800 AP Tibetan for the incompetent

A forum for any questions relating to army design, the army companion books and upcoming lists.

Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

800 AP Tibetan for the incompetent

Post by timmy1 »

All

Following the advice of the esteemed Mr. Powell, who suggested that a mono-type mounted army that is plus against most things may improve upon my career record of 'played lots, won zero', and that Tibetan might be the way, here I present two options. The intent is not to win the PBI but to get first move while deployed well back.

Option 1 (which seems best to me)

FC
TC x 3
8 BG each of 4 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen

795 points.

Option 2

FC
TC x 2
1 BG of 4 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen
5 BG each of 6 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen

People's thoughts are most welcome.

(Now I don't have Tibetans but I have more than enough Parthian Cataphracts to give it a run.)
pease1
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 7:59 pm
Contact:

Post by pease1 »

Option 1 looks best to me.
See what I'm painting and playing on my wargaming blog: http://ajs-wargaming.blogspot.com/
david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: 800 AP Tibetan for the incompetent

Post by david53 »

timmy1 wrote:All

Following the advice of the esteemed Mr. Powell, who suggested that a mono-type mounted army that is plus against most things may improve upon my career record of 'played lots, won zero', and that Tibetan might be the way, here I present two options. The intent is not to win the PBI but to get first move while deployed well back.

Option 1 (which seems best to me)

FC
TC x 3
8 BG each of 4 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen

795 points.

Option 2

FC
TC x 2
1 BG of 4 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen
5 BG each of 6 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen

People's thoughts are most welcome.

(Now I don't have Tibetans but I have more than enough Parthian Cataphracts to give it a run.)

You missed the compulsery fortified camp at 24 points.
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 »

Dave

You are 100% correct. I made the assumption that as it was listed in the optional section it was optional. How stupid of me. Explains why you are a list checker (of some repute) and I am not...

Revised list to follow.

Regards
Tim
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 »

OK, same ideas, just different numbers.

Option 1 (which seems best to me)

FC
TC x 2
8 BG each of 4 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen
Fortified Camp

784 points.

Option 2

IC
TC x 2
5 BG each of 6 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen
Fortified Camp

774 points.

Again, opinions most welcome
Robert241167
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Leeds

Post by Robert241167 »

Ha ha ha !! :lol:

Are you getting David53 mixed up with dave_r Tim?

Rob
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 »

I must be, not my best day.

My apologies to both Dave's.
benos
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:01 pm

tibetans

Post by benos »

Revised list 2, but change IC to 2 TCs, and add a BG of filler of some sort (never use it, just hide it near your camp)
and go to 3 bgs of 4 3 bgs of 6 with the cats.

still not sure i really rate it, but could be interesting.

Ben
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 »

Very interesting idea that Ben. V3.

OK, same ideas, just different numbers. Just spotted that this would be 601 - 794 and / or 802 - 850 AD only

Option 1

FC
TC x 2
8 BG each of 4 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen
Fortified Camp

784 points.

Option 2

TC x 4
3 BG each of 4 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen
3 BG each of 6 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen
BG of 6 Light Foot, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Bow (my how they will be preying for some shrubbery to hide in - if the girly Nomand Mercs were just a bit more girly and had now sword I would have chosen them as they are much harder to catch - oh well I have them so I might as well get to use the ambush markers)
Fortified Camp

794 points.

Once again, opinions most welcome
SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Re: tibetans

Post by SirGarnet »

benos wrote:Revised list 2, but change IC to 2 TCs, and add a BG of filler of some sort (never use it, just hide it near your camp)
and go to 3 bgs of 4 3 bgs of 6 with the cats.

still not sure i really rate it, but could be interesting.

Ben
All TCs, some filler, and having at least two 6-base BGs for their weight all sound wise. Carefully study your terrain strategies.

Mike
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 »

Mike et al, thanks for the advice.

Copy all of it bar the very last bit - 'strategies', must find out what that word means. Does it come after 'having a plan'?

Any and all advice on terrain woud be good.

Regards
Tim
batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by batesmotel »

timmy1 wrote:Very interesting idea that Ben. V3.

OK, same ideas, just different numbers. Just spotted that this would be 601 - 794 and / or 802 - 850 AD only

Option 1

FC
TC x 2
8 BG each of 4 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen
Fortified Camp

784 points.

