|
|
Post by TheBusDriver on May 25, 2004 17:38:30 GMT -5
So I hear via Cliff that Patrick may have another army done by the time we visit in two weeks. He wouldn't provide the name, but only that it was in the Age of Empires (III).
So now I leave it to you, what army do you think he's painted?
I would have thought at first that his next army would be Tharacian, as it was a toss up between that and Gallic last time and he went with the Gauls. Yet that's an Antiquity army (age II). So that can't be it.
I'm going to go with the WB-heavy army of the Germanic list. I seem remember a long time ago Patrick asking me information about the German Armati lists, so I'd imagine he has the figures for it. Although one of the other Roman armies would not surprise me either.
|
|
|
|
Post by frosty on May 25, 2004 23:48:35 GMT -5
What about Later Carthaginian? It would be a good rival for the Republican Roman...
|
|
|
|
Post by TheBusDriver on May 27, 2004 14:55:39 GMT -5
Ooo, nice guess, hadn't thought of that one
Well Sir Patrick, why don't you illuminate us?
Remember, I want pictures of NASHCON if you end up going.
|
|
|
|
Post by pmart on May 28, 2004 17:15:54 GMT -5
Hmmm... interesting guesses all...
you are however forgetting one piece of evidence that you have... (or at least you might have it... I guess it might not have been something you observed...)
As for nashcon, I am doubtful that I will make it... some responsibilities at work are going to place a big demand on my time this weekend, and I'm not sure I want to pay the 30 bucks admission to get in for the rather limited time that I might be able to be at the con... we'll see though...
|
|
|
|
Post by frosty on May 30, 2004 15:20:33 GMT -5
That hint makes me think it's something from his stack of boxes under his desk. Problem is, I never really looked at those. There are only two sets that I can remember of Pats that I specifically noted before they were painted. One is the Early Persians, and there is no way that figures from that could end up in a period III army. Maybe a couple of the figures could work ok for a Late Persians, but I'm already painting late Persians. The other is a war elephant, but that doesn't narrow things down at all (on the first page alone of (III) there are 5 armies, 4 of them have elephant options with a total of 7 elephants between them).
Pat also has figures for a macedonian army, but both Alexandrian Macedonian (what I have painted) and Alexandrian Imperial are period II. On the other hand, there are a few early Period III armies that have PH type units with pikes (but whether it is the same style of unit, or even of pike, I don't know). There is a later Macedonian, so I guess it is possible...
The only other potential that I haven't discussed are the other italian states (but I don't know any of their names and by the time the Republican Roman came around it would be pretty safe to say that there was only one italian nation, but my Roman history is a little fuzzy).
Anyway, your response, pat?
|
|
|
|
Post by pmart on May 31, 2004 13:24:34 GMT -5
I'll give you another hint...
Hmm... which hint was I going to give you again?
How about... none of the units in the army are of a type we have not seen before (type being designation such as FT, LI, PH, EL, 2HCH etc.)... however, some units are of type - FV combinations that we have not seen before...
|
|
|
|
Post by frosty on Jun 1, 2004 0:27:26 GMT -5
Based on the hints given, the list of possible armies are (ignoring armies already painted but including armies speculated about; also assuming your hint applies to bonus units):
(going from the back of the section forward because for some reason it makes more sense when my mind goes into problem solving mode and true order doesn't mean anything)
- Ancient Germanic (if you are really specific about flank values on cav)
- Hsiung-nu (bow-armed LC, weaker WB)
- Indo-Bactrian (weaker FT with bows, stronger elephants)
- Bactrian (stronger elephants)
- Pyrrhic (stronger and weaker pikes, stronger elephants)
- Early Seleucid (stronger elephants)
- Ptolemaic (weaker pikes option, Imitation Legio, stronger elephants)
- Lysimachid (stronger pikes and elephant)
- Eumenid (stronger pikes and elephant)
- Antigonid (only because the elephant is more poweful)
Based on this annalysis, I think that the Hsiung-nu and the Indo-Bactrian are the two most likely ones. There is the many ones with stronger elephants, so it isn't necessarily one of these two based on the hint, but I pose it as the most likely based on the available information.
|
|
|
|
Post by frosty on Jun 1, 2004 0:27:50 GMT -5
By the way, who were those two groups?  |
|
|
|
Post by pmart on Jun 1, 2004 13:20:45 GMT -5
Hsiung-Nu were a nomadic "barbarian" group on the north side of china. Fought with the Han dynasty alot. Some bribery and arranged marriages etc. between the two.
