Slitherine

Lance and I played Galatians vs Hellenistic Greek last night.

I was encouraged that my Galatian HF were able to make it across the table to within spitting distance of the enemy camp within 3.5 hours - they were only stopped by being taken in flank by some Illyrians! But HF still don't look like a strong bet for competition games.

As ever the game threw up a few queries.

It seemed strange that Avg Drilled MF Off Sp had to test not to charge Sup Undrilled HF Impact Foot when both BGs were in the Open. Should the 'Shock troops' classification apply to drilled MF? Or would they have been more circumspect?

One of the early principles of the rules was that you shouldn't get situations where you don't appear to be able to do anything. I had an 8 base BG of HF in 3 ranks in melee with a 4 base BG of MF. So I had an overlap on one flank. The other flank was covered by a BG of enemy LF at right angles to my BG. This meant I couldn't feed my rear rank into the melee as an additional overlap, nor could it contact the LF. Any thoughts?

Pete

petedalby wrote: One of the early principles of the rules was that you shouldn't get situations where you don't appear to be able to do anything. I had an 8 base BG of HF in 3 ranks in melee with a 4 base BG of MF. So I had an overlap on one flank. The other flank was covered by a BG of enemy LF at right angles to my BG. This meant I couldn't feed my rear rank into the melee as an additional overlap, nor could it contact the LF. Any thoughts?
Pete

Interesting. If deliberate, that was cunning (or cheesy, depending on the way you choose to look at it).

Is it historically unreasonable that a BG of LF should deter expansion on that flank?

I am not convinced either way. Any one else have an opinion?

An interesting one...unofficial personal thoughts.....

I think this is Ok rather than cheese. Some benefit to the LF being there and well placed.

Ideally Pete would have some BG to force them away an remove the obstacle - LH being ideal of course now.

Si

Sadly no LH in the Galatian list! In fact only one BG of LF - not the most versatile of armies!

Pete

Indeed, but then part of the character of the army is that....others have butwith less punchy foot troops. Galatians I expect have lots of LF to do the same thing if necessary.

all adds to the fun

si

Hi ,

I read in many books that the weakness of the galatians armies was their light troops or more exactly the missing of it
harassed by the greek peltasts in greece all along the roads , in minor asia also by LF and LH wtih no correct reply to this threats
gauls are more versatile and ancient british slingers can be a good choice

thefrenchjester"naked only when facing a wilderness mirror"