Option 2

TC x 4
3 BG each of 4 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen
3 BG each of 6 Cataphracts, Heavily Armoured, Superior Drilled, Lancers/Swordsmen
BG of 6 Light Foot, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Bow (my how they will be preying for some shrubbery to hide in - if the girly Nomand Mercs were just a bit more girly and had now sword I would have chosen them as they are much harder to catch - oh well I have them so I might as well get to use the ambush markers)
Fortified Camp

794 points.

Once again, opinions most welcome
Since they are superior and drilled, I'd go with option 1 with the cat's all in 4's. Is there any good reason for an FC CinC. Can you downgrade him to a TC and use the points to get a cheap BG of LF instead? I think the extra BG would be worth more than the FC as CinC. NO reason to get an FC as a sub since this isn't an army that's going to flank march unless run by Mr. Powell ;-).

Chris
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

IM(not so)HO
3xTC
Camp
5x4 Cats
2x4 undrilled superior abbasids
1x6 LF bow
1x4 LH Bw Sw
1x8 Armd Def Sp

The army is small, so it doesn't need a lot of generals or a huge command radius because of that. The LF are filler and have little use, except to stand in front of the cats to stop them having to charge skirmishers. The LH stay close to the cats so something may be caught when they charge alongside the cats. The armd spear can look after themselves and fill a lot of empty table one rank deep. They should go down first, then can quickly move out of the way. The Abbasids can protect the flanks.

Put lots of difficult terrain down against mounted armies. Against lots of LH on steppes the cats can go 1 deep and quickly change formation, being drilled.

And the cats dismount as Off Sp if you are facing knights. Ooooh, heavily armoured offensive spear. Pikes are the only thing that the cats are minus against if they choose their best mounted/dismounted option. And that only at impact.

Put all the generals in combat. Nothing moves fast enough after routing to get far enough from the enemy to be rallied, so don't bother.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

Oh, and the fortified compulsory camp really screws this army over. :cry:
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet »

timmy1 wrote:Mike et al, thanks for the advice.

Copy all of it bar the very last bit - 'strategies', must find out what that word means. Does it come after 'having a plan'?

Any and all advice on terrain woud be good.

Regards
Tim
The tactical tips in the 600s includes some very specific terrain tips. Since you are drilled, one way to get clever is to put that central blocking terrain (don't ignore Impassable as an option) in the middle or on the opposing side and lure him to deploy a less mobile army on both sides of it, then swing to attack with full force on just one side with his other wing temporarily out of the action. Having even one LF to slow down second moves towards your exposed flank will be valuable.

The nice thing with 4 TCs is that you can assign one to each of two spearhead BGs (should be the bigger ones) and still have two to spare for battle management or replacements. As you will likely be outwinged and experience gnawing flank pains, getting commanders in the front rank to break through quickly is more easily justifiable.

A fortified camp costs about as much as one Cat base and if it holds out that can give you enough extra time to win elsewhere.

It doesn't matter if you win, so long as it's not dull.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

MikeK wrote:It doesn't matter if you win, so long as it's not dull.
It won't be dull with Tibetans. Panic followed by elation or "well it was fun anyway" is what I would expect
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: tibetans

Post by david53 »

benos wrote:Revised list 2, but change IC to 2 TCs, and add a BG of filler of some sort (never use it, just hide it near your camp)
and go to 3 bgs of 4 3 bgs of 6 with the cats.

still not sure i really rate it, but could be interesting.

Ben
Since the Cats are drilled it would be a waste in 6's keep them in 4's as mentiioned already no IC take TC's work out enough points to take the 1 BG of LH allowed.
benos
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:01 pm

Tibetans

Post by benos »

the idea of the 6's was as a hammer blow bg led by a general. While the 4's are to manouver on the flanks.
You could go down to 1 bg of 6 but i think the 3 to 3 ratio has something too it.
Bear in mind i was thinking simple to use rather than best overall.
There is always something for a simple plan and simple to use troops in a well defined role.
The point is the 6's wade into melee while the rest support.
Of course i could be over simplifying?
Ben
david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by david53 »

Not to sure about this army if you look at the Usk event in the empires book out of 21 teams no Tibetans?
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 »

That's 'coz all the players at Usk are better than me so don't need such a simple and one dimensional army.
Post Reply

Return to “Army Design”