Slitherine

Hello Guys.


It´s was hard to Organize, It was hard for the Umpires (Me and JM Morillas) because not all the people Knew the rules very Good, but it was a success.

I Think that it was a wonderfull experience for all the players, and we can see thet this rules set can be nice for competions and simulations.

I had making a Pool with all the players:


Give a Value for this game aspects(0-10):


-Deployment and Terrain. 8,5
-Move Secuence. 8,8
-Move Mechanism and CMT. 9
-Shooting Mechanism. 8.4
-Combat Mechanism and POA System 9,2
-Game length 8,5


Other Questions (1-5)


-Historical realism 3,9
-Playability 4
-Rules Structure and language 3,4
-Will You Play FOG or DBM in the Future (1DBM-5FOG) 4,9

Some Questions and suggestions from the Players:


Shooting

Tha most of players thinks that number of Dice for shooting troops is correct (MF and Skirmish), but many people ask me about the negative factor for shooting. The maximiun negative factor for shooted troops its -1, there is no diference for the number of Impacts.

For Example, 4 Cv recieved 2 Impacts, they test with -1. These Cv recived 7 Impacts, they test with -1. Vary people thinks that the negative factor could be Incremental with more impacts. (-1 for 1 HP1B, or -1 for reived >3 Impacts perhaps)

Mounted and Infantry, have no diference when are Shooted, I Think that mounted Troops suffer more by shooting.


Cavalry in Rought Going

I lost, 3 MF BG in rought going vs Cavalry. The cavalry get disordered, but they have + or ++ versus the most MF BGs because they have better equipement. One of my BGs (MF Protected, Superior, SSw) lost vs Armoured Cavalry in Rought giong fighting Face to Face, and I Charged them!!!!!!!
My MF cost 80 pts, the Cv 76, and I´m in trouble in Open, and they can win me en Rough going(3 Times in this tourmanent)

Shifting


A lot Of People Use the Shifting movement for change his advance direction, some people don´t need to wheel, because they can do sifting.
It would not be better to restrict the sifting movent, only when you need to avoid friends or Terrain???

Zone of Interception


Can a BG to wheel to avoid the interception zone of emenies, and not charge to the original front????

Close Combat

MF testing for losing close combat vs Mtd or HF in open -1.


Why not the LF too???

More Questions when I could to remember more things.



Cheers

David

Cavalry in Rought Going

I lost, 3 MF BG in rought going vs Cavalry. The cavalry get disordered, but they have + or ++ versus the most MF BGs because they have better equipement. One of my BGs (MF Protected, Superior, SSw) lost vs Armoured Cavalry in Rought giong fighting Face to Face, and I Charged them!!!!!!!
My MF cost 80 pts, the Cv 76, and I´m in trouble in Open, and they can win me en Rough going(3 Times in this tourmanent)

That doesn't sound right to me.

I have had occasions where cavalry have stood up to MF in rough going but beating them sounds wrong.

The exact details of your fight are not clear as I assume the MF must have outnumbered the cavalry and probably had an impact weapon. If that was the case then at impact the MF would have a +POA for whatever weapon they had and the cavalry would have no POA's (lance only counts in the open as does the + for mounted against MF and light spear cavalry only get a + if no other POA's apply). That would be say 4 dice a + for the MF vs 3 at - for the cavalry.

The melee would be by my calculations at even but the cavalry should be overlapped and dissordered so at best it would be 4 dice vs 3 and more likely 6 or 8 dice vs 3.

How exactly did this happen?

Close Combat

MF testing for losing close combat vs Mtd or HF in open -1.

Why not the LF too???

This is because of the principle of the double whammy i.e. nobody gets a double penalty for something without a very good justification.
LF already fight at half dice against mounted in the open, this is considered to be more than enough of a penalty. MF have a reasonable chance of not losing the combat, LF should lose almost every time.

Hammy

Thanks for the feedback David

Yes you can wheel in a charge - and if by doing so your line of charge cannot be crossd you cannot be intercepted - we declare the line of charge by putting a stick down at declaration. If no stick goes down its assumed ot be dead ahead.

