Organising Yorkists

[AlanYork]

If possible I'd like advice on organising my Yorkists to have at least a 50:50 chance of winning battles. My Seleucids do OK but the goodly men of York are struggling a bit having only won once and that was against the Serbs.

I'm fighting against mainly medieval opponents and if possible I'd rather not go down the tournament route of umpteen little units of bill and men at arms, the lists may allow them to fight in multiple 4 base "cohorts" but that is IMO and with the greatest of respect to the list author and to those that use their armies that way, just plain wrong. If I'd wanted Romans I'd have bought them so I'd like to keep my billmen in units of at least 6 bases to retain at least the semblence of the look of a Wars Of The Roses army. Keeping them in liveried units would be nice but I can jig it about a bit if needed.

Here's what I have in bases;

4 Generals
24 Retinue billmen / Men at arms (8 in Richard Duke of York's livery, 8 in Edward Earl of March's colours and 8 in Warwick's livery)
28 Retinue archers (12 York, 8 Edward, 8 Warwick)
6 Shire levy/ Northern border billmen
8 Northern border defensive spearmen
6 Handgunners
4 Light cavalry lancers
2 Light guns
Enough stakes to cover the front of all archers.

I would have no objection to buying a few more troops but don't really want to veer off into doing Lancastrians even though they have a little more variety in their choices it would seem.

Thanks guys.

[madcam2us]

ditch the stakes! Your LB are studs and don't need them.

Due to the size, you might not need 4xTCs.

Max the LB, take the MAA as armored superior not Hy armor and then see what you get with the other extra points saved.

Madcam.

[AlanYork]

ditch the stakes! Your LB are studs and don't need them.

Due to the size, you might not need 4xTCs.

Max the LB, take the MAA as armored superior not Hy armor and then see what you get with the other extra points saved.

Madcam.

I've found that stakeless longbow, especially in 6 base BGs, get ridden down by knights as any disruption the bow cause when shooting is usually cleared off by a combination of the enemy knights being superior and an enemy TC hanging about. The knights then hit and it's the battle of Patay all over again.

[nikgaukroger]

My favourite Yorkist list is here - http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/yorkistv8.pdf

Now I do have most billmen in BGs of 4 so you'd need to fiddle around to get then as at least 6's if that is the way you want to go - I wouldn't use them in 8's given the choice of your 24 bases I'd go for 4 x 6's.

I like the IC plus 2 TCs myself as it really ensures you can manoeuvre those drilled troops.

Scott is quite right about the stakes - they're for wimps As he faced my Yorkists at Alexandria he knows about these things ('twas 13-7 to me).

[AlanYork]

My favourite Yorkist list is here - http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/yorkistv8.pdf

Now I do have most billmen in BGs of 4 so you'd need to fiddle around to get then as at least 6's if that is the way you want to go - I wouldn't use them in 8's given the choice of your 24 bases I'd go for 4 x 6's.

I like the IC plus 2 TCs myself as it really ensures you can manoeuvre those drilled troops.

Scott is quite right about the stakes - they're for wimps As he faced my Yorkists at Alexandria he knows about these things ('twas 13-7 to me).

Thanks Nick but how do you view the problem with shooting? (See my posting above.)

[nikgaukroger]

Don't let your longbowmen get caught by knights in a straight up charge in the open - one reason I like the IC so they can manoeuvre and avoid this, plus it gives you a +2 PBI so you have a better chance of picking the territory type. I've found that in general, even on a billiard table, you can deal with 3 BGs on knights quite happily. More than that becomes more problematic, however, a really open table shouldn't crop up too often against knight heavy armies.

[philqw78]

Thanks <snipped> but how do you view the problem with shooting? (See my posting above.)

The Longbow in 6's are much more manouverable so can concentrate fire far more effectively. And their manouver allows them to get out of the way more easily. It also means more BG. So you can afford to lose 1 or 2 more, then get the enemy in the flanks. I don't think its greatly historical but the MAA in smaller BG also gives the above advantages and 2 BG of LBow can be supported by 1 BG of 4 MAA even if they are in 8's.

[AlanYork]

Thanks <snipped> but how do you view the problem with shooting? (See my posting above.)

The Longbow in 6's are much more manouverable so can concentrate fire far more effectively. And their manouver allows them to get out of the way more easily. It also means more BG. So you can afford to lose 1 or 2 more, then get the enemy in the flanks. I don't think its greatly historical but the MAA in smaller BG also gives the above advantages and 2 BG of LBow can be supported by 1 BG of 4 MAA even if they are in 8's.

