Tournament number 2

[AlanYork]

Having been trashed every game in my first tournament after taking a balanced 650 point Ptolemaic army which was OK at lots of things but not brilliant at anything, I am considering what to take for Game 08 at Manchester and have only a couple of days to make a decision and e mail the list to Hammy for checking.

Last time out my Ptolemaics were ridden around, shot up and slaughtered by Parthians they couldn't catch, the phalanx and Antonine Romans being useless against horse archers (abysmal Cohesion Tests rolls didn't help, my first one was a double 1 and that set the tone for the entire game), beaten by Pre Feudal Scots whose flank move came on at the first time of asking and whose dice luck was just astounding (killed my C in C and passed all his Cohesion Tests when it really mattered, even broke half my phalanx, my own wretched luck continued into this game) and to end the day I was hammered by Later Crusaders who just rode over everything I had on a horse in a battle where terrain went against me at set up. I know that sounds a little like sour grapes, it's not meant to, I lost fair and square, no complaints but it was one of those occasions when it just "wasn't my day".

I have narrowed it down to two choices for my second attempt; Mithridatic or Later Seleucid. It's an open tourney so I could face anything. So which one do I pick to go to Manchester with?

I believe that certain theories apply in FoG, I don't expect everyone to agree but for what it's worth I believe that Medieval armies perform better than Ancient ones, not massively so, they aren't unbeatable, but nevertheless I believe in the hands of an average player on a learning curve with FoG like myself (I played DBM for years and before that it was WRG 6th Edition) they do have a small but significant edge.

I also believe that the more points you play, the better a Hellenistic army becomes. A phalanx in a 650 pts game can be something and nothing. A drain on points but too small on the table and too easily avoided to be of any real use, leaving the undermanned supports to be beaten and the game lost before the pike get into things. It's much harder to avoid a phalanx at 800pts per side.

So it's go with Mithridatic and risk my Imitation Legionaries being ridden down by every knight in Christendom, or the Later Seleucids where the phalanx may be ineffective in this size of game and where my cataphracts, expensive in points and the tanks of their day, will come off second best against Richard The Lionheart and his Crusading chums.

Any thoughts on which of my two possible armies might actually get me a point this time around? I'd settle for just "troubling the scorer"!!!

[viking123]

Alan,

I can fully understand your feelings as that seems to happen to me as well. No matter what your army if the "Gods" are against you nothing works.

I would go Later Seleucid. I have been practicing with them for sometime and have managed to beat medieval armies with them (only at club level). The pikes can take on the Knights. Horse armies are a pain but the answer here is to try and push them back so that they do not have any room. Terrain is important in that case to limit there ability to get round flanks. I am using Later Seleucid at Roll Call in 25 mm - that will be a 800 point army. I am also considering it at Warfare where it will be a 650 point 25 mm army. My 650 point Later Seleucid army is:

C-in-C - TC
2 x TC Generals
2 x 12 Pike Phalanx
1 x 9 Pike Phalanx
2 x 6 LF Archers
1 x 6 Argyraspides HF
1 x 6 Thorakitai HF
1 x 4 Skythin LH
1 x 4 Tarantine LH
1 x 4 Agema Cataphracts

All I hope is that the "God of dice" is with me over the weekend.

Bob

[philqw78]

A 9 of pike is illegal, unless three of them are LF archers. I assume you meant 8 really

[madmike111]

I agree that the Medieval armies have an advantage over ancient ones. Knights in particular seem cheap compared to lancer cav and cats.

The answer is to assume that you will face a high portion of medieval armies and build an army accordingly. My recommendations - Protected hoplites are good value and have the advantage over knights at a faction of the points. Also a high quality MF BG is worth its weight in gold. A couple of LH BGs of 4 are worth their points as well as it can be used to tie down the knights for most of the game.

What works for me is to aim to max out the terrain, medieval armies are usually at a disadvantage in this case. Also depending on the terrain it will also count against longbows.

Cataphracts and lancers are expensive and I agree will usually be at a disadvantage with their points wasted.

Pikes are always a good buy, with the low pts maybe two BGs of 8.

[madcam2us]

Idon't know, I feel perhaps you didn't get the best effort from your Ptolemics.

Perhaps it was list configuration??

While HF are much better in FoG than some other rules, I still find pike blocks to be ineffective... Not because they can't fight, rather everyone knows not to come near them!! As such, any points used on them will not get back a sufficentl return in most circumstances....

The following is based on Marc Anthony's armies...

