Good Morning
I've been having a go at the Han\Qin chinese lists, but I find the large proportion of average troops cost me.
Do any of you have advice on how I can change my army or how I play to accomadate this?
Or is there a similar army with more superior troops? (preferably with Hch)
Chinese Warring States
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
I play Qin with no superior infantry and 2 Hch sup.
I have quite good results with it. Drilled MF moves quite well
The only bad point is when you meet a mounted army in the steppes.
With armoured HW you get a better armour than many infantry BG. My crossbowmen are armoured for 2 BG with no PD and protected for a BG with PD.
A BG of 8 spears armoured is good in terrain against opponent MF.
Finally a BG of 10 Poor HW/Xbow is a good solution to push away skirmishers on a opponent refuse wing.
PM me your email, I will send you my list.
I have quite good results with it. Drilled MF moves quite well
The only bad point is when you meet a mounted army in the steppes.With armoured HW you get a better armour than many infantry BG. My crossbowmen are armoured for 2 BG with no PD and protected for a BG with PD.
A BG of 8 spears armoured is good in terrain against opponent MF.
Finally a BG of 10 Poor HW/Xbow is a good solution to push away skirmishers on a opponent refuse wing.
PM me your email, I will send you my list.
Hi I also use Warring States,
Unfortunately the success and professionalism of the Chinese forces are undervalued by the west, hence the Chinese seem to always have a lot average or poor when compared to their "western" contemporaries. Ignoring the fact that the Warring States/Han troops are all Medium foot (do we see many Medium Foot western armies especially if they often face cavalry heavy armies ) the best option I have found is to take as many armoured troops as possible. The fact that the majority of troops are drilled helps especially if the terrain gods are kind.I tend to use the mixed units as they cause opponents a few tactical headaches although I do feel that you should be able to use both mixed and separately depoyed units in the same army I have had a lot of success with the Warring States except if you face wall to wall Cataphracts or armoured heavy foot. I have just had a stunning victory with Early Zhou over the Sea Peoples, at least they can field a lot of superior chariots. It is a shame that as they became "civilized" the Chinese lost their martial spirit . Persevere, this is a good army to use and it give your opponent a different game to the usual match ups .
Unfortunately the success and professionalism of the Chinese forces are undervalued by the west, hence the Chinese seem to always have a lot average or poor when compared to their "western" contemporaries. Ignoring the fact that the Warring States/Han troops are all Medium foot (do we see many Medium Foot western armies especially if they often face cavalry heavy armies ) the best option I have found is to take as many armoured troops as possible. The fact that the majority of troops are drilled helps especially if the terrain gods are kind.I tend to use the mixed units as they cause opponents a few tactical headaches although I do feel that you should be able to use both mixed and separately depoyed units in the same army I have had a lot of success with the Warring States except if you face wall to wall Cataphracts or armoured heavy foot. I have just had a stunning victory with Early Zhou over the Sea Peoples, at least they can field a lot of superior chariots. It is a shame that as they became "civilized" the Chinese lost their martial spirit . Persevere, this is a good army to use and it give your opponent a different game to the usual match ups .
Hi,
I have been playing with Han Chinese lately. All average but they seem to hold up well.
As advised above - maximise your armoured troops.
I have been playing with:
5 x 6 MF average armoured, half with HW, half with Crossbow
3 x 4 Cav average armoured with crossbow and sword
2 x 4 Cav average protected with bow and sword
1 x 6 Cav average unprotected with bow and sword (to lurk behind the MF and provide rear support)
1 x IC
2 x TC
750 points
I would never have designed this list myself - I've been playing with protected MF and all the LH I could afford and 4xTC's. I found this list on Madaxeman's site.
I have had three outings with them and they seem to be doing well. I'm still getting used to playing with no LH and no Superior troops - It has held up against Romans, Mongols and Central Asian City States so far.
I have been playing with Han Chinese lately. All average but they seem to hold up well.
As advised above - maximise your armoured troops.
I have been playing with:
5 x 6 MF average armoured, half with HW, half with Crossbow
3 x 4 Cav average armoured with crossbow and sword
2 x 4 Cav average protected with bow and sword
1 x 6 Cav average unprotected with bow and sword (to lurk behind the MF and provide rear support)
1 x IC
2 x TC
750 points
I would never have designed this list myself - I've been playing with protected MF and all the LH I could afford and 4xTC's. I found this list on Madaxeman's site.
I have had three outings with them and they seem to be doing well. I'm still getting used to playing with no LH and no Superior troops - It has held up against Romans, Mongols and Central Asian City States so far.
