Slitherine

mbsparta wrote:A LRR army is all about legionaries. It looks to me like to chose a mixed-arms tournament army and added in some legionaries because you had to.

Caesar would be so ashamed.

I think you are being a bit melodramatic

Historically Roman’s armies made extensive use of allies. Scipio had cavalry on both of his flanks (which equates to two BGs of cavalry), medium foot and velites in the centre of his army at the battle of Baecula, in 208 BC, and the Battle of Ilipe, 206 BC, in Spain. In Africa had Scipio 'persuaded' the Numidains to switch sides, resulting in Scipio having more cavalry than Hannibal! Caesar used German cavalry and allied light foot in his campaign in Gaul. Consequently, I suggest that the amount of allied troops in my army (noting that the cavalry in my army are Roman) is more in line with what occurred historically than you are proposing.

Regards

Sean

Sadly what happens if i bring up my Lancer Superior Cavalry up to a mm away from your Cavalry in my turn now your pinned. In my next turn i charge being so close I have a good chance of catching you in the rear if you evade.

This assumes, among other things, that:
1) I wouldn't make my elephants supported by my thureophoroi to face your cavalry
2) That I wouldn't do what Caesar did to Pompeii cavalry i.e have some legionaries ready to charge your cavalry in flank as they change after my evading cavalry
3) That I wouldn't use my light horse to delay you cavalry and my cavalry to pin other troops in your army.
etc etc

To sum up, you assuming I don't have more effective methods to deal with your cavalry and that I would knowing place my cavalry in place where they will be least effective. Pull the other one

Regards

Sean

seansmith wrote:

Sadly what happens if i bring up my Lancer Superior Cavalry up to a mm away from your Cavalry in my turn now your pinned. In my next turn i charge being so close I have a good chance of catching you in the rear if you evade.

This assumes, among other things, that:
1) I wouldn't make my elephants supported by my thureophoroi to face your cavalry
2) That I wouldn't do what Caesar did to Pompeii cavalry i.e have some legionaries ready to charge your cavalry in flank as they change after my evading cavalry
3) That I wouldn't use my light horse to delay you cavalry and my cavalry to pin other troops in your army.
etc etc

To sum up, you assuming I don't have more effective methods to deal with your cavalry and that I would knowing place my cavalry in place where they will be least effective. Pull the other one

Regards

Sean

You see in that case the only way to sort it is to play each other and decide whos plan works best. Sadly can't make NZ anytime soon.

If it were me I would probably increase the proportion of legions and make the velites protected but each to their own, given that the HF have a central role in your doctrine.

The problem with your doctrine might be that regular opponent get to predict what you're going to do.

The problem with your doctrine might be that regular opponent get to predict what you're going to do.

Is there a more subtle plan to have with a HF-dominated (or as many suggested HF-only) army?

Mehrunes wrote:

The problem with your doctrine might be that regular opponent get to predict what you're going to do.

Is there a more subtle plan to have with a HF-dominated (or as many suggested HF-only) army?

With a drilled, well behaved army like Romans? Yes of course there will be. And you'll need it. "Line the legions up and walk towards the enemy" will work against some players for a while. But fairly soon opponents will delay in the centre and go for the flanks, or hit it on the nose with lancers, or similar.

Have the legionaries deploy facing away from the enemy (preferably depicted with mooning figures) to tempt them to charge you in expectation of an easy victory. Then turn around and beat them anyway, 'cos legionaries are harder than hard!

Okay, so maybe it won't work very often in practice, but it would at least have the benefit of surptrise

With a drilled, well behaved army like Romans? Yes of course there will be. And you'll need it. "Line the legions up and walk towards the enemy" will work against some players for a while. But fairly soon opponents will delay in the centre and go for the flanks, or hit it on the nose with lancers, or similar.

I took nellies to deal with the lancers. I have had some bad experiences with knights. Romans aren't as one dimensional as many people think. The legionaries on the flank tactic used by Scipio and the tactic Caesar used to defeat Pompeii both work in FoG. I know because I have used them.

Regards

Sean

grahambriggs wrote:

Mehrunes wrote:

The problem with your doctrine might be that regular opponent get to predict what you're going to do.

