Slitherine

carlos wrote:Poor or average LF w/ shooty things run circles around the knights while laughing. If things get tough they go up a hill or into a swamp and laugh even harder.

LF with XB could be especially troublesome for knights if given a little distance and/or the right terrain

Poor or average LF w/ shooty things run circles around the knights while laughing. If things get tough they go up a hill or into a swamp and laugh even harder.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think knights are invincible...

I'm trying to find out if this is true:

at equal points medieval armies should be smaller than ancient ones by just enough to compensate.

Can I expect later armies to generally be (at least a little) smaller than earlier ones?

bobman wrote:

at equal points medieval armies should be smaller than ancient ones by just enough to compensate.

Can I expect later armies to generally be (at least a little) smaller than earlier ones?

It depends on how you measure smaller.

There will probably be less bases in a late medieval army than any other army. Superior knights cost 23 or 26 points a base after all.

Medieval armies will have a similar number of battle groups but probably less bases and if all the troops in the medieval army are well armoured and stacked with nasty POAs then yes they will definitely be smaller.

Medieval armies will have a similar number of battle groups but probably less bases and if all the troops in the medieval army are well armoured and stacked with nasty POAs then yes they will definitely be smaller.

Thanks for the explanation. I was just surprised given the large(-ish) size of some later armies that I saw (but luckily didn't have to fight) recently.

and sorry for the confusion.

bobman wrote:

Medieval armies will have a similar number of battle groups but probably less bases and if all the troops in the medieval army are well armoured and stacked with nasty POAs then yes they will definitely be smaller.

Thanks for the explanation. I was just surprised given the large(-ish) size of some later armies that I saw (but luckily didn't have to fight) recently.

and sorry for the confusion.

If you consider say pikemen, the pike in a medieval army are exactly the same in game terms as Alexanders pike and thus cost the same. If Medival pike fought Alexandrians with the aid of a time machine it is probable that the medievals would win because of steel armour etc. but in the game they are both just protected average pikemen.

Undrilled superior armoured cavalry lancers are 16 points each and undrilled superior armoured knightly lancers are 20 points each.

That is 25% more per base so you will have less knights.

100 years war longbowmen are much better than the run of the mill archer but cost upto 50% more.

Undrilled superior armoured cavalry lancers are 16 points each and undrilled superior armoured knightly lancers are 20 points each. That is 25% more per base so you will have less knights.

Pardon my inexperience (and I know most people probably don't really care), but it is really about the time period, or more about the specifics of each army?

I mean, wouldn't an early Carthaginian army with heavy chariots (20 or 22 pts each) be in the same situation?
Or is the other supporting troops that really make the difference?

and medieval skirmishers tends towards the pants

protected - thats expensive for something you dont want to fight with
BGs of 4 - good for building up numbers, but toast in fight
crossbows - 5s to hit against foot skirmishers, great

so a medieval army with a lot of BGs (more than 10) probably has quite a few small, pants BGs of skirmishers.

An ancient army on the other hand will likely have a number of decent skirmishers available - Cretan archers, slingers (mmmm cheap and effective) and so on.

just dont fight the medieval tin cans

so a medieval army with a lot of BGs (more than 10) probably has quite a few small, pants BGs of skirmishers.

An ancient army on the other hand will likely have a number of decent skirmishers available - Cretan archers, slingers (mmmm cheap and effective) and so on.

Great!

Thanks for helping a newbie climb the learning curve.

The lack of light troops in most medieval armies makes them easy to slow down with only a few skirmishers

The lack of light troops in most medieval armies makes them easy to slow down with only a few skirmishers
-------------------------------------------
Hence the popularity of such armies as Med. Spanish and expected to be popular Med. Hungarians with plenty of their own good skirmishers......The Spanish Light horse in fact may outmatch some of the earlier period horse.

IanB3406 wrote:The lack of light troops in most medieval armies makes them easy to slow down with only a few skirmishers
-------------------------------------------
Hence the popularity of such armies as Med. Spanish and expected to be popular Med. Hungarians with plenty of their own good skirmishers......The Spanish Light horse in fact may outmatch some of the earlier period horse.

I was just looking at the Storm of Arrows book last night and thinking the same thing. Having the option to make the Jinetes Protected or Armored gives the a POA against most other period's LH, which is typically unprotected.

I guess there's always numbers...

Yes, but a lot of other LH have swordsmen PoA whereas the Jinetes don't.

I have found that little bits of LH are not such a big deal.

People get sloppy and let there LH get between the battle lines. Or a poor group of CV or even mob can often slaughter or delay LH sufficiently to make their move on a rear or the camp to meaningless until the main battle is decided. The exception is when tehre is a general with the LH. But that is rarely wise to toss away a TC on a raid. They are far too valuable.

So I think the LH problem isn't such. I think the skirmishing CV are far more of a threat they can hurt KN and HF BGs with flank attacks. And LH need to fear them.

I can see the Polish and eastern european and byzantines with KN and CV, being a good combo.

paulcummins wrote:so a medieval army with a lot of BGs (more than 10) probably has quite a few small, pants BGs of skirmishers.

I don't expect much of my pants skirmishers. If they get between the enemy shooters and the troops I don't want shot at, then they've done a good enough job.

what are pants skirmishers?

vercingetorix wrote:what are pants skirmishers?

They are used to prevent people from deploying pants. Gamers often try to use them on women; however success rates are considered low.



I believe that the term "pants" is a Britishism used to denote something foolish, ill-conceived, or so-on. For some examples you can check out http://www.madaxeman.com/pants.htm.

Marc

You could always hide your pants in ambush ...

Jeremy Morgan has done so several times!

Si

So "pants" mean really bad dice rolls? Now i'm even more confused

vercingetorix wrote:So "pants" mean really bad dice rolls? Now i'm even more confused

Naaah. The dice are simply the mechanism for exposing your pants to the world. One of my personal examples (from the early days of DBM) is deploying pike in rough going in order to protect them from warband. The pike were thereupon soundly thrashed by enemy psiloi.

Marc

vercingetorix wrote:So "pants" mean really bad dice rolls? Now i'm even more confused

"Pants" or "Pile of Pants"
British slang for rubbish, which is more polite that "Sh1t", originates in the earlier form of "oh knickers" used in 'Carry On' films.

Spike