Slitherine

My list is quite different

I use plenty of LF:
2x almughavar skirmishers
1x LF XB
1x Greeks

Their mission is:
- delay enemy heavy infantry (against whom the Catalans have no winning tools)
- cover my unprotected almughavars from enemy shooting

I "just" use 24 almughavars:
- 4BGs of 6 units. I use small BGs because they're easier to manouvre so that I can exploit to the max the drilled status
- unprotected. My LF and IC provide cover against enemy fire, and since most of the opponents I end-up facing in competitions are armoured / heavily armoured, paying for being protected is useless
- 24 elements is enough to outnumber good quality MF in most armies (LB armies are the exception), but not too many to hide in terrain if facing heavy armpured foot armies like sta hermandad

I take a heavy mounted approach:
1x 4 cavalls armats. Very strong reserve that can move together with a TC to deliver the coup de grace
2x 4 cavalls alforrats. Just love them
1x 4 albanians (protected cavalry). Very handy to drive off enemy LH
1x 6 albanians (LH). Verty good shock LH

Basic army doctrine is:
- against mounted armies: as few terrain as possible and charge, charge, charge. The Catalans are fast and can push shooty cavalry out of the table, and the almughavars can play a very decent role against enemy shock cavalry (of course in that case they'll just wait for the enemy to charge, and hope that their numbers will decide the attrition combats)
- against heavy foot armies: as much terrain as possible and attack through the bushes
- against LB armies: tricky Try to avoid the m-a-a, and charge the LB. This is the only case were being unprotected is a big handicap, but if you manage to get stuck into melee without being disrupted, you're at equal POAs but better quality...

The Catalan Company is far from being a killer army, but is really fun to play (if you like fast aggressive playing) and can do quite well against many opponents, specially shooty cavalry armies, which are quite popular down here by now.

xavier wrote:My list is quite different

I use plenty of LF:
2x almughavar skirmishers
1x LF XB
1x Greeks



The Catalan Company is far from being a killer army, but is really fun to play (if you like fast aggressive playing) and can do quite well against many opponents, specially shooty cavalry armies, which are quite popular down here by now.

Interesting, there are many ways to do this! However if you don't want lots of Almughavars then I wonder if you might be better with another list - MCA, SHNC or Latin Greek with catalan allies? All have more proper knights and better LF...

Not sure I agree that you can't fight HF - certainly good HF is a problem, but average HF (and a lot of it is average) is vulnerable to massed almughavars.
Also, whilst in principle the unprotected sounds good, you do tend to get shot a lot (especially by Ottomanns, for some reason )

But no doubt it is great fun to play. Also recommend Muntaner if you can find it. Lapses into Caesar-like propaganda at times, but still required reading.

Ghaznavid wrote:No, you want the Almughavars in 8's mostly. 1 or 2 6's is ok, but at least 3x8 is highly advisable.
I'm not sure what the job of the CB is going to be in that army though. You might wish to consider taking the Armats (the Knights) instead.

Do you prefer the larger units because you feel they are to exposed to shooting? - I would think that the use of an IC to help with any tests (and complex move tests) and the higher number of more maneuverable units would point towards units of 6.

Muz

muz177 wrote:
Do you prefer the larger units because you feel they are to exposed to shooting? - I would think that the use of an IC to help with any tests (and complex move tests) and the higher number of more maneuverable units would point towards units of 6.

Muz

It's not really the shooting, more the spear. If you are in a 6 then you will either fight as 2x3, meaning that as soon as you lose a base, you drop a POA, or as 3x2 (meaning that 1/3rd of your troops don't fight until you lose a base. As an 8, you go 3-3-2.

Aside from adding an expensive IC to the already pricey Catalan list, you don't really want one as he will likely make you win initiative and therefore lose the first double move chance. Not to be underestimated is that Catalans also don't want to be improving the chances when being shot at - you want every possible motivation to get stuck in! And in combat an IC is of limited use - if you commit him you lose the umbrella.

