Protected Spear - whats the point(s)..?

[lawrenceg]

Protected spear are a mainstay of many armies, yet whats the point?

Pretty much everyone gets an impact POA, so at best they are evens against everyone at impact

Against anything with armour, they are also evens in combat. Until they lose cohesion, when they start to shed POAs like tiles flying off a roof in a hurricane, and their opponents usually also gain them in handfuls.

So, troops who's best chance is an evens combat - but when they start to lose, you have almost no chance of saving them. Yeuch!

Is there a place for protected spears - or are armoured swordsmen better in every situation?

Tim, given the number of time you have commented that in your experience the side with the worst POA wins the combat, I thought protected spear should be an ideal troop type.

[hazelbark]

Allow bigger BG's.
Normally BG's of Protected Spearmen are only allowed 6-8, if this were increased to 8-10 It has a large effect. For those that are already 8-10 increase to 8-12.

This is something that i see increasingly more of as more books come out and I play more games. Initially I went for smaller to minimum size BGs, but the larger size of these foot BGs in particular really adds staying power. I haven't yet tried KN in 6s.

But I would seriously look at protected spear in 10s if I could.

[philqw78]

Allow bigger BG's.
Normally BG's of Protected Spearmen are only allowed 6-8, if this were increased to 8-10 It has a large effect. For those that are already 8-10 increase to 8-12.

This is something that i see increasingly more of as more books come out and I play more games. Initially I went for smaller to minimum size BGs, but the larger size of these foot BGs in particular really adds staying power. I haven't yet tried KN in 6s.

But I would seriously look at protected spear in 10s if I could.

Scots

[dave_r]

Indeed, when I was play testing the Scots were allowed in BG's of 12. They are Average, Protected, Offensive Spearmen.

They were very powerful.

Don't face these chaps with a Light Horse army.....

[gozerius]

Low Countries = lots of Dr/Av/Pro/OSp in BGs up to 10.

[hammy]

Indeed, when I was play testing the Scots were allowed in BG's of 12. They are Average, Protected, Offensive Spearmen.

They were very powerful.

Don't face these chaps with a Light Horse army.....

To be honest with BG sizes of 6-10 they are not much worse (if at all) now than they were before.

BGs of 6 providing rear support for BGs of 10 in the front rank with the front rank deployed 4 wide with 2 'spares' will mean a lot of the table is covered by a solid wall of spears. The longbow BGs mean you can cope with terrain and with a bit of effort you just shove the LH off the table.

[madmike111]

Just finished a game against early persians where I fielded 3 BGs of poor protected Hoplites as an ally on one flank. At 5 pts each they are great value, add in a general I think they are under priced. They beat 4 scy Chariots and a BG of 6 armoured horse archers, followed up with helping to kill some armoured hoplites. Being poor they attracted the bulk of the Persian quality cav but being Hoplites killed their own weight in enemy troops twice over at least.

I also fielded 3 BGs of poor javmen at 2pts each, apart from a crappy 4 base cav unit I filled up on undrilled protected average hoplites, 2 base deep covering most of the table. In almost all situations the hoplites fought at even or +1 POA.

Also had 4 TC to boost where needed. With this army I would enjoy taking on those swarm type armies as they can't get around the flanks and front up the hoplites are better.

In summary I think protected undrilled spear are one of the best all-rounders in the game.

[Blathergut]

Like just about anything in the game, the spears have their days where as soon as they're connected they disrupt then frag and break (it seems like in one phase!). But when that doesn't happen, they are very good troops. Much more capable of fighting cavalry types than MF impact/swords. Now, if I could only teach my ancient Spanish to use them!!!!!!!

[acl]

Is there a place for protected spears - or are armoured swordsmen better in every situation?

That aside, do you ever stop looking at everything exclusivly from the tournament players point of view? If you play in period and both sides get little armoured infantry (say Oath of Fealty) they will do ok. In a open tournament (or one with a rather broad theme) they are likely to be outclassed more often.

This is a bit unfair. I rarely play in tournaments, but still want still want the point system to broadly reflect effectiveness. Have to say that the Fog points are much more accurate than those in rival rule sets. But I still feel there may be a slight bias against the less well-armoured, lower-quality, hairier troops.

This affects everyone, not just tournament-types, as it effectively limits the range of armies you get to fight against.

There seems to be a general view that you need someone with the brains of Hammy to win a tournament with warband (were there any warband armies at the World or European championships?). As a result, I have not seen any of these armies at my local club, tho most players own one.

That said, no points system is perfect, and Fog's is better than most.

Alan

[hammy]

Peter Reilly came close to winning the BHGS Challenge with Ancient Britons and he used IIRC 4 BGs of warband.

[Quintus]

Protected spear are a mainstay of many armies, yet whats the point?

That's a real competition wargamer's kind of question.

There are people here better able to judge than I as to whether the category successfully models their historical counterparts - I don't know the answer. Is the consensus that it does?

