Slitherine

My last game against Phil was only the 2nd time in (I think) 16 competitive games my Dom Roms have been broken, whereas with other armies I have a close to 50/50 record of breaking/being broken, so that's fairly conclusive to me that its harder to beat a swarm.

Unlike the 2 previous comps where I've used it, this time I had a different composition (no IC, more LH, less legions, more Bw, 16BGs not 15, so MLMLMBDR rather than straight MLMBRD) and I dare say with the original composition I'd have avoided being broken. However this time I played 3 of 4 games against Huns, Bosporans and Mr Briggs Amazing Dancing EAP Motorcycle Display Team, none of which I could catch so ended up with less wins than usual too.

I reckon however that its the maneuverability of the swarm as much as the scale that helps make it hard to beat - Graham being a case in point with his tow 8-strong Immortal units who's IC could direct them to pick up their wall of 5' high wicker pavises, turn/contract and move full speed, then redeploy and fire at full effect on a CMT score of just 5 (which they took full advantage of!).

Look at things another way - which I posted in the Tourney section) Keith and Wayne, plus Rich Love in the Classical period look to be only 3 players (with Seleucid, Hellenistic Greek and Camillan Roman) to actually record any sort of victories against any of the the eight Bosporan/Hunnic/Palmyran armies fielded in this competition whilst using an army that wasn't Bosporan, Palmyran or Hunnic.

OK, there were only 4 such "victories" in 20+ games and and the biggest such "victory" in this list was a hardly impressive 13-7. And by the same count, Ian Mackay and Simon Clarke were the only two (out of players using BPH armies to actually see their armies broken all weekend. Although that was (of course) by two of the other Bosporan / Palmyran / Hunninc armies.

So, I reckon that ability to get out of the way of enemies when you are at a disadvantage is as - or more - significant than sheer numbers of BGs alone.

tim

madaxeman wrote:
So, I reckon that ability to get out of the way of enemies when you are at a disadvantage is as - or more - significant than sheer numbers of BGs alone.

tim

I concur with this. Hopefully Filthy, Rich and Catfalp will be reducing the extreme mobility when they get around to V2 as it has been raised as an issue by enough players IMO.

madaxeman wrote:My last game against Phil was only the 2nd time in (I think) 16 competitive games my Dom Roms have been broken, whereas with other armies I have a close to 50/50 record of breaking/being broken, so that's fairly conclusive to me that its harder to beat a swarm.

Unlike the 2 previous comps where I've used it, this time I had a different composition (no IC, more LH, less legions, more Bw, 16BGs not 15, so MLMLMBDR rather than straight MLMBRD) and I dare say with the original composition I'd have avoided being broken. However this time I played 3 of 4 games against Huns, Bosporans and Mr Briggs Amazing Dancing EAP Motorcycle Display Team, none of which I could catch so ended up with less wins than usual too.

I reckon however that its the maneuverability of the swarm as much as the scale that helps make it hard to beat - Graham being a case in point with his tow 8-strong Immortal units who's IC could direct them to pick up their wall of 5' high wicker pavises, turn/contract and move full speed, then redeploy and fire at full effect on a CMT score of just 5 (which they took full advantage of!).

Look at things another way - which I posted in the Tourney section) Keith and Wayne, plus Rich Love in the Classical period look to be only 3 players (with Seleucid, Hellenistic Greek and Camillan Roman) to actually record any sort of victories against any of the the eight Bosporan/Hunnic/Palmyran armies fielded in this competition whilst using an army that wasn't Bosporan, Palmyran or Hunnic.

OK, there were only 4 such "victories" in 20+ games and and the biggest such "victory" in this list was a hardly impressive 13-7. And by the same count, Ian Mackay and Simon Clarke were the only two (out of players using BPH armies to actually see their armies broken all weekend. Although that was (of course) by two of the other Bosporan / Palmyran / Hunninc armies.

So, I reckon that ability to get out of the way of enemies when you are at a disadvantage is as - or more - significant than sheer numbers of BGs alone.

tim

I agree to a point.

A good player can deal with a large BG army, harder if said army is run out by a good player.

