Slitherine

Is a large BG count really that important? Or...would a smaller BG count of tough troops be better?

For example...my romans as configured now have 13 BGs at 900 points. I could up it alot by playing small units. So for example I could get it up around 16 BGs in all 4paks.

I just see the staying power of tough troops being more important than a bunch of smaller units that can break alot easier.

It is one of those "6 of one, half dozen of the other" situations. Playing a swarm army with lots of BGs (16+) requires a particular skill. It is powerful when done right, but the wheels can fall off very easily.

My personal comfort zone is reached when my army has 12-13 BGs at 800 points. I think that is a fairly standard size, and represents a reasonable tradeoff between fighting power and staying power. As always: your mileage may vary, subject to change without notice, etc.

Marc

I think it's more the case that too small a BG count can be a problem. I've used 11 at 800 points and it's a bit scary because you risk "I was just about to win and my army ran away".

13 at 900 is OK I think. However, it's sometimes handy to have more units. e.g five BGs of 8 legionaries each are very good. But four 8s and two 4s allow the 4s to provide rear support for the 8s, or you can keep them in the front line to keep the width. So a larger BG count can make the army more flexible.

With Roman armies, the risk with aiming for a large BG count is that the units in the main line are brittle. Hence you're compromising the main strength of the army: tough legions. That's fine if you're happy with a style of play that is based on manouver rather than tough legion, but it's a very different approach.

It's similar to the quantity vs quality trade off. It depends on what you like and how you play.

I like 12-15 BG for 800pts.

grahambriggs wrote: With Roman armies, the risk with aiming for a large BG count is that the units in the main line are brittle. Hence you're compromising the main strength of the army: tough legions. That's fine if you're happy with a style of play that is based on manouver rather than tough legion, but it's a very different approach.

Not sure I'd describe armoured superior impact foot skilled swordsmen as brittle, even in 4s.

If the opposing armies are also heavy foot, like pike, then 6s and 8s will work. In anything like a normal competition, the 8s will lumber around desperately trying to find someone dumb enough to stand in front of them. At least with 4s they would stand a vague chance of rounding up opponents by coming from multiple directions.

Small BG's are not brittle as you might think. They may be less able to cope with base loss, but are also less likely to loose a base, because losses are related to hits taken, which in turn is determined by enemy dice, so a 4 wide BG of 8 foot simply has a better chance of loosing a base than 2 BG's of 4 (4 wide) next to each other.

Also if you are flanked or overlapped you're in trouble regardless of BG size.

More Small BG are far more advantageous than Few large BG.

The only real advantages large BG get in game terms is if you put a general with them for melee re-rolls or for CT if shot at

If I am charging something especially crunchy e.g. cats into a (longer) line of legionaries, I would prefer to be able to line my BGs of 4 up precisely with legionary Bgs of 4. Why? Well, the enemy overlap dice come from a different BG. He'll score as many hits as he would if he was a bigger BG, but the hits caused by the overlaps don't help the contacted legionary BGs in their attempt to avoid losing. And the odds are that it is the legionaries losing, not the cats.

On the other hand, 2 BGs of 4 vs a BG of 8 that win combat will shrug off 4 hits (2 each) due to the -2 for the winner death rolls

grahambriggs wrote:I think it's more the case that too small a BG count can be a problem. I've used 11 at 800 points and it's a bit scary because you risk "I was just about to win and my army ran away".

I played a game at CanCon where both myself and my opponent were trying to maneouver into position, which took most of the game. He really wanted to get stuck in (he was one of the Republican Romans), I didn't mind getting stuck in, but I didn't want to do it until I'd softened him up a bit (I was WOTR). The end result (time was called) was that we'd both lost 2 BG's, he was about to smash my centre (I couldn't hold back any longer) but because I'd lost 2/14 and he'd lost 2/11 or 12, I had a narrow victory.

Incidentally, it was one of my more enjoyable games. I enjoyed all of my games at CanCon. All my opponents were gentlemen, but this game stood out. It really felt like two boxers of equal skill trying to circle around each other waiting to find the others weakness. Great game, with no insult intended to my other worthy opponents.

>On the other hand, 2 BGs of 4 vs a BG of 8 that win combat

Yeas, like nobody ever mentioned that scenario before

More, smaller BGs may be better when they are winning, but OTOH may be a liability when they are losing. Or indeed in a number of other contexts.

All I can say is that the fiddly swarms are cheese. Usually the player using such an army has no interest in actually fighting - they'll swarm the skirmish line and try to break that - that's usually a quarter of the army gone. Then they try to sneak around for the baggage camp. Not much more is needed after that.