Bactria is (i think) the modern day caucusus, and area around the caspian sea.
I'm intrigued as to why you think those two are the most likely? Simply because of the quality and/or quantity of units that have different type-FV combos?
|
|
|
|
Post by frosty on Jun 2, 2004 1:14:45 GMT -5
I based that assesment on the number of changes, but your descriptions of the groups, both geographically and the manor in which you describe them (not exactly sounding like you are extremely well informed nor are you excited about them), I think that their possibility is deminished.
Of the remaining ones, it would be hard to narrow it down because 1) I don't know much of anything about the different groups (except ancient germanic) and 2) all of the others have the common denominator of 5 frontal value elephants.
I would assume that the army would be one that could fight the romans or the gauls or both (but most likely the romans because they fought everyone). If I knew more about the 7 or so armies that I don't know anything about, maybe I could narrow things down a little more.
|
|
|
|
Post by pmart on Jun 2, 2004 14:22:15 GMT -5
- Ancient Germanic (if you are really specific about flank values on cav) - Hsiung-nu (bow-armed LC, weaker WB) - Indo-Bactrian (weaker FT with bows, stronger elephants) - Bactrian (stronger elephants) - Pyrrhic (stronger and weaker pikes, stronger elephants) - Early Seleucid (stronger elephants) - Ptolemaic (weaker pikes option, Imitation Legio, stronger elephants) - Lysimachid (stronger pikes and elephant) - Eumenid (stronger pikes and elephant) - Antigonid (only because the elephant is more poweful) well, we've dealt with the first four... Pyrrhic is the army of Pyrrhus of Epirus. Seleucid is the dynasty of Seleucus, one of alex's generals and resulting offspring. Localized in Syria and the Levant Ptolemaic is the army of the ptolemy dynasty. Also one of alex's compatriots. Localized in Egypt. A ptolemy was the husband of cleopatra... he was not entirely in his right mind so she was running the show when antony came into town. The longest lasting of the successor dynasties. Lysimachid is army of lysimachus, another of Alex's generals. Tried to establish rule of thrace, but got his ass handed to him by the thracians. Got absorbed by Antigonius. Eumenid is the army of Eumenes. Once again, one of alex's generals. Well known for a unit of "silver shields" veterans of alexander's campaigns. Some of these blokes were beating up antigonius III's phalanxes when they were in the 60's. Antigonid is army of Antigonius and his offspring. Another of Alex's generals. |
|
|
|
Post by frosty on Jun 2, 2004 23:58:57 GMT -5
After that information, I got an incling that the army is one of the armies being run by a former general of Alexander. 1) These armies would be good for fighting the Alexandrian Macedonian (as the same figures go for future armies such as Alexandrian Emperial, so could potentially be fighting these armies) 2) These armies could fight early and Republican Romans 3) These armies are the ones with the longest descriptions. I mean honestly, I still don't know anything worthwhile about the Pyrrhic army . I can say the same thing about Antigonid. |
|
|
|
Post by pmart on Jun 3, 2004 10:09:49 GMT -5
Come on, you know about Pyrrhus...
famous for his pyrrhic victory...
Was king in macedon for a while, then got overthrown, then became king again...
wanted to expand his empire for his two sons to split, so first he fought the carthaginians in sicily (who did what they always did and withdrew to the very western tip until the enemy went away) then fought the romans in italy. He was actually the one who introduced both carthage and rome to elephants.
|
|
|
|
Post by frosty on Jun 3, 2004 10:41:18 GMT -5
And damn him for doing so  I never studied as much about ancient wars like you guys have. We'd do some stuff in mesoputamia and go to babylon, then cover the greeks and how they fought the persians, next we just touch upon the topic of alexander the great (maybe they didn't think much of him because once he died all that he did broke up, but it did make big changes in the future countries). We don't discuss the breaking up of his empire so much except that I seem to remember it only being broken up in to three parts. It could have been my bad memory or that it was just three major parts. And then we start talking about Rome as a super power. |
|