The MF losing to Cav in rough can happen but should be very remote as a possibility. Hammy's numbers are about right. If someone commits 2 BGs of heavy cav vs on BG of 8 MF it can happen but then that is a huge mounted force committed to the task of beating u 1 MF BG and they are generally out of the game thereafter. A specific example would be easier to respond to.

LF - on CT . This needs to be taken in context of all other factors and it really isn't necessary to ensure LF vs Cv or HF in the open suffer appropriately! It is specifically a factor to reflect MFs un ease inthe open vs tighter formation troops.

Mounted are generally more vulnerable to missile fire from CTs as they get the -1 more easily. This is delibreate. We could have a -2 for extreme caulaties but took the view not to complicate it further on the basis that if you get 7 hits then odds are a base is going anyway. Always remember the effect of a BG is a combination of CTs and Death Rolls. We found wehn we tried such things that shooting was a little too strong.

Hope that helps and many thanks for organsing the event.

Look foward to hearing more from the players about their armies and games.

Si

shall wrote:Yes you can wheel in a charge

But only if this will result in at least as many bases making contact as if you went straight forward.

Mounted are generally more vulnerable to missile fire from CTs as they get the -1 more easily. This is delibreate. We could have a -2 for extreme caulaties but took the view not to complicate it further on the basis that if you get 7 hits then odds are a base is going anyway. Always remember the effect of a BG is a combination of CTs and Death Rolls. We found wehn we tried such things that shooting was a little too strong.

Also, unless they are cavalry in single rank (i.e. skirmishing) or skirmishers, mounted are 1 POA more vulnerable than equivalently armoured foot against most missile weapons.

The CT disadvantage of being shot at by lots of shooters is that you will be forced to test every turn. With less shooters you are more likely to get a chance to recover from cohesion drops. As Simon says, the effect of massed shooting was too strong when we tried additional minuses for more hits.

Hammy: have had occasions where cavalry have stood up to MF in rough going but beating them sounds wrong.
How exactly did this happen?

4 Cv/Superior/Und/Armoured/Bow/Sword Vs 8 MF/Superior/Dri/Protected/SSw


The MF Charging in Column to the Cv (two Ranks). Impact Phase:

MF Rolling 2 Dices, Cv Rolling 2 Dices no POA. MF Recieved 2 hits, and Cv recived 1 hit.

MF Lose the combat and cohesion level ( 1 HP3B -1, TC With the BG +1) they roll 5.


Melee Phase:

MF add 2 bases to the Front Rank, and roll 4 Dices, Cv Roll 3 Dices. Mtd Sword Vs SSw, no POA, Protected Vs Armoured + POA for Cv.

Cv Recieved 1 Hit, MF recived 3 Hits, and lose Cohesión Level and Base, in the next Bound MF Lose again and fragmented, Finally, other Cv, Charge into the Flank of the MF, and Bye Bye.

LF already fight at half dice against mounted in the open, this is considered to be more than enough of a penalty. MF have a reasonable chance of not losing the combat, LF should lose almost every time.

Santa Hermandad nueva Castilian Vs Early Achemenid Persian.


In the Hot Zone of the battlefield, 2 Imortals BG Shooting my Almogavars who are in Rough Going, and the Spanish Pikemen are Moving to the Imortals Flank to help to the Almogavars, now 6 LF/Average/Nude/Bow Guys put in the face of the Pikemen to Stop Them.
The Pikemen Charge and the LF past the CMT and Stand like Macho Man, the LF lose the Impact Phase, and past the CT But lose a Base, lose again the melee phase and lose Cohesion level and base, But they are Stopped a Big BG of Pikemen and Saved the Imortals life.

Almogavars Are defeated, and the 6 LF heros are Defeated to, Both BG persue and contact Frontally (Pikemen and Inmortals). In the Impact Phase:

Pikemen in 3 Ranks POA+, Inmortals Light Spear +POA, Why???? I Have a 3m Spear, and I´m charging you that have a Small Stick, Why not Advantage for the Pikemen???.


Pikemen Lose the Impact (I´m a very bad Dice roller):


Finally I Lose the Combat, the match and the 6 LF Heros pass into the Militar History.

