4 base skirmishing BGs

[Eques]

Is there any point in having these? Wouldn't have thought their missile fire would make much of an impression.

[Esbenmf]

They can make shock troops run in circles indefinitely... and are cheap.

Esben

[peterrjohnston]

One BG of 4 LH on it's on won't make much impression, unless perhaps superior... ganged-up and they become effective.

The other factor is a, perhaps unfortunately, mechanic of the rules for shooting CTs. In a stand-up shooting match between LH, a 4BG needs 2 hits out of 2, a 6BG 2 hits out of 3 to force a CT. If the CT was on 1 hit per 4 bases, I suspect there'd be more BGs of 6

LH BGs also tend to be cheap so make armies larger in BG numbers, and are very manoeuvrable - virtually uncatchable.

For LF, I'm less sure on using BGs of 4, although again it does increase breakpoints. Superior LF shooters are very useful.

[thefrenchjester]

Hi ,

BG of LH even superior may suffer from attrition, losing one base will be for them the end of their supriority
using BG of 6LH jav light spear or lancers to chase them off the table,or a BG of 4 CV bow armed to outshot them and try to concentrate fire on them ,

their manoeuvrability is also their weakness , they can evade to far if they are under pressure of BG of CV or BG of 8 LF bow ( if you can do it with the cretan archers could be good

alone they cannot do anything against big BG of 8 apart from slowing them more or less ;

the MF bow protected per 8 can be an answer to their dancing nuisance by long range shooting and the number of dice thrown against their little groups;

hope it will help to counter and chase the flies

thefrenchjester " no fear of flies "

[kevinj]

If you're just talking about causing damage by shooting then 4 Base BGs are probably not very effective. They do however have other uses such as:

4 Poor LF @ 2 pts each (e.g. Assyrians, Dominate Romans) add a BG to your count for only 8 points.

One BG of 4 LH (or even LF against some opponents) can slow down a large area of an enemy battle line, allowing you to conentrate on another part.

A 4 Base BG with firearms can add to the shooting by other BGs and contribute a -1 to the enemies CT even without hitting.

[grahambriggs]

I'd take them all as 4 bases if I could! Means more BGs in the army, more manouverability of each BG. Also, their shooting is no worse per base than 6s or 8s and they cost no different per base

[dave_r]

Ssssshhhhhhh. You will alert Porter and there will be the mother of all rants about skirmshing light horse...

[Polkovnik]

Also, their shooting is no worse per base than 6s or 8s and they cost no different per base

Their shooting is often better, as their manouevrability often means more bases can shoot. Take a simple example where one end of an 8 base BG of LF is pinned by it's target. It can't wheel round the other end to get all bases shooting. Whereas if it was two BGs of 4, the other BG could wheel round and shoot.

[ethan]

Means more BGs in the army

This is, unfortunately IMO, a bit too important.

[azrael86]

A bg of 6 LH can have more issues than 4 when evading if there is terrain or friends behind. Also, turning 90 works less well, you change from 3x2 to 2x3. It would be expected that 3 bgs of 4 have a definite edge on 2 of 6, as someone is going to be flanked sooner or later.

Another (admittedly not fantastic) reason for having 4 LF is that unlike 6 LF you aren't tempted to do anything foolhardy with them!

Obviously one aspect of this ruleset compared to previous ones including of course 6th and 7th edition is that there is no command point cost.

[Scrumpy]

I fielded 4 4 man bgs of javelin light foot in an Early Republican Roman army last night & found they worked

[Blathergut]

I go 4s whenever I can! Esp with the mid-republicans...they can be brittle, but they do the job, are very manoueverable, you don't get an entire big BG pinned by one lone something, and all the other points made above....4s always!!

[spikemesq]

Means more BGs in the army

This is, unfortunately IMO, a bit too important.

Not emptyquoting this.

I, too, wonder if there is a better way to deal with army breaks that does not favor gimmicky filler BGs.

To be sure, filler issues are not nearly as bad in FoG as they were in DBM (IMO), but the marginal value of cheap small BGs does seem a bit odd to me.

For instance the 4-base BG of Mobs in my Ostrogoths and the 4-base BG of crappy javelins in my Komnenan Byzantines are must-haves, but they do absolutely nothing after deployment.

Spike

[Eques]

I suppose you could say that represents the psychological support provided historically by having large numbers on your side. You would have to weigh that against the benefit of spending all your resources on quality shock troops.

[Blathergut]

Plus...enemy doesn't know quality until it hits them or comes close...so...giving cheap BGs the same worth can be valid that way...initially they have to be considered and dealt with...in fact, in the game you have an advantage...you knonw the enemy LF or whatever are crap right from the start!

[SirGarnet]

Scoring at least 2 hits is twice as likely on even POA with 3 shooting dice than it is on 2 shooting dice, plus there is a small chance of removing a base. This is something to be said for 6 lights in a BG intended to operate alone in using harassing the enemy. However, with smaller BGs working together it is easier to line up 3 or 4 dice against a target and reduce split-shooting situations.

Mike

[hazelbark]

Means more BGs in the army

This is, unfortunately IMO, a bit too important.

Yeah, but not common enough outside dominate to be a big issue. A lot of them really only get an army to 12-13 BG anyway.

[guthroth]

Means more BGs in the army

This is, unfortunately IMO, a bit too important.

Not emptyquoting this.

I, too, wonder if there is a better way to deal with army breaks that does not favor gimmicky filler BGs.

To be sure, filler issues are not nearly as bad in FoG as they were in DBM (IMO), but the marginal value of cheap small BGs does seem a bit odd to me.

For instance the 4-base BG of Mobs in my Ostrogoths and the 4-base BG of crappy javelins in my Komnenan Byzantines are must-haves, but they do absolutely nothing after deployment.

Spike

The simplest solution is to count LF or LH BG as worth less when calculating the army total. So a theoretical army of -

2 BG LF Unp Und Sling
3 BG HF Pro Und OfSp
3 BG MF Pro Und Bow
4 BG LH Pro Und Bow
2 BG KN Arm Und Lan/Sw

Which counts as 14 BG under the current system counts the LF and LH as half value for a total of 11 BG for army attrition purposes.

[kevinj]

The simplest solution is to count LF or LH BG as worth less when calculating the army total.

The problem with this it it allows you to regard lights as somewhat expendable, at least the current position means that you have to take care of all of your army and there is no incentive to keep your better troops out of the battle.

[philqw78]

The simplest solution is to count LF or LH BG as worth less when calculating the army total. So a theoretical army of -

2 BG LF Unp Und Sling
3 BG HF Pro Und OfSp
3 BG MF Pro Und Bow
4 BG LH Pro Und Bow
2 BG KN Arm Und Lan/Sw

Which counts as 14 BG under the current system counts the LF and LH as half value for a total of 11 BG for army attrition purposes.

Even better take an army with Max poor LF with sling or jav, use it to delay the enemy where you have no battle troops, stand whenever possible to tie up enemy troops, when your LF is broken it will drag its pursuers with it, enabling them to be charged in the flank and rear. Whilst all this is happening you do not need battle troops to protect your lights so you can leave them to their fate. With your battle troops you can sit back and wait for the broken up enemy formation, or just send most of them on a flank march.
Seriously, making lights worthless for attrition would make them suicide troops and they would be used as bait, instead of getting out of the way of battle troops