Poor Troops

[speedy]

Has anyone experimented with using significant numbers of Poor troops in the battle line rather than just as extra "filler"or fringe BGs?

My (crazy?) thinking is that the maximum benefit comes where the troops already had a pretty low points value anyway, thus maximising the additional points saving in percentage terms .... For example, poor Classical Indian bowmen for 4 points instead of average for 6, thus getting 3 BGs for the price of 2 ....

Obviously BGs would be lost along the way, but has anyone found that they can make the additional BGs work for them elsewhere?

[philqw78]

I think Mr Lopez may have used such an army in Spain that was almost entirely poor, and did well with it.

[davidandlynda]

It was used at Britcon as well,I believe there were 32 poor English longbowmen,it failed at the last gasp against Pete,terrible dice I believe.As to effectiveness consult Paul Cummins
David

[philqw78]

32 bases is not almost all poor. He has used a LA Persian that was almost all, if not all, poor. Cavalry, hoplites, everything.

[davidandlynda]

True but 80 odd longbowmen was a bit of shock and a relief not to play it
David

[list_lurker]

I did think that having a soft centre could pay dividends. Flanked by robust troops with BGs perpendicular to those flankers (supid rear support rule!). As the centre crumbles and runs, the flanks of the pursuers will be nicley exposed for your 'trap'... all theory of course!

Starting to sound a bit WABy

[DavidT]

Not exactly theory as this is the ploy used by Hannibal at Cannae. His centre troops wouldn't have been poor, but were deployed in such a way as to give ground under frontal pressue. Hannibal's best infantry were then deployed on the flanks where they were able to charge the Romans in the flank as they advanced after Hannibal's centre.

Unfortunately, with no fall back/follow up mechanism in FoG, the centre troops have to break to replicate this (so using poor troops fo this makes sense).

[list_lurker]

Not exactly theory as this is the ploy used by Hannibal at Cannae. His centre troops wouldn't have been poor, but were deployed in such a way as to give ground under frontal pressue.

somewhat ironically this is somewhat modelled better in DBM with the push back. The Gallic Bd(I) falling back in front of the Legion BD(S/O). I don't it was in Hannibals plan to spend his battle rallying his center from flight

[grahambriggs]

Not exactly theory as this is the ploy used by Hannibal at Cannae. His centre troops wouldn't have been poor, but were deployed in such a way as to give ground under frontal pressue.

somewhat ironically this is somewhat modelled better in DBM with the push back. The Gallic Bd(I) falling back in front of the Legion BD(S/O). I don't it was in Hannibals plan to spend his battle rallying his center from flight

Alas not DBM (perhaps DBMM?). Hannibal's Gauls in DBM were "fast warband". I can't think of a troop type less suited to falling back slowly in front of a legion.

[list_lurker]

Hannibal's Gauls in DBM were "fast warband"

I think PB soon realized that WB(F) was the worng classification. It just took a long time (and a new set of rules) for it to filter through!

[hammy]

Hannibal's Gauls in DBM were "fast warband"

I think PB soon realized that WB(F) was the worng classification. It just took a long time (and a new set of rules) for it to filter through!

Quite possibly but in order for troops to fall back enough to expose the flank of their opponent in DBM requires three pushbacks and to be safe for the flankers it really needs four so even with Bd(I) it doesn't really happen.

Anyway, back to the initial question. Poor troops are fine as long as they normally end up fighting at evens or better in POA terms. Needing a 4+ to hit average troops get 18/36 while poor get 15/36 so not a big relative drop (less than 20%). If you need a 5+ then the numbers are 12/36 vs 8/36 a much bigger relative hit (33.3%).

Julian's massed poor longbow looks to be an interesting theory and one I may explore at some point.

[jlopez]

My first venture with poor troops was at a competition in Lisbon last year with 23 BGs of Later Achaemenid Persian. That particular list was all poor except for the LF and the LH which was average as there wasn't an option to downgrade them. The Britcon War of the Roses army had 32 poor longbow bases supported by 28 average longbow (for a total of 60 longbow bases, David), 8 average and 8 superior billmen and 4 handgunners.