RBS: Mounted are generally more vulnerable to missile fire from CTs as they get the -1 more easily. This is delibreate. We could have a -2 for extreme caulaties but took the view not to complicate it further on the basis that if you get 7 hits then odds are a base is going anyway. Always remember the effect of a BG is a combination of CTs and Death Rolls. We found wehn we tried such things that shooting was a little too strong.

Also, unless they are cavalry in single rank (i.e. skirmishing) or skirmishers, mounted are 1 POA more vulnerable than equivalently armoured foot against most missile weapons.

I Know, that the Mounted troops are more Vulnerable to missile fire, but when a 4Cv BG Recieved 8 Hits, lose a Base and test with -1, (No negative Factor If Comander is there). They had lose 1/4 of his warriors, over 150 men are died, and they conserve his cohesión with no many troubles.

I think that this case is not a Big problem, it´s not of those things that they spoil the Rules, but I´m playing Wargaming over 10 years, and played a lot of Rules set, and I ussualy can see more effect over the Fired Mounted troops, maybe my personal appreciation only.



Only One More Question:

What about the paves???, I Can´t See it in the Rules. I Think that it could be contemplated in the Impact Phase. I read an Herodotus Text, about a Battle in the medic Wars. Herodotus Tell how the Sparabara Infantry held the early combat vs the Greek infantry, and Fall when his Paveses was Broken.

I Think is a good Solution too for a lot of Bw (X) that in DBM can defeat Mounted easily and in FOG have a lot of Problems Vs Sohck Mounted Charging.

Hope that helps and many thanks for organsing the event

Thanks to all the FOG Team and specially to JD and Richard, they Did it happens.


I´m Making a litlle report of the Tournament and my matches.

Regards

David.

PD: After Jaén, I think almost in Spain The King has Died, Long Life to the King!!!!

shall wrote: Yes you can wheel in a charge - and if by doing so your line of charge cannot be crossd you cannot be intercepted - we declare the line of charge by putting a stick down at declaration. If no stick goes down its assumed ot be dead ahead.

Is this going to be in the rules or the website? Is the idea you put all the sticks down/somehow identify a specific target at the time of declaring a charge and not as you roll through the executions of each charge?

I know we talked about this before, and I thought the decision was this would be spelled at clearly on the web site not in the rule book.

Hello, I realized thay most people didn´t hesitate to advance and fight even facing difficult odds. That could be caused by inexperience (we had many players with three games or even under their belts) or by an interesting thought that I found among many players: every army has a chance to win, there are no clear "good armies" and "bad armies", so confidence in your own army increases. That lets you choose the army that you really like, know that it has fair chances, and press for the win. There were many great historical armies (Macedonians, Romans, Carthaginians...) deploying historically. That´s all great!

I also realized that I feared more LF with bow that proper MF bowmen. The difference in number of shooting dice (4 against 3 in a 3x2 BG) doesn´t make for the much higher survivability of evading LF. Many players think that way.

Overall, I had a wonderful time playing in Jaen and I even ranked high!!

Moncholee.

robertthebruce wrote:

Hammy: have had occasions where cavalry have stood up to MF in rough going but beating them sounds wrong.
How exactly did this happen?

4 Cv/Superior/Und/Armoured/Bow/Sword Vs 8 MF/Superior/Dri/Protected/SSw

The MF Charging in Column to the Cv (two Ranks). Impact Phase:

MF Rolling 2 Dices, Cv Rolling 2 Dices no POA. MF Recieved 2 hits, and Cv recived 1 hit.

MF Lose the combat and cohesion level ( 1 HP3B -1, TC With the BG +1) they roll 5.


Melee Phase:

MF add 2 bases to the Front Rank, and roll 4 Dices, Cv Roll 3 Dices. Mtd Sword Vs SSw, no POA, Protected Vs Armoured + POA for Cv.

Cv Recieved 1 Hit, MF recived 3 Hits, and lose Cohesión Level and Base, in the next Bound MF Lose again and fragmented, Finally, other Cv, Charge into the Flank of the MF, and Bye Bye.

OK, charging in a column is a bad idea as you will automatically have to take a test at -1 if you lose (you only count the first three ranks for HP3B). A single element column is also a very bad formation to face shooters with for much the same reason.

