Slitherine

Posted: **Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:10 pm**

madaxeman wrote:However, through painful experience, I no longer believe that my MLMBDR army can beat Grit and Gravel. So, using an army that is sort of cheating anyway, AND is ineffective is no longer floating my boat. This means the MLMBDRs are firmly in what is already a rather large "no point in using this in a competition" pile of toy soldiers.

Currently the "can break grit and gravel armies" pile is a lot, lot smaller than the "can" one.

Which is kinda sad. Especially for all the thousands of 15mm little chaps sat in 40 sets of draws in my back bedroom.

There has always been armies that have been consigned to the bottom of the sets of draws. These things are cyclical you know that.

If you don't want to follow the crowd then you may have to be a bit more inventive though - I suggest reading Empire of the Dragon closely. French Ordonnance can do well against GnG armies, as can English Longbowmen.

There are counters out there - but since most armies can be made into a Grit and mist / Swarm / next in thing then that is why there aren't seen to be many counters, as people chase after the next "unbeatable" army then other armies come back to the fore.

I have used Skythians for years, under DBM, DBMM and FoG, always enjoy playing with them, whether they are effective, useless or brilliant.

Playing games is what counts - if you aren't enjoying it then it may be better to try something else. If you are close to enjoying it, then pick an army you like and enjoy using and wait for the revolution!

Posted: **Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:20 pm**

madaxeman wrote:However, through painful experience, I no longer believe that my MLMBDR army can beat Grit and Gravel. So, using an army that is sort of cheating anyway, AND is ineffective is no longer floating my boat. This means the MLMBDRs are firmly in what is already a rather large "no point in using this in a competition" pile of toy soldiers.

Currently the "can break grit and gravel armies" pile is a lot, lot smaller than the "can" one.

Which is kinda sad. Especially for all the thousands of 15mm little chaps sat in 40 sets of draws in my back bedroom.

It's not a huge list, but there are a reasonable number of bow armies that aren't entirely one dimensional. EAP is one, I would add to that various Indians, Kofun (possibly other Japanese though I don't think any are as good as Kofun). Highlanders with Bw*. Longbow armies as well - quite a diversity assuming you don't need wall-to-wall bow.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:48 am**

nikgaukroger wrote:
hammy wrote: What would IMO be a very bad idea would be to make the rules less historical in an effort to force results between skirmisher armies and non skirmishers.

There is, however, quite a bit of scope for balancing the game between the two types whilst retaining the historicality - and that opportunity should not be missed IMO.

If the problem is that some armies can’t be caught so it is hard to win, there are two ways to fix it, and it seems most people are focused on only one: making it easier to catch the shooty cavalry armies.

Why is the second alternative not being pursued, that of changing the way to win? Perhaps we need to move on from – 'you must catch me to win, but I am on a horse and move faster so good luck with that'.

Walter

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:27 pm**

waldo wrote:
If the problem is that some armies can’t be caught so it is hard to win, there are two ways to fix it, and it seems most people are focused on only one: making it easier to catch the shooty cavalry armies.

Why is the second alternative not being pursued, that of changing the way to win? Perhaps we need to move on from – 'you must catch me to win, but I am on a horse and move faster so good luck with that'.

Walter

Well, shooty cavalry are the hardest to catch. Drilled MF can be hard to catch in certain cases, but it's a much smaller issue (unless you are HF).

It is FOg doctrine (and previous rulesets back to at least 6th edn) that the enemy army is the objective. Presumably you are thinking of terrain objectives, or possibly holding the battlefield. The former is quite problematic - seeing as a speciality of shooty cav armies is having virtually no terrain anyway: the latter might be possible but would probably introduce some messy geometry (presumably you'd count each 12MUx12MU square or something?).
It would certainly change the dynamic

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:15 pm**

madaxeman wrote:
david53 wrote:
TBH I can't figure you out you hate an army that manourves you hate LH armies put your quite happy to take to a table a 17 Battle group army thats all average except the superior Bows Medium foot 4 base drilled battle group not forgetting the LH superior bow of course.

What is it you want an army thats not only got lesss BGs than you one that of course can't move out of the way of your dancing drilled medium foot battle groups.

If you hate it that much why do you play it can't see the point?
I initially started using Dom Roms because I felt they had a chance of taking on Grit and Gravel armies and beating them.

I felt rather embarrassed in using it so I tried to make it less cheesy with "only" 15-16BGs and by always including 3-5 sets of proper full-fat fully tooled up legionaries, but even so I still never quite shook the feeling that it has so many structural advantages over other armies that using it is somehow "cheating".

But I took succour in a belief that GnG armies enjoy even more structural advantages so in a way they were guilty of "cheating" even more than I was - so my MLMBDR was MLMB than its opponents as well as its Pinnerian prototype - so all was well in the world.

