Slitherine

Intended to be both competitive and historical (I hope). Have played a few games with it and been reasonably successful (more wins than losses)

1x IC
2x TC
2x4 Ghilman (CV Armoured Superior Bow Sword Drilled)
2x4 Syrian Lancers (CV Armoured Superior Lancer Sword Undrilled)
2x4 Syrian Lancers (CV Armoured Average Lancer Sword Undrilled)
3x4 Turcomans (LH Unprotected Average Bow Sword Undrilled)
1x4 Bedouin Cavalry (LH Unprotected Average Lancer Sword Undrilled)
2x9 Ahdath Milita (2/3 HF Protected Poor Def. Spear Undrilled 1/3 LF Unprotected Poor Bow Undrilled)
1x4 Armoured Spear (HF Armoured Average Def. Spear Undrilled)
1x6 Foot Archers (MF Unprotected Poor Bow Undrilled)

The idea is the spearmen deploy in a large group to block/hold frontage, but not to get into much combat, with the archers providing rear support, while the bow cav skirmish and the lancers cav find weak targets and destroy them.

Thoughts?

Cheers

Sam

Just my opinion of course, but I think you're IC is a bit wasted. He may end up being critical to your HF spearmen, but chances are he wont make that much difference to them because you're going to try to avoid combat with them anyway. With 14 BG's I'd prefer to have another TC, but that's just me!

I like the overall plan. Will take a lot of practice to co-ordinate it properly.

I don't use cavalry lancers much, but those who do seem to suggest average aren't good enough. 14 BG is a lot given the quality yoiu have. Could you make it 13 BG but tougher?

Does the army list allow any LF? I'd have thought they would be worth having

NZsam03 wrote:Intended to be both competitive and historical (I hope). Have played a few games with it and been reasonably successful (more wins than losses)

1x IC
2x TC
2x4 Ghilman (CV Armoured Superior Bow Sword Drilled)
2x4 Syrian Lancers (CV Armoured Superior Lancer Sword Undrilled)
2x4 Syrian Lancers (CV Armoured Average Lancer Sword Undrilled)
3x4 Turcomans (LH Unprotected Average Bow Sword Undrilled)
1x4 Bedouin Cavalry (LH Unprotected Average Lancer Sword Undrilled)
2x9 Ahdath Milita (2/3 HF Protected Poor Def. Spear Undrilled 1/3 LF Unprotected Poor Bow Undrilled)
1x4 Armoured Spear (HF Armoured Average Def. Spear Undrilled)
1x6 Foot Archers (MF Unprotected Poor Bow Undrilled)

The idea is the spearmen deploy in a large group to block/hold frontage, but not to get into much combat, with the archers providing rear support, while the bow cav skirmish and the lancers cav find weak targets and destroy them.

Thoughts?

Cheers

Sam

This is just my thoughts.

Its a personal thing but keep the IC, having the last group of Lancers to deploy were you need them is a plus.

If possible don't take the Lancers as Average, you'll just attract any superior troops around its suprising how much the difference is between Superior and Average is when your troops are average.

Not sure how much experience you have with FOG put having the poor spear on the table you'll end up having to have some troops around them to stop you losing them, poor troops especially heavy foot spears will attract any archer types around or Lancers around for that matter.

I like the LH Lancers and the LH Bow, make some room for the LF archers they allways come in handy.

But mixing the Cavalry Bows and Cavalry Lancers will take a lot of getting used to being undrilled the Lancers will run of after the enemy just when you don't want them to. Leaving your Cavalry bow to be chased by any Lancers around.

Just a thought why not if your into this army say take the LH and Cavalry Lancer option or the LH and Cavalry Bow option, then when you've sorted them out bring in the foot to the army.

Just a few thoughts.

Dave

Thank you all for replying

ravenflight wrote:Just my opinion of course, but I think you're IC is a bit wasted. He may end up being critical to your HF spearmen, but chances are he wont make that much difference to them because you're going to try to avoid combat with them anyway. With 14 BG's I'd prefer to have another TC, but that's just me!

david53 wrote:This is just my thoughts.

