Slitherine

Hello There


Just wanted to say to add to the debate about should we all have swarm armies just cause some people think we have to have them to win games/events. I myself thought that and went out to see if it was true.

I did a bit research this weekend and found if handled with a little bit of care ie not throw units away they can do very well against bigger armies.

The players I faced had in their armies two at 12BGs(Romsn and EAP) one at 17BG(Dom Roms) and one at 14 BGs(Palymrian). True only two had more BGs but thats half of the armies I faced.

I used an army with 11BGs and lost 1 BG and one Camp over the four games.

Feel free to discuss of course you might have the oppisite view.

Well enough information is lacking here to make this quite inoomplete.

hazelbark wrote:Well enough information is lacking here to make this quite inoomplete.

And this helps how? Its what you call a start add your own or just still and say you have'nt got all the infomation that helps.

hazelbark wrote:Well enough information is lacking here to make this quite inoomplete.

Warfare 2010

Roman Period

33 entries

4 Dom Roms (Ranking of players 30,34,45 and 201)
throw in
3 Principate Armies (Ranking of players 90,183 and 206)

One true shooty cavalry the Huns and historical(not a swarm by a long way)

From what I know no swarm got in the top four who were 2 Bosporans 1 Palmyran and 1 EAP(IIR)

So what do you get from this event that top players arn't playing swarms and from this infomation only non swarm armies can win events.

I know its not complete but its another bit of the picture.

I think Dave is responding partially to the comment about armies with small numbers of BGs that fight in 2 ranks not really being competitive - made in relation to Tibetans on the Warfare thread in the Tournament sub-forum.

Dave took an army of about the same size as a Tibetan (and indeed in many ways similar troops) to joint 1st place showing that they can be successful (albeit 1 comp is hardly a significant sample).

Tim Porter's Dominate Roman had 16 BGs so not really swarmy.

I think in the UK it's been true for a while that, with the exception of Graham Evans, the swarm armies tend not to win competions. Though, due to their size, they might stop their opponents doing so.

Lancer armies seemed to do well in the 'Rome' competition at Warfare. Top 3 was 2 Bosporans and Palmyran.

grahambriggs wrote:Tim Porter's Dominate Roman had 16 BGs so not really swarmy.

Cue "when is an army a swarm" questions

Would it be rude to point out that Tim's army wasn't that effective either

Lancer armies seemed to do well in the 'Rome' competition at Warfare. Top 3 was 2 Bosporans and Palmyran.

Lancers + LH + (for the Bosporans but not Palmyrans) LF for bulking up the BG numbers.

grahambriggs wrote: I think in the UK it's been true for a while that, with the exception of Graham Evans, the swarm armies tend not to win competions. Though, due to their size, they might stop their opponents doing so.

Agree it is a struggle to get 17 points in the time given without swapping BGs if you have less of them in your army.

nikgaukroger wrote:
Dave took an army of about the same size as a Tibetan (and indeed in many ways similar troops) to joint 1st place showing that they can be successful (albeit 1 comp is hardly a significant sample).

Heres the list

IC
2 TCs
2 x 4 Base LH Bow
2 x 4 Base LH Bow/Light Spear
6 x 4 Base Cats Drilled Superior Heavily Armoured Lance/Sword
1 x 6 Base Average LF

Remember its a game of skill till the dice are thrown.

nikgaukroger wrote:

Lancers + LH + (for the Bosporans but not Palmyrans) LF for bulking up the BG numbers.

My Bosporan had copious LF, but DR took minimum - we both had 15 BG though.

Respect to Dave for taking 11 BG

timurilenk wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

Lancers + LH + (for the Bosporans but not Palmyrans) LF for bulking up the BG numbers.

My Bosporan had copious LF, but DR took minimum - we both had 15 BG though.

Respect to Dave for taking 11 BG

His opponents must have killed themselves laughing.

dave_r wrote:

timurilenk wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

Lancers + LH + (for the Bosporans but not Palmyrans) LF for bulking up the BG numbers.

My Bosporan had copious LF, but DR took minimum - we both had 15 BG though.

Respect to Dave for taking 11 BG

His opponents must have killed themselves laughing.

As I said in another thread I took it to see how small armies work mind I think some of them thought the rest of the army was of on a flank march to somewhere maybe via Manchester

Still it was fun?

david53 wrote:
Still it was fun?

Which is the ultimate objective, ne pas?

FWIW I think Graham Briggs is spot on - a swarm army does not guarantee victory but they are more difficult to defeat.

I've enjoyed some success at FOG and I have very rarely used more than 12 BGs at 800AP.

david53 wrote: Just wanted to say to add to the debate about should we all have swarm armies just cause some people think we have to have them to win games/events. I myself thought that and went out to see if it was true.