Thanks Phil, yes I see the advantage of teaming up a four base MAA BG behind a couple of 8 base bow BGs. You are quite correct in that it would be a big help but whilst it could be argued that it is the way Hundred Years War English armies fought, in "herce" formation (though nobody seems quite sure exactly what that was), sadly it isn't how Wars of the Roses armies fought and I really do want it to look something like the original. I'm probably doing myself a disservice by being a stickler about this but to me it is the difference between playing with a Yorkist army or playing with an army of the battles of Crecy or Poitiers dressed up as something else.

So given that my MAA are in 6s I suppose it comes down to how many of them do I go for, 3 or 4 BGs? How many retinue longbow BGs and what size?

Also, are the Northern Borderers worth having? I must say that the Defensive Spear have always been useless and seem to be a poor troop type, bows shoot them up and the spears get no POA if they charge them. The 4 Northern Border longbow don't seem to be of much use, too small a BG to do anything much and undrilled too, same goes for the Border billmen. The light horse lancers seem useful on paper but seem to spend a lot of the game running away from heavier mounted without achieving a great deal, perhaps that's because enemy light horse is rarer in the medieval period so it has nobody to hit.

On the other hand, if I dismiss the Northerners as "rubbish" it doesn't leave much else other than a predictable and slow moving longbow / heavy weapon army. I don't expect this army to be a world beater, just to be doing better than it is at the moment against other medievals, it has the tools but I just haven't found the right formula yet. I hadn't considered an IC, that might be the way to go but what do I drop to find the extra points?

[philqw78]

Defensive spear are a major ?????????????. They should be able to beat bow, but must survive the impact. I think, and have suggested, they should get a POA like Cav Lt Sp. If no other POA's apply they get one. Then at least they can charge Bow at about even odds, without fear of a very quick demise after a bad impact. But then I never stood and watched a WoR battle to know if thats the way it should work.

[AlanYork]

Defensive spear are a major ?????????????. They should be able to beat bow, but must survive the impact. I think, and have suggested, they should get a POA like Cav Lt Sp. If no other POA's apply they get one. Then at least they can charge Bow at about even odds, without fear of a very quick demise after a bad impact. But then I never stood and watched a WoR battle to know if thats the way it should work.

Yeah, have to agree with you there, whilst I'm sure they have their uses Defensive Spear seem very poor value but I have to have a few in order to get access to the Northern Border cavalry which at least give me some mobility.

[nikgaukroger]

Yeah, have to agree with you there, whilst I'm sure they have their uses Defensive Spear seem very poor value but I have to have a few in order to get access to the Northern Border cavalry which at least give me some mobility.

The Border spear are very useful as supports for the longbowmen - saves you using the billmen. The Border cavalry are nice, but not necessary IMO, all those drilled longbowmen are pretty mobile enough.

[rbodleyscott]

'm fighting against mainly medieval opponents and if possible I'd rather not go down the tournament route of umpteen little units of bill and men at arms, the lists may allow them to fight in multiple 4 base "cohorts" but that is IMO and with the greatest of respect to the list author and to those that use their armies that way, just plain wrong.

The reason they are allowed to be in BGs of 4 in the HYW list is that often there were very few MAA in the army, and then a realistic deployment would require 3 BGs of 4 MAA in the entire army.

I suspect the WOR army got 4 base BGs on the back of that decision.

In hindsight, we could have had a special instruction that disallowed BGs of 4 when the army contains more than a certain number of MAAs.

[AlanYork]

'm fighting against mainly medieval opponents and if possible I'd rather not go down the tournament route of umpteen little units of bill and men at arms, the lists may allow them to fight in multiple 4 base "cohorts" but that is IMO and with the greatest of respect to the list author and to those that use their armies that way, just plain wrong.

The reason they are allowed to be in BGs of 4 in the HYW list is that often there were very few MAA in the army, and then a realistic deployment would require 3 BGs of 4 MAA in the entire army.

I suspect the WOR army got 4 base BGs on the back of that decision.

In hindsight, we could have had a special instruction that disallowed BGs of 4 when the army contains more than a certain number of MAAs.

