How much is the victor determined by the player or are some army matchups so unbalanced the result is seldom in doubt
The background to this question is that I started playing MEG just as COVID struck, as did my sin, the only armies we had were classical Indian and Royal Archaemid Persian, when we used these two lists the Persian won every time regardless who played them. Now I know we are both inexperienced so probably miss a trick or two, but it got me wondering, when you see two armies how good can you predict the result.
So to test it myself and because I am a masochist I bought two more armies, sengoku samurai (lots of spears) and Umayyad Arabs (lots and lots of long spear cav). Just finishing the painting, and this Easter will play every pairing twice, I think that's 24 games. Question is will games go to form by army, or by player, I have been war gaming nearly 40 years my son a year.
Using new list so that throws a curveball to Persians
I predict Samurai and Indians will trump Arabs,
Persians will beat Indians but maybe not as convincingly as 2020 list
Samurai should have the edge over Indians.
Personally, based on nothing but personal experience, I would think that there are 3 factors that determine a winner. Ranked in order of importance, I think it's the player (1st) the army(2nd) and the dice (3rd). IMHO the player is twice as important as the army (altho it's important that the player understand the army and know its quirks) and the army is twice as important as the dice. I have, I'm embarrassed to admit, sometimes blamed my dice for a loss, but I know perfectly well where the blame likely belongs.
I also think that a player plays better with an army the player likes, understands, and has some experience with.
In every ancients wargaming system I have played some match ups are going to be rough.
You would have to play very poorly indeed (or be spectacularly unlucky) to loose with a typical Royal Achaemenid list to a typical Classical Indian. My only advice to the Indian player would be that your best hope is probably to max out on chariots. Might give you a, slightly, better shot.
Martin
Given that the combat system is based on "preferred opponent", if army A is full of army B's preferred opponent then clearly army B will have an advantage over army A.
Since point values are based on overall average utility against all possible opponents in what is in effect a more complicated version of "scissors, paper, stone", you won't always be able to compensate quality with quantity.
Also, some troop types or army styles might be more difficult to use than others (i.e. need a higher skill level to get good value out of).
Player first. I have played with some pretty terrible armies and still won due to my opponents mistakes. That said I have lost plenty of games due to my own mistakes.
Richard
Player 80% and evidence proves this.
Armies can do it if they hit lucky - e.g. if a powerbow foot army drew 4 x Skythian opposition. But there are no killer armies in Mortem et Gloriam.
I will play anyone with any army from the 650 lists and it will for sure not be easy for anyone whatever army they have against it. An bad army match up gives and edge for sure in a single game bit not a conclusive one.
Si
Player every time.
Si has rocked me back on my feet with a Cavalry Bow army versus my Long Spear Cavalry army both with near maximum command cards and with Late Republican Romans versus massed Pikes. Both games could have gone either way due to Si's skill as a player and were decided by a dod of good fortune at the right times! Cracking games!
I've seen some bad match ups including the mass Powerbow versus Unprotected Cavalry but those are very few and far between and often managed by period specific competitions.
Thanks for the replies, hard to get that view when my experience was just two armies and one opponent,
Looking forward to the tournaments ramping up, I think I am signed up to one a month, so hopefully by the end of the year I may be able to put up a real fight
Finally beat the Persians with my Indians, so that's 1 victory in 12 now, finished my Arabs and Samurai, and they seem much more balanced win ratio, so suspect the Persian Indian match up is a hard one, trying the 2021 update to the list tonight, see if that makes it easier for the Indians.
Persian Indian is one of those tough one - in part because it s alias that was over powerful in 20.
one of the few changed materially.
You have the find the few tactics that can win in a such a situation. A straight shooting fest is no good at all. And have the right design.
But if you have screen of sacrificial skirmish in front of 2 x 4 of Ellies each 3 wide with a spare at the back you can cause a lot of mayhem crushing the EAP.
Dense terrain and use of ambushes is another good tactic.
S
As others have said player skill is more important than army match up. A good player given a difficult army match up will still be able to design a really good version, with just the right balance of troops and cards in each command. And they'll make no errors in play, or at least very few. Whereas with me it's always a case of "yet again, I have forgotten that my opponent can do that in this rule set, and I now appear to have some really good enemy troops coming in on my flank with nothing to stop them".
Quote from: grahambriggs on April 21, 2021, 12:53:34 PM
As others have said player skill is more important than army match up. A good player given a difficult army match up will still be able to design a really good version, with just the right balance of troops and cards in each command. And they'll make no errors in play, or at least very few. Whereas with me it's always a case of "yet again, I have forgotten that my opponent can do that in this rule set, and I now appear to have some really good enemy troops coming in on my flank with nothing to stop them".
+1
Graham is right! ;)
If you win it is player skill.
If you lose it is army match up.