Dailami armies

caliban66 · Post by **caliban66** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:08 pm

Hi there. Keeping on iranian tracks, I´ve decided to start a Dynastic daylami army. Based on your experience, which would be the right proportion between ghilmen and dailami MF?

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:50 pm

caliban66 wrote:Hi there. Keeping on iranian tracks, I´ve decided to start a Dynastic daylami army. Based on your experience, which would be the right proportion between ghilmen and dailami MF?

From my perspective, taking all Ghilmen and no Dailami would be an excellent first step. My Vikings can't really handle too many Dailami digging into rough terrain but aren't particularly bothered by your Ghilmen in the open, so that would work out just right for me

.

Ian

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:48 pm

you can only afford 2-3 BGs of Ghilmen

You only want 1-2 BGs of LH.

I think you want the Elephant.

Then you take as many Dailami as you can get your paws on.

PS They don't need terrain that is one of the myths of the Dailami. They like to manuver

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:51 pm

hazelbark wrote:They don't need terrain that is one of the myths of the Dailami. They like to manuver

In my post I wasn't referring to them LIKING terrain. I believe they would be tough outside of terrain, BUT I could handle them moderately better in the open than in terrain.

Ian

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:07 pm

hazelbark wrote: I think you want the Elephant.

I'm not keen on a single BG of nellies - especially in an army that is likely to manoeuvre a lot.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:36 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
hazelbark wrote: I think you want the Elephant.
I'm not keen on a single BG of nellies - especially in an army that is likely to manoeuvre a lot.

I see that point. Depends on your expected foes. Probably more necessary if you expect a heavy mounted assault. Also it relative to the cost of other BGs is reasonaly good bulk.

But I have had a few games where it sits as the strategic reserve that is never committed. I find opponents focus heavily on it to their detriment.

caliban66 · Post by **caliban66** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:53 pm

That´s a good point. The majority of BG´s are superior, and, so, quite expensive. I´ve been thinking of an Khurasanian ally, in order to have a chear general with the same troops as the main list (ghilmen), with the option of a cheaper version (khurasaian undrilled armoured horse archers) and some more bedouin LH if needed.
By the way, why do you mention, hazelbark, small numbers of LH? My first sketched list includes 3 x4, one of which comes with the khurasanian ally.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:08 pm

Check the US FoG website, they have the list Dan used at Atlanta on there, I played it a few times, and found that the MF are tough little MF's, they can quite easily stand up to mounted charges.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:53 am

caliban66 wrote:That´s a good point. The majority of BG´s are superior, and, so, quite expensive. I´ve been thinking of an Khurasanian ally, in order to have a chear general with the same troops as the main list (ghilmen), with the option of a cheaper version (khurasaian undrilled armoured horse archers) and some more bedouin LH if needed.
By the way, why do you mention, hazelbark, small numbers of LH? My first sketched list includes 3 x4, one of which comes with the khurasanian ally.

Well the khurusanian version is what I think Simon Hall used in DBM. I borrowed his with some tweaks and quite liked the DBM version of khurusanians with Ziyrid ally.

I have not tried it in FoG. But plan too.

I found that you get plenty of Ghilmen with the Buyid and the raw 10 points isn't needed. What Dailami need is more Dailami. I have found the MF, Armd, Super, Imp, sw one of the most flexible troops about. A bit pricey.

You really need to decide what you are. Are you a Dailami army with Ghilmen or a Gilhmen army with Dailami.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:27 am

My son used (very effectively) a Dailami army with no ghilman at all, but he had 6 Kurdish armoured lancers in the main army, and a Kurdish ally with 8 more armoured lancers. He also used the Dailami MF archers and elephants to good effect.

zatapec · Post by **zatapec** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:28 am

I m planning to handle a Daylami list soon as possible .
i like the version with more as possible daylami infantry.
Bg should be 6 plus the lf bowmen or four with two lf bow or bg of pure mf (sup armoured impact foot)?
Do you like add some ghilman or play with a Kurdish ally with two three bg of lancer cv?
I will do a tournement in italy with rise and fall ,legion triumphant ,and wolf at sea before 1040 so no knight....
Let me know your opinion thanks
andy

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:16 pm

I think the Kurdish lancer is an interesting angle sans Ghilman.

