â€œYou will find the equality of the points system will come through the more you play. Certainly in the early days some troops look good value - but as you get used to the tactical subtleties the others come back into being good value for money.
As with any rules, the simple bulldozers are best value for money at the beginning. See how you feel after 10 games and 50 games. After about 150 games I am finding the points system quite keenly balanced and my views have changed a fair bit as I have played it out fully.â€ - Simon Hall, mid 2008
Rules author Simon Hall wrote â€œI don't see any imbalance of any significance as yet - rather a lot of balance. One of the issues is that over 10 or 20 games you can get local patterns, over 200 games with lots of armies you see much less of it.â€ On the same topic, Richard Bodley-Scott says â€most armies have a reasonable chance within their own time frame. In anachronistic battles, however, some armies will cope better than others. Notably, armies based on spearmen and pikemen should have no great difficulty vs knights, but impact foot or light spear armed foot will have more difficulty. Lancers and Cataphracts are excellent value within their own time frame, but disadvantaged from a cost-effectiveness point of view vs knight armies. Bow or light spear cavalry are better able to cope with anachronistic encounters because of their ability to evade (knights) when in single line.â€
â€œIf you take full advantage of the abilities of your troops you will get good value from them. If you for example deploy superior drilled armoured cavalry in a single rank facing javelin light horse and they spend the whole game facing off against them in single rank then you are not tanking full advantage and may as well have used an average undrilled unprotected BG to do the job.â€ Hammy