Slitherine

I know most of you souls out there run x# of points on a table with more room than the points can fill. This allows nimble BGs to manouever about and such. It's also been commented on that such nimble moves rarely happened in historical battles. Most armies lined up...went at it...and then, if a flank collapsed, the nimble units came into their own. Has anyone tried battles like this, where the table is basically filled from left flank to right? Any success with those flanks finally succeeding and then affecting the centres? It has seemed, from the times we've done this here, that it takes time to get to the enemy flank units, then fight the enemy flank units, then rout the enemy flank units, then finally manouever....by then usually the centres have beaten on each other and one army is usually at the tipping point.

Maybe our next LRRomans vs Seleucids we'll try this and I'll post an aar to show what i mean. Just curious if I'm the only soul who dislikes the spacious battlefields and frolicking units.

Dan T.

Blathergut wrote:Just curious if I'm the only soul who dislikes the spacious battlefields and frolicking units.

Dan T.

I certainly get a huge kick out of seeing my BGs frolicking. The straight ahead grind might be more historical in most instances, but is certainly less exciting, at least to me.

Marc

Well, most of the rule authors have a history of winning lots of games by frolicking on a large battlefield, and have designed a game that allows them to continue doing so.

I'tll be interesting to see how it works away from its design "sweet spot".

Don't start Porter off again...

lawrenceg wrote:Well, most of the rule authors have a history of winning lots of games by frolicking on a large battlefield, and have designed a game that allows them to continue doing so.

Strange, Simon hasn't been using dancing armies. Celts, Ancient Brits, Nubians and WoR don't dance a lot. These are, I believe, his last 4 competition armies.

Blathergut wrote:I know most of you souls out there run x# of points on a table with more room than the points can fill. This allows nimble BGs to manouever about and such. It's also been commented on that such nimble moves rarely happened in historical battles. Most armies lined up...went at it...and then, if a flank collapsed, the nimble units came into their own. Has anyone tried battles like this, where the table is basically filled from left flank to right? Any success with those flanks finally succeeding and then affecting the centres? It has seemed, from the times we've done this here, that it takes time to get to the enemy flank units, then fight the enemy flank units, then rout the enemy flank units, then finally manouever....by then usually the centres have beaten on each other and one army is usually at the tipping point.

Maybe our next LRRomans vs Seleucids we'll try this and I'll post an aar to show what i mean. Just curious if I'm the only soul who dislikes the spacious battlefields and frolicking units.

Dan T.

It might be better to try this with two armies of roughly the same type, e.g. a LRR civil war or Seleucids vs another successor army. (A refight of Raphia comes to mind.) This way the balance in the two armies between the troops in the center and on the wings may be more even and give you a real fight all along the line rather than it being a race between one army's better troops on the flanks versus the other's stronger center.

Chris

philqw78 wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:Well, most of the rule authors have a history of winning lots of games by frolicking on a large battlefield, and have designed a game that allows them to continue doing so.

Strange, Simon hasn't been using dancing armies. Celts, Ancient Brits, Nubians and WoR don't dance a lot. These are, I believe, his last 4 competition armies.

Simon likes a challenge and doesn't exaclty have a 100% win record ith the armies you quote.

Gauls, Games Expo 2009, 2 wins, 1 draw but this was on reduced size tables IIRC.
Ancient Brits, Warfare 2008, lost 3 out of 4 games.
CAn't find the other two.

But are you saying that Simon would not win if using an army that could dance?

lawrenceg wrote: Gauls, Games Expo 2009, 2 wins, 1 draw but this was on reduced size tables IIRC.

Reduced sized armies as well

Ancient Brits, Warfare 2008, lost 3 out of 4 games.
CAn't find the other two.

Placed at the Challenge in 08 with WotR. Terry has been using it successfully this year as well you may recall.

Don't think Si has actually used the Christian Nubians in comp but has been using it quite a bit at clubs.