I agree the ability to use and survive with small numbers of BGs forces you to use your manourability to fight were you want to.

Playing Simon Clarke in my last game it was a game of manourve until the fight started and then it was all over quick(skill till the dice are thrown)

Not sure if your playing up the the Hunnic role since their was only one such army in fact out of thirty three armies there were only seven P/B/H about 21% not a massive number.

madaxeman wrote:My last game against Phil was only the 2nd time in (I think) 16 competitive games my Dom Roms have been broken, whereas with other armies I have a close to 50/50 record of breaking/being broken, so that's fairly conclusive to me that its harder to beat a swarm.

14BG is now a swarm. You had 2 BG more than me. Most of them drilled armoured MF. This is arguing both sides. Its harder to beat a swarm, but the swarm was beaten???? Also in Dave Redheads army 6 out of 11 BG were cataphracts. Certainly unswarmy. Dave Ruddocks army was 15 BG, smaller than your 16.

Tim the hard done by wrote: Look at things another way - which I posted in the Tourney section) Keith and Wayne, plus Rich Love in the Classical period look to be only 3 players (with Seleucid, Hellenistic Greek and Camillan Roman) to actually record any sort of victories against any of the the eight Bosporan/Hunnic/Palmyran armies fielded in this competition whilst using an army that wasn't Bosporan, Palmyran or Hunnic. OK, there were only 4 such "victories" in 20+ games and and the biggest such "victory" in this list was a hardly impressive 13-7.

Keith and Wayne's victories were against me (I'm sure wayne got 14-6). Using armies no bigger than yours in BG, and taking more risks. Lots of protected MF.

Tim the patently obvious wrote:So, I reckon that ability to get out of the way of enemies when you are at a disadvantage is as - or more - significant than sheer numbers of BGs alone.

tim

And Taking the chance to do so, and using troops to their best advantage, and supporting victory, and not reinforcing defeat and using support well, and practicing interoperability between mixed arms, and planning for the unexpected, but more importantly planning for the expected Bosphoran, Huns, Palmyran.

philqw78 wrote:

Tim the patently obvious wrote:So, I reckon that ability to get out of the way of enemies when you are at a disadvantage is as - or more - significant than sheer numbers of BGs alone.

tim

And Taking the chance to do so, and using troops to their best advantage, and supporting victory, and not reinforcing defeat and using support well, and practicing interoperability between mixed arms, and planning for the unexpected, but more importantly planning for the expected Bosphoran, Huns, Palmyran.

I suspect the Tim's assessment here is close to the truth and that this has been obscured by the fact that people have built "get out of the way fast" armies using small size BGs (because they manoeuvre better). If you use minimum size BGs then you will end up with a lot of BGs for your points. Observers seized on number of BGs as the key feature hence "swarm". However it is the ability to "get out of the way fast" that makes the armies hard to defeat. This is exacerbated because it takes longer to move larger numbers of BGs, so if you are not a fast player, your opponent will have fewer turns in which to break your army.

Dave's 11BG Palmyran used minimum size drilled or skirmish BGs. IT doesn't look like a swarm because they are expensive, but it is as swarmy as you can make it. He didn't go for 4 BGs of 6x cataphracts.

Another reason for using small BGs is it makes it easier to use troops to their best advantage, and support victory, and use support well, and practice interoperability between mixed arms etc. Those help you win, but take a lot more skill than simply running away from anything that looks dangerous.

david53 wrote:skill till the dice are thrown

Are you including the initiative dice in that ?

lawrenceg wrote: Dave's 11BG Palmyran used minimum size drilled or skirmish BGs. IT doesn't look like a swarm because they are expensive, but it is as swarmy as you can make it. He didn't go for 4 BGs of 6x cataphracts.

TBH I can't see what your saying apart why i did'nt want to use 6 Base cause I did'nt have too seems simple.

azrael86 wrote:

david53 wrote:skill till the dice are thrown

Are you including the initiative dice in that ?

