Warfare

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:31 pm

Thanks for letting me fill in today (Sunday) and get my 3rd and 4th games under my belt

Won one and lost one for an average performance on the day (32 points, but as Hammy had only scored 15 on Saturday I can feel a bit smug

) and thanks to Dave Parish and Brian Holmes for the games.

Impressed by how easy it is to get playing FoG but it will be a long time before I'm any good at it (if ever) - which IMO is a good sign for the longer term enjoyment. Certainly the expereince of even only 4 games in total means i'm pretty convinced FoG will be my rule set of choice for next year

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:10 pm

Have to agree - Im on the FOG bandwagon

Though slightly concerned about how good knights are (or how good my knights dice were)

I rode down big blocks of steady spearmen in 3 out of 4 games - Is this to be expected?

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:25 pm

I rode down big blocks of steady spearmen in 3 out of 4 games - Is this to be expected

It depends on how the spearmen are organised.

If they have rear support and an IC around (which they should) when charged by knights then they are very sturdy. As long as you don't go disrupted then the knights have to break off.

If you have some spare elements in the third rank - which really is essential as I have found out, then you simply grind them down by killing elements in the impact phase. Since the spearmen are at a plus in impact they should win and generally knights can't afford the casualties...

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:41 pm

I must have been alarmingly lucky

I think the Spearment were my only real successful targets- MF impact/sword made my tuetons bounce a few times, which was most annoying as that would have left the flank of a spearline hanging in the breeze. not that it was neceesary as the Polish knights went straight through from the front. As did the Lithuanian armoured cavalry.

The men in white did make up for it in the last game, taking on 3 BGs of legionaries from 3 different directions, breaking one and fragmenting another before they finally fell to the third attack.

damn, its fun

andy63 · Post by **andy63** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:53 pm

Had a great time again,but feel these rules need to be played in period,my NKE came unstuck against Knights!
After doing pretty well on Saturday and going in 2nd to start on Sunday i got a good lesson from Richards Lithuanians and Lance"s hard as nails Serbians.

But not complaining all my games was fantastic and truly enjoyed every game and once again many thanks to my opponents

Andy.

neilhammond · Post by **neilhammond** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:09 pm

andy63 wrote:Had a great time again,but feel these rules need to be played in period,my NKE came unstuck against Knights!
Andy.

Yes, a good weekend, even if my Russians had mixed results over the weekend.

I agree knights see very good. I too got rolled over by Lance's Serbs. Ouch.

Knights have become suddenly very popular so it's hard to tell if they're over-gunned or not. However, they rarely have much trouble rolling over my defensive spearmen. With a gerneral in the front they usually get enough rerolls to negate the initial contact POA disadvantage, and in the melee phase usually win through via the rerolls.

It might be that we haven't discover the tactics to counter knights.

Neil

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:59 am

Actually I like the fact that Knights are powerful. They were historically.

Although the first few games we got some lucky bow shots that disrupted the Knights on their way in and that took the stuff out of them. Also Knights caught in the flank do suffer.

What remains unclear to me is can you get out of the way of the Knights if they deploy in front of you.

Also has anyone put the Elephants into the Knights?

I think we have a bias in the army lists in favor of Knights right now. Where are the Chola, Hindu, Later Muslim ought to be fun too.

clivevaughan · Post by **clivevaughan** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:30 am

A splendid weekend's wargaming - won two, lost two, so my usual standard. I played Early Armenian twice against Romans and in both games found it pretty easy for cataphracts to exterminate legionnaries - perhaps too easy (even POAs in impact, cataphracts +POA in melee - all three 6 strong cat units are superior and each with general in front rank so they achieve a lot of hits!)
The best attested cats vs legionnaries battle is Carrae. Parthian cataphracts did not ride in and flatten the legions, rather the light horse shot them down over a long period. Many surrended but a large group held it together and retreated back to safety.
Fighting against Medieval Germans with terrain in my half left and my cats deployed on the right, I realised that there was a wall of pikes & knights bearing down on them. As my opponent was refusing his extreme right I decided to redeploy the cataphract strike force from my centre right to my extreme left on his baseline - a manouevre that you wouldn't even contemplate in DBM!! Yet again I was struck by how much movement and how many bounds of play you can get in a 3 hour game in FoG versus DBM and how you can carry out bold manouevres without being frustrated by ones on the PIP dice!
Final thought - general dying in combat - how realistic is it if a nearby unit with 3MUs and a higher grade general should need to react at all? Eg Craterus (Troop Commander) dies in a unit next to Alexander (IC) - would Alexander's Companions really care and have the risk of a test (OK one they are likely to pass) that could degrade their fighting ability?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:51 am

Well my knights were pants.

