Slitherine

Hi All,

I've been thinking about the 'order of march' at deployment, and had a thought for competition.

What if your list was fixed (one list comp) but you could change the order of deployment dependant on who you were fighting, thus you would out who your opponent was, (Syracusan vs Italian Condotta) and thus mark down what your deployment order would be. You would then go through the initiative etc.

It would only slow down deployment by a minute or two at most, and often people would just keep their deployment order in their standard order, but I'm thinking that there are possibly cases where you may want to hold back your skirmishers to concentrate them against a skirmishing army, or put your skirmishers down early to emphasise your heavies against his heavies.

My thought is that deployment order is something akin to the 'who's in the Vanguard, who's in the main body, and who's in the rear-guard', and that would change depending on where you're marching. An army marching through the Steppes is going to march in a radically different order to an army marching through a jungle.

Thoughts?

Ian

DaiSho wrote:Hi All,
...
My thought is that deployment order is something akin to the 'who's in the Vanguard, who's in the main body, and who's in the rear-guard', and that would change depending on where you're marching. An army marching through the Steppes is going to march in a radically different order to an army marching through a jungle.

Thoughts?

Ian

Not Bad. At Cancon there are some armies where I woudl have loved to put my knights down early and save the catalans for last while others the knights woudl be last on table.

This extra flexibility is good for more flexible armies (two trick ponies) at the expense of one trick ponies. The thing is it makes one trick lists even harder in open comp and I dont think they need that.

expendablecinc wrote: This extra flexibility is good for more flexible armies (two trick ponies) at the expense of one trick ponies. The thing is it makes one trick lists even harder in open comp and I dont think they need that.

I can see your point, but I'm not sure I 100% agree with it.

There are hardly any (are there any?) armies that are 100% only one troop type, and I would actually think that any change to deployment would be of benefit to those armies.

If you look at something like the Romans (they are the typical 'everything covered' kind of army), I'm not sure they would benefit from this change as much as someone like an Early Hoplite Greek.

Ian

I like it. I think you are spot on with your analysis and it would be worth a try. If we find that it does seriously unbalance comps it can be dropped.

DaiSho wrote:[
There are hardly any (are there any?) armies that are 100% only one troop type, and I would actually think that any change to deployment would be of benefit to those armies.
Ian

There are some that can be just one troop type

philqw78 wrote:

DaiSho wrote: There are hardly any (are there any?) armies that are 100% only one troop type, and I would actually think that any change to deployment would be of benefit to those armies.
Ian

There are some that can be just one troop type

Yes, there are armies that can be one troop type, but are there any armies that must be one troop type?

If someone chooses a very mono style army and then makes it even more mono by not choosing options to give variety, well...

Ian

You could simplify it somewhat, and perhaps avoid indecision, by allowing variation by
quarters, ie the OOB specifies what quarter each BG goes into, but you can vary the
order the quarters go down pre-deployment.

peterrjohnston wrote:You could simplify it somewhat, and perhaps avoid indecision, by allowing variation by
quarters, ie the OOB specifies what quarter each BG goes into, but you can vary the
order the quarters go down pre-deployment.

Yes, so you could have a situ where you have an army of 12 BG's being broken down into AAABBBCCCDDD where a=1,2,3, B=4,5,6, C=7,8,9 and D=10,11&12; but you could deploy them ABCD or ACBD or BCDA etc - I like that idea.

Regards

Ian

I'm a fan of having 2 marching orders at tournaments. I just think it makes it more interesting tactically. I say you don't have to decide until the terrain goes down though.

I can't see it making much difference to my Tibetans when the lists come out. 2 BG of cataphracts, 2 BG of cataphracts, 2 BG of cataphracts, 2 BG of cataphracts or...............................

philqw78 wrote:I can't see it making much difference to my Tibetans when the lists come out. 2 BG of cataphracts, 2 BG of cataphracts, 2 BG of cataphracts, 2 BG of cataphracts or...............................

Where do the Magic Dagger troops fit in the order of march?



Marc

babyshark wrote:Where do the Magic Dagger troops fit in the order of march?



Marc

They're still trying to exorcise Gaukroger for not allowing the cats to have bow