Might just have too

lawrenceg wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

Tim the patently obvious wrote:So, I reckon that ability to get out of the way of enemies when you are at a disadvantage is as - or more - significant than sheer numbers of BGs alone.

tim

And Taking the chance to do so, and using troops to their best advantage, and supporting victory, and not reinforcing defeat and using support well, and practicing interoperability between mixed arms, and planning for the unexpected, but more importantly planning for the expected Bosphoran, Huns, Palmyran.

I suspect the Tim's assessment here is close to the truth and that this has been obscured by the fact that people have built "get out of the way fast" armies using small size BGs (because they manoeuvre better). If you use minimum size BGs then you will end up with a lot of BGs for your points. Observers seized on number of BGs as the key feature hence "swarm". However it is the ability to "get out of the way fast" that makes the armies hard to defeat. This is exacerbated because it takes longer to move larger numbers of BGs, so if you are not a fast player, your opponent will have fewer turns in which to break your army.

Dave's 11BG Palmyran used minimum size drilled or skirmish BGs. IT doesn't look like a swarm because they are expensive, but it is as swarmy as you can make it. He didn't go for 4 BGs of 6x cataphracts.

Another reason for using small BGs is it makes it easier to use troops to their best advantage, and support victory, and use support well, and practice interoperability between mixed arms etc. Those help you win, but take a lot more skill than simply running away from anything that looks dangerous.

Just wondered did you watch any of my games then? just wondered how you knew my tactics you see suprisingly I had a cunning plan, fight when i wanted to it worked.

You seem to be all over the place one minute you complain of waiting while large armies are moved the next that I had a swarm with 11 BGs and not using 6 base BGs and then explaining the reason for using small BGs.

Have I missed your point?

philqw78 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:My last game against Phil was only the 2nd time in (I think) 16 competitive games my Dom Roms have been broken, whereas with other armies I have a close to 50/50 record of breaking/being broken, so that's fairly conclusive to me that its harder to beat a swarm.

14BG is now a swarm. You had 2 BG more than me. Most of them drilled armoured MF. This is arguing both sides. Its harder to beat a swarm, but the swarm was beaten???? Also in Dave Redheads army 6 out of 11 BG were cataphracts. Certainly unswarmy. Dave Ruddocks army was 15 BG, smaller than your 16.

Not quite. I'm making that point that I'm at best "average" when not using Dom Roms, but when I do use them my percentage of losses improves dramatically. That - to me - suggests the Dom Rom Swarm has something about it that makes an otherwise average player harder to beat. Whether that's sheer number of units or maneuverability of each unit to achieve good matchups and avoid bad ones is still up for question. Given other results, and your observations about the other successful armies I'd suggest that the maneuverability is more important.

Yet another whingeing manc LH-phile wrote:

Tim the hard done by wrote: Look at things another way - which I posted in the Tourney section - Keith and Wayne, plus Rich Love in the Classical period look to be only 3 players (with Seleucid, Hellenistic Greek and Camillan Roman) to actually record any sort of victories against any of the the eight Bosporan/Hunnic/Palmyran armies fielded in this competition whilst using an army that wasn't Bosporan, Palmyran or Hunnic. OK, there were only 4 such "victories" in 20+ games and and the biggest such "victory" in this list was a hardly impressive 13-7.

Keith and Wayne's victories were against me (I'm sure wayne got 14-6). Using armies no bigger than yours in BG, and taking more risks. Lots of protected MF.

And even so, they failed to break your army - and by some margin....

Go on Phil, just change your name to Dave and be done with it wrote:

Tim the patently obvious wrote:So, I reckon that ability to get out of the way of enemies when you are at a disadvantage is as - or more - significant than sheer numbers of BGs alone.

And Taking the chance to do so, and using troops to their best advantage, and supporting victory, and not reinforcing defeat and using support well, and practicing interoperability between mixed arms, and planning for the unexpected, but more importantly planning for the expected Bosphoran, Huns, Palmyran.

That's actually where I think I doofed up. I entered Warfare thinking that a Dom Rom had a decent chance of beating (ie breaking) a B/P/H army. But to be honest, and in retrospect, I now think that I've tried it enough times and failed to do so that I now doubt whether it is a viable plan. So, given the evidence here that most other armies clearly can't even come close to beating a P/B/H army, you are right, it does mean I picked the wrong army.

