Battle group sizes

[rogerg]

Following Roll Call, and after several club games, trends in battle group size are emerging. Small groups to keep the break points high are becoming common, particulary the four base superior group. Three groups of four appear to be considered a better buy than two of six.
There are several factors which bias the choice in favour of the group of four over the six:

1) The added flexibility
2) The greater break count
3) The ease of expanding from two lines to one
4) "One hit per three bases", is two for both 4 and 6, so the six does not gain an advantage
5) Rounding the half down for second rank shooting dice makes a six of shooters a poor choice

The four bases of superior bow armed cavalry are much better than six bases. They shoot with only one fewer dice and can get into one rank to evade in a single bound.

Taking foot bow in sixes seems a very poor choice. Eight is far better. Three hits to force a test on them and six shooting dice in two ranks.

To even up these group size issues I suggest:
1) Allow rounding up for second ranks shooting for 1 per 2 bases. Two ranks of three are then worth having.
2) Take losses prior to cohesion tests. The 25% loss factor then hits the group of four on the first loss.

If something is not done, I predict that the group of six will rarely be seen and army list choices will be quite limited. A choice of 4 to 6 bases will be no choice at all.

[markm]

Roger,

you missed a few

If a 4 loses 1 base they are a permanent -1 to CT's, the six doesn't.
If a 4 takes 2 hits they take a CT at -1 due to 1HP2B, the six doesn't.
6 LH/LF shoot as effectively as a 4, no rounding loss for shooting.
Non-shooty stuff doesn't suffer from many of the issues you have raised.

One of the reasons I like FoG is the breadth/depth of available choice. I do not think the 4 vs 6 choice is that simple, and most of my new list designs use 6's where I used to use 4's!

[shall]

An another very important one - generals have a big effect and affect a whole BG - so 4 x 12s in an army lets me put a general into combat to upgrade a full 48 bases worth of troops. Fun with an ancient Briton believe me!!

My Parthians have all cataphracts BGs as 6s at present, so I can put a TC with each of 3 blocks and upgrage them all. Works for me. 4s leave me with on vulnerable BG. But it means I have to time it carefully as I have less BGs so less manouvrability fo my strike force. So the price is that it is much more vulnerable to me amking a deployment or timing mistake.

All trade-offs but still I don't find a strong logic either way..."you pays your moneya nd you makes your choice" as they say.

Si

[rogerg]

Indeed one pays ones money and takes ones choice. Experience is showing that there is a very strong tendency to take only one choice for battle troops. I am not contesting that for some troop types 8's or 12's are a bad choice where permitted. 6's of skirmishers or non-shooters or some non-evaders is not too bad either. However, from the Roll Call and club experience, the choice between 4 or 6, particularly for knights and cavalry is going only one way.

Are the Roll Call lists available for analysis? This is still a small sample, but I cannot remember seeing cavalry in anything but groups of 4. If lists offer 4-6 and everyone chooses 4, then this suggests there is an issue.

[shall]

Not really an issue as we are expecting most strong cavalry to be in 4s, most foot in 8s. The rules are set up for these to be the noral fallbacks with reasons to go either side of it at times if you desing your army that way.

I will be able to gt a good view fromt he Brtiocn lists when they come in.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

Are the Roll Call lists available for analysis? This is still a small sample, but I cannot remember seeing cavalry in anything but groups of 4. If lists offer 4-6 and everyone chooses 4, then this suggests there is an issue.

Bow or light spear armed cavalry are more or less forced to be in BGs of 4 if they want to be able to skirmish - so that they can switch from 2 ranks deep to 1 rank deep in one move.

It is less clear-cut for lancers, as they cannot skirmish anyway. However, heavy cavalry are expensive, and I suspect a major reason for BGs of 4 bases is to keep up the total number of BGs in the army. Most people seem to be aiming for 12 BGs in an 800 point army.

I think the 1.5 rank shooting thing is something of a red herring, because you cannot always shoot the whole of a BG at one target, and to achieve the best effects of shooting you need to shoot at them with more than one battle group anyway. Rounding up would just encourage odd numbers of files instead of even numbers as at present. It would also increase the overall effect of shooting, which we don't want.

I don't think this is much of an issue. Why does it matter if the rules encourage people to use standard sized BGs?

[hammy]

My take on BG sizes is that or your first few games you tend to think that big BG's are good, then you go for more smaller BG's and finally a mix of sizes depending on what the BG is intended to be used for.