Is there a more subtle plan to have with a HF-dominated (or as many suggested HF-only) army?

With a drilled, well behaved army like Romans? Yes of course there will be. And you'll need it. "Line the legions up and walk towards the enemy" will work against some players for a while. But fairly soon opponents will delay in the centre and go for the flanks, or hit it on the nose with lancers, or similar.

Please share your wisdom.
You could start with explaining how to prevent getting flanked or taken head on by lancers with only 3MU slow BGs in your army.

I'm very curious.

I've seen legionaries deal with knights competently too. Especially if deployed in larger BGs. I might be tempted to go for a mix of BG sizes, with a couple of 8s in the centre and some 4s to work on the flanks.

Using protected cavalry is interesting - if deployed in single line just as good as armoured against shooting and just as much of a threat to LH in combat...if you succeed in keeping them out of combat against heavier stuff that's good value for money.

Having a couple of BGs of MF I like, their extra mobility may enable them to support the cavalry and get in the right place at the right time better than the legionaries. Especially since if there is a small amount of terrain on the battlefield it is quite likely to be outside the flanks of the main battle lines, and you may be able to explot that to help safeguard your cav.

anyway...even if an almost all legionary army really is harder to beat, I'd always go for something with a bit more variety...much more fun to play

Mehrunes wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:

Mehrunes wrote: Is there a more subtle plan to have with a HF-dominated (or as many suggested HF-only) army?

With a drilled, well behaved army like Romans? Yes of course there will be. And you'll need it. "Line the legions up and walk towards the enemy" will work against some players for a while. But fairly soon opponents will delay in the centre and go for the flanks, or hit it on the nose with lancers, or similar.

Please share your wisdom.
You could start with explaining how to prevent getting flanked or taken head on by lancers with only 3MU slow BGs in your army.

I'm very curious.

Well one way to approach it would be to use cavalry and skirmishers in the centre to tie up the enemy with cheap troops and put the legions on one or both flanks. Alternatively (more risky) give the legions a second line the provide rear support and flank guards, put the generals in to fight and tough it out. Not sure that's a winning strategy though.

At least the Romans get some mounted, have armour and fight in the open well. All things that my Aztecs lack as an army of MF and LF. We'll see how they do at the BHGS Challenge against loads of mounted armies this weekend!

Okay, but we lack many skirmishers and mounted as people here adviced to use an all out HF army and for that setup I don't see much more than advance and like you say "tough it out" (before getting flanked).

Legions on the flanks are interesting in theory and Scipio showed that such deployment can prevail, but getting on the enemy's flank with 3MU sloggers in FoG and with limited time?
Can't the legions on the flanks be delayed more easily than in the centre? Sacrifing mounted in the centre is only reverse to sacrifing mounted on the flanks.

I'm not convinced, yet.

Mehrunes wrote: Legions on the flanks are interesting in theory and Scipio showed that such deployment can prevail, but getting on the enemy's flank with 3MU sloggers in FoG and with limited time?

I've managed it enough times to know it can be done - part of the trick is to believe it can be done rather than think it can't Remembering a drilled move and turn can include the turn at the end of the movement helps as well - I know a lot of people assume any turn must be done first for some reason and so miss out on opportunities.

Yeah, I know. And cavalry or drilled MF can do that as well and faster. I wonder why it should be easier to do that with slower troops? Is the enemy watching how the legions slog into their flank?

Not to mention the difficulty to set up such a deployment as roman armies tend to lose the PBI and with much HF show their plan very early in deployment (usually having deployed three batches before the enemy shows where his main battle troops go). What enemy deploys his battle troops opposing skirmishers which are between two strong flanks of legions?

Nobody said it is easier with slower troops But it is an alternative, which is what you asked for.

