Early Picts

bignic · Post by **bignic** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:30 pm

Hi

Bit of background:
I have EPs in 28mm. We play on 8x5 tables using 35mm MU.
Main opponents tend to be something Roman.
The boys were extremely successful under the previous version of "The Other Game". Not quite so successful in the latest version of "The Other Game".
Batting .166 under FOG.
My playstyle was skirmish-heavy, but that doesn't seem to work too well. Thats OK, am adapting.

My question is to anyone who is having success with this army or indeed anyone with any theoretical input.
Other than trying to work terrain and fielding a couple of units of allied Saxons, what has worked for you?

My secondary question is "what are you planning to do with your surplus 20 bases of archers?" Grrrr.

cheers
Nick

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:45 am

The thing with an army like Early Pict is that against something like Roman you should have a huge numerical advantage. Your main line troops are only 6 points a base compared to 14 or so for the Romans.

Unprotected spear are fine as long as they remain steady. Against legionaries they are a POA down at impact but if they remain steady they are even in melee (and for less than half the cost...) The trick I feel would be to use large BGs of spears in deeper formations (10 base BGs 3 or 4 wide would I think be best) use generals and rear support to give you the best chance of passing the inevitable CT at impact and then hope to wear the Roman heavies down. The Attecotti look good but are always a whole POA down in melee against legions and cost a lot more than the spearmen.

The real weakness of the Picts is against missile armies and Romans don't have much of that plus any they might have should be easily outmatched by the Pictish light horse and archers.

You might want to search back for a post from Simon Hall about a year and a half ago where his Ancient Brits smashed Terry's Romans and to be honest that is on paper an even worse matchup than Picts vs Romans.

bignic · Post by **bignic** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:45 pm

Thanks Hammy

I am not particularly sanguine about a head-on grinding match, but as you say it is not impossible.

My army has scarcely more than the minimum spearmen, so perhaps some painting is required to make the wall of cr*p option more viable

cheers
Nick

bignic · Post by **bignic** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:37 pm

Darn.

I was hoping 0 to 16 bases for the archers was a "typo" for 16 to 36. Especially as it is in the "core troops" section, where one assumes because they are "core" that some are compulsory?
0-16 seems "optional" to me

If not a typo - I am curious about the rationale behind mass Pictish archer redundancies

cheers
Nick

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:33 pm

bignic wrote:If not a typo - I am curious about the rationale behind mass Pictish archer redundancies

Lack of any evidence for lots of Pictish archers in the first place.

bignic · Post by **bignic** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:13 am

Hi Richard

Your rules. Your lists. Your call.
Your forum - so this post is a study in politeness.

Just bear with me for a while.
Once upon a time Picts had a DBM list in a list volume you co-authored.
In those happy days I purchased and lovingly painted the 36 elements of archers/crossbows allowable. Checked patterns are darned slow to paint.
Between now and then I can't see any major evidence either proving or disproving the proportion of Picts armed with bow/crossbow.
No-one and as far as I can tell nothing *compelled* you or your stable of amateur historians to reduce the number of archer bases available.
Given all the other assumptions inherent in list writing (cf the number of sentences in Legions starting "We assume...") you *could* have left things as they were.

Who would have cared if you had? No one actually using Picts I suspect.
Instead I am left with a pile of attractive unusable archer paper-weights on what seems to me to be a whim.

I know FOG is not DBM - but DBM is part of its pedigree and the DBM lists are obviously the basis of the majority of most FOG lists. Attracting rather than annoying former DBx players is surely an objective.

I am feeling pretty cheesed off. Design decisions affect real people and their toy soldier collections.

Pointless I know - yet I feel better for saying it...

cheers
Nick

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:28 am

I'm getting deja vue from the DBMM list here

Thing moves on I'm afraid and things that are deemed wrong, even if they were once deemed reasonable, are dropped to bring lists in line with the current view.

If it helps your pain I now have twice as many Dominate Roman LF archers than I actually need. Mind you my solution is to buy a whole load of new foot for them to support

bignic · Post by **bignic** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 am

Hi Nik

The "current view" of whom expressed where exactly?

As you brought up the subject of the DBMM list - am I right in thinking that whilst psiloi support has gone (no great surprise), sanity is still currently prevailing in terms of numbers available ?

Could it pan out that even the completely intransigent PB may recognize the need to keep the plebs onside by not torpedoing a bunch of their miniatures?

cheers
Nick

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:47 am

One potential use for the extra archer figures would be to mix on archer and two spearmen on a base for the second or thrid rank bases of your spear formations. If as you say you don't have many spearmen this may be a way to kill two birds with one stone.

bignic · Post by **bignic** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:25 am

Indeed a helpful suggestion

cheers Hammy

Nick

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:51 pm

bignic wrote:Hi Nik

The "current view" of whom expressed where exactly?

"The Picts and Scots at War" by Nick AItchison would be a good start - the only easily available book on the subject I've had recommended by those who work in the history of the period.

bignic · Post by **bignic** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:37 pm

Hi Nik

Thanks for the reference. I have got lazy over the years in terms of my own research. Perhaps this is the stimulus I need.

cheers
Nick

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:34 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:I'm getting deja vue from the DBMM list here

Thing moves on I'm afraid and things that are deemed wrong, even if they were once deemed reasonable, are dropped to bring lists in line with the current view.

If it helps your pain I now have twice as many Dominate Roman LF archers than I actually need. Mind you my solution is to buy a whole load of new foot for them to support

Yes because they used to cower behind AX-s now they can cower behind proper legions.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:55 pm

My Hazelbark, I am so please to hear that you have moved to Peking (see your location) though this must have come a quite a rench.

Under FoG I would be surprised to see Dominate LF archers cowering behind anything. I suspect they will be outflanking things and shooting them just as the closet thing that army has to proper legions charges in.