which are Burmese, a bunch of tiny reg LI units, and a couple of others. I know this won, I just don't see how: it should have been easy enough to either (i) shoot up the Els to oblivion, (ii) kill everything that is not an elephant and make it all go home, or (iii) kill one of the huge elephant units and declare victory. I would have thought that of the prevalent armies, Alexandrian would have done (ii) and (iii), Samurai would have done (i) and (iii), and something like Mongol would do (ii). Shows how much I know. I still don't like it, though. 5 for mass of elephants.

2007 - Derek Downs - Early Burgundian

CnC + 5 SHK L SH IB PA 205
6 SHK L SH IB 133
6 SHK L SH IC 127
6 SHK L SH IC / HC L SH IC 103
6 HK L SH RB - English 70
20 4 LHI P / 12 LMI P / 4 LMI 2HCT RB 102
20 4 LHI P / 12 LMI P / 4 LMI 2HCT RB 102
20 4 LHI P / 12 LMI P / 4 LMI 2HCT RB 102
6 HC CB IC 61
4 LI CB RD 18
4 LI CB RD 18
4 LI CB RD 18
4 LI CB RD 18
4 LI HG RC 22
4 LI HG RC 22
4 LI HG RC 22
16 LMI LB 1/2 2HCW RC stakes - English 70
24 LMI LB 1/2 2HCW RD stakes 76
24 LMI LB 1/2 2HCW RD stakes 76
32 LMI LB RD stakes 82
24 MI LB 1/2 2HCW RD 70
8 LMI LB 2HCW RD 34
2 Organ Guns 3 crew RC 50

[Mark]
I've looked at this list a lot over the years, and given strong consideration to playing it. In the end I settled on 10 Independent States as being a list with a similar playing style that worked better, but that's a personal choice. There's a lot to like here, but some significant negatives as well. Let's look at both.
Positives: One theme I see when you look at who finished first or second in the NICT or in Cold Wars over the last five years is this: armies with more than 120 figures of shooters. Shooting is powerful in Warrior, and represents one facet of a strong attack. It is possible to win without a lot of shooting -- Dave Markowitz did it with Alexandrian Imperials -- and you have to have more than just shooting or we'd all be playing Midianite Arabs. But shooting is a great foundation. In that vein, Early Burgundian is one of the finest shooting armies out there.
You don't want to pay for morale class shooters don't need, and most of the shooters here are D class. This is also one of the few lists on which CB and LB can mix in the same unit, giving you two full ranks of shooting out to 120p. Note, however, that Derek did not avail himself of that option. He should have, though. Mixed LB/CB units are the only units that can match elephants with LI on the base element for element in frontage and still 2 CPF all the way out to 120p. That means in all likelihood any elephants must face a waver to get through to these guys.
So even though Derek's shooters aren't optimized, he has a lot of them and they are plenty potent.
The other great thing about Early Burgundians is the Swiss. You get some real shock foot troops, which knight armies are all too often lacking. Of the lists on which Swiss are available, this may be the best (Italian Condotta, a very different playing style from Early Burgundians, is the other contender).
So the longbowmen shoot things up, and throw down stakes if anything too menacing wanders near. The Swiss charge things, and the knights wait to follow up on whatever disrupting opportunities are created by the Swiss. A simple, but very solid battle plan.
Note that there's enough LI here to throw up an initial screen and buy some maneuver room on the first couple of bounds. And generally this army should have no trouble covering frontage in any kind of terrain.
So that's all good. Now the negatives:
Wasted points! You're buying a heavy cav CB unit that does nothing. It cannot fight, it shoots poorly, and is itself incredibly vulnerable to shooting. Just points thrown away. Likewise with the organ gun. Not enough range or density of shooting be of any value, and incredibly vulnerable itself to both shooting and hand-to-hand. So there's 111 points utterly wasted.
Irr C knights! I know that Ewan thinks these guys are acceptable but, well, he's wrong. These guys need to be in the thick of the action, where waiver tests often need to be taken, and have a base 1/3 chance of failing. In the presence of elephants or other causes of unease, they have a 50/50 chance of failing. Not what I want from shock troops.
I suppose it's a negative that you'll routinely be outscouted, but I regard that as a minor negative. This army's battle plan is not a big secret, is largely independent of enemy setup, and comes with enough LI screen to create the necessary maneuver room.
Overall, I'd say this list has a max potential of about 8.5 out of 10, and I give Derek 8 of 10 for this effort. Lose half a point for not mixing the CB with the LB.

[Ewan]
Peanuts! Woohoo!
Quote:
Derek Downs, Early Burgundian
CnC + 5 SHK L SH IB PA 205
6 SHK L SH IB 133
6 SHK L SH IC 127
6 SHK L SH IC / HC L SH IC 103
I know Mark worries about having some C class strike troops but, well, he's wrong Wink. I think one of the benefits of having such a huge line of homogenous shooters is that you can react to wherever the enemy decides to pick the fight, and in such an environment having 2 C-class knight units around just doesn't worry me. I think it's more likely that I'll lose knights than shooters, at least as a first loss, in which case their morale is irrelevant.
Quote:
20 4 LHI P / 12 LMI P / 4 LMI 2HCT RB 102
This is an OK way to take Swiss, btw. I don't rate these guys that highly, in all honesty, but they do give a second-string to the attack options which is needed.
Quote:
24 MI LB 1/2 2HCW RD 70
Target!
I probably agree on the mixing of LB and CB that Mark mentions; however:
Quote:
I suppose it's a negative that you'll routinely be outscouted, but I regard that as a minor negative. This army's battle plan is not a big secret, is largely independent of enemy setup, and comes with enough LI screen to create the necessary maneuver room.
I think that this is a bigger deal than Mark does, just because it essentially guarantees that a large chunk of your army is likely to do nothing. Combine that with the wasted points from HC and artillery, and you're almost guaranteed a significant point imbalance against you at the schwerpunkt. [And indeed, I achieved that in the game I played against Derek, only to promptly throw it away..]
Quote:
On to our next victi... er, candidate:
Good stuff, Mark. Next!

2008 - Dave Stier - Hohenstaufen Sicilian

1 CinC 5 EHK/HL, L. sh IrrB 178
2 6 EHK/HL, L. sh IrrB 103
3 6 EHK/HL, L. sh IrrB 103
4 6 EHK/HL, L. sh IrrB 103
5 6 EHK, L, Sh IrrB 115
6 16 LMI, B, Sh RegC 74
7 16 LMI, B, Sh RegC 74
8 16 LMI, B, Sh RegC 74
9 8 LI, JLS, Sh Reg C 42
10 4 LC, B Reg C 34
11 12 LI, CB Reg D 34
13 Sub 5 EHK/HL, L. sh IrrB 118
14 6 EHK/HK, L. sh Reg C 94
15 16 LMI, B, Sh RegC 74
16 16 LMI, B, Sh RegC 74
17 16 LMI, B, Sh RegC 74
18 12 LC, B Reg C 82
19 12 LC, B Reg C 82
20 4 LC, B Reg C 34
21 12 LI, CB Reg D 34

2009 - Ewan McNay - Sassanid Persian

[EDITORIAL NOTE FROM MURPHY]
I do not see these up yet. But if Ewan still has this list perhaps he would share it along with some commentary on all these?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1126
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:10 pm    Post subject: 2009

2009 Was Ewan McNay, but NOT Sassanid Persian, rather Alexandrian Imperial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> List Lore All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group