Thanks for the insight there Richard. You are absolutely correct about HYW but WOTR battles consisted of 3 big blocks of MAA and billmen and whoever else could be raised with a close quarter killing implement running at 3 other similarly armed blocks. Archers opened the battle and then withdrew to provide rear support and finish off enemy wounded. Alternatively they could act as a flank guard as at Barnet.

What archers most certainly didn't do was decide the outcome, that was down to hand to hand fighting with the possible exception of Edgecote where Warwick's Northerners shot up Pembroke's Welshmen. In other battles archers were certainly a factor, Towton springs immediately to mind, but always melee combat decided the day. So a WOTR army that fields lots of longbow, relies on them to win and at the same time only fields small and zippy units of MAA and bill would seem to be...well not a WOTR army but a HYW army to be frank. There ARE accounts of Edward IV raising one MAA to 10 longbowmen for his proposed French campaign, but that is just that, an professional invasion army. Armies at home will IMO be different, less professional longbow and more billmen, battle accounts seem to agree, as I said it's all about melee not arrow storms.

It would seem that the WOTR list has been lifted straight from the old DBM list with the 2:1 ratio of bow to bill, changed to allow Yorkists to field Northerners and left at that. No sarcasm or disrespect intended but actually reading about what happened in the battles might have been better. I make no claims to be an "expert", I fully accept that I may be making a mistake and it's all a matter of opinion when it comes down to it, but having read umpteen books on this period and visited most of the battlefields, I'm sorry but IMO the army lists are just out and out wrong and perhaps that explains why it seems hard for an average player like myself to get a Yorkist army to look and fight like one and still win, to do that it seems to have to fight like a HYW army. Then again maybe I'm just not playing very well, I've got form for it!!!!

Hope you will take my comments in the spirit they are given, it isn't my intention to be overly critical or deride the opinions and efforts of others.

[paulburton]

One possible way to get Wars of the Roses Armies to behave more like their historical counterparts is to put the Bills/Men-at-Arms in mixed formations wit the billmen. This would shift the balance in favour of close combat while giving the archers a role (possibly with a few longbow only groups to mix in). Possibly having 2 LB to 1 Bill with an interpenetration rule allowing the bills to come to the front while the group moves, for example, half distance might work well.

[shadowdragon]

Hi AlanYork,

It’s an interesting problem - balancing "winning" tournament play with historical feel. The challenge is that designing an army that can win more often than not in a tournament results in an optimised army which is a luxury that historical commanders did not have - particularly in a civil war or other internal power struggle. An English HYW army is smaller than the total for both sides in WoR which means there's far less experienced / quality troops to go around for the WoR. It's gets even worse for the WoR commander as the war goes on. That's telling you things you already know, but it does mean a good tournament WoR army isn't going to be the best representative army historically.

For an army that's more historical, you want to have more militia billmen and archers and fewer drilled "retinue" troops. The militia can still be in livery and be considered less experienced retinue troops. Plus if your sub-commanders are mostly or all allied commanders, you've pretty much got an army that's not too manoeuvrable and fights in "big blocks".

Here's a suggestion that has a large Northern Border contingent:

1 X FC (CiC)
1 X 8 superior, armoured MAA
1 X 8 drilled, retinue archers
1 X 4 currours
1 X 4 Northern Border LH

1 X Allied FC
1 X 6 Militia billmen
1 X 8 Militia archers
1 X 4 Northern Border billmen
1 X 8 Northern Border spearmen
1 X 4 Northern Border archers

1 X Allied TC
1 X 8 superior, armoured MAA
1 X 6 militia billmen
1 X 8 militia archers

Total 795 points

For what it’s worth, a WoR that’s less manoeuvrable and emphasises melee. It would probably it would get slaughtered in tournament play. The smaller militia and Northern Border billmen is countered by their being undrilled.

I like the combination of the currours with the LH as a mounted reserve.

Cheers

Paul

[AlanYork]

Hi AlanYork,

It’s an interesting problem - balancing "winning" tournament play with historical feel. The challenge is that designing an army that can win more often than not in a tournament results in an optimised army which is a luxury that historical commanders did not have - particularly in a civil war or other internal power struggle. An English HYW army is smaller than the total for both sides in WoR which means there's far less experienced / quality troops to go around for the WoR. It's gets even worse for the WoR commander as the war goes on. That's telling you things you already know, but it does mean a good tournament WoR army isn't going to be the best representative army historically.