IC
2xTC
4xCv Arm,sup,drilled,lance/swd
4xCv Arm, sup, drilled, lance/swd
4xCv Galatians Arm, sup, Undrilled, lance/swd
4xLH Unp, avg, drilled, jav/Lt spr
8xMF Arm, avg, drilled, OS
4xHF romanized arm, avg, drilled, IF/swd
6xMF thracian pro, avg, undrilled, hy wpn
8xLF cretan unp, sup, drilled, bow
8xLF unp avg undrilled bow
6xLF unp avg undrilled bow
4xHF Roman arm, sup drilled IF/SkillSwd
4xHF Roman arm sup drilled IF/swd
4xHF Roman arm sup drilled IF/swd

+3 initative with 13 BGs. The idea in an open is to junk up the board with enough terrain to allow your MF to dominate. the combination of the Thorak's and Thracian should open up this space nicely Being armed and OS use them aggressively!

The Armed foot need to be aimed properly. Vs knights, I would attempt to draw them out using the LH and work the flanks and movement of the CV to line up vs the flanks....

Madcam.

[viking123]

Yes the figure 9 was a mistake and the third Phalanx is 8.

Bob

[babyshark]

So it's go with Mithridatic and risk my Imitation Legionaries being ridden down by every knight in Christendom, or the Later Seleucids where the phalanx may be ineffective in this size of game and where my cataphracts, expensive in points and the tanks of their day, will come off second best against Richard The Lionheart and his Crusading chums.

Here's the source of your problem: your cats and pikes were fighting the wrong things. If you can use the drilled maneuverability of your Seleucids to have your pikes fight the knights and your cats fight the filler than it will be the medieval player typing a "woe-is-me" post to this forum.

Marc

[ethan]

I suspect Cataphracts are one of the worst troop types in an Open competition (from an effectiveness for cost PoV), they are in effect very expensive knights (undriller Super knights are 23AP each and it take 36AP of undrilled super Cats to get two combat dice) that lose to actual knights.

Every other troop type (chariots may be another anomaly here, but I haven't played them enough to really havea view) has some give and take to justify the cost. The other "knight alternative" are lancer cavalry but even undrilled they have a considerable maneuver advantage over taking knights.

I know if I were to enter an open comp with a classical army I would be looking to minimize or eliminate cataphracts from my lists.

[nikgaukroger]

I have narrowed it down to two choices for my second attempt; Mithridatic or Later Seleucid. It's an open tourney so I could face anything. So which one do I pick to go to Manchester with?

I think Pontic is more fun out of the two - http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co. ... tic650.pdf is the list I used at the Game 08 bash. If I used it again I might be tempted to drop the Sarmatians and replace them with another BG of Pontic heavies.

I believe that certain theories apply in FoG, I don't expect everyone to agree but for what it's worth I believe that Medieval armies perform better than Ancient ones, not massively so, they aren't unbeatable, but nevertheless I believe in the hands of an average player on a learning curve with FoG like myself (I played DBM for years and before that it was WRG 6th Edition) they do have a small but significant edge.

To some degree yes - mainly because they are quite straight forward and have something that hits quite hard. With classical armies a hoplite mob woould be good on this basis was well.

I also believe that the more points you play, the better a Hellenistic army becomes. A phalanx in a 650 pts game can be something and nothing. A drain on points but too small on the table and too easily avoided to be of any real use, leaving the undermanned supports to be beaten and the game lost before the pike get into things. It's much harder to avoid a phalanx at 800pts per side.

Agreed, there comes a point where you get enough phalanx. That said I found 3 BGs of 8 was OK in the Pontic and it was all I used at 800 with Later Seleukid.

So it's go with Mithridatic and risk my Imitation Legionaries being ridden down by every knight in Christendom,

Wouldn't use the imitation boys in an open comp at low points.

[dave_r]

Actually, I think Cataphracts are more effective against foot than Knights. Largely because when they lose a base they only lose one dice rather than two.

[nikgaukroger]

I suspect Cataphracts are one of the worst troop types in an Open competition (from an effectiveness for cost PoV), they are in effect very expensive knights (undriller Super knights are 23AP each and it take 36AP of undrilled super Cats to get two combat dice) that lose to actual knights.

Every other troop type (chariots may be another anomaly here, but I haven't played them enough to really havea view) has some give and take to justify the cost. The other "knight alternative" are lancer cavalry but even undrilled they have a considerable maneuver advantage over taking knights.

I know if I were to enter an open comp with a classical army I would be looking to minimize or eliminate cataphracts from my lists.

I agree with this.

[AlanYork]

Interesting stuff there, thanks guys. As the list has to be with Hammy by Monday I will decide over the weekend and probably put a list together and send it off on Saturday night.

Apart from Medieval armies being simply better than Classical ones, with the limited amount of list books available, I suppose there is a very good chance I will face knights etc. After all, of the 7 books published so far, 3 of them are Medieval (Storm Of Arrows, Swords and Scimitars and Eternal Empire), that's nearly half of them.

Classical mounted troops just can't cope with knights IMO and often the Medieval lighter horse is as good as or better than its Classical equivalent (I'm thinking here of Albanians, Catalans, Poles etc), limiting the chances of using light cavalry to hold off the knights by drawing them out of position or pinning them in place by skirmishing. I've tried charging knights in the flank with my light horse but I've bounced off every time; the lights just don't throw enough dice to be able to make an impact even when the knights are already frontally engaged with my Pontic heavy cavalry.

