AVARs

sgtsteiner · Post by **sgtsteiner** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:24 pm

Hi

Just trying to fathom what these will be as keen to try new armies with FOG

Nobles : Cav Supr Drilled (?) Bow* Lt Spr (Lance ?) Swd Armoured or Protected
Skirmishers : Lt Horse Supr (?) Drilled (?) Bow Lt Spr Unprotected
Slav Foot : MF Avg or Poor Undrilled Lt Spr Unprotected
maybe 1 BG with Hvy Wpn (2HCW) ?
Slav Cav : Cav Avg Undrilled Lt Spr Protected or Armoured
Slav Skirmishers : LF Avg/Poor Undrilled Bow or JLS Unprotected
Bulgar Nobles : Cav Avg/Supr Undrilled Bow* Lt Spr (Lance ?) Swd Armoured or Protected
Bulgar Horse Archers : Lt Horse Avg Undrilled Bow Lt Spr Unprotected

Any thoughts/ideas ?

Cheers
Gary

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:38 pm

You can safely assume that the Avar cavalry will be Superior, Drilled, Bow, Swordsmen.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:49 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:You can safely assume that the Avar cavalry will be Superior, Drilled, Bow, Swordsmen.

And this does not mean that we don't know that they also carried lances.

However, the Strategikon makes it clear that they preferred to shoot at a distance with their bows, whereas the Byzantine doctrine was to charge immediately with lances and not engage in long distance archery.

So two lots of similarly equipped troops with different tactical doctrines, which we reflect in the rules. (The Byzantines are treated as mixed BGs, half lance, sword and half bow, sword. This makes them shock troops, forcing them to CMT not to charge, and significantly reduces their shooting capability. They are mostly Average, whereas Avars and Sassanids are Superior).

We are trying to bring out these genuine historical differences in tactical doctrine, and not settle for plain vanilla lance, bow, sword cavalry. (Which would result (a) in Byzantines and Avars behaving exactly the same, which according to the Strategikon they didn't, and (b) nobody would want to use armies with lance, sword cavalry or bow, sword cavalry, only the triple armed ones would see the light of day).

sgtsteiner · Post by **sgtsteiner** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:01 pm

Hi

Ta for replies

Bow as main weapon is fine (in line with CvS in Dbmm)

What about the subject/allied Bulgar Nobles ?
DBMM now has them as CvS morphing to KnF from 802AD.
So Bow Swd again or Bow* Lancers or ?

Cheers

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:17 pm

sgtsteiner wrote:Hi

Ta for replies

Bow as main weapon is fine (in line with CvS in Dbmm)

What about the subject/allied Bulgar Nobles ?
DBMM now has them as CvS morphing to KnF from 802AD.
So Bow Swd again or Bow* Lancers or ?

Cheers

Free choice of Bow, Sword or Lancers, Sword since we don't really know at what date they morphed. (Though we can reasonably safely say they were morphed by 800 or so)

sgtsteiner · Post by **sgtsteiner** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:26 pm

Hi RBS

Ta again

BTW will Avars appear in the Byzantium book or another ?

Cheers
Gary

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:48 pm

sgtsteiner wrote:BTW will Avars appear in the Byzantium book ?

Yes

ixlegion · Post by **ixlegion** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:24 pm

And this does not mean that we don't know that they also carried lances.

However, the Strategikon makes it clear that they preferred to shoot at a distance with their bows, whereas the Byzantine doctrine was to charge immediately with lances and not engage in long distance archery.

So two lots of similarly equipped troops with different tactical doctrines, which we reflect in the rules. (The Byzantines are treated as mixed BGs, half lance, sword and half bow, sword. This makes them shock troops, forcing them to CMT not to charge, and significantly reduces their shooting capability. They are mostly Average, whereas Avars and Sassanids are Superior).

We are trying to bring out these genuine historical differences in tactical doctrine, and not settle for plain vanilla lance, bow, sword cavalry. (Which would result (a) in Byzantines and Avars behaving exactly the same, which according to the Strategikon they didn't, and (b) nobody would want to use armies with lance, sword cavalry or bow, sword cavalry, only the triple armed ones would see the light of day).

Now that is the kind of full explanatory answer that makes my heart glow. The common punter like myself have no idea of the thought processes behind WHY rules and army list definitions exist. When I read examples, as above, then I get an insight into the exceptional work and depth of thought which has gone into creating this game.

There is an opening for a Players Guide I'm sure

Alan