The two armies differ quite radically in concept. The Persians were nearly all capable of evading and between the IC and rear support had +3 against most shooting. The basic premise was to run from anything too good and then charge it in the flank with one of the remaining 10 or so BGs of cavalry running around the table. As it pretty much covers the table this is not particularly hard to achieve and my opponents were usually at a loss as to how to deal with it.

The WOR army operates around two wings of 16 poor longbowmen with 12 average in the centre and 8 on each wing and the billmen wherever necessary. Again, this army pretty much covers the table and the only tactic is making sure the overlapping flank wheels in towards the centre in time to concentrate shooting against half the opponents army.

The Persian list was designed as an experiment to prove that poor troops could be valid combat troops in the right circumstances and, I admit, was a little extreme. Still it won the competition so I think I proved my point to all the "poor troops are no good" brigade. The WOR list wasa slightly bolder experiment as the poor troops couldn't evade when charged but I'm very pleased with the results. The games I did lose through bad luck I most likely would have lost even if the BGs responsible had been superior given the dice I was rolling.

As Hammy point out it's very important for poor troops to fight on even POAs at worst or they will suffer significantly. Another important factor is minimising cohesion tests from shooting (big BGs and IC) and wherever possible have some decent support troops to keep nasty creepy stuff away from your poor BGs. I think poor Indian archers are entirely viable but compared to longbow they have almost zero chance of fighting off armoured infantry and the unprotected armour rating makes them vulnerable to shooting. Not a good combination which limits their use on the flanks where they are less likely to come across infantry.

Julian

[davidandlynda]

Seemed like 80 odd
David

[paulcummins]

seemed like 80 odd to me too

at least their shooting and resistance to shooting looked like that to my 60 average bowmen (damn them)

[jlopez]

seemed like 80 odd to me too

at least their shooting and resistance to shooting looked like that to my 60 average bowmen (damn them)

I expected nothing less of such stalwart yeomen fighting for King and country. Serves you right for relying on paid mercenaries...hehe

Julian

[deadtorius]

I have used poor spears (city Militia) and poor light horse and poor slings in my Selucids. My poor spears moment of glory came in a game where they held back 2 BGs of Spanish with generals (one of whom was inspired) for several turns, allowing my regular spears to march across from the other side of the table to take their place right after they finally broke. I think they might be lucky lead as they have managed to hold in several games. Mind you you have to hold your tongue just right to make those cohesion test rolls, hate seeing 6's on those.
Poor light troops are even better as they will run away just as fast as regular lights when charged for 1/2 the price in the case of my slingers. I use them regularly in my games.

[madmike111]

I always take poor light foot if available, javmen at 2pts can't be bet. They fight other lights at a +1 POA at impact. Also with the other side spending 5 or 6 pts per light foot it mean you have more to spend on heavier troops.

I like protected poor spearmen, fight at 0 or +1 POA against most other enemies. Very effective on the flanks with cav support of their flanks, they usually see off the enemy cav which can cost 4 times the price per base. you can even field a mob as rear support!!

[deadtorius]

Ah yes Mobs, cheap in game points but expensive to purchase when you consider how many figs you need per base, main reason my Selucids don't have an unruly mob to get in the way of my Roman enemies.

[IanB3406]

I recently ran against a battlegroup of 8 or 10 Poor protected MF heavy weapon supported by poor bow MF. They are not that terrible with decent shooting and melee ability.

Ian

[grahambriggs]

I always take poor light foot if available, javmen at 2pts can't be bet. They fight other lights at a +1 POA at impact. Also with the other side spending 5 or 6 pts per light foot it mean you have more to spend on heavier troops.

I like protected poor spearmen, fight at 0 or +1 POA against most other enemies. Very effective on the flanks with cav support of their flanks, they usually see off the enemy cav which can cost 4 times the price per base. you can even field a mob as rear support!!

I've been toying with the idea of drilled poor protected defensive spear in Akkadians. Can be supported by mob and can support poor LF. You'd get a BG of 8 bases for 40 points. Poor and DS seems a good combo - neither wants to charge the enemy but the enemy can't just ignore them as they're reasonably manouverable. They should be OK against most mounted and three deep in the middle of the line won't mind shooting much. Proper foot will cut through them quickly but that might allow the rest of the army the time and points advantage to chop through elsewhere with their sturdy copper weapons.