My phalanx will be better than any Medieval foot with the possible exception of English longbows and the Swiss, but I don't think my advantage in having better foot troops would be enough to counter a big disadvantage in the mounted arm. Besides, whilst the problem isn't anywhere near as big as in DBM, pike are still relatively easy to avoid in smaller games.

Still, the fact is that until my Yorkists are completed next year, I don't have a Medieval army so I can only field an army that I do possess. That means any of the Hellenistic armies or Pontic. I'll have to live with the disadvantage.

[dave_r]

Every time I have used Lydians against a Medieval Army I have crushed them. It is largely a numbers thing. The Classical get more. There isn't much in a Medieveal Army that can stand upto massed Arm, Off Sp and a bucketfull of JLS LF or LH.

Use Difficult going to force the Medieval army where you want it to go - most lack decent LF so you can "shepherd" them into your bit strenght - the Phalanx.

Then you can use your heavy foot as a sledgehammer and go round the sides with your mounted. Since Cavalry without lance have the option to evade there is no reason to get caught by Medieval Knights unless you are a bit unlucky on the evade dice.

Especially at low points it doesn't take many mishaps for a Medieval Army to give up and go home. Normally at 650 points I would be expecting 9 or 10 BG's. Classical Armies can get many more.

[AlanYork]

Every time I have used Lydians against a Medieval Army I have crushed them. It is largely a numbers thing. The Classical get more. There isn't much in a Medieveal Army that can stand upto massed Arm, Off Sp and a bucketfull of JLS LF or LH.

Use Difficult going to force the Medieval army where you want it to go - most lack decent LF so you can "shepherd" them into your bit strenght - the Phalanx.

Then you can use your heavy foot as a sledgehammer and go round the sides with your mounted. Since Cavalry without lance have the option to evade there is no reason to get caught by Medieval Knights unless you are a bit unlucky on the evade dice.

Especially at low points it doesn't take many mishaps for a Medieval Army to give up and go home. Normally at 650 points I would be expecting 9 or 10 BG's. Classical Armies can get many more.

What you say is true Dave. However the Seleucids don't have a long line of armoured spear, at 650 pts they have a much shorter line of relatively easily avoidable phalangites. The cavalry are lance armed too. Mithridatics can drop their even smaller phalanx for Imitation Legionaries which really aren't very good, but get Superior armoured cavalry with javelins.

[rbodleyscott]

What you say is true Dave. However the Seleucids don't have a long line of armoured spear, at 650 pts they have a much shorter line of relatively easily avoidable phalangites. The cavalry are lance armed too. Mithridatics can drop their even smaller phalanx for Imitation Legionaries which really aren't very good, but get Superior armoured cavalry with javelins.

Later Macedonians can also have Light Spear armed heavy cavalry, and many more pikes than Pontics. Is there any reason why your figures would not do for Later Macedonians? Or Hellenistic Greeks?

I think the following list is legal for Achaian Hellenistic Greeks.

3 x TC
1 x 12 Average HF pikemen
2 x 8 Average HF pikemen
2 x 12 Poor HF pikemen (or 2 more x 8 average if you prefer)
1 x 8 Thorakitai MF Armoured, Off Sp
1 x 8 Thureophoroi MF Protected, Off Sp
1 x 4 Cavalry Average, Armoured, Light Spear, Swordsmen
1 x 4 Light Horse Javelins
1 x 6 LF Javelins average
1 x 8 LF Slings average

You fight with the pikes, thorakitai and thureophoroi. All your troops (except the LH) should be in a compact mass on one side of the table. The cavalry hide at the back. The LH are deployed last and hope to slow down the enemy on the wing you are not attacking.

If everything vulnerable hides behind the pikes, the enemy can avoid the pikes only at the cost of avoiding battle altogether. Don't be tempted to increase the proportion of support troops - you would just be giving the enemy targets. The Poor pikes in BGs of 12 are pretty good if you deploy them where the enemy is trying to avoid you or against enemy mounted - especially if you put a general in the front rank for combat. The thorakitai are "the dog's bollocks" in terrain and not bad in open ground.

Of course, if you are only using the cavalry as a last ditch reserve, it really doesn't matter if they are lancers, in which case a Ptolemaic army could be similar, with all its MF as Thorakitai.

3 x TC
4 x 8 Average HF pikemen
2 x 12 Poor HF pikemen (or 2 more x 8 average if you prefer)
2 x 6 Thorakitai MF Armoured, Off Sp
1 x 4 Cavalry Average, Armoured, Lancers, Swordsmen
1 x 4 Light Horse Javelins
1 x 6 LF Javelins average
1 x 8 LF Slings average