Slitherine

davem wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:Such interpentrations aren't of massive use under the rules. However, they do allow you to have a solid line of bowmen and then move close combat troops through if they are threatened by something they don't want to face.

(DM) CV????

complaining about a freebie? I thought it was poms that were supposed to whinge

rbodleyscott wrote:

marioslaz wrote:IMHO you must change your tactic with Bw and use it like Italian Pavesari+Crossbowmen. You can use a mixed formation, with 1st rank HF and 2nd Bowmen, so you can shoot in each turn if your front rank is at range. Otherwise, if this formation was too weak for your opponent mounted troops, you can make a formation with first 2 ranks HF, then 1 rank of Bw; in this latter case you can throw only at impact when charged.

Mario,

You cannot choose to organise your troops in mixed battle groups unless this is specifically allowed by the list. Mixed BGs are only permitted when the BG size column says something like 2/3 or all, 1/3 or all or 1/2, 1/2.

marioslaz wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

marioslaz wrote:IMHO you must change your tactic with Bw and use it like Italian Pavesari+Crossbowmen. You can use a mixed formation, with 1st rank HF and 2nd Bowmen, so you can shoot in each turn if your front rank is at range. Otherwise, if this formation was too weak for your opponent mounted troops, you can make a formation with first 2 ranks HF, then 1 rank of Bw; in this latter case you can throw only at impact when charged.

Mario,

You cannot choose to organise your troops in mixed battle groups unless this is specifically allowed by the list. Mixed BGs are only permitted when the BG size column says something like 2/3 or all, 1/3 or all or 1/2, 1/2.

But if I only know they were Bw supported by HF what could I know about such formation was legal or not?

Polkovnik wrote:If the cav move to 1" they're going to suffer two shooting phases before they can charge so you shouldn't need to HF to help out. I assume the idea of the HF behind the archers is to oppose enemy HF.

grahambriggs wrote:

davem wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:
Alternatively you could advance to 5 MU plus 30 mm instead of to 6 MU.

(DM) My maths tell me that 5 MU plus 30mm = no shooting. Pointless.

Not completely pointless, and only an issue with enemy who can move faster than 4MU.

(DM) My example was Cv. Specifically the "optimal Cv" Armoured, S Bw, Sw.

For example, perhaps the enemy will fail a CMT and not be able to move short. The cavalry will have to react to your troops in some manner, or accept that next move you can move to close range and give them a volley.

(DM) Cv can move short without CMT.


The other benefit that interpenetrating foot give you is that it allows you to wait for longer before making decisions. i.e. a player with non interpenetrating foot would have had to decide mouch earlier whether to put the archers at the front or not.

rbodleyscott wrote:

davem wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: Why are you complaining about a freebie? I thought it was poms that were supposed to whinge.

philqw78 wrote:

complaining about a freebie? I thought it was poms that were supposed to whinge

He's a Kiwi. He obviously got the worst of the Maoris the Aussies and the Brits

nikgaukroger wrote:They win more games than you as well

rbodleyscott wrote:If the troops were in mixed BGs the list would not specify that they can interpenetrate each other.

(I appreciate that there is a language issue. I am not sure on what level you may or may not be misunderstanding this Mario. If my explanations are not clear, please say so).

rbodleyscott wrote:The lists are based on history and only permit (our best approximation of) tactical formations used by the armies historically. Hence some tactical formations (eg mixed battle groups of archers and close fighters) are not allowed by some lists because they don't reflect historical practice. Likewise some lists permit special interpenetrations because that corresponds to historical practice.

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:NKE. Can they not have a new name like the Roman lists did? Something like Early Despotic Egytian, Middle Despotic Egytian, Pharoic Egytian and Cleopatran Egyptian.

Apparantly not

babyshark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:NKE. Can they not have a new name like the Roman lists did? Something like Early Despotic Egytian, Middle Despotic Egytian, Pharoic Egytian and Cleopatran Egyptian.

Apparantly not

I don't care what you call them so long as we still get battle reports from the famous Pharaoh Ramittuppem. (I may have spelled his name incorrectly; forgive me, I am not that good at translating hieroglyphics.)

Marc

philqw78 wrote:NKE. Can they not have a new name like the Roman lists did? Something like Early Despotic Egytian, Middle Despotic Egytian, Pharoic Egytian and Cleopatran Egyptian.

Cleopatran Egyptian is called "Later Ptolemaic"

philqw78 wrote: and Ch'in Chinese is still called Ch'in Chinese

But Cleopatran sounds much more interesting, You'll be telling me that Old Kingdom is still called Old Kingdom next, and Ch'in Chinese is still called Ch'in Chinese instead of The Army of the Sun of God and King of Heaven.