Slitherine

timmy1 wrote:Agree re a tourney and sitting in nasty stuff. However a historical model should allow that interaction to be recreated.

There is nothing forcing you to use the set-up rules when playing historical scenarios. Just lay out whatever terrain you think will create the interactions you desire, and have at it.

Cheers,
Scott

timmy1 wrote:
Nik

Maybe I am wasting 30 points on the IC for the Principiate Romans. With it, every one of my PR lists end up with initiatve +3.

Makes you unusual in my experience, however, maybe you're onto something that the others aren't - but I think most like having the first move.

timmy1 wrote:In a number of threads in a number of places it has been suggested that armies composed of a large number of small sized BG of drilled MF may have discovered an imbalance in the rules and therefore be the killer army. While some are unconvinced (and certainly I do not believe that UNDRILLED MF perform as well as their historical counterparts, due to the terrain rules) if it turns out that Graham's 19 BF at 800 points Dominate Roman has found a flaw in the rules, I think that there are two ways of fixing this.

1, change the PoA interactions against MF in the open to make them worse. This has risk in that it might unbalance other interactions so would need a lot of playtesting.

2, adopt something from the old style WRG rules and have a point cost per BG. For example, if the point cost was 2 per BG, other than for allies where it would be one point, the standard 12 BG army would have 14 more troop points than the 19 BG version. Not saying that the points cost per BG is right (it might need to be 3 and 2, or 10 and 5 to make a real difference) but it might solve the problem.

I think I may speak from experience here - having played Graham in my last two competitions, one with his dominate Romans and one with the thracians with the 6x4 armoured drilled MF. I also played two others in those competitions using the Thracians with Romans combo. Graham beat me and got a winning draw I think against the other guys I got a draw and a winning draw.

My approach to these games was to fight in a good solid line (turning the table 90 degrees helps and stops the Romans rallying from rout) to stop the flank attacks and use generals fighting with my 8 strong BGs to give the edge against his smaller BGs. In none of these games did I feel that my army was hopelessly outmatched and I came away with a few hints by which I could improve next time. Graham deployed well, acted with decision early, had a good plan where he needed it and flexibility where he didn't. Were any of these elements missing his army would be in real trouble. The other two guys did not quite have this approach so didn't do as well.

The problem is not small sized BG of Drilled MF. I think if you were to define the problem it would be "large number of BGs of 4 drilled MF with decent impact and melee capabilities backed up by lots of BGs of skirmishers". Pedantic perhaps but a necessary distinction I think because it means that

if a solution is needed it needs to be very precisely targetted to avoid doing more harm than good.

Your first suggestion seems to me a huge sledgehammer to crack this nut, particularly diven the precision of the "problem"

Your second suggestion has to my mind a similar problem. That being that it would disadvantage [/i]all small BGs and advantage all large BGs.

Win or lose initiative, against LRR/PR you won't be fighting in steppe so you will get his compulsory and your double compulsory plus 4 other bits of cavalry-unfriendly terrain.

In my experience, (admittedly not extensive) undrilled MF do not perform as badly as you think they will. They are, however, hard work. The reason is not so much the lack of drill (which is more of an inconvenience) as the lack of actual fighting capability. Dominate Roman MF can be armoured, which means they are normally fighting at evens compared to protected barbarians who are practically always at a minus.

This is possibly what Timmy1 meant by

We still have an unresolved discussion in another place about Undrilled MF being a poor troop vs their histroical counterparts

I don't think having 10 BGs of 4 barbarians would offer any advantage over 4 BGs of 10, although there are times when it would be handy to have one or two BGs of 4 as reserves.

Isn't it quite refreshing that different troops have different strengths and qualities and that numbers can make up for quality.

Makes a change from Knights and Light Horse which are the usual suspects when it comes to "good" troops.

Matt

The other caution on killer armies is not all the books are out yet. What may seem like a killer army may not be so much of one.

I played Graham Evans at Warfare with my "out for the fun of it" Ancient Britons.

He had the better of the game and was able to outmanouvre me in the end. I held him up a lot with my own skirmishers and managed to bust a couple of BGs that got in tricky positions. I didn't feel out of it even with the Britons. Throughout the game it looked like being something like 15-5 to Graham. He did just manage to take my army down at the end but only due to some misfortune of Sup Chariots breaking from being shot at by 4 LF!!

My conclusion...

Grahams Army is a great choice if you are a very very good player in period. It is not super powerful without very careful use. It is a very easy army to get in a biog mess with - in fact Graham twice almost got in a difficult tangle with it.

