Slitherine

hi,

this question goes to those who play large BG roman dominate armies with plenty of MF armored average and LH. I downloaded Nik Gaukroger one. Questions are: how do you play it? Attack or denfend? attack on wings and defend in the center? and do make 1 line or do you attack in multi lines formations with rear support? etc etc... am very curious about that kind of army.

fogly

I really would recommend to try it in different games.
I doubt there is a perfect tactic, it is more likely that the best tactic is depending on the players' skills

Of course, not everyone believes in Medium Foot Auxilia. If you read the battle accounts, especially Julian at Argentotatum, the Auxila and Legionaries behave in exactly the same way - good old fashioned line of battle heavy foot. Since Auxilia Units seem to have outperformed Legionaries in this case there might be a case for a Skilled Sword option for Auxilia Palatina. However we are now getting very complicated.

Same goes for the Priniipate Period Auxila at Mons Graupius and against Boudicca.

Not that this stops me from using MF Auxilia (I can fit 12 bases in a 800 point Principate Roman army), though I might revise my list to have a front line of Auxilia in 8s backed by Legionaries in 4s as this seems to make for a very robust army formation. I have a Dominate/Foederate army in 25mm and currently think along the lines of 8s of Foederate foot backed by 4s of Auxilia with supports as appropriate (Limitanei Legionaries with MF Auxilia or Armoricans with HF Auxilia). My armies would be those of Count Ricimer in the 470s or Theodosius in Britain in 367-8. My current designs only have 2-3 MF units.

I am not sure how it gets used, though I suspect the mentioned Light Horse may be important. Medium Foot look awfully vulnerable to me, though my problems have always been caused by Light Foot. I too am interested to hear how these armies are used.

The superior lights are used to break up enemy formation. The LH, being superior can stand up until it is rescued, and if it loses 2 bases still does not die. The MF, being fast moving drilled, positions itself to attract shock troops whilst others position themselves in flank charge positions on those same shock troops. Complex, but very effective if you can do it. Having 19 BG it can afford to lose some, the art is not losing too many.

paulburton wrote:Of course, not everyone believes in Medium Foot Auxilia.

Does anybody still believe in MF, or the tooth fairy?

philqw78 wrote:The superior lights are used to break up enemy formation. The LH, being superior can stand up until it is rescued, and if it loses 2 bases still does not die. The MF, being fast moving drilled, positions itself to attract shock troops whilst others position themselves in flank charge positions on those same shock troops. Complex, but very effective if you can do it. Having 19 BG it can afford to lose some, the art is not losing too many.

mmm very interesting

thx for that

ill try it this week end against a friend

Deploy fairly wide, but then use the speed of the MF to mass a load of units together in a concentrated area and overwhelm the enemy in their weak places, and harass with LH and leave some semi sacrificial MF or even better, HF elsewhere to prevent the enemy reaching your baggage is the meta-tactic.

The flank charge thing is also nice at a tactical level

philqw78 wrote:

paulburton wrote:Of course, not everyone believes in Medium Foot Auxilia.

Does anybody still believe in MF, or the tooth fairy?

There are occasions where Ammianus speaks of 'Auxillium expedios', 'Auxilia Expediti' and similar. This has been translated as light armed by Rolfe and others. I suspect that these would have been unarmoured and armed with perhaps only veruta, shield and swords as the actions where they are described are things such as attacks across rivers at night (where some of them used their shields as flotation devices) and in special fast assaults.

However, the evidence shows that at least the auxilia in the West were armed and armoured no differently than the Legionarii. Theodosius' father took four auxilia units to Britian and no legionarii units during the 'barbarian crisis', indicating that they were upto the job of reestablishing control. Similarly, it may well be that at the Battle of Ad Salices in 378AD the infantry under Richomeres were made up of just auxilia units, and they put up a hard fight against against the Goths.

The question as to if they were armed no differently from the Legionarii, and therefore how were the Legionarii armed and armoured is another tale...!

I think this calls for a did MF really exist thread. I can't believe that one day huscarls are HF the next MF in the same list just a different campiagn for a few days. And didn't Alexanders HF attack the Persians successfully across a disordering river.

philqw78 wrote:I think this calls for a did MF really exist thread. I can't believe that one day huscarls are HF the next MF in the same list just a different campiagn for a few days. And didn't Alexanders HF attack the Persians successfully across a disordering river.

I think you should start one Phil?

As I see it the point is, the whole HF/MF Close Order/Loose order dichotomy is artificial. Most troops (pike phalanxes perhaps excluded) could loosen up their formations to cope with terrain. Some were certainly better at it then others and some may have done it more often (Auxilia, which were often tasked with protecting the flanks of the Legions, may have found themselves in rougher Terrain more often then the Legionaries). It would be more realistic in many ways to allow most troops to change their formation density (perhaps requiring a CMT and a round to do so) as required. Non-shock Cv with their skirmish 'lines' can actually be seen as a very tentative first step in that direction.
A better split would perhaps to say HF foot are troops that could cope well with a mounted charge and MF are those that did less well, but not treat them differently in terms of speed or terrain effects. (Actually a lot of MF in FoG is classed as MF just because they were susceptible to mounted (especially in StE and the upcoming Empires of the Dragon), while that is technically ok, it's questionable if they should also get faster movement and a higher susceptibility to HF out of it as well.)

I think most stuff is graded as MF for just 2 reasons
1. It wasn't as good as other troops equipped the same, or secondary status
2. It is recorded as having often fought in rough terrain

The secondary troops would be put in rough going as they would stand up longer in there.
I don't think they should be graded differently, MF/HF, they should just be Battle Foot as opposed to skirmish. The only difference they should make is a minus for all foot losing to mounted in the open unless steady pike or spear. Pike becoming disordered and losing POA in rough spear in difficult.

Ghaznavid wrote:As I see it the point is, the whole HF/MF Close Order/Loose order dichotomy is artificial. Most troops (pike phalanxes perhaps excluded) could loosen up their formations to cope with terrain. Some were certainly better at it then others and some may have done it more often (Auxilia, which were often tasked with protecting the flanks of the Legions, may have found themselves in rougher Terrain more often then the Legionaries). It would be more realistic in many ways to allow most troops to change their formation density (perhaps requiring a CMT and a round to do so) as required. Non-shock Cv with their skirmish 'lines' can actually be seen as a very tentative first step in that direction.

I don't think you need a mechanism akin to the Cv one to cope with the vast majority of variation of density. It would effectively be bound up with the "weapon" classification e.g. Pikes get affecte dmore in terrain than Impact Foot which recognises that the latter types could loosen up and remain effective whilst the latter cannot to the same degree.

A better split would perhaps to say HF foot are troops that could cope well with a mounted charge and MF are those that did less well, but not treat them differently in terms of speed or terrain effects. (Actually a lot of MF in FoG is classed as MF just because they were susceptible to mounted (especially in StE and the upcoming Empires of the Dragon), while that is technically ok, it's questionable if they should also get faster movement and a higher susceptibility to HF out of it as well.)

Yup, cohesion is the best way to look at difference IMO. You could have, instead of HF/MF, Cohesive Foot and Less Cohesive Foot.

I have posted the MF/HF bit onto the general and moved stuff over.

it worked!!! i won against a seleucid army.
thks for the tactical advices