However, through painful experience, I no longer believe that my MLMBDR army can beat Grit and Gravel. So, using an army that is sort of cheating anyway, AND is ineffective is no longer floating my boat. This means the MLMBDRs are firmly in what is already a rather large "no point in using this in a competition" pile of toy soldiers.

Currently the "can break grit and gravel armies" pile is a lot, lot smaller than the "can" one.

Which is kinda sad. Especially for all the thousands of 15mm little chaps sat in 40 sets of draws in my back bedroom.

I've found quite a few armies can take on the GnG brigade. In my drawers (insert ooer comment) there are EAP and Aztecs that can do it by shooting the fluff (Suspect NKE could also be in that), Akkadians who can do it with def spear blobs (but a bit too slow), Merovingians with 32 HF warband and 28 armoured light spear cavalry. The issue is they can be vulnerable to other types.

There is a bit of 'heads I win, tails we draw' with the GnG brigade. Perhaps changing the scoing system might work here? Would a +10 for army break lead to a more 'get stuck in' army choice? Or would it go the other way?

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:49 pm**

azrael86 wrote:
waldo wrote: Why is the second alternative not being pursued, that of changing the way to win? Perhaps we need to move on from – 'you must catch me to win, but I am on a horse and move faster so good luck with that'.

It is FOg doctrine (and previous rulesets back to at least 6th edn) that the enemy army is the objective. Presumably you are thinking of terrain objectives, or possibly holding the battlefield. The former is quite problematic - seeing as a speciality of shooty cav armies is having virtually no terrain anyway: the latter might be possible but would probably introduce some messy geometry (presumably you'd count each 12MUx12MU square or something?).
It would certainly change the dynamic

Holding the battlefield would be quite simple : Draw a line across the middle of the table. Mark a point every foot along this line (so 5 such points on a 6' wide table). The nearest unbroken (or maybe steady or non fragmented) BG to each of these points gets a bonus number (2?) of attrition points at game end. Or these count as a loss in attrition points for the other side, so that they could break the army.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:54 pm**

Polkovnik wrote:
azrael86 wrote:
waldo wrote: Why is the second alternative not being pursued, that of changing the way to win? Perhaps we need to move on from – 'you must catch me to win, but I am on a horse and move faster so good luck with that'.

It is FOg doctrine (and previous rulesets back to at least 6th edn) that the enemy army is the objective. Presumably you are thinking of terrain objectives, or possibly holding the battlefield. The former is quite problematic - seeing as a speciality of shooty cav armies is having virtually no terrain anyway: the latter might be possible but would probably introduce some messy geometry (presumably you'd count each 12MUx12MU square or something?).
It would certainly change the dynamic
Holding the battlefield would be quite simple : Draw a line across the middle of the table. Mark a point every foot along this line (so 5 such points on a 6' wide table). The nearest unbroken (or maybe steady or non fragmented) BG to each of these points gets a bonus number (2?) of attrition points at game end. Or these count as a loss in attrition points for the other side, so that they could break the army.

Easy to define, but not really relevant for most ancient battles surely? i.e Would the Romans value forcing the Parthians backwards a mile if there are another 300 to go until Ctesiphon?

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:57 pm**

Polkovnik wrote:Holding the battlefield would be quite simple : Draw a line across the middle of the table. Mark a point every foot along this line (so 5 such points on a 6' wide table). The nearest unbroken (or maybe steady or non fragmented) BG to each of these points gets a bonus number (2?) of attrition points at game end. Or these count as a loss in attrition points for the other side, so that they could break the army.

While it might work it is not really why Ancient battles were fought. Most battles were of the my army wants to beat up your army or I want to sack your city variety. There were no strategic crossroads, bridges or railway lines and a nice hill to observe artillery fire from was not much use in our period either.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 5:40 pm**

azrael86 wrote: Drilled MF can be hard to catch in certain cases, but it's a much smaller issue (unless you are HF).

Maybe thats why you don't see many undrilled HF armies cause the drilled MF dance around like some sort of LH boys

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 5:59 pm**

Polkovnik wrote: Holding the battlefield would be quite simple : Draw a line across the middle of the table. Mark a point every foot along this line (so 5 such points on a 6' wide table). The nearest unbroken (or maybe steady or non fragmented) BG to each of these points gets a bonus number (2?) of attrition points at game end. Or these count as a loss in attrition points for the other side, so that they could break the army.

No, I can't imagine how a LH army could abuse that at all.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:02 pm**

david53 wrote:
azrael86 wrote: Drilled MF can be hard to catch in certain cases, but it's a much smaller issue (unless you are HF).

Maybe thats why you don't see many undrilled HF armies cause the drilled MF dance around like some sort of LH boys

Thats one reason.

The other reason is because the LH boys dance around like some sort of LH boys.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:00 pm**

lawrenceg wrote:
david53 wrote:
azrael86 wrote: Drilled MF can be hard to catch in certain cases, but it's a much smaller issue (unless you are HF).