The question that I need to think through is whether I want to even bother to enter a competition where I appear to need either a kind draw (no P/B/H armies), or where I need to pick a P/B/H army myself to give me the opportunity to go into each and every game with the possibility winning it.

david53 wrote:
You seem to be all over the place one minute you complain of waiting while large armies are moved the next that I had a swarm with 11 BGs and not using 6 base BGs and then explaining the reason for using small BGs.

Have I missed your point?

Yep. Highly mobile units who can walk away from bad matchups faster than any enemy can follow them are what makes a swarm effective, and having lots of units is just a multiplier to their inherent advantages.

FoG is a game of maneuver, not a game of combat

madaxeman wrote:
That's actually where I think I doofed up. I entered Warfare thinking that a Dom Rom had a decent chance of beating (ie breaking) a B/P/H army. But to be honest, and in retrospect, I now think that I've tried it enough times and failed to do so that I now doubt whether it is a viable plan. So, given the evidence here that most other armies clearly can't even come close to beating a P/B/H army, you are right, it does mean I picked the wrong army.

The question that I need to think through is whether I want to even bother to enter a competition where I appear to need either a kind draw (no P/B/H armies), or where I need to pick a P/B/H army myself to give me the opportunity to go into each and every game with the possibility winning it.

Maybe it is evolutionary. Swarm armies are vulnerable to massed bow (possibly with the exception of Ottomann and Palmyran). In Empires at least five of the top 6 were non-swarm (3 Kofuns, Koryo and an Indonesian) - the other was Graham E, so whether it was a swarm or not is irrelevant. Christian Nubian is also good against swarms, due to its amazing firepower: likewise Longbows. And of course, any MF shooty army will struggle against the ploddy armoured legions/hoplites or Knights.

azrael86 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:
That's actually where I think I doofed up. I entered Warfare thinking that a Dom Rom had a decent chance of beating (ie breaking) a B/P/H army. But to be honest, and in retrospect, I now think that I've tried it enough times and failed to do so that I now doubt whether it is a viable plan. So, given the evidence here that most other armies clearly can't even come close to beating a P/B/H army, you are right, it does mean I picked the wrong army.

The question that I need to think through is whether I want to even bother to enter a competition where I appear to need either a kind draw (no P/B/H armies), or where I need to pick a P/B/H army myself to give me the opportunity to go into each and every game with the possibility winning it.

Maybe it is evolutionary. Swarm armies are vulnerable to massed bow (possibly with the exception of Ottomann and Palmyran). In Empires at least five of the top 6 were non-swarm (3 Kofuns, Koryo and an Indonesian) - the other was Graham E, so whether it was a swarm or not is irrelevant. Christian Nubian is also good against swarms, due to its amazing firepower: likewise Longbows. And of course, any MF shooty army will struggle against the ploddy armoured legions/hoplites or Knights.

BINGO

madaxeman wrote:That's actually where I think I doofed up. I entered Warfare thinking that a Dom Rom had a decent chance of beating (ie breaking) a B/P/H army. But to be honest, and in retrospect, I now think that I've tried it enough times and failed to do so that I now doubt whether it is a viable plan. So, given the evidence here that most other armies clearly can't even come close to beating a P/B/H army, you are right, it does mean I picked the wrong army.

The question that I need to think through is whether I want to even bother to enter a competition where I appear to need either a kind draw (no P/B/H armies), or where I need to pick a P/B/H army myself to give me the opportunity to go into each and every game with the possibility winning it.

I designed my army specifically for fighting Bosphoran types. I didn't meet any. And ended up with 2 very difficult games and had a surfeit if sixes when I played the others. The phalanxes may have been easier if my flank march had bothered its arse, then again maybe not. But yes Tim you have to take an army you enjoy playing and that has a chance of winning every game. That doesn't mean Bosphoran with all that shit though.

