Slitherine

hammy wrote:For protected HF BGs of 10 are IMO significantly better than ones of 8

Just curious, would you deploy the 10 base HF BGs in two ranks of 5, or deeper? I'm thinking that three ranks, 4-4-2, or perhaps even four ranks, 3-3-3-1, would give the 10 base HF a lot of staying power, as well as make wheeling easier

babyshark wrote:

hammy wrote:

babyshark wrote:Also, the larger BG can take more casaulties before reaching 25% losses (and thereafter suffering a permanent -1 to CTs) than smaller BGs. And it will need to take more hits before getting a -1 on CTs for H/3B. Neither of these are to be sneezed at.

Actually a 12 base BG is not much better than a 10 base one for 25% loses and autobreak on an average BG.

That's true. I was thinking of comparing "larger" BGs of 10-12 bases with "smaller" BGs of 6-8 bases.

Marc

... and the smaller the BG, the more mileage you get out of stands lost required to autobreak.

madcam2us wrote: 1*4 MF (protected, Avg,drilled, bow)

My "eagle eye" also spotted this.

No protection for you!

Go back, Dominate Roman.

Scott, aren't you glad you started this thread?

daleivan wrote:

hammy wrote:For protected HF BGs of 10 are IMO significantly better than ones of 8

Just curious, would you deploy the 10 base HF BGs in two ranks of 5, or deeper? I'm thinking that three ranks, 4-4-2, or perhaps even four ranks, 3-3-3-1, would give the 10 base HF a lot of staying power, as well as make wheeling easier

4-4-2 almost all the time. If you deploy 3-3-3-1 you lose the big benefit of 4 hits to force a test from shooting.

I would go 3-3-3-1 with foot in the middle of a battle line if facing a battle line of shooty BGs as you will test as often as they do 4-4-2 but have a death roll on 1 rather than 2. If you are ganged up on, 4-4-2 is better.

Saying that, if you are ganged up on either at the end of a battle line, you are basically going to die quickly (even with rear support and an IC) or slowly (damned death rolls), the 4-4-2 would be better here for CTs

My preference may be due to using unprotected medium foot.

With Unprotected MF suffering a shootig PoA you will tend to behave a little differently

JimmyThePict wrote:I would go 3-3-3-1 with foot in the middle of a battle line if facing a battle line of shooty BGs as you will test as often as they do 4-4-2 but have a death roll on 1 rather than 2. If you are ganged up on, 4-4-2 is better.

Saying that, if you are ganged up on either at the end of a battle line, you are basically going to die quickly (even with rear support and an IC) or slowly (damned death rolls), the 4-4-2 would be better here for CTs

My preference may be due to using unprotected medium foot.

If facing skirmishers or a single rank of shooters then (i.e. 1 dice per base frontage) then the chance of getting 4 hits on a frontage of 4 is less than that of getting 3 hits on a frontage of 3. So 4-4-2 is less likely to have to test cohesion. It will be slightly more vulnerable to death rolls.

If facing 2 ranks of (non-skirmish) shooters then a 4 frontage has 6 dice against it needing 4 hits, but a 3 frontage only has 4 dice against it needing 3 hits. The sums work out (ignoring any rerolls)

needing 4 to hit, 4 dice to get 3 hits = 31%
needing 4 to hit, 6 dice to get 4 hits = 34%

needing 3 to hit, 4 dice to get 3 hits = 59%
needing 3 to hit, 6 dice to get 4 hits = 68% ouch!

so in that case 3-3-3-1 is a better formation.

A final note (for me) here regarding the use of 12 stand BGs of heavy foot.

After all things I said to the contrary ... I like it.

Gave it a try a this weekend with my subject foot in an (Atilla the) Hunnic list. Given that the foot were only once seriously tested and engaged over the course of three games, I found the 4x3 formation to give me much needed flexibility across a wide spectrum of variables.

I could see 5x2 + 2 working equally well.

I won't rehash all the merits of various deployment options. Let it suffice to say that I have "recanted."

hammy wrote:
4-4-2 almost all the time. If you deploy 3-3-3-1 you lose the big benefit of 4 hits to force a test from shooting.

Good reminder that you only count the first three ranks for hits per base determination

Thanks!

Latest F. Roman list below...

Played it vs a Knight army (argonese) last night and while we timed out, it performed nicely...

1 4xLH (Unprocted,avg,drilled,bow)
2 4xLh (unpro,avg,drill,jav,Lt.spr)
3 4xLH (unpro,avg, undrilled,bow/swd - Alans)
4 4xMF (protect,poor,drilled,bw/swd)
...2xLF (unpro,poor,drilled,bow)
5 12xHF (pro,avg,undrill,IF/swd)
6 12xHF (same)
7 4xCV (Protect,super,undrill,lns/swd)
8 4xCv (same)
9 4xCv (same)
10 4xCv (same)
11 4xCV (arm,avg,drilled,bow/swd)
12 4xCv (same)
2xFF
IC
3xTC

The FF are there for the poor MF to hide behind and guard the baggage. The idea is to win the skirmish fight with the shooty cav and light horse while using the HF and lancers to pin and assault the other mounted/threats. Undrill is an issue, but I attempt to mitigate that with all the TC to help out. Having an initiative of +4 gives me the options to place the terrain, though I still would like to have the first move.

Thoughts...

Madcam.

What????

No one likes the changes?????



Madcam

My own Foederate Roman/Romano-British army is 25 mm so some things may work differently.

For the main battle line I use 8s of Foederate Foot back up by Average Auxilia in 4s of HF (double the number of units in the second line is good for protecting the army break points). The support and Generals just behind the fighting line keep the Foederates in play long enough to cause casualties - they may even break a more expensive enemy battle line on their own.

Support these with Superior Equites Taifali deployed behind the line and moved where needed and some Huns. Buy Armorican Allies for terrain holding MF (2 units) and, for a little surprise the Visigoths (1 unit of archers, one cavalry and one lancers). This is the Army of Count Ricimer - so very very late. Riotamus is the Armorican and I will need to look up the name of the Visigothic king.

For 15mm I would drop the visigoths in favour of more Light Horse (The Armoricans can have some Alans)