Home Forums Ancients To the Strongest – typical army size

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #163484
    Avatar photoStephen Holmes
    Participant

    I’ve read the To the Strongest rules, and think they might tempt me back to ancients.

    I cannot figure out the size of a typical army for the recommended 12 x 8 batlefield.
    Can anybody help, whether unit count or points?

    It may be a paradox, but it seems that a grid game requires more specific troop density than a free form one.

    #163490
    Avatar photoTony S
    Participant

    We’ve played decent two player games with twelve or so units a side.    Actually, they were triple size DBA armies, so we used three DBA elements for a single TtS unit.

    Seemed to work for us.  I like both triple DBA and TtS.  Different styles of games, but quite enjoyable.

     

    #163505
    Avatar photoRoger Calderbank
    Participant

    In points terms, 130 points is a good place to start. That has been the size used for many TtS! tournaments, and generally allows an army to be strong somewhere along the line, but not everywhere.

    You can readily go up to 150 points, particularly if you have ‘expensive’ units like knights or veteran Roman legionaries. Over 150 points, it is likely the armies will be strong everywhere, and the games on a 12×8 box table may be too attritional. Also, if you are using the army lists, they will start to break down, in terms of maxima/minima, over 150 points or so.

    I hope you enjoy TtS!, if you try it. I think it is a very good game, although I know the grids put some off. If you don’t like using playing cards, chits or even D10s can readily be used and may be less intrusive.

    RogerC

    #163535
    Avatar photoStephen Holmes
    Participant

    Thanks for the replies.

    Looks like 130 – 150 points then.

    I am actually very keen on cards and grids; having wasted enough life on fiddle measurement and die-rolling shenanigans. Both cards and grids seem to offer a lot of “get on with the game” value.

    My sticking point is more likely to be whether I can really make time to paint the figures for yet another army (or five).

    #163548
    Avatar photoTony S
    Participant

    I must admit I never even looked at the points or army lists.   Just threw a couple of existing armies in the table, in the assumption that what is “even” in one ruleset should be reasonably fair in another.

    It’s amazing how much time is saved but using a grid.  I’ve played gridded games for years, being a fan of Peter Pig’s rules.   Terrain looks better, moving troops is fast and easy, no arguments about “flanks”, no need to rebase – and yet there are those down at my club that refuse to play anything with a grid because it “looks like a boardgame”.

    That said, I didn’t like the look of cards on the table.  Just too obtrusive in my opinion, and visually detracted from the terrain and figures.  I use the chits from TtS publisher, Big Red Bat.  And since I’m crap at shuffling cards, it is also easier for me to randomize them by shaking a cup.

    If you’re interested in the ECW, I’d strongly suggest you consider trying TtS sister set, For King and Parliament.  Fantastic game.

    #164037
    Avatar photoStephen Holmes
    Participant

    A am making a second read through For King and Parliament at present.

    I like what I see, but once again wondering whether I can justify expanding the lead pile.

     

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.