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

There seems to be a general view that you need someone with the brains of Hammy to win a tournament with warband

They seem difficult to play and win with, out of approx 25-ish tourney games I have only played against 1 warband army and that was ancient spanish with roman allies so wasnt a true warband army and that was going to lose but we ran out of time.

Peter Reilly came close to winning the BHGS Challenge with Ancient Britons and he used IIRC 4 BGs of warband

Not really a warband army then

[hazelbark]

How many warband do you need to qualify?

I actually think the whol knock on warband are very much about the roman match up.

Against anyone else that doesn't have skilled swords they are fine. Often up at impact and down in melee. With large sizes maybe allow them to carry the day in a meat grinder.

[acl]

How many warband do you need to qualify?

I actually think the whol knock on warband are very much about the roman match up.

Against anyone else that doesn't have skilled swords they are fine. Often up at impact and down in melee. With large sizes maybe allow them to carry the day in a meat grinder.

You cd be right. Tho what armies do they have a compensating advantage against?

The key questions when evaluating armies are:

1. How many games have you won with them?

and

2. How many times have they beaten you?

If the answer to both questions is never or hardly ever then there is something wrong. Either with the army itself, or with our perception of it.


It is early days, so it could well be a problem of perception. Under an earlier set of rules, armies thought lame changed into tigers when adopted by good players. But at the mo things don't look too good for armies that depend on hairies for their strike force. Hope to be proved wrong,

Alan

[lawrenceg]

There seems to be a general view that you need someone with the brains of Hammy to win a tournament with warband

They seem difficult to play and win with, out of approx 25-ish tourney games I have only played against 1 warband army and that was ancient spanish with roman allies so wasnt a true warband army and that was going to lose but we ran out of time.

Peter Reilly came close to winning the BHGS Challenge with Ancient Britons and he used IIRC 4 BGs of warband

Not really a warband army then

Well there's a bit of a difference between 4 BG of 8 bases and 4 BG of 12 bases.

However, the rest of the army is either skirmishers or light spear light chariots (which are often down on impact and down in melee) so the warbands are normally the arm of decision, especially if you take the elite BG.

Does anyone have any more info on Peter's army design and tactics?

[deadtorius]

having played the warbands in friendly games I have to say that they are far outclassed by superior swords, but then who isn't short of the pikes? Only chance you have is in impact where you will go in even and then its ++/ -- for the warband. Actually spear untis are also good against them, a closer fight for the harries, and it can and has gone both ways with the spears winning grandly or turning tail and running away quickly.

Personally I like protected spears, I have even had really good luck using poor spears as citizen militia with my Selucids, their moment of glory was holding back 2 battlegroups of Spanish, both with generals fighting and holding long enough for my regular spears to march from the other side of the battle to get in position and allowed the cats and companions to rout the gaul cav and then prepare to fall on the flanks of the 2 Spanish battlegroups.

[Blathergut]

having played the warbands in friendly games I have to say that they are far outclassed by superior swords, but then who isn't short of the pikes? Only chance you have is in impact where you will go in even and then its ++/ -- for the warband. Actually spear untis are also good against them, a closer fight for the harries, and it can and has gone both ways with the spears winning grandly or turning tail and running away quickly.

Personally I like protected spears, I have even had really good luck using poor spears as citizen militia with my Selucids, their moment of glory was holding back 2 battlegroups of Spanish, both with generals fighting and holding long enough for my regular spears to march from the other side of the battle to get in position and allowed the cats and companions to rout the gaul cav and then prepare to fall on the flanks of the 2 Spanish battlegroups.

ya ya....sounds like one of those highly flavoured but lacking truth Greek histories

[hazelbark]

You cd be right. Tho what armies do they have a compensating advantage against?

The key questions when evaluating armies are:

1. How many games have you won with them?

and

2. How many times have they beaten you?

If the answer to both questions is never or hardly ever then there is something wrong. Either with the army itself, or with our perception of it.

I have run Dacians about 8 times althought not in a competition.

Against the same player
Destroyed him a couple when he ran Cataphracts. Lost when he ran romans.

Fought a few others and either won or came dam close.

Never had less than 7 BGs of impact foot.

I think the dacians could very well run over a WOTR english army.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

How many warband do you need to qualify?

The chapter approved manual say 6+

With large sizes maybe allow them to carry the day in a meat grinder.

Not my experience but possible.

Well there's a bit of a difference between 4 BG of 8 bases and 4 BG of 12 bases

Yep, it would make a difference in the ability to soak shooting but in combat, maybe not, especially if you fail 3+ cohesion rolls.

[lawrenceg]

How many warband do you need to qualify?

Well there's a bit of a difference between 4 BG of 8 bases and 4 BG of 12 bases

Yep, it would make a difference in the ability to soak shooting but in combat, maybe not, especially if you fail 3+ cohesion rolls.

I meant it makes a difference to the ratio of warband to other stuff in the army, hence whether it is a "warband army".