>hence the Chinese seem to always have a lot average or poor when compared to their "western" contemporaries. Ignoring the fact that the Warring States/Han troops are all Medium >foot (do we see many Medium Foot western armies especially if they often face cavalry heavy armies
Hmmm....Ancient spanish, Ancient Brits, Caledonians, Picts, Thracian just off the top of my head. Some Gauls. Some early Germans? Numidians have even less in the way of solid foot.
Not really "western", but Achaemenids have a fair bit of MF IIRC.
And I'm a bit puzzled by your first point - I can't think of many armies in the ancient period other than the earlier Roman incarnations that can have a majority of superior foot.
Personally I don't feel that MF was the right way to model the perceived lack of success of Chinese foot historically against heavy cavalry (yes, there was a reason, not just some pro-western conspiracy by rules authors and list writers), but I think you have little chance of making a persuasive argument for Chinese foot to be re-cast in FoG as all superior armoured HF offensive spearmen
Hmmm....Ancient spanish, Ancient Brits, Caledonians, Picts, Thracian just off the top of my head. Some Gauls. Some early Germans? Numidians have even less in the way of solid foot.
Not really "western", but Achaemenids have a fair bit of MF IIRC.
And I'm a bit puzzled by your first point - I can't think of many armies in the ancient period other than the earlier Roman incarnations that can have a majority of superior foot.
Personally I don't feel that MF was the right way to model the perceived lack of success of Chinese foot historically against heavy cavalry (yes, there was a reason, not just some pro-western conspiracy by rules authors and list writers), but I think you have little chance of making a persuasive argument for Chinese foot to be re-cast in FoG as all superior armoured HF offensive spearmen
Hi ShrubMik,
Agreed these medium foot armies exist ( I am currently building a Thracian army) but I have only ever faced one Spanish Medium foot army since FOG arrived and these armies were mainly based in difficult country not suited for massed Cavalry - I know there are as always exceptions such as the use of chariots. China was vast with various terrain types but the north has a lot of flat grassland not best suited for Medium foot types. I am not calling for vast numbers of superior troops but the warring States have none apart from the state of Zhongshan. I do not have a written source but i have always understood that the Chinese generals had "household " troops often sworn to die with their general if defeated on the battlefield . It sounds a bit like the "soldurii" of the Gallic tribes. Even the Ancient British have "Elite " foot ?. Having spent part of my early years in the Far East I was brought up on tales of heroic Chinese heroes leading "ever victorious "units on the battlefield to victory or not leaving the field of battle if defeated. I do see a tendency in army lists to rate Chinese peasants as average or poor whilst say their contemporary Gallic types are always average . The only poor western types are classed as families /mob . The warring States is one of the better army lists in "Empires " as you are not forced to take poor troops . I agree things will not change until more Chinese sources are translated into English. Untill then the "Superior "Chinese foot will be in the same situation of the Sassanid Heavy Foot who could stand up to the Roman legions when classed as Mob or poor heavy foot. I admit writting army lists for general release is difficult and you can never please everyone.
Agreed these medium foot armies exist ( I am currently building a Thracian army) but I have only ever faced one Spanish Medium foot army since FOG arrived and these armies were mainly based in difficult country not suited for massed Cavalry - I know there are as always exceptions such as the use of chariots. China was vast with various terrain types but the north has a lot of flat grassland not best suited for Medium foot types. I am not calling for vast numbers of superior troops but the warring States have none apart from the state of Zhongshan. I do not have a written source but i have always understood that the Chinese generals had "household " troops often sworn to die with their general if defeated on the battlefield . It sounds a bit like the "soldurii" of the Gallic tribes. Even the Ancient British have "Elite " foot ?. Having spent part of my early years in the Far East I was brought up on tales of heroic Chinese heroes leading "ever victorious "units on the battlefield to victory or not leaving the field of battle if defeated. I do see a tendency in army lists to rate Chinese peasants as average or poor whilst say their contemporary Gallic types are always average . The only poor western types are classed as families /mob . The warring States is one of the better army lists in "Empires " as you are not forced to take poor troops . I agree things will not change until more Chinese sources are translated into English. Untill then the "Superior "Chinese foot will be in the same situation of the Sassanid Heavy Foot who could stand up to the Roman legions when classed as Mob or poor heavy foot. I admit writting army lists for general release is difficult and you can never please everyone.
Looking at the Warring States list , if going against each other as they are all the same its fine although the Qin could have easily been taken as a separate list and expanded. Taken against the Qiang & Di and other horse nomads I would say no. I know this has been raised before but the majority of the army books do feel to have been written with the same concept behind troops types. Empires of the Dragon & Blood and Gold are different and to my mind it is noticable if you take on a non book opponent. However I will continue to use various Chinese armies in the Future. As for comparing the Gallic Society against the Chinese both had an "heroic" culture, it is just it appears that only the best warriors went to war in the west whilst a lot of useless peasents went to war in the east.