For an army that's more historical, you want to have more militia billmen and archers and fewer drilled "retinue" troops. The militia can still be in livery and be considered less experienced retinue troops. Plus if your sub-commanders are mostly or all allied commanders, you've pretty much got an army that's not too manoeuvrable and fights in "big blocks".

Here's a suggestion that has a large Northern Border contingent:

X FC (CiC)
1 X 8 superior, armoured MAA
1 X 8 drilled, retinue archers
1 X 4 currours
1 X 4 Northern Border LH

1 X Allied FC
1 X 6 Militia billmen
1 X 8 Militia archers
1 X 4 Northern Border billmen
1 X 8 Northern Border spearmen
1 X 4 Northern Border archers

1 X Allied TC
1 X 8 superior, armoured MAA
1 X 6 militia billmen
1 X 8 militia archers

Total 795 points

For what it’s worth, a WoR that’s less manoeuvrable and emphasises melee. It would probably it would get slaughtered in tournament play. The smaller militia and Northern Border billmen is countered by their being undrilled.

I like the combination of the currours with the LH as a mounted reserve.

Cheers

Paul

Thanks Paul, you're right it would get slaughtered in a tournament but I might borrow some currours and give it a run out on a club night.

What you say about balancing a winning army with the correct feel is right, I like tournaments in small doses but DBM put me off that scene a bit, though I will say that FoG tournaments have been more fun.

When the FoG lists first came out I thought they were merely DBM lists re written a bit but with pretty pictures. Since then my view has changed, I now believe they are actually pretty solid resources for building new armies and that a considerable amount of thought has gone into most of them. Sadly the WOTR list is one of the exceptions IMO though as Richard Bodley Scott pointed out the fix is easy enough, once you get past a certain number of MAA and billmen you can no longer have those 4 base "cohorts".

[shadowdragon]

but I might borrow some currours and give it a run out on a club night.

The only FoG games I've played are WotR versus WortR and all were solitaire games. I've done a couple of AAR for the Slitherine boards:

viewtopic.php?t=14473
viewtopic.php?t=15053

I've been meaning to add some extra comments on converting the generic scenarios into a series of WotR battles between Henry and Richard. The smaller billmen / MAA units weren't too much of a problem but I was using about 600-700 point armies. I pretty much needed units of 4 to have one unit of billmen / MAA per commander. I fought all the games with the restriction that subcommanders could not influence units of another subcommander (well, actually it was a case of my thinking that subcommanders were restricted - don't know where I got that idea. )

Against an opponent with a decent mounted force, I don't think I'd take any mounted, but WortR versus WotR I've found that having a unit of currours, the Northern Border horse and the king's mounted bodyguard were very effective. In fact, in one of the games above the king's bodyguard were the game winners. Now that is not a typical historical WotR result. However, I think that it could be a useful foce against an opponent with crappy...er, average, javelin... cavalry.

How about an AAR after your club night play?

[timmy1]

Alan, attempting to organise Yorkshiremen is doomed to failure. There will be one more opinion than there are Yorkshiremen and none of them will do as they are told. They will all complain about the price of the beer and how it has nowt got a proper head on it.

In short, give up.

If you must organise Yorkists, do it in Tadcaster.

[ravenflight]

My favourite Yorkist list is here - http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/yorkistv8.pdf

Now I do have most billmen in BGs of 4 so you'd need to fiddle around to get then as at least 6's if that is the way you want to go - I wouldn't use them in 8's given the choice of your 24 bases I'd go for 4 x 6's.

I like the IC plus 2 TCs myself as it really ensures you can manoeuvre those drilled troops.

Scott is quite right about the stakes - they're for wimps As he faced my Yorkists at Alexandria he knows about these things ('twas 13-7 to me).

Old posts being re-surfaced due to 'WOTR search" I did.

I'd agree with putting Billmen in BG's of 4. They can interpenetrate the bows, so they can give rear support to a BG of 8 bows and push through if anything big and nasty comes along.

That's not to say that they are going to be rear support troops - too expensive for that - but it does mean that they CAN rear support with minimal waste of points. If in column they can rear support two BG's of 8 Longbows!

[nosher]

Alan, attempting to organise Yorkshiremen is doomed to failure. There will be one more opinion than there are Yorkshiremen and none of them will do as they are told. They will all complain about the price of the beer and how it has nowt got a proper head on it.

In short, give up.

If you must organise Yorkists, do it in Tadcaster.

I concur

Nosher (born and bred in Yorkshire!!)