If you are superior AND drilled and you still need an IC to make your CMT's your plan is too complicated!

azrael86 wrote:

muz177 wrote:
Do you prefer the larger units because you feel they are to exposed to shooting? - I would think that the use of an IC to help with any tests (and complex move tests) and the higher number of more maneuverable units would point towards units of 6.

Muz

It's not really the shooting, more the spear.

Well you should be using Impact Foot

I disagree.... ImFo in and out of period are only really good vs bowmen. Besides the Janissaries, no one really takes bow. As OS they can stand up with or without terrain vs mounted, fight bow at + in impact and should remain a + with avg dice/rear support in melee.

Against a shield line ImFo are a liability.

Against dailami they'd be evens at impact and a - during melee (if the former are armored). AS OS they at least, if they survive impact (and with support, generals) will at least be evens at melee. Same with mounted armor lance types

This is one of the reasons I take my Alhmughavars as OS UNprotected in 8s & an IC. Shooting should be mitigated by the +2 of the IC, +1 for rear support and the need for 3 hits prior to testing. AS unprotected, you have enough points left over for your own LH shooty types.


Madcam.

muz177 wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote:No, you want the Almughavars in 8's mostly. 1 or 2 6's is ok, but at least 3x8 is highly advisable.
I'm not sure what the job of the CB is going to be in that army though. You might wish to consider taking the Armats (the Knights) instead.

Do you prefer the larger units because you feel they are to exposed to shooting? - I would think that the use of an IC to help with any tests (and complex move tests) and the higher number of more maneuverable units would point towards units of 6.

Muz

Pretty much as Azrael explained, it's partly because I use them as spears* and because I don't really see the IC (unles you go for a radically different list like Xaviers). An IC is an expensive luxurity for this army that it does not really need IMO (CMTs are easy enough with drilled superiors, you shouldn't need an IC as well for manoeuvring).


* Ignore Niks foolish advice, it's not his fault he does not know any better.

Ghaznavid wrote:

* Ignore Niks foolish advice, it's not his fault he does not know any better.

Spears are for those with insufficient cajones

And in case anyone asks I do take my Almughavars as Impact Foot - in one game last year destroyed a very similar army who had taken them as the spear by running the IF straight at their spear armed cousins, thus proving the gods are on the side of the brave

nikgaukroger wrote: And in case anyone asks I do take my Almughavars as Impact Foot - in one game last year destroyed a very similar army who had taken them as the spear by running the IF straight at their spear armed cousins, thus proving the gods are on the side of the brave

You meant to say the gods love children and fools?

madcam2us wrote:This is one of the reasons I take my Alhmughavars as OS UNprotected in 8s & an IC. Shooting should be mitigated by the +2 of the IC, +1 for rear support and the need for 3 hits prior to testing. AS unprotected, you have enough points left over for your own LH shooty types.


Madcam.

Is it possible to have some BG's as protected, and some as unprotected? The list states that all MF almughavars must be classified the same, but protected and unprotected are on the same line - does the classification refer to this, or just the Impact foot / Offensive spear type of choice?

Muz

Ghaznavid wrote:
You meant to say the gods love children and fools?

The main thing is that they favour you

muz177 wrote: Is it possible to have some BG's as protected, and some as unprotected? The list states that all MF almughavars must be classified the same, but protected and unprotected are on the same line - does the classification refer to this, or just the Impact foot / Offensive spear type of choice?

Muz

If some are Unprotected and some are Protected they are clearly not classified the same - it applies to all their attributes.

nikgaukroger wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote:

* Ignore Niks foolish advice, it's not his fault he does not know any better.