Fighting on a one base frontage means that the cavalry are effectively not disadvantaged for the terrain as they only get two dice anyway so you are playing into their hands again.

If you charged in line you would start with 4 dice to 3 and then assuming neither side failed a text be fighting at 8 dice to 3. I would expect the cavalry to lose and break off probably disrupted or even fragmented. I would not expect ot break the cavalry.

I think the lesson here is if you are going to charge enemy cavalry in terrain, make sure you hit at least two bases.

Also your troops which I take it were sword and buckler men were actually meant to be used against infantry IIRC. The fact they have no impact POA puts them at a disadvantage here too.

Try working out the same combat with a BG of offensive spear alumghavars.

Hammy

moncholee wrote:I also realized that I feared more LF with bow that proper MF bowmen. The difference in number of shooting dice (4 against 3 in a 3x2 BG) doesn´t make for the much higher survivability of evading LF. Many players think that way.

I am in the same camp as you but while is supported a trial of MF shooters firing with 1.5 ranks at extreeme range and 2 full ranks at close range and this was trialed for a number of games it made MF shooters very effective and the protected longbow swordsmen of the medieval English armies far too effective so it returned to the initial version.

LF are killable and while I tend to use a lot of them they can be caught and when they are they die.

I am seriously considering a light spear/sword cavalry army if I can find one as I suspect that all these LF and Bow Cavalry armies will really not enjoy being charged over and over by massed javelin cavalry.

Hammy

OK, charging in a column is a bad idea as you will automatically have to take a test at -1 if you lose (you only count the first three ranks for HP3B). A single element column is also a very bad formation to face shooters with for much the same reason.

Fighting on a one base frontage means that the cavalry are effectively not disadvantaged for the terrain as they only get two dice anyway so you are playing into their hands again.

Yes the issue with this example is being in a column. It effectively makes it 4 MF vs 4 Cv at best and neutralises the numbers that should take the cavalry down. Try the smae thing with 4 Cv vs 8 MF in 3-3-2 formation at the start. Impact phase + to Cv but 3 dice vs 4. Melee phase + to the Cv if Arm Sw but 3 dice vs 8. Cav should get lsaughtered on average.

Si

When I read the rules a couple of times, my first thought was shooting was testimonial with a poor effects in battles and some pieces will be useless with this set of rules.

After a few battles and test, I still having this impression about shooting, so when I ask JD to allow me to organize a Beta tester tournament in Spain, I was thinking it will be a good time to test this one.

Finally, JD authorized and the Tournament go on.

So, as in all previous battles shooting was not able to do any interesting thing, I want to test massive shooting. I look my armies, and select the most massive shooting option.

I Choose Early Achemenid Persian. I can choose Medizing Greek hoplites, but I want to maximize shoot, so I discard them. All guys in my army will shoot. After a few test, this is the army:

1 x IC
2 x TC

4 x Saka Cavalry, LH, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Bow, Swordsmen
4 x Bactrian Cavalry, LH, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Bow, Ligth Spear
4 x Horse Archers, LH, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Bow

6 x Crescent Shield Archers, LF, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Bow
6 x Crescent Shield Archers, LF, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Bow
6 x Crescent Shield Archers, LF, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Bow

2 x Guard Cavalry, Cv, Armoured, Elite, Drilled, Bow, Swordsmen
4 x Persian Cavalry, Cv, Armoured, Superior, Undrilled, Bow, Swordsmen
4 x Persian Cavalry, Cv, Armoured, Superior, Undrilled, Bow, Swordsmen

4 x Persian Cavalry, Cv, Armoured, Superior, Undrilled, Bow, Swordsmen
8 x Immortals, MF, Armoured, Superior, Drilled, Bow, Light Spear
8 x Immortals, MF, Armoured, Superior, Drilled, Bow, Light Spear

I choose a IC to obtain a 4 aggression factor. It will be very important for this army get the initiative, and the first and second batches will get me an important deployment advantage, and I will deploy the Immortals the last, because I think is the most vulnerable piece of my army although their quality (The only piece that cannot evade).

The Tournament start, so my “Big Shooting Test” start …

First Battle, Early Achemenid Persian vs Principate Roman.