The army is quite vulnerable to several other armies that will feature a fair bit. I used 100YW English a lot and it would seriously regret its BGs in 4s against anything shooting on 4s. Any good Cav army that can simply stand and shoot will do fine. Better still if it has a few lancers mixed in set up to intercept charge. Certain armies with lots of BGs also give it trouble.

So just a fine spot, well used, by a fine player.

Just to add to the story I played a good player, but someone not of Grahams calibre, with the same army down the club. I took Christian Nubian whcih had 17 BGs. The desert bowmen won 23-2.

So my firm view at the moment is to leave everything as it is for this season.

Si

Does any one have a copy of the list for this MF super army? Not that I use Romans but there maybe some things ideas I can adapt from it.

Keith

I too would like to see that army list. Um...didn't the historical, fullsize Romans get the whatever kicked out of themselves in many a battle against armies that contained a large number of medium and or light troops.

So far my longtime, regular, old fart opponents and I have "stuck to the scripts' as it were. There's been a little discussion about trying this and that.

Accept for at official events, house rules/special deals are up to the players. There are no rules police coming into our homes/clubs/wherever.

Its something like this depending on where you want your Superiors. But nothing but missile armed troops are superior. (One of the LH Bow Equites may be average, making the slingers Super)

Alans LH Unprotected Superior Undrilled Bow - Swordmen - 4
Equites LH Unprotected Superior Drilled Bow - - - 4
Equites LH Unprotected Superior Drilled Bow - - - 4
Equites LH Unprotected Superior Drilled Javelins Light spear - - 4
Equites LH Unprotected Superior Drilled Javelins Light spear - - 4
slingers LF Unprotected Poor Drilled Sling - - - 4
Auxilia MF Armoured Average Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 4
Auxilia MF Armoured Average Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 4
Auxilia MF Armoured Average Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 4
Auxilia MF Armoured Average Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 4
Auxilia MF Armoured Average Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 4
Auxilia MF Armoured Average Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 4
Auxilia MF Armoured Average Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 4
Auxilia MF Armoured Average Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 4
Auxilia MF Armoured Average Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 4
Comitatensis MF Protected Poor Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 4
legio HF Protected Average Drilled - Light spear Swordmen - 6
Archers MF Unprotected Superior Drilled Bow - - - 4
Archers MF Unprotected Superior Drilled Bow - - - 4
CinC IC - - - - - - CinC 1
Subs TC - - - - - - - 2

mm interesting

what terrain does he offen choose?

agriculural? i think

fogly

I don't think Graham uses an IC, but probably has 4 TCs. IIRC getting the first move in is part of the army concept so you don't want initiative.

hummm with wolves of the sea due out soon does this mean the hairies in that book stand a better chance that most of us were thinking?

Keith

Carlos,

My thoughts exactly... thanks for reposting the link!

Cheers,
Scott

nikgaukroger wrote:I don't think Graham uses an IC, but probably has 4 TCs. IIRC getting the first move in is part of the army concept so you don't want initiative.

so he rarely chooses terrain, whith this army how does he fight cav army in steppe? like alans, ostrogoth, huns, sarmats.....

Massacres the light horse, by using his own light horse, closely supported by the Medium Foot, push them off table and then slam into the flanks of the cavalry.

Having faced Graham twice I can confirm he uses four TC's.

Incidentally, Graham uses these MF because they are cheap - being Armoured makes them resistant to bowfire (but not invulnerable) being drilled makes them manoeverable. They are 36 points per BG. The army is designed to hit enemy BG's in the flank - changing POA's for Lt Spear would not make one jot of difference because they typically only fight when at ++

I don't think there is a problem with the rules, I think there is a problem with Graham being very good. I have faced this army being driven by others and won 25-0. Doesn't seem to work against Graham though.....

It is a tough army though.

Traditional answer is "skillfully"

Remember the idea of the army is to get flank charges so you manoeuvre a lot and tempt any shock troops into charges you can intercept.

The other thing I suspect is he doesn't really care about have 2 BGs destroyed. He's moer than willing to accept losses. I think that is part of the transition to FoG from other rules, is more of an acceptance that there will be losses and don't get overly hung up about 1-2 BGs -- especailly when you have 16+

My view hasnt changed at all from Auguest last year (when incidently I feel I was a little harshly handled by some on this forum )............

For me its nothing to do with Graham, or whoever else may be playing it........

Try any army with a large number of BGs in relation to its enemy and unless the large number of BG's player takes risks or plays very badly, they are much harder (dare I say impossible) to beat in a standard 3.5hrs including set up. They may not always win big, but they should usually get at least winning draws, simply by trading BGs to expose flanks..............no other combination of troops gives this advantage or option against all other armies.

What did the playtesters find when the tried a large qty BG army out prior to rules release?

jon