Slitherine

Which armies do you think you'll not see on the table:

Scots Covenanters....all that poor foot/cavalry

I think you might be surprised about the Covenanters as they can form a mighty large army. I absolutely murdered a Later Royalist army with one earlier this week and indeed have yet to lose a game with Covenanters.
From postings on this sight quite a few people are building one.
If you want to see a really bad army wait until you see the Covenanting Rebel army in a few books time. Just think of an aggressive prayer meeting congregation and you will get the idea. I am definitely going to do one just to see if I can fit it on the table.
John

marshalney2000 wrote:I think you might be surprised about the Covenanters as they can form a mighty large army. I absolutely murdered a Later Royalist army with one earlier this week and indeed have yet to lose a game with Covenanters.
From postings on this sight quite a few people are building one.
If you want to see a really bad army wait until you see the Covenanting Rebel army in a few books time. Just think of an aggressive prayer meeting congregation and you will get the idea. I am definitely going to do one just to see if I can fit it on the table.
John

In both FOGR and FOGAM I have found quality is usually better than quanity just my impression.

Close combat means a +2 death roll modifier for one or both sides.
Quality troops frequently win close combats without a base loss.
In FOGAM shooting afforded a +2 death roll modifier, making it ancillary to close combat.
There is a lot of gunfire put out by these FOGR Book 1 armies, and gunfire is no respecter of +2 death roll modifiers, and in firefights both sides are likely to lose bases.
Quality troops are valuable for their staying power in the face of attrition.

Poor Troops in reasonable numbers are more valuable relatively than in FOGAM because they are equipped and able to damage the enemy at range, and they are perfect as second-line supports.

Brigading 3 pike and shot BGs together with the worst one recessed in the middle and its betters forward on its flanks is an effective formation for shooting and support. The interval between the first line BGs can leave room for the second line to advance and fill in, or reduced intervals (e.g. two base widths or so) still allowing shooting through the gap (though trickier due to range and angles). The Poor troops avoid the brunt of combat.

At the end of the infantry line, of course, the second line BG at that end may be better posted to outwing the front line a little to provide flank cover against mounted threats while still providing support.

So my theory at this point is that having a few Poor BGs for second line and auxiliary roles is a plus for an army, while having to rely on them for front-line combat is problematic as it favors a more clever plan for victory than a head-on fight (unless there is a troop type advantage).

So I see no problem with the three compulsory Poor Foot BGs in the Covenanter Army as they will be supporting a larger number of better BGs of foot, and perhaps the horse.

<corrected>

I am with you on the benefits of poor troops in fogr. Even the numbers of the cavalry completely outnumber btter armoured and better morale cavalry. Especially good if you use some of your covenanting foot to support the horse.
John

I have tried this formation at britcon 2 average and a poor behind but in FOG R if the enemy don't stand around to shoot such as the cornish foot in the first battle at britcon generaled by richard. As you say quality can stand the fighting better which they did broke the average leaving the poor troops who did'nt even slow the superior Cornish troops.

It will be interesting to see these armies on the table with my experience of Britcon this year and Roll call out of 10 games no Scots, in all the armies played at these events no Scots.

Don't get it wrong coming from a lowlander family I would love to see them but it will be interesting to see how many Scottish armies are taken to events in the UK.

Dave

Remember the question was armies we'd least expect to see, not perceived competitiveness per se (on which topic I think none of those in this book are "dogs").

Those in Book 1 I'd least expect in tourneys:

Early 17th C French since the French Louis XIV list is more cohesively offensive and probably has more popular troops and more historical interest.

Early Restoration Portuguese, considering the army lacks sexy features and a Portuguese player base.

30 YW Danish for similar reasons.

Non-Cornish Early ECW Royalist. The Musket* is a negative compared with later Royalist Muskets for would-be Cavaliers.

I like the E 17th C French, the Flashing Blade tv show of my youth covers them. Well the post 1623 option looks best.

Scrumpy wrote:I like the E 17th C French, the Flashing Blade tv show of my youth covers them. Well the post 1623 option looks best.

They came 1st or 2nd at Roll Call this year allied with Swedes mind

david53 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:I like the E 17th C French, the Flashing Blade tv show of my youth covers them. Well the post 1623 option looks best.

They came 1st or 2nd at Roll Call this year allied with Swedes mind

But those were 30YW French

rbodleyscott wrote:

david53 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:I like the E 17th C French, the Flashing Blade tv show of my youth covers them. Well the post 1623 option looks best.

They came 1st or 2nd at Roll Call this year allied with Swedes mind

But those were 30YW French

True but they were french

Scrumpy wrote:I like the E 17th C French, the Flashing Blade tv show of my youth covers them. Well the post 1623 option looks best.

Aye, but will you commit to field that list in in a competitive rather than scenario context?

And will you promise to wear the flashing blade costume while playing with it!!
John

marshalney2000 wrote:And will you promise to wear the flashing blade costume while playing with it!!
John

I do like the hats mind you.

No comment on the thigh boots I see!!
John

marshalney2000 wrote:No comment on the thigh boots I see!!
John

They were French were'nt they.

From what i can remember those guns of the Spainish seemed to have flattened the castle but for some reason they did'nt charge in and finish it, mind they were Spainish

And will you promise to wear the flashing blade costume while playing with it!!
John

Oh no cant get the damn tune out of my head now.
"You've got to fight for what you want..............." NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

MatthewP wrote:

And will you promise to wear the flashing blade costume while playing with it!!
John

Oh no cant get the damn tune out of my head now.
"You've got to fight for what you want..............." NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5SxC1azbjY

Just for you you know you want to......................