Maybe thats why you don't see many undrilled HF armies cause the drilled MF dance around like some sort of LH boys
Thats one reason.

The other reason is because the LH boys dance around like some sort of LH boys.

I thought you'd miss that

But I would agree to 6MU move for LH if the same was done to Medium foot take a MU of them and have them move at 3MU.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:50 pm**

hammy wrote:
Polkovnik wrote:Holding the battlefield would be quite simple : Draw a line across the middle of the table. Mark a point every foot along this line (so 5 such points on a 6' wide table). The nearest unbroken (or maybe steady or non fragmented) BG to each of these points gets a bonus number (2?) of attrition points at game end. Or these count as a loss in attrition points for the other side, so that they could break the army.
While it might work it is not really why Ancient battles were fought. Most battles were of the my army wants to beat up your army or I want to sack your city variety. There were no strategic crossroads, bridges or railway lines and a nice hill to observe artillery fire from was not much use in our period either.

Yes, I know. I was just suggesting a possible mechanic. It might be more applicable to some medieval battles though. Not so much fighting for the particular terrain, but fighting a battle that must be won at that time by one side. I'm thinking of battles like Hastings and Agincourt, where in both cases the English would "win" if they held the field at the end of the day.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:52 pm**

azrael86 wrote:
Polkovnik wrote: Holding the battlefield would be quite simple : Draw a line across the middle of the table. Mark a point every foot along this line (so 5 such points on a 6' wide table). The nearest unbroken (or maybe steady or non fragmented) BG to each of these points gets a bonus number (2?) of attrition points at game end. Or these count as a loss in attrition points for the other side, so that they could break the army.
No, I can't imagine how a LH army could abuse that at all.

Please enlighten me. If a heavy foot army advances to take the middle of the battlefield, what can an army of "run away" troops do about it ?

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:33 pm**

Polkovnik wrote:
azrael86 wrote:
Polkovnik wrote: Holding the battlefield would be quite simple : Draw a line across the middle of the table. Mark a point every foot along this line (so 5 such points on a 6' wide table). The nearest unbroken (or maybe steady or non fragmented) BG to each of these points gets a bonus number (2?) of attrition points at game end. Or these count as a loss in attrition points for the other side, so that they could break the army.
No, I can't imagine how a LH army could abuse that at all.
Please enlighten me. If a heavy foot army advances to take the middle of the battlefield, what can an army of "run away" troops do about it ?

It dodges past, gets behind undrilled foot, and hovers around with LH (who can't really damage the foot) near your centre line whilst the Cav sit in front of the foot.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:36 pm**

david53 wrote:But I would agree to 6MU move for LH if the same was done to Medium foot take a MU of them and have them move at 3MU.

So drilled MF are the problem, but you want to cut all MF movement. Any chance this is because MF bow/longbow(often undrilled) are the biggest threat to LH/Cav shooters?

I see.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:10 pm**

grahambriggs wrote: Easy to define, but not really relevant for most ancient battles surely? i.e Would the Romans value forcing the Parthians backwards a mile if there are another 300 to go until Ctesiphon?

If the Romans captured the Parthian logistic support (read: "camp") , then the Parthians would have a major problem if they were 300 miles from base.

Apart from that, if the whole Parthian army evades intact off the table, then they suffer an army rout. Therefore posession of the field must be of some special significance . Perhaps we are wargaming the last mile of the 300 mile harrasment campaign.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:29 pm**

lawrenceg wrote:If the Romans captured the Parthian logistic support (read: "camp") , then the Parthians would have a major problem if they were 300 miles from base.

Parthian Camp. In home territory. Using locals. Not necessary. The Surena may be a bit inconvenienced by losing his throne. In most games mine is there for anyone to take.

Same for most LH armies. You take the yurt and rape my wife. But I'm on my way to spread my genes elsewhere. No problem.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:33 pm**

lawrenceg wrote:Apart from that, if the whole Parthian army evades intact off the table, then they suffer an army rout. Therefore posession of the field must be of some special significance . Perhaps we are wargaming the last mile of the 300 mile harrasment campaign.

This however should be made to work.But if you don't drive the enemy from the table, what then?

Posted: **Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:22 am**

azrael86 wrote:
david53 wrote:But I would agree to 6MU move for LH if the same was done to Medium foot take a MU of them and have them move at 3MU.
So drilled MF are the problem, but you want to cut all MF movement. Any chance this is because MF bow/longbow(often undrilled) are the biggest threat to LH/Cav shooters?

I see.

Not at all don't play them much whats not great for foot armies(not me don't use them) is the majacial Drilled armoured medium foot in 4 base BGs dancing around like fairies. I don't mind them I dance around them and then run them down with a lances but once again for undrilled foot that you've said you want to see more on the table allowing less dancing by Medium foot will alow them to come out to play that is heavy foot undrilled.

Slitherine

Non swarm armies might do well