Slitherine

hi all, Can anyone please be so kind as to tell me the best allis for a gelt army, I am taking on romans, so need some stilling power and something with some punch.
terry1956@btinternet.com
thanks. terry

I am guessing your Celts are Gauls, Galatians or Ancient Britons if you are fighting historical opponents with the Romans.

My understanding is that you have no powerhouse options, your allies will be much of the same except to get HI or MI as you wish. Instead will need to rely on flexible (and fortunate) finesse tactics and large numbers . . .

There is good orientation here: http://www.madaxeman.com/wiki2/tiki-index.php

If you can call your Celts 'Ancient Britons' and run Roman allies, these renegades might offer the most as allies.

You really need counsel from someone with for more expertise than I have though.

allies are not a solution that will let you win with a frontal attack. In fact, other than weighted dice, there is no real solution that will let you do this.

In theory, a plan and army list to overwhelm the Romans flanks is whats needed.

In practice this is rather hard to pull off ...

Maybe the Ancient British could be a minor solution, they would let you 'fight fire with fire' having a Roman ally.

Scrumpy wrote:Maybe the Ancient British could be a minor solution, they would let you 'fight fire with fire' having a Roman ally.

Yes. The old "irreg A" barbaric fury seems to have been reduced to an untidy snit from what I read.

Dacians w/ Sarmatian allies look to be more promising for a raging barbarian army. Not sure how unprotected HW will hold up though.

hi, sometimes, if not all the time I feel that these rules just don,t allow the true feel of the armies being fielded. It looks like any warband army stands no hope under these rules.
terry

hi,

As a Principate general ,if you strip the flanks and get cavalry/chariots behind my battle line with impact foot to my front (especially if HI) I will be in trouble.

Hairies are fun...I keep running ancient Spanish with and without Sertorius. The fact that you end up with so many troops is a threat to the Romans. The trick is overwhelming at some point (probably flanks) while delaying the Roman heavies (with your skirmishers, and holding the HF impact BGs back, waiting for the inevitable clash).

I think the rules do give a good feel for these battles, just maybe not in a tournament setting with time constraints. Deadtorius and I have gone full days with these raging battles and had great fun each time.

Mass on one flank with MF and whatever cav. you have; delay on the other flank or have enough there to be a pain (LH work well). Move the centre far enough forward to give you three or four rout moves back but then hold there. Hopefully the flank happens soon enough (tricky to perform for sure). Having first move helps! Sending your LH out on first move as double moves (14MU) helps to bottle the Romans up and gets your guys moving even faster.

Heavy Foot for the centre. MF for the flanks and commanders with them to move them fast. But practice turning!!!!!

Blathergut wrote:Hairies are fun...I keep running ancient Spanish with and without Sertorius. The fact that you end up with so many troops is a threat to the Romans. The trick is overwhelming at some point (probably flanks) while delaying the Roman heavies (with your skirmishers, and holding the HF impact BGs back, waiting for the inevitable clash). ... Heavy Foot for the centre. MF for the flanks and commanders with them to move them fast. But practice turning!!!!!

I've been toying with this concept for a while. The Dacians with Sarmatian allies look promising for this. The Early Germans are not inspiring at all . . .

It makes for an interesting battle. You have to not make the centre so impossible that the Romans place the heavies somewhere else. Your flank has to be able to move fast but also be able to turn, something sadly lacking in undrilled school!!

Plus, in 25mm, the games look so good with masses of barbarian foot!

Blathergut wrote:Plus, in 25mm, the games look so good with masses of barbarian foot!

An excellent argument to skip the Romans and use Wolves From the Sea!

Thanks, chaps, some good ideas there, whats the best way to counter the romans light cav on the franks, terry

terry1956 wrote:hi, sometimes, if not all the time I feel that these rules just don,t allow the true feel of the armies being fielded. It looks like any warband army stands no hope under these rules.
terry

To some extent I agree - I miss the flavour distinction between "warband" type troops and the Romans. An army of what are effectively just inferior legionaries loses some sparkle.

The relative points values of the troops should in theory ensure that all armies have a decent chance when generalled competently by a player with a suitable style of play. The problem being that a one-dimensional army will have some opponents it matches up well against, and some it matches up badly against. Hairy warband vs. Romans being a bad matchup.