I thought there were some better foot in at least some of the Chinese lists? Pug-nosed archers, dare-to-die volunteers...that sort of thing. A small proportion perhaps, but that may not be unrealistic. Especially if some of the figures claimed for huge Chinese armies being fielded can be believed.
Heroic legends have to be taken with caution. Lin Chung plus a handful of associates would put to flight armies of hundreds of bases, within 5 minutes, and with no casualties suffered themselves And even on a firmly historical basis, if you pay too much attention to English folk myth, Crecy/Agincourt era English Longbowmen should all be Superior and probably have an extra POA when shooting as well.
>Empires of the Dragon & Blood and Gold are different
Perfectly true, and this is no secret, the authors have stated as such on a number of occasions.
Heroic legends have to be taken with caution. Lin Chung plus a handful of associates would put to flight armies of hundreds of bases, within 5 minutes, and with no casualties suffered themselves
And even on a firmly historical basis, if you pay too much attention to English folk myth, Crecy/Agincourt era English Longbowmen should all be Superior and probably have an extra POA when shooting as well.>Empires of the Dragon & Blood and Gold are different
Perfectly true, and this is no secret, the authors have stated as such on a number of occasions.
Hi , dare to die troops appear in later lists as "average" troops, they do not exist in the Warring States list . The Eastern Han can have a battlegroup of 6 superior MF as guard troops which is fine, possibly on the large side for a guard battlegroup. This is the only list with superior foot, the only other superior troops available to post Warring States lists are cavalry when usually you are forced to take poor foot battlegroups. As for army size, like the Romans the Chinese tended to be good on the logistical side of warfare which enabled troops to stay in the field longer and fight when things were in their favour. When fighting tribal armies they could wait until they started to disperse before going into action .
From my perception it is being forced to take the battle groups of poor troops such as the Western Jin list , not a lack of superior foot which feels wrong when looking at the other army books. I admit as I used the Western Jin to great results under another rule set, what appears to be a reduction in "fighting spirit" (plus the lack of heavy foot) may colour my views. However I am using various Chinese armies from Empires and I am building a Ming army from FOGR when the compulsory poor troops continue which will be interesting when they take on the Japanese in Korea next month . If FOGA takes the position of FOGR that poor troops can give support to average battlegroups things may seem better.
From my perception it is being forced to take the battle groups of poor troops such as the Western Jin list , not a lack of superior foot which feels wrong when looking at the other army books. I admit as I used the Western Jin to great results under another rule set, what appears to be a reduction in "fighting spirit" (plus the lack of heavy foot) may colour my views. However I am using various Chinese armies from Empires and I am building a Ming army from FOGR when the compulsory poor troops continue which will be interesting when they take on the Japanese in Korea next month . If FOGA takes the position of FOGR that poor troops can give support to average battlegroups things may seem better.
Hi,
I always use the armoured offensive Spear as they give flexibility especially if facing a cavalry heavy force or you are using mixed battlegroups. The armoured crossbow are also useful especially aganst light horse, especially as a unit of 6,as the armour helps the POA and after the initial contact they can hold their own in melee. I would sugest the Ic at 800 pts is a luxury unless you are able to take 3 troop commanders. I tend to maximise the commanders as they are needed to join combats to force a decision due to a lack of "Superior" troops for the Qin
I always use the armoured offensive Spear as they give flexibility especially if facing a cavalry heavy force or you are using mixed battlegroups. The armoured crossbow are also useful especially aganst light horse, especially as a unit of 6,as the armour helps the POA and after the initial contact they can hold their own in melee. I would sugest the Ic at 800 pts is a luxury unless you are able to take 3 troop commanders. I tend to maximise the commanders as they are needed to join combats to force a decision due to a lack of "Superior" troops for the Qin
-
hazelbark
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
I like the armoured Spear. Gives some muscle options in certain situations.Fluffy wrote:Afte
How important do you think the group of spearmen are?
Is the average armoured crossbow cavalry useful?
Is an IC worthwhile for this list?
Note that with my list so far I can have 2 of the above.
You don't have much cav option. They are handy but you have to be careful how they are used. I took them in some early lists and now think of them as a luxury but they can help you push enemy LH around.
An IC is very handy if you plan to use POs to deal with serious mounted. IF you are using protected foot and especially if in in 6s you will need the IC to survive missile fire. I go back and forth. I had swtiched to 4 TCs and assumed they would fight a lot. Now I am thining after I have lost a LOT of generals that maybe IC + 2 TC.