Roman deploy a big BL of Legionaries in the centre, with one flank cover with Auxiliary MF, an the other with more Auxiliary and Archers MF, with a big hole in the centre, and with a few cavalry and cataphract reserve. I send cavalry the gap to comit the cavalry reserve while LF hold the legion advance and when I was sure I press both flaks with my Immortals with cavalry support. Masive Shooting disrupted both flanks and cavalry do the final job.

With no flanks and camp sacked, Roman was clearly defeated. 32-0 for Achemenid.

Thougths: I need more than two turns to overrun both flanks, with shooting rounds of 10/12 dice against one unit. The worst modifier to be shoot at is -1. One time I do 7 hits, with no moral loose and no base removal. I’m was not very happy …

Second Battle, Early Achemenid Persian vs Medieval Irish



A lot of HF with Heavy Weapon … My only advantage is his worst MF. In his deployment area he has only one piece of Rough Going, so my Immortals know what to do. My Calvaly holding his HF, my Light Horse holding his Cavalry, and Immortals go quickly for his medium foot. A clearly game. Immortals make a very good job, disrupting in shooting, charging after, broken them and pursuing to be near the camp, and sacked. I have 12 point of 13 needed.

¡¡¡And the stupid turn arrive!!!.
The enemy declare charge with all available battlegroups to take a few points. With a clear victory on my hands, I evade all of them, and I was catched in 5 times, in a 6 to 1 VMD. In the shooting phase, my rival shoot 4 dices versus my Armoured Guard Cavaly and he obtain 3 hits, I check for death roll and the 1, ¡Bye, Bye, Guard Cavalry!

I only need 1 point to win, so I look the battle, and one MF of the Irish will be broken with only one base removal, so I send all possible guys to solve my problem. Again, I shoot with 9 dices with no base removal.

And finaly I loose the game. 13-19 for Anglo Irish.

I was not very happy with shooting again, but I loose the game in evasions with a very big luck for my rival.

Thougths: ¡Never 2 bases units! ¿Guard Cavalry? ¿Who is Guard Cavalry…? and Evasion is NOT COMPULSORY.

Third Battle, Early Achemenid Persian vs Wallachian



An important test. Wallachian has more and better mounted troops, with interesting filler. The game not start very good: I lost the initiative versus a more mobile army, so Immortals will be difficult to be in the better place, and in this battle I think they are the key.

To take the lesser risk, I refuse my left flank, leave an space in front of my enemy camp to deploy both BG of Importals in order to make a BL and maximize their first movement. Cavalry deploy in both flanks of the Immortals.

My opponent deploy was refused the same flank, with a few MF and HF in their centre but with no intention to commit them in the battle. With all their mounted in me left flank, all battle groups wheel to enclose them in the corner and the interaction of Mounted and Immortals was to powerful against lesser units with no space, while a few skirmish can controlled a big part of my enemy army.

The fist shooting round was effective, disrupting some units and don’t allow to my opponent respond the attack ordely.

Superior Quality of my opponent troops delay a clearly victory after the initial movements. Final score: 32-0 to to the Aquemenids, and Dracul Count was killed on the way.

Thoughts: A well planed attack with shooting support in advantage is to hard to stop, but is too difficult to do.

At this stage of the tournament I’m second, tie with Julian. We look the other point to break the tie and finally Julian has a little advantage in the third point, so Julian pays in the first table.

Victory is not in my hands, I can only try to win and wait results.

Fourth Battle, Early Achemenid Persian vs Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian



With my friend and big support with the tournament organization: David Caceres. I have no idea of this army, but in the lunch I was ear this army has Pikemen, Knigths, good MF and some LH.

I don’t know well my opponent army but terrain deployment clarify the game. I put a big Rough Going in the centre of my opponent base edge, and he was very interested on move the a few MU, so there are 2/3 of the table clear supported by this terrain. All their MF will be in this piece and Pikemen and Spearmen will be in the centre and all his mounted in me right flank whith some infantry support.

All correct, my plan is go on. All cavalry cover the 2/3 of the table blocking their infantry and mounted, and Immortals go for the terrain to clear it and after sack his camp. I possibly need some cavalry support for them, so I put one cavalry units in their flank and one light horse to delay any skirmish in this flank.

The best of a good plan is when it work well. A big error of my rival deploying their almogavars behind their Crossbow MF thinking they can make an interpenetration help my a lot.

And when his MF was near to broken his Pikemen is near my flank with a not very good ideas. I send a BG of LF to block their charge to my Immortals, and in the next turn I need LF pass their CMT to stand and not to evade and hold few turn to give Immortals time to finish their job. All right, LF stand and Immortals do their job. In the pursue movement they contact pikemen.

This job is a big test for them, so I commit my IC to the combat. Immortals finaly broken the Pikemen, hold a flank charge and stand.

At this moment, Julian arrive with a 32-0 victory in his hand: He was the Champion. So I put all my effort in sack the Castilian Camp (There are a big trophy for the Most Sacking Player).

Finaly a 29-3 victory to the Aquemenid Persians.

Thoughts: Terrain Deployment will be very important, and march order too. I think I win this game because I see clearly how my rival will be deployed and what to do (and I find…)

The “Big Shooting Test” was end.

Tree clearly victories 32-0, 32-0 and 29-3 and one phirric victory for my opponent in the second game 13-19. The Tournament is over and I was very happy with all players, rules, and results.

General Conclusions:

1.- The Rules: In a tournament with new rules I wait for a lot of questions and troubles. No problems. Rules are clear and solid.

2.- Historical approach: I feel very good, and all players too.

3.- Visual effects: For me the best. Solid BG maneuvering in the “Field of Glory”.

4.- Play: Quick game and funny games.

Shooting Conclusions:

1.- I think that the worst modifier to be shoot at be -1 make shooting a little useful.
Shooting dice and POA’s sound right, but Cohesion Test no.

2.- LF with shooting capability is better than MF. You throw less dice but you can evade. I will rebase all my MF to LF, be sure.

3.- The only interesting MF is a very well equipped and with High quality or Impact foot. I never lose the Immortals in any game, but I think very well how to do with them all the battles.

Finally I have only one problem: “February is too far …”, and I need more FoG.

Thanks for all guys who work in this wonderful proyect.

Shooting Conclusions:

1.- I think that the worst modifier to be shoot at be -1 make shooting a little useful.
Shooting dice and POA’s sound right, but Cohesion Test no.

2.- LF with shooting capability is better than MF. You throw less dice but you can evade. I will rebase all my MF to LF, be sure.

3.- The only interesting MF is a very well equipped and with High quality or Impact foot. I never lose the Immortals in any game, but I think very well how to do with them all the battles.

Finally I have only one problem: “February is too far …”, and I need more FoG.

Thanks for all guys who work in this wonderful proyect.

On behalf of us all - thanks for the thanks. We are enjoying it too. Great reports and photos too.

On yout points above:

Shooting: We found it was enough to have a -1 for shooting, if you get lots of hit you can get a base off too. We tested it with higher levels and it made shooting too effective. I think reading your reports you can safely say that a big shooting army has great potential - but some risks. And overall this is a good balance.

LF vs MF shooting. Historically LF with Bow trained as skirmishers were more useful that MF peasant bowmen (the old Bw(I)). But I doubt you will fail to remember that evaders can get caught at times too so there is risk. MF Unprot Bw are a defensive BG really and useful if there is a roll for these - eg intermingled with Def Sp who can support them. MF then become useful offensively wehn they have soething more - a melee skill, stakes, armour etc. This we feel is entirely realsitic. So Dailami, Amulghavars, Immortals, Samurai, Barbarian Warrios - all very useful offesnive MF. The old BW(I) isn't and it shouldn't be. Its a DBX myth!

Si

I wanted to use a knight army as I had a lot of nicely painted bases begging for another stab at victory after the repetitive humiliation of chasing lone LH elements in DBM. After a detailed analysis of Tim's Britcon performance with Later Crusaders, it was obvious that the problem was the lack of proper troops (knights) and the abundance of worthless peasants armed with pointy sticks. I chose the Latin Greece list because there were no compulsory HF or MF on which to waste points altoughI did end up spending a few points on foot skirmishers. This was mainly to provide entertainment for the nobility