But on the other hand:

Can you find a set of rules that does allow the true feel of all possible armies across the whole time period and geographical area? A general set of rules is always going to have to make compromises if you don't want a 4,000 page rulebook.

Do we actually know what the "true feel" of most armies of the period is anyway? Contemporary accounts are often lacking, or when they do exist at least lacking in most of the important detail, and often written by somebody who may be biased or have particular agenda to push.

Don't forget those Romans have bad matchups as well. Armoured, impact foot, skilled swordsmen are all a big waste of points when it's a big mass of cataphracts that is about to crash into your front.

One possibility is to agree with friendly opponents that two armies are not a balanced matchup, and allow extra points for the disadvantaged army.

Or just play the game - if you are not too competitive the game can still be enjoyed and moral victories can be had even when the troops are defeated on the table.

sometimes, if not all the time I feel that these rules just don,t allow the true feel of the armies being fielded. It looks like any warband army stands no hope under these rules

I would tend to agree with this but I think that is a comment that would apply to most rules that cover an extended historical period.

Personally I feel that any non-Roman army is up against it as rules favour the overrated Romans. I believe it is a case of the "victors" writing the history & thereby influencing the rules. I will wait and eagerly anticipate more tips for defeating these barbarian, self glorifying, brutal, corrupt, arrogant, avaricious and deviant Romans with the much more civilised and morally superior Celtic, Germanic, Persian, Greek and Arab peoples.

Don't forget the "Roman" army during a significant proportion of its existence was mostly composed of celts, germanics, and greeks...with a smattering of persians and arabs thrown in for good measure

Caliph wrote:Personally I feel that any non-Roman army is up against it as rules favour the overrated Romans,. ................ self glorifying, brutal, corrupt, arrogant, avaricious and deviant Romans

What about the roads, and the wine?

If these are not competitive games, you can mention to your Roman opponent that not every Roman battle can be fought by Caesar and the Tenth Legion, and the next barbarian incursion or uprising will be timed for a season when they are busy elsewhere.

He can play a run-of-the-mill Roman governor with his finger in the till who fields a run-of-the-mill Roman army. This means no more than one legion of veterans and the rest average, or even poor, and a large part of the force being allied legions or other allied contingents. A more even challenge.

Cheers,

Mike

jonphilp wrote:hi,

As a Principate general ,if you strip the flanks and get cavalry/chariots behind my battle line with impact foot to my front (especially if HI) I will be in trouble.

Hmm, I'm starting to hedge away from Heavy and go to Medium. They are a lot more adaptable for terrain (naturally) and they aren't that much worse in the case of Romans vs Gauls.

If you lose in the impact phase you take a -1 for losing to Impact Foot OR for losing to Heavies. If you go disrupted it's all over anyway (almost). If you disrupt him I'm sure you'd prefer to be Heavy, but you've got the upper hand then anyway.

Ultimately, I'm thinking there is more to be gained by being MI than to be lost.

*Have some heavies to plunk in the centre while the swarms of MF try to envelope. If you have to fight in the open (and there's almost always open ground) it might as well be with heavies. But lots of MF with commanders to help them remember how to turn is best for everywhere else!

ravenflight wrote: Hmm, I'm starting to hedge away from Heavy and go to Medium. They are a lot more adaptable for terrain (naturally) and they aren't that much worse in the case of Romans vs Gauls.

If you lose in the impact phase you take a -1 for losing to Impact Foot OR for losing to Heavies. If you go disrupted it's all over anyway (almost). If you disrupt him I'm sure you'd prefer to be Heavy, but you've got the upper hand then anyway.

Ultimately, I'm thinking there is more to be gained by being MI than to be lost.

I have most of an Ancient Spanish 800 point army ready to go in 25mm, and there's a newbie at my gaming club putting the finishing touches on a Principate Roman army using the new Warlord plastics. We'll be having a matchup with these armies in the near future and I'll be very much looking forward to it. Medium foot are rapidly becoming my favorite troop type. (Of course I do also have a Dominate Roman army. )

Peter C