In my first game I charged a 4 base BG of knights into 4 bases of Legionaries, I lost the combat and lost a base. I lost the melee and went disrupted so broke off. Then I charged again (failed not to charge) and lost a base at impact then broke in melee.

In my second game 4 knights charged 8 MF spearmen. I won the impact but failed to do anything, won the melee but failed to do anything, broke off and was charged in the flank.

I could have engineered things better but the first game was about as good as it gets. My opponent was lucky but Knights are not the be all and end all.

Hammy

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:52 am

Would tend to agree with you about catafracts vs. legionarii - I think it should be even in both Impact and Melee which it was at one time, but at some stage the Skilled Swordsman PoA was changed to not count against mounted Swordsmen which tipped the balance to the catafracts (and I can't recall the reson for the change, sorry).

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:04 am

nikgaukroger wrote:Would tend to agree with you about catafracts vs. legionarii - I think it should be even in both Impact and Melee which it was at one time, but at some stage the Skilled Swordsman PoA was changed to not count against mounted Swordsmen which tipped the balance to the catafracts (and I can't recall the reson for the change, sorry).

IIRC it was part of a package of changes and the legionaries got a POA at impact but lost a POA in melee.

It used to be the legionaries were - a impact and even in melee, now they are even at impact and - in melee but unless the legionaries disrup the cataphracts have to break off.

Legionaries are not the road kill to lancers that they are in DBM

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:31 am

I too suffered at the hands of Lance's Serbs! Rode down although I did manage to break 1 of the knight BGs. Bear in mind I had some 500+ points against 16 stands of knights and I still was crushed. As for the Armenian cataphracts earlier, it was a much fairer fight. He put 16 sup Cats + 4 generals in the fight and got what he deserved. His dice were good too, so I'm not too unhappy about that. On the plus side, I crushed both his flanks and I lost by 2 BGs on a last-turn dice roll thing, so I'm okay.

I do however agree 100% that this game should be playeed in period as the earlier armies just don't have a solution to knights and more advanced troop types (very well-equipped cavalry, LF with firearms). Also, Brian's mixed Indian formation of 8 bowmen (4 frontage) sandwiched between 2 nellies is just too weak against a knight charge. The knights go into the bow and come out the other side. The disordering doesn't really affect them that much or at least enough to dissuade the knights.

Still, had a really good time and can't complain about the rules. My game with Lance was particularly interesting as I took copious notes: pretty much like going to class really!

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:34 am

probably the best reply to knights is a bunch of Longbows behind fortifications, battlewaggons, or shed loads of pikemen.

which are of course toast when faced with impact foot

paper, scissors, stone anybody?

AlanCutner · Post by **AlanCutner** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:21 pm

I agree - an enjoyable weekend and four good games. Though I'm not yet convinced that FoG gives me the 'buzz' that DBM did. Maybe I just haven't got the hang of it yet.

Several things arising from the weekends games:

1. I get the impression that theres been some complacency in testing. I had a few rulings and other opinions given on the rules. In almost every case where I asked for the written rule to be shown to me (about 4 occurrences) it was discovered the ruling was wrong, and the rules didn't say what was expected. I merely point out that care needs to be taken in testing to play what the rules are, not what we think they are!

2. A few times we had combat by disrupted/fragmented BG's against 2 BG's, sometimes with a mixture of advantage/disadvantage in a single opposing BG. The rules say the dice should be allocated proportionately. This was a pretty awkward thing to determine several times. It would have been easy to argue that the worst combats could be abandoned. Not sure what the answer is, but right now it seems open to confusion and manipulation.