My latest list has 20 LH bow sword as 2 4's and 2 6's. I also have an 8 and a 6 of LF bow (although if I could find the points it would be 2 8's).

6's of MF longbow seemed to work OK too.

Hammy

[rogerg]

Really, I would choose longbow in 8's. For skirmishers it does't matter because of the 1 per file effect.

Some army compositions seem very inflexible. If the choice of a six cavalry BG is a very bad one, then chocie is very much reduced in some lists. Offering 4-6 as a choice, but knowing that no-one will ever choose it, seems a bad idea. If you choose a six of cavalry bowmen, then it ought to be 50% better than a four. In fact, it shoots at 33% better and is a dog to manouvre and skirmish with. Given its ability to get into single line, you might almost fancy a four against a six in a missile exchange, particulary in a restricted area of a battlefield.

[shall]

Hovering above this....

The fact that you are both discussing with different views kind of proves that the balance is excellent as we cannot agree on a single answer - hence mucho fun debating it and trying different versions

Si

[rogerg]

That's spinning it a bit Simon. We are only debating 6 or 8 longbow BG. Skirmishers in 6's are not an issue. It's the cavalry that are the main contention. Still, once again we are debating a relatively minor point in the whole scheme. The games are still excellent.

[shall]

I heard Gordon needed a spin doctor and thought I'd practice here - oh well better stick to the day job (if only I had one that is!) ...

but seriously I have played 50+ games now and I am convinced there is no right answer to how big a Bg question - too many variable to give a clear cut answer and therefore more driven by what you are planning to do with them.

Si

[dave_r]

We are only debating 6 or 8 longbow BG

Still isn't that simple. If you have 12 Longbowmen then they shoot exactly the same as an 8 and a 4, i.e. 9 shots. Therefore if you intend your bows to work together then 2 sixes is probably best, as it is easier to wheel to gain additional shots.

I think anyway...

[rogerg]

If you can get the two sixes together fine. However, if not, you have two sixes each shooting with only four dice and getting taking a test after two hits, and on -1 with three hits. The eight shoots with six dice and needs to take three hits before it tests. I know there are issues with frontages, but I still see the 6 as disadvantaged.

[shall]

Is the the 1 minute argument ......... or the full 5 minutes ........

Si

[donm]

I suspect the dice will have the last say in this. At Roll Call I surounded a unit of M/F bowmen and threw nine dice for shooting needing 4,5 or 6 to hit.

Yes your right, I missed

Don

[jre]

In our experience lancer cavalry works better in groups of 6, even more so if irregular. Knights usually are taken in groups of 4 because 6 knights of a certain quality may well be 25% of your troop points, so there is a tendency to put less eggs in one basket.

I have no problem with the standard mounted BG being 4 and the standard foot BG being 8. With plenty of exceptions, to make it interesting, whether it is light horse in 6 base BGs, legionnaires in 4, or protected crossbowmen in 4 when allowed in the lists...

Of the armies I really want to test next, the Parthians have the whole army, I think, based in 6, the Thermopylae Greek in 8. And with the Burgundians, I take 8, 6 and 6 Longbow BGs because the maximum is 20, so that is the only way (with size 6-8) to maximize the bows.

José

[malekithau]

So far my experience would suggest that BG size is dependent on mission. A BL of 4 BGs seems to perform better then 2 of 6 but if the BG of 4 has to operate independently then it is inferior. The smaller battle groups are also very manoevrable.

I am leaning towards 6 strong LH BGs over 4 especially bow armed. I also quite fond of 12 strong poor troops they seem to be a bargain especially pikes.

[donm]

I also quite fond of 12 strong poor troops they seem to be a bargain especially pikes.

Standing in three ranks against L/H shooting is a good tactic. 4 hits to cause test, 6 hits to cause a -. If its just one BG of L/H go out into two ranks and push them off the table.

Don

[madaxeman]

8 Protected Average Undrilled Medium Foot Xbowmen (48 points)

or

4 Protected Average Drilled Cavalry with Bow, L/Spear & Sword (48 Points)

I already have one unit of each in the army.

Just trying to put together a Britcon list with no games using the army and no games anyway in the last 2 months.

[rbodleyscott]

8 Protected Average Undrilled Medium Foot Xbowmen (48 points)

or

4 Protected Average Drilled Cavalry with Bow, L/Spear & Sword (48 Points)

I already have one unit of each in the army.

Later Crusaders?