Spears are for those with insufficient cajones

And in case anyone asks I do take my Almughavars as Impact Foot - in one game last year destroyed a very similar army who had taken them as the spear by running the IF straight at their spear armed cousins, thus proving the gods are on the side of the brave

Nik does seem to have a certain fascination with IF. In open competition IF is not really recommended for the company itself, as noted earlier the list doesn't have enough knights. MCA etc does, but take pure Catalan and you'll be hiding in the woods or fertilizing them. As offensive spear Knights are a) beatable and b) often come to you voluntarily. Of course they do the latter if you are IF in the open, but it tends to be messy.

nikgaukroger wrote:

muz177 wrote: Is it possible to have some BG's as protected, and some as unprotected? The list states that all MF almughavars must be classified the same, but protected and unprotected are on the same line - does the classification refer to this, or just the Impact foot / Offensive spear type of choice?

Muz

If some are Unprotected and some are Protected they are clearly not classified the same - it applies to all their attributes.

That is your opinion Nik. Andy Ellis as the listchecker for Britcon last year did permit different armour classifications and the list author also wants it that way.
(viewtopic.php?p=85717#85717)
In the end it is probably down to the individual list checker though as it isn't perfectly clear.

Ghaznavid wrote: That is your opinion Nik. Andy Ellis as the listchecker for Britcon last year did permit different armour classifications

Then he got it wrong - us list checker are just human and it happens, I've let some real howlers through in my time

and the list author also wants it that way.
(viewtopic.php?p=85717#85717)

It may be what he intended, however ...

I'm also fairly sure that Richard, who is the "ultimate list writer" if you like (in the meaning of the one who has the final say), has previously stated that it is the whole classification that is meant in the published lists.

In the end it is probably down to the individual list checker though as it isn't perfectly clear.

IMO it is quite clear.

nikgaukroger wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote:and the list author also wants it that way.
(viewtopic.php?p=85717#85717)

It may be what he intended, however ...

I'm also fairly sure that Richard, who is the "ultimate list writer" if you like (in the meaning of the one who has the final say), has previously stated that it is the whole classification that is meant in the published lists.

Wouldn't make any sense though, as it's the mode of fighting and the effect they had that's difficult to squeeze into one weapon classification, not how much protective equipment the members of a BG had already managed to loot.

nikgaukroger wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote: In the end it is probably down to the individual list checker though as it isn't perfectly clear.

IMO it is quite clear.

Is not!

Ghaznavid wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote: In the end it is probably down to the individual list checker though as it isn't perfectly clear.

IMO it is quite clear.

Is not!

Bloody foreigners!

to be honest both Karsten and Nik have a valid arguement.

I would be inclinded to query how redimented the catalan company was (Drilled being used to show manoverability and battlefield effectiveness rather than regimentation)
if they were generally mixed up, then the amount of armour would be dispersed over the units in an even fashion with differeing armour all mixed in (supporting Nik)
If not then some "regiments" may have been better equipped, (allowing Karstens interpretaion)

this one may run for some time....
I personally would be ok with either interpretation..but then i don;t check the lists

Ben

nikgaukroger wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote:

Spears are for those with insufficient cajones

"Cojones" or "collons" (catalan)

benos wrote:to be honest both Karsten and Nik have a valid arguement.

I would be inclinded to query how redimented the catalan company was (Drilled being used to show manoverability and battlefield effectiveness rather than regimentation)
if they were generally mixed up, then the amount of armour would be dispersed over the units in an even fashion with differeing armour all mixed in (supporting Nik)
If not then some "regiments" may have been better equipped, (allowing Karstens interpretaion)

this one may run for some time....
I personally would be ok with either interpretation..but then i don;t check the lists

Ben

The point is that Almughavars are handled as a special case in all the lists - the 'identical classification' rule is not applied to most troop types, for instance Serbian knights, Janissaries and more cavalry than I can mention get a lot of freedom of unp/prot, sup/avg, heavily armoured/armoured. The almughavars appear to have been restricted in this way to prevent an army of 50% IF and 50% Off Spear, and if this is the reason then restricting the armour as part of it makes little sense. That said, for a veteran army to be going around unprotected against enemies who had lots of bowmen isn't exactly plausible.