The real issue is what do you plan to face. Kurdish lancers are good options too.

caliban66 · Post by **caliban66** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:20 am

Yep. I´ve written another list and lancers fit much better. A whole army of shock troops still scares me, but that´s part of the challenge, indeed. As I buy new models, I´ll add some lancers. They won´t increase the total amount too much, anyway. Howling dailami infantry makes moreless 75%.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:25 am

Will the Kurds get their own full list in the Lost Scrolls book ?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:44 am

Scrumpy wrote:Will the Kurds get their own full list in the Lost Scrolls book ?

It seems unlikely. Space is finite.

However, if someone wants to write one and post it in the "Player Designed Lists" section, it may eventually get given the official stamp of approval and placed as a download on fieldofglory.com.

caliban66 · Post by **caliban66** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:55 pm

Uahh, I finally played my first game with unpainted Dailami:
1 IC
1 TC
1 Kurdish ally TC
2 x 4 Kurd lancer allies.
4x6 sup/armoured/ultraviolent dailami
2x6 ave/armoured dailami
1x6 LF sup bow
2x4 Bedu LH

Happy with all of them. Though having a short front and despite being involved, superior dailami+IC not only faced enemy superior armoured cav. archers but counted with the kurd lancers to give the last blow. Average dailami can be a bit untrusty, though. I may do something with those 120 pts. Maybe more non-ally kurd lancers, or more archers+ghilmen. Let´s see next game.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 am

You are light on the generals to my way of thinking.

You can lighten your average dailami by replacing two stands with supporting LF.

then swap your IC for 2 TCs. That gets you near an extra 30 points to do "something" with

the IC+TC+ ally is just brittle i found unless 650 or fewer points.

caliban66 · Post by **caliban66** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:54 am

It may look so, but the way I played the game, with dailami in a compact formation (covering only half the table), superior BG without generals could deal and even beat enemy w/generals in combat, while the IC helped them to pass CT due to shooting and close combat against enemy cav in the open (6 bases, even armoured, must pass many tests, and any lost combat against cav made me test with an average -2). In fact, my narrow battlefront only needs its flank units to stand long enough to let the front ones smash their main target. I supposed I would be surrounded, as happened, so lancers (as reserve) and a couple of dailami BG had to cover my flank from enemy cavalry. Also, IC+ more than 12 mounted bases gave me +3 for pre-battle initiative, which allowed me to choose mountain terran type, something that helped me a lot. In the mean time, TC went with average dailami, to help and bolster them. I think this was the weakest point in my line, since I had no rear support and had to face a lot of shooting from enemy sparabara, placed uphill. But I broke two BG of them with average BG´s.
Superior dailami beat average armoured hoplites and armoured horse archers in the flank, while smashed Immortals in the front. Indeed, the formation worked, since every test I had to do had, counting rear support and IC, with a bare +3 at the beginning.

I will have to play some more games, though, to see if it works properly. LF are on the test, by now.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:00 am

Understand I am a big dalaimi fan and ran them a lot. I get the narrow frontage. Just over time the 2.5 generals gets scary.

caliban66 · Post by **caliban66** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:53 am

Well, consider too than I have not played more than 15 games in two years, so I´m not an expert at all

. I must keep testing this. When I wrote the list, I considered both TC, but then I realized that my pre-battle initative dropped to 1, and with so many MF, scared me. I strongly bet to pass most of CT rather than be able to recover broken groups.
In my persian army, I used four TC and used to get them into combat, so most of my average units fought as superior. Since most of my dailami army is superior (at least the units expected to fight), I think I need the +1 for IC in the case I loose any combat in the open against mounted of HF. Let´s see.
Thanks for your entry, Hazelbark.
BTW, do you think that LF in MF dailami units deserve a try in an open competition? I got enough bases to do so, and considering the enemy lists in DaF book, it may look so, but, in open comp, have you tried them?

Dailami armies

Dailami armies

Re: Dailami armies