Unfortified Camps

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:41 pm

I was just curious, does anyone actually use unfortified camps? if so, or not then why. Just looking for a different angle as I have just started to use camps and they have always been fortified, and I was curious if there is a reason for ever using an unfortified one.

Thanks for any feedback

Brian

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:44 pm

You must have one, but an unfortified one is free

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:04 pm

In UK competitions unfortified camps are the norm. We seem to value an extra cheap unit as better than fortification points. The trend may change though.

vercingetorix · Post by **vercingetorix** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:16 pm

I take unfortified because its cheaper.

LambertSimnel · Post by **LambertSimnel** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:45 pm

and not all armies have the option to fortify their camp.

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:10 pm

I've largely been playing with armies that either have to have a FF camp (MRR and LRR) or don't get one. If the later, then I have to decide whether to detail a BG to cover said unfortified camp. At least once--running Classical Indians vs. Early Successor--I decided it was worth 2 APs to let the enemy sack my supply camp. I placed the camp on the extreme right back corner of my side, far away from the rest of my army. Given that I was either going to be stationing junky Indian cavalry or Indian MF with javelin, it didn't seem worth giving my opponent 2 more APs from the likely result--a routed or destroyed Indian BG and a sacked camp.

It worked out. He had to decide whether to chase the Indian cav or go after the camp. He choose the camp. Meanwhile, I got lucky and my elephants had a field day against his main battle line

D

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:59 pm

Thanks for the posts guys,

I was under the impression that everyone fortified their camps in private games as well as tournaments. But the more I am playing the more I realize that if you place your camp far enough away it will essentially take out or occupy whatever BG tries to sack it. Which is kind of a defencive value in itself. And it makes the side sacking it, one less BG. My recent games have come to a conclusion before we had reached the army attrition levels anyway. So I was just curious as to what others are doing. Sometimes an extra 24 points can be combined with adjusting something else to get you an extra BG that you might have missed out on.

Thanks

Brian

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:00 pm

LambertSimnel wrote:and not all armies have the option to fortify their camp.

Actually this is something I did not know. I guess with each new army we field we should double check to make sure. Thanks for that as I am pretty sure we would have missed it and assumed that every camp can be either unfortified or fortified.

Brian

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:15 pm

BrianC wrote:Thanks for the posts guys,

I was under the impression that everyone fortified their camps in private games as well as tournaments. But the more I am playing the more I realize that if you place your camp far enough away it will essentially take out or occupy whatever BG tries to sack it. Which is kind of a defencive value in itself. And it makes the side sacking it, one less BG. My recent games have come to a conclusion before we had reached the army attrition levels anyway. So I was just curious as to what others are doing. Sometimes an extra 24 points can be combined with adjusting something else to get you an extra BG that you might have missed out on.

Thanks

Brian

Brian,

I forgot to mention in the battle I described I was able to place the camp (on the extreme back right of my table side as noted) behind some brush, which forced the successor cavalry on that wing to detour around it. I like placing unfortified camps behind terrain, or even in it. In one of my last games my friend Mark placed his camp in a plantation along his base edge

Dale

jlopez · Post by **jlopez** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:47 pm

With small armies, say 11 BGs or less, it pays to have the camp fortified as it's loss can be quite a blow in terms of attrition points. For larger armies, it's rare an enemy BG will get near enough unmolested. If in doubt put it in terrain which delay it's sacking by another turn or two.

Julian

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:49 pm

Good points on the terrain placement. So far I have 4 hills, 5 fields done and will be working on 2 vineyards next. With some of the luck I get they will wind up on my opponents long edge

. When my luck goes bad look out. And for us so far we have been playing exclusively the Punic War armies. I only have armies for Roman, Gaul, Carthaginian, Pyhrric, and Syracusan basically. I'm not sure where to branch out to next. Greeks and Persians or Imperial Romans.

Brian

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:46 am

With small armies, say 11 BGs or less, it pays to have the camp fortified

If you are paying points for troops that only allow 11 BG in an army a fortified camp is a very expensive luxury. I have only ever used a compulsory one.

jlopez · Post by **jlopez** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:10 am

philqw78 wrote:
With small armies, say 11 BGs or less, it pays to have the camp fortified
If you are paying points for troops that only allow 11 BG in an army a fortified camp is a very expensive luxury. I have only ever used a compulsory one.

Depends whether there are troops cheap enough to buy you an extra BG for 24 points. Take Free Company for example. You simply can't afford to detach one or two BGs to protect an unfortified camp from enemy skirmishers as their absence cripples the rest of the army. At least it does if you are offensive-minded. With that kind of army I find a fortified camp allows you to play aggressively without unduly worrying about those 2 attrition points.

Julian

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:30 pm

I dont see how 24 points is worth the few extra bounds it takes to capture a fortified camp. Any army capable of getting to your camp will get there quickly, so they will take it before game end anyway, fortified or not.

(assuming I am iright in thinking that enemy in contact with a camp dice in both players bounds ?)

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:54 pm

(assuming I am iright in thinking that enemy in contact with a camp dice in both players bounds ?)

Yes, that is correct. In our game at Warfare I said this was done in the JAP. This was pleasantly incorrect, in fact you roll to sack a camp during the Combat Phase!

jlopez · Post by **jlopez** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:35 pm

madaxeman wrote:I dont see how 24 points is worth the few extra bounds it takes to capture a fortified camp. Any army capable of getting to your camp will get there quickly, so they will take it before game end anyway, fortified or not.

(assuming I am iright in thinking that enemy in contact with a camp dice in both players bounds ?)

Given that the most likely unit to get to a camp is mounted, the odds aren't that good for it getting a 6 by the end of the game. Just think about how many bounds you've played in most of your games then calculate how many of those it would take for a BG to get there either by single moves or double moves staying out of 6 inches of the enemy with a general. I reckon you wouldn't get many chances to sack that camp. Another factor for the would-be sacker is whether it is worth dedicating a BG and possibly a general to this task when they may be of more direct use fighting enemy BGs.

If you can afford a couple of cheap LF units to cover the flanks it's unlikely the enemy will have time to get there and it's a better investment. However, if no such units are available to small, less manoeuverable armies, a fortified camp is one thing less to worry about.

Julian

MarkSieber · Post by **MarkSieber** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:07 pm

Another calculation is not only whether forgoing the cost of a fortified camp gets you to an extra BG, but does this additional BG raise the army morale level? If so, the loss of the camp is 'free'. You can then leave it to your opponent to decide whether to tell off a BG to go after the camp--and getting there is not a sure thing--thus weakening his mix of BG's and giving you a better chance of winning at the line.

I generally use fortified camps only if required by the list.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:27 pm

Actually your math is flawed. A sacked camp cost 2 AP, but another BG only nets you 1 AP.
That said I rarely use fortified camps, but there are occasions where I think they are useful, especially if running highly mobile armies. I found it allows you a bit more freedom without worrying about the odd enemy BG headed for your camp to much (at least it buys you time to get a suitably powerful BG to deal with the threat).

MarkSieber · Post by **MarkSieber** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:58 pm

The math depends on the number of BGs in the army being designed: if you're only short one BG towards the additional break point, adding one more in lieu of a fortified camp would be worth considering. That's what I meant by making it a question, but I could have been clearer.

CrazyHarborc · Post by **CrazyHarborc** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:20 pm

Most of our little group's games are spent trying to kill enemy units. In our first few games, we did expend units and time trying to get into the enemie's camp and party time it.

For whatever reasons, most of our games ignore those camps in favor of going after enemy units. No one has agreed to not go after the opponent's camp it has just happened to be the norm to not.