Its a personal thing but keep the IC, having the last group of Lancers to deploy were you need them is a plus.

I think I'm going agree with david here, I have used both an IC and lots of TCs, and prefer using the IC, as his bonus helps with both maneuverability and cohension, as well as keeping my lancers under control (which is important given my tendency to get them into bad situations )

david53 wrote:If possible don't take the Lancers as Average, you'll just attract any superior troops around its suprising how much the difference is between Superior and Average is when your troops are average.

Sure, fair enough, I'll change that

david53 wrote:Not sure how much experience you have with FOG put having the poor spear on the table you'll end up having to have some troops around them to stop you losing them, poor troops especially heavy foot spears will attract any archer types around or Lancers around for that matter.

Yes, I am rather new to FoG (about 10 games), but I try flank them with Ghilman or Lancers for support as often as I can. Usually they only die if my whole army is crumbling...

david53 wrote:I like the LH Lancers and the LH Bow, make some room for the LF archers they allways come in handy.

I can get up to 12 bases, so I'll add some

david53 wrote:But mixing the Cavalry Bows and Cavalry Lancers will take a lot of getting used to being undrilled the Lancers will run of after the enemy just when you don't want them to. Leaving your Cavalry bow to be chased by any Lancers around.

Just a thought why not if your into this army say take the LH and Cavalry Lancer option or the LH and Cavalry Bow option, then when you've sorted them out bring in the foot to the army.

I understand your point, but from a painting and enjoyability (?) point of view, I do prefer variety and don't mind sacrificing wins to achieve this

So with that advice in mind, my new list...

1x IC
2x TC
2x4 Ghilman (CV Armoured Superior Bow Sword Drilled)
3x4 Syrian Lancers (CV Armoured Superior Lancer Sword Undrilled)
3x4 Turcomans (LH Unprotected Average Bow Sword Undrilled)
2x9 Ahdath Milita (2/3 HF Protected Poor Def. Spear Undrilled 1/3 LF Unprotected Poor Bow Undrilled)
1x4 Armoured Spear (HF Armoured Average Def. Spear Undrilled)
2x6 Foot Archers (LF Unprotected Average Bow Undrilled)

13BGs

So what do you think…

I think...I like your attitude

One thing to be aware of round here is that if you ask for army composition or tactics advice, what you will mostly get is from a regular tournament player perspective. So don't be bound by it unless you are specifically building an army with a view to winning tournaments - in any case I Would say there is no subsitute for trying things out and deciding on what works for you personally, and your style of play.

You can use poor HF and not worry overmuch about losing it. How? Well, rather than deploy other troops with the idea of protecting the poor foot, you can use the poor foot as something like bait. If the opponent leaves them alone, they'll be fine. If the opponent goes after them with significant forces, accept that they will be lost sooner or later but hopefully the points you saved there can be used to win elsewhere. It can be particularly fun - although getting the timing right is an issue - to have the poor foot hold on just long enough for you to charge their attackers in the flank.

(Although I agree it makes sense to give them a small number of other poor foot for rear support)

Now I don't have my army lists to hand, so I'm not sure how much flexibility you have...but having said that...

My personal preference would be to not have the 1/3 supporting LF, they will already be struggling to hit most enemy with the initial die roll, and then having to re-roll 6's again will be very annoying. Plus they cost more than half of the front rank troops, so they are not even cost effective in the role of simply increasing the depth of the BG to give it more resilience.

Having a single 12-base BG instead gives the same frontage, and still means that the enemy can't cause a cohesion test with a single shooty cav/LH/LF BG. When you lose in melee, as you often will, having fewer BGs means fewer cohesion test to be taken, so fewer chances to fail one. So although you still expect to lose with your poor foot unless you get really lucky with the dice, they might last a turn or two longer.

And if you are expecting to lose all the poor foot, having fewer BGs means their loss will inflict a slightly smaller percentage of your total army attrition points, which could turn out to be an important factor in a close game.