As you say, it may be hard to fool the opponent for long enough during deployment. but that also partly depends on what sort of army the opponent has. If it is another fairly one-dimensional army, they'll be committing some significant battle troops in batch 1 or 2 as well. If its a largely infantry army they won't necessarily win the PBI. And don't forget we are talking now about doing something that everybody knows to be unfeasible. Perhaps if you commit one or two BGs of legionaries in the central area in early batches it will satisfy your opponents preconceptions for long enough to catch them out with a larger number of legionary BGs deployed on either or both flanks later. Perhaps also sticking some legionaries in ambush somewhere far forward on the flanks.

Even if the opponent reacts by putting main forces on the flanks and screening the middle with skirmishers, you are sort of back to square one, but at least it's going to be a slightly different battle to the usual!

(Apologies for extra post - I keep getting session timeouts when trying to edit :/)

Good point though...the difficulty of pulling off anything fancy like that with an army composed (almost) entirely of legionaries is one reason I would always go for a bit more variety in an army.

Mehrunes wrote:Okay, but we lack many skirmishers and mounted as people here adviced to use an all out HF army and for that setup I don't see much more than advance and like you say "tough it out" (before getting flanked).

Legions on the flanks are interesting in theory and Scipio showed that such deployment can prevail, but getting on the enemy's flank with 3MU sloggers in FoG and with limited time?
Can't the legions on the flanks be delayed more easily than in the centre? Sacrifing mounted in the centre is only reverse to sacrifing mounted on the flanks.

I'm not convinced, yet.

I'm not saying you should be convinced. I'm saying that the army needs a 'plan B' when the usual approach doesn't work anymore and offered one possible plan. If you alternative is to just chug up the middle with the legion I suspect you'll kill a few sacrificial BGs and then your flanks will collapse.

Velites and Roman cavalry are a reasonable delaying force against greater numbers of enemy skirmishers. The cavalry are cheap but will beat skirmishers and the velites protected. So the enemy can't easily just screen them.

Yes the legions are slow, and your deployment needs to be clever. For example, two blocks of legions positioned so they could either come together in the centre, or move to the flanks might keep people guessing. And yes, MF and cavalry can get to the flanks more quickly, but you have to beat what the enemy has there, which the legions are better at.

Also, while you are slow in absolute speed you have a lot of practical manouver. e.g. a legion can often turn and move while near the enemy without a great deal of fear about what it might end up fighting.

Flank march.

Using LRR, one assumes low PBI. Set up in a corner and force the enemy to come to grips with you. If they have capital troops on the edge then use your limited skirmishers on the flank edge to force extra minus for morale test, hope the flanking troops come on with enough time to finish them off.

Lining up with slow movers and then complaining there aren't ways to reach a faster moving enemy is silly.

LRR have a fortified camp. Use that to anchor the opposite flank/invite attack by troops your HyFoot will eat for dinner.


Madcam

If you alternative is to just chug up the middle with the legion I suspect you'll kill a few sacrificial BGs and then your flanks will collapse.

I have no real alternative so I asked for some (which didn't convinced me in turn).

Velites and Roman cavalry are a reasonable delaying force against greater numbers of enemy skirmishers.

But we spoke of an all out HF army. I then found that setup to be as vulnerable on the flanks as with softer but faster flank protection, no more or less.

I'm very interested in the topic because I came to similar results in that lining up and walking to the enemy isn't the best plan when your opponent knows what to do. But I don't see any good alternatives at the moment. So I'd be happy to be convinced.
Actually you pay points for being drilled when advancing in a line doesn't need you being drilled. So you are wasting points. So I experienced with some manouevring for myself but always found the legions too slow and easily avoided.

It's getting even tougher because I don't have LRR but MRR, so I have to use mainly average legions and many points are used for compulsory skirmishers and spearmen.

>Actually you pay points for being drilled when advancing in a line doesn't need you being drilled. So you are wasting points.

Very true*

But armoured and skilled swordsman is a waste of 4 points per base against cataphracts, armoured is a waste of 2 pts against protected heavy weapon, skilled swordsman is a waste of 2 points against lots of stuff...you can drive yourself crazy if you start thinking this way when trying to choose an army for general use, rather than with the benefit of knowing exactly what your opponent will be.

* well, mostly...it is easier to avoid making a spontaneous charge when drilled; and the ability to make a short move or wheel close to the enemy without a general could sometimes be important.