As Pete Dalby points out above, and Graham and myself on innumerable occasions, it's the armies with very little grit in them and packed with skirmishers that are the problem to face, they tend to dull draws. This is a problem with the rules for skirmishers.

There are also some "heavier" armies, like Dominates, which can high numbers of BGs and still remain effective. Because of the way the scoring system works, in a competition framework these can also be very hard to win against. This is a problem with the scoring system, not the rules.

Combine the two, like in Skythians or Bosporans, and it's a compounded problem.

david53 wrote:I did a bit research this weekend and found if handled with a little bit of care ie not throw units away they can do very well against bigger armies.

The players I faced had in their armies two at 12BGs(Romsn and EAP) one at 17BG(Dom Roms) and one at 14 BGs(Palymrian). True only two had more BGs but thats half of the armies I faced.

And so the one semi-swarm army, you drew 10-10 with. The other three armies are within "normal" sizes for 800AP competitions. How does this disprove swarm and/or large skirmishing armies are not a problem?

nikgaukroger wrote:I think Dave is responding partially to the comment about armies with small numbers of BGs that fight in 2 ranks not really being competitive - made in relation to Tibetans on the Warfare thread in the Tournament sub-forum.

Dave took an army of about the same size as a Tibetan (and indeed in many ways similar troops) to joint 1st place showing that they can be successful (albeit 1 comp is hardly a significant sample).

Except Tibetan gets 1 BG internally of LH, Palmyran gets upto 8 (and cheap ones too), IIRC. They both have cataphracts, but beyond that they certainly aren't going to be as effective.

My complaint about Tibetans is the very restricted list when used without allies. I don't think I've seen any other list which is so restricted on BG numbers. It's not a case of finding the optimal composition tends to be small, it's the only composition!!!

Using allies, you could take a Western Turkish ally with 4 BGs of LH to get upto 12 BGs at a push, but with poor command and control and fewer cataphracts than Palmyran. The only other way is to use 2 allies of Nepalese. But then you might as well have called the list Nepalese.

peterrjohnston wrote: My complaint about Tibetans is the very restricted list when used without allies. I don't think I've seen any other list which is so restricted on BG numbers. It's not a case of finding the optimal composition tends to be small, it's the only composition!!!

Well some army has to be at the end of the bell curve, in this case it happens to be Tibetan. Given what we know about it I think it could actually have been even more restrictive - of course if anyone knows anything different popping something in the Player Designed Lists forum could be useful

peterrjohnston wrote:

david53 wrote: Just wanted to say to add to the debate about should we all have swarm armies just cause some people think we have to have them to win games/events. I myself thought that and went out to see if it was true.

And so the one semi-swarm army, you drew 10-10 with. The other three armies are within "normal" sizes for 800AP competitions. How does this disprove swarm and/or large skirmishing armies are not a problem?

Of course it does not prove that swarm and/or large skirmishing armies are not a problem, but that is not what he set out to prove.

It does prove that a swarm army is not necessary to win a tournament, which is what he set out to prove, if further proof were needed.

What he needs to do at the next tournament is take a swarm or large skirmishing army and see if any of the people he plays against finish in the top three.

peterrjohnston wrote:

david53 wrote: Just wanted to say to add to the debate about should we all have swarm armies just cause some people think we have to have them to win games/events. I myself thought that and went out to see if it was true.

As Pete Dalby points out above, and Graham and myself on innumerable occasions, it's the armies with very little grit in them and packed with skirmishers that are the problem to face, they tend to dull draws. This is a problem with the rules for skirmishers.

There are also some "heavier" armies, like Dominates, which can high numbers of BGs and still remain effective. Because of the way the scoring system works, in a competition framework these can also be very hard to win against. This is a problem with the scoring system, not the rules.

Combine the two, like in Skythians or Bosporans, and it's a compounded problem.

david53 wrote:I did a bit research this weekend and found if handled with a little bit of care ie not throw units away they can do very well against bigger armies.

The players I faced had in their armies two at 12BGs(Romsn and EAP) one at 17BG(Dom Roms) and one at 14 BGs(Palymrian). True only two had more BGs but thats half of the armies I faced.

And so the one semi-swarm army, you drew 10-10 with. The other three armies are within "normal" sizes for 800AP competitions. How does this disprove swarm and/or large skirmishing armies are not a problem?

Did'nt get a 10 to 10 with a swarm army that was against a 12BG army
against the 17 BG Doms roms I won 16 to 4 3 points away from breaking them.
I have no problum fighting Dom Roms at all,

I think it is a fair while since a swarm army has won a tournament. While there could well be an issue with swarm armies being hard to break in the available timeframe for a normal game I suspect that over time if they continue to fail to win events they will fall more and more out of favour.