3. I had a BG of MF unprotected longbowmen, flanked by spearmen one side and knights the other. They were opposed by LF archers. The LF were able to gang up on the longbowmen and shoot at advantage with equal dice. Following admittedly poor cohesion test rolls the longbowmen broke. But they never really had a chance. And it would have take a major effort to clear the LF. This just doesn't feel right.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:39 pm

The knights go into the bow and come out the other side. The disordering doesn't really affect them that much or at least enough to dissuade the knights.

After Britcon we agreed that knights could often beat ellies given their re-rolls and discussed the possibility of making Knights severely disordered by ellies. This would halve their dice at impact and melee and even things up considerably.

Not sure if this will make it into the published set though?

Pete

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:52 pm

Out of interest was knights being able to beat nellies seen to be an issue, and if so why?

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:58 pm

Out of interest was knights being able to beat nellies seen to be an issue, and if so why?

I guess it conflicts with our vision of the outcome of the match-up from previous rules sets. Haven't you seen Lord of the Rings - Return of the King?

But did mounted knights ever face elephants?

Pete

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:04 pm

Not that I can remember, no. After knights appear on the battlefield they are pretty much restricted to warfare in Europe. Crusaders never got far enough, nor did any other Europeans really. Ottomans didn't use ellies, neither did Mongols and the Timurids never faced a Western army. All we know is their impact in classical warfare and years of preconceptions from older rulesets.

durrati · Post by **durrati** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:52 pm

I believe it is true they never faced each other, not sure that our conceptions of what the outcome should be rest on older rulesets however. I feel they more rest (at least for me) on what the probably outcome would be.

The knight relies on intimidation and the physical impact and power of a well armoured man on a big horse hitting the opposing unit to rout the enemy. As far as intimidation goes, not that I am an elephantoligist but think it is fair to say that an elephant is not going to particlarly be cacking it at the sight of a horse - it is well attested that it is the other way around. As for the physical impact / power side of things, the elephant has a rather large edge here as well, unless it is a VERY big horse and a surprisingly small elephant.

A load of knights beat there opponents by making physical contact with the enemy - or making the enemy run because they are scared of the coming charge. As you can not get a horse to gallop into an elephant the knights do not really have a plan B to win so think it should be very had for them to do so - ie on only very extreme dice, if at all.

People also seems to be saying that it is the re roll that is the kicker for the knights which makes me think hmm..... As, it does not matter how good you are, or how inspiring the general that is leading you is, I just do not see you could convince the horse you are riding that it wants to get into a headbutt contest with an elephant.

Have not seen this match up in FOG myself however. So, how likely is it that say, superior knights with a general would beat some elephants in a straight up fight?

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:56 pm

Congratulations to Pete on winning warfare, Lance for second and Terry for 3rd - good to see an umpire doing well!!

Sorry I missed it - I was looking foward tot aking the Arab Conquest spearmen out for a walk in the sands. Magda has had her op and is recovering fairly well at present. I am itching for af ew games biut won't get the chance until the Xmas run up.

A few comments on comments....

The power of knights .... very strong charge but also brittle. They can be undone by breaking them up. Certainly they are scary and in period games may be a good idea for many comps but personally I don't mind this at all. I have generally found knights to be very expensive so once you have the skill to pull them around a bit they can be picked off in single BGs, but if they get a good solid charge in it will be trouble. Cavalry that evade from them can do this rather well.

Elephants vs knights. There is no evidence and no great reason knights would be any more disadvantaged than any other mounted troop - I can't say i would take the option of being trodden on with or without plate mail!! I find El very effective if you can afford 4 together as 2 BGs. But in small blocks between poor foot troops like the Indians they probably won't do it - just not enough to help out. Like all match ups in all rules againts power troops the trick is not to take a massive charge head on with fragile troops.

Cataphracts vs Romans. This is quite an even fight and set up that way - point for point. If the legionaries fail CTs at impact it gets messy, But generally otherwise they do pretty well as they normally have more bases in the BG. With a general present they should pass CTs on average as superior and with a max of -2 net. BGs of 6 catapracts are pretty tough cookies. James ic correct that the SkSw dropping vs Mtd Sw was one of a basket of changes giving them more resilience at impact. Certainly a general with a BG receiving a charge is a good thing. On average you can afford 6 legionaries to every 4 cataphracts. So again the trick is to make the numbers count and thin down the concentrated advantage the cataphracts have.

Sorry I missed out and looking forward to hear more of the tales

Si