Yikes! Such venom! I don't know. Depends how you play the game.
I like a couple units than are larger than 4 paks in my dominate roman list. Plus I use a couple of cat units.

"All I can say is that the fiddly swarms are cheese. Usually the player using such an army has no interest in actually fighting - they'll swarm the skirmish line and try to break that - that's usually a quarter of the army gone. Then they try to sneak around for the baggage camp. Not much more is needed after that"

What does that remind me of? Oh yes...all mostly-LH armies

Just noticed this:

>The only real advantages large BG get in game terms is if you put a general with them for melee re-rolls or for CT if shot at

Simply not true. Although I guess your get-out clause is that what is meant by "real advantages" can be quibbled over

Numerous scenarios in which a single larger BG has an advantage over the same number of bases split into several smaller BGs can be thought of without too much effort, if you can be bothered. I certainly had a fair old list I've trotted out in the past.

Just to throw another one out there...a larger BG can effectively extend the range of a general for providing effects to bases whose BG he is not with. Is that enough to count as a "real advantage"?

ShrubMiK wrote:a larger BG can effectively extend the range of a general for providing effects to bases whose BG he is not with. Is that enough to count as a "real advantage"?

No this is a disadvantage associated with larger BG becuase this only happens when he dies. Otherwise his 'range' depends on exactly where his base is.

philqw78 wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:a larger BG can effectively extend the range of a general for providing effects to bases whose BG he is not with. Is that enough to count as a "real advantage"?

No this is a disadvantage associated with larger BG becuase this only happens when he dies. Otherwise his 'range' depends on exactly where his base is.

No, no. The same effect occurs when the general is trying to help with CMTs, CTs from shooting (and from when his worthless cousin--the army's other TC--dies), and moving multiple BGs as a battle line.

Marc

Yep.

I was anot referring the effect by which a larger BG which the general is *with* effectively extends the footprint of his own base.

If he is standing in open space 3.9 MUs away from the edge of the nearest friendly BG...if that BG is of 12 bases in 2 ranks, he has a positive effect on 12 bases, and the range at which he exerting an effect is 3.9 MU + 6 base widths. Split that BG into 3 of 4 bases each, in a line, and now he affects only 4 bases and the range at which he is exerting an effect is 4 base widths less.

Right, he affects more bases, providing they are in the same BG, not a number of spread out serarate ones.

Can't figure out what Marc the dog fish is trying to say.

babyshark wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:a larger BG can effectively extend the range of a general for providing effects to bases whose BG he is not with. Is that enough to count as a "real advantage"?

No this is a disadvantage associated with larger BG becuase this only happens when he dies. Otherwise his 'range' depends on exactly where his base is.

No, no. The same effect occurs when the general is trying to help with CMTs, CTs from shooting (and from when his worthless cousin--the army's other TC--dies), and moving multiple BGs as a battle line.

Marc

No it doesn't. Command range for generals is specified in the Command and Control section, e.g.:

"All commanders have a command range: i.e. the distance within which they can influence battle groups"

And from Appendix 3, Glossary of Term, Command Range is shown as:

"Command range is measured from the nearest point on the commander‟s base."
i.e. not the unit he is with, his base.

"A commander can only be with one battle group at a time. When that battle group is in close combat, he can elect either to fight in the front rank or to encourage the battle group from the rear. Unless he is fighting in the front rank in close combat, he can influence other battle groups that are in his command range and not in close combat."

So for Battle Lines: "He must be with one of its battle groups, and his command range must reach every battle group in the battle line." So every BG in the BL has to be within 4MU of a TC's base.

For a general to be a modifier for complex move and cohesion tests for a BG that is not in close combat, they need to be in Command range.

You may be getting confused with the loss of commander cause of a CHT:

"Test a battle group if a commander in line of command is lost within 3 MUs:

Measure from the nearest part of the battle group he was with, after removing his base and putting any troop bases he displaced back in their previous position." But that only is an issue for causing a test.

grahambriggs wrote:No it doesn't. Command range for generals is specified in the Command and Control section, e.g.:

"All commanders have a command range: i.e. the distance within which they can influence battle groups"

But what Marc is trying to say (I think) is that a TC that is in range for his influence to 'touch' 2 BG's of 12 elements can affect all 24 elements. If the guy right at the very end of the line gets hit and causes the entire BG to take a test, the TC who is way down the other end of the BG can still affect that test.

If the same TC had his range 'touching' 2 BG's of 4 elements that is only 8 elements. The other 16 elements of the same frontage may not be within range to receive the benefit of being 'near' a general.