Blathergut wrote:I know most of you souls out there run x# of points on a table with more room than the points can fill. This allows nimble BGs to manouever about and such. It's also been commented on that such nimble moves rarely happened in historical battles. Most armies lined up...went at it...and then, if a flank collapsed, the nimble units came into their own. Has anyone tried battles like this, where the table is basically filled from left flank to right? Any success with those flanks finally succeeding and then affecting the centres? It has seemed, from the times we've done this here, that it takes time to get to the enemy flank units, then fight the enemy flank units, then rout the enemy flank units, then finally manouever....by then usually the centres have beaten on each other and one army is usually at the tipping point.

Maybe our next LRRomans vs Seleucids we'll try this and I'll post an aar to show what i mean. Just curious if I'm the only soul who dislikes the spacious battlefields and frolicking units.

Dan T.

I have yet to try it with this rules system. But in the past it didn't get far if the armies are to equally matched. Though I do remember an instance were we started to spin around

nikgaukroger wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: Gauls, Games Expo 2009, 2 wins, 1 draw but this was on reduced size tables IIRC.

Reduced sized armies as well

Ancient Brits, Warfare 2008, lost 3 out of 4 games.
CAn't find the other two.

Placed at the Challenge in 08 with WotR. Terry has been using it successfully this year as well you may recall.

Don't think Si has actually used the Christian Nubians in comp but has been using it quite a bit at clubs.

OK, I was wrong. The authors designed a game which they can no longer win by out-manoeuvring their opponents on a large table. Now they have to rely on a simple frontal attack, ignoring most of the table. So large armies on small tables would probably give a good game.

nikgaukroger wrote:Don't think Si has actually used the Christian Nubians in comp but has been using it quite a bit at clubs.

lawrenceg wrote:OK, I was wrong. The authors designed a game which they can no longer win by out-manoeuvring their opponents on a large table. Now they have to rely on a simple frontal attack, ignoring most of the table. So large armies on small tables would probably give a good game.

Si used Nubians at the Challenge, 4th.

Not Si but Ottoman and Skythian 1st/2nd at the IWF. So perhaps the games work for all sorts of different armies.

philqw78 wrote: Si used Nubians at the Challenge, 4th.

Doh! of course he did.

Not Si but Ottoman and Skythian 1st/2nd at the IWF. So perhaps the games work for all sorts of different armies.

I'm pretty convinced you can do well with a wide variety of army types - which can't be bad

If you want to fill the table just use more AP.

I'm still hoping we get to move up past 800 AP for singles as the level of confidence and competence improves.

Like Nik I believe that there are plenty of good army choices which are all viable - in period or open competition.

Pete

900 points on 6x4 tables - you know it makes sense

petedalby wrote:Like Nik I believe that there are plenty of good army choices which are all viable - in period or open competition.

Pete

Ever thought of moving on from the Ottomans then Pete.

I have never used the same army in more than 1 comp. The closest I have been is using a Bactrian Greek, at 1000 pts then 800pts in seperate comps. Other than that all my armies in all my comps have been from different lists. Only did really badly with one. Bloody Mameluks, which is a manouver army.

nikgaukroger wrote:900 points on 6x4 tables - you know it makes sense

well...we have done 1000pts on 8x4 ...25mm too

900pts on 6x4 then disadvantages those armies of cheap crap that can cover the table at 800pts, thus making less armies viable. I think 800pts is fine, the terrain rules allow for some narrowing of the table.

JimmyThePict wrote:900pts on 6x4 then disadvantages those armies of cheap crap that can cover the table at 800pts, thus making less armies viable. I think 800pts is fine, the terrain rules allow for some narrowing of the table.

true...the ancient Spanish army comes into it's own somewhere there...we've had games where there almost wasn't room for everything on the Spanish side

nikgaukroger wrote:900 points on 6x4 tables - you know it makes sense

Now I'm started !

not sure what i've started ...600pts on a gymnasium floor anyone???