When I adopt this sort of strategy though I tend to up the ante and go for 2x12 poor HF, which makes a 6 base rear support BG most cost-effective.

Is it an effective approach? Well...around 50-50 so far, so not brilliant but not a disaster either. But these are friendly games, and a bit of variety in strategy from week to week adds fun for both players I find.

IIRC you can't choose to have ahdath militia without supporting LF.

ShrubMiK wrote:I think...I like your attitude
mostly get is from a regular tournament player perspective. So don't be bound by it unless you are specifically building an army with a view to winning tournaments

Strange the majority of players at UK tournements, go to play FOG knowing they will not win the event.

And still you usually get very tournament orientated hints in this subforum.
ShrubMiK is right with his observations I think. I made the same.

Mehrunes wrote: ShrubMiK is right with his observations I think. I made the same.

Great two right answers I think..

Mehrunes wrote:And still you usually get very tournament orientated hints in this subforum.

Strange that, FOG being the biggest ancient rule set in the UK then, and this being the official forum and all...

Sounds as if you feel personally attacked by our observations.
Can't you play FoG without being a regular tournament player?
Are all players in the UK orientated to tournament efficiency then?

Whoa, I hope not.

Mehrunes wrote:Sounds as if you feel personally attacked by our observations.
Can't you play FoG without being a regular tournament player?
Are all players in the UK orientated to tournament efficiency then?

Whoa, I hope not.

Most are not tournament players. And Dave isn't as defensive when he plays at tournaments. He generally just rolls over.

Mehrunes wrote:Sounds as if you feel personally attacked by our observations.

Not at all been abused by many tornement players.

Mehrunes wrote:Can't you play FoG without being a regular tournament player?

Never said that at all.

Mehrunes wrote:Are all players in the UK orientated to tournament efficiency then?.

Can't answer for others.

philqw78 wrote: He generally just rolls over.

Ah Phil but you do it so much better early, on Sunday morning or so I've been told....

No insult to tournament players was intended, Mr. 53 - I'll be one myself at Rampage!

And of course a "tournament player" may (or in some cases, may not!) adopt a different attitude to how they choose their army and play the game outside of tournaments. Perhaps I could have chosent different words...

That doesn't alter my point that most advice offered in these forums does tend to be from the perspective of "this is what you need to do to tweak your army to perform optimally against the sort of opponents you would meet in tournaments".

If everybody followed this advice for all their armies and applied it to the club games they play, we would see less variety on the table. Hence I offer alternative advice.

My personal task now is to try to win some games using average lancers

ShrubMiK wrote:My personal task now is to try to win some games using average lancers

Take all you can buy and they will do well. Even in a competition!

I don't doubt it. I use 3 or 4 superior protected lancer BGs quite often...one of them was critical in my last game (although, to be fair, sadly it died in the process...holding up 2 superior armoured lancer BGs for just long enough. good thing my armies are always populated with plenty of willing idiots )

I suspect that I could plug 'n' play average armoured lancers instead and not notice too much difference in play in most situations.

Now, large numbers of average protected lancers might be interesting...and this is not an academic question as I have been pondering for a while how to get a reasonable, playable army out of the Huns / Attila option, and just recently started wondering whether downgrading either or both of the allied contingents might be the missing piece of the puzzle.

Detracting back to the original post.
My initial thought regarding Syrian States is the fact its foot is not compulsory.
Its LH contingent is strong and it contains lancer cav.

Have you thought of dropping the spear making room for more LH?

Something along the lines of

4 x TC
2 x 4 Cv Arm Sup Drilled Bow Sw
3 x 4 Cv Arm Sup Undrilled Lancer Sw
5 x 4 LH Bow Sw
2 x 4 LH Lancer
2 x 6 LF Poor Bow
1 x 8 Mob

ShrubMiK wrote:No insult to tournament players was intended, Mr. 53 - I'll be one myself at Rampage!

My mistake then

Still not to sure about Average Lancers mind you.