And most of all in a competition you need a bit of luck as well as some skill.

azrael86 wrote:Maybe it is evolutionary. Swarm armies are vulnerable to massed bow (possibly with the exception of Ottomann and Palmyran). In Empires at least five of the top 6 were non-swarm (3 Kofuns, Koryo and an Indonesian) - the other was Graham E, so whether it was a swarm or not is irrelevant

But Tim is changing the definition of swarms. They are now armies, like Palmyran with 6 BG of Cats and only 5 others, that can get out of the way. So Kofun Nara and Koryo are swarms in that definition.

dave_r wrote:

azrael86 wrote:
Maybe it is evolutionary. Swarm armies are vulnerable to massed bow (possibly with the exception of Ottomann and Palmyran). In Empires at least five of the top 6 were non-swarm (3 Kofuns, Koryo and an Indonesian) - the other was Graham E, so whether it was a swarm or not is irrelevant. Christian Nubian is also good against swarms, due to its amazing firepower: likewise Longbows. And of course, any MF shooty army will struggle against the ploddy armoured legions/hoplites or Knights.

BINGO

But its not a solution yet, we need harder ellies, Successor Pike armies are still a bit weak and barbarians are either too weak or overpriced.

philqw78 wrote: So Kofun Nara and Koryo are swarms in that definition.

An army of 13 with 8 bg's of Undrilled MF is a swarm?

Less swarmy than 100yw english

All this agonising over what can win, what can't win.....

Fundamentally it's about the luck of the draw - there will always be an element of rock/paper/scissors - and of course luck plays a huge part in every game.

Pick an army you enjoy playing with and have fun - whether you win, lose or draw. If you lose, try and work out why and what you could have done differently. It's too easy to blame the dice when with a bit of reflection you might see it was your choice of terrian, deployment or a host of other things that you can influence.

But if you opponent is happy to play for a draw it is very hard to do anything about that given the constraints of a 3.5 hour game and no time clocks / blitz moves.

philqw78 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:That's actually where I think I doofed up. I entered Warfare thinking that a Dom Rom had a decent chance of beating (ie breaking) a B/P/H army. But to be honest, and in retrospect, I now think that I've tried it enough times and failed to do so that I now doubt whether it is a viable plan. So, given the evidence here that most other armies clearly can't even come close to beating a P/B/H army, you are right, it does mean I picked the wrong army.

The question that I need to think through is whether I want to even bother to enter a competition where I appear to need either a kind draw (no P/B/H armies), or where I need to pick a P/B/H army myself to give me the opportunity to go into each and every game with the possibility winning it.

I designed my army specifically for fighting Bosphoran types. I didn't meet any. And ended up with 2 very difficult games and had a surfeit if sixes when I played the others. The phalanxes may have been easier if my flank march had bothered its arse, then again maybe not. But yes Tim you have to take an army you enjoy playing and that has a chance of winning every game. That doesn't mean Bosphoran with all that shit though.

And most of all in a competition you need a bit of luck as well as some skill.

I took the EAP as they should be good against a lot of the mobile horse armies. Of course didn't see a sniff of those. In fact, I got my come uppance as the armies I faced were typical period armies: two Romans, Carthaginian and Gallic. Pity I left the hoplites at home

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote:
You seem to be all over the place one minute you complain of waiting while large armies are moved the next that I had a swarm with 11 BGs and not using 6 base BGs and then explaining the reason for using small BGs.

Have I missed your point?

Yep. Highly mobile units who can walk away from bad matchups faster than any enemy can follow them are what makes a swarm effective, and having lots of units is just a multiplier to their inherent advantages.

FoG is a game of maneuver, not a game of combat

Dos'nt that make it a better rule set then I have played MM were you line up so far from tthe middle and trundle forward throw dice and thats it. Is it not better if you have to think about your game use a bit of skill at getting an advantage and then fight what you seem to want is people to stand still while you get there with your hordes of medium foot and then lose the combat. You seem to want your cake and mine as well strange indeed. Your point about the swarm is okey if you then did'nt run of and complain about people being able to move around, what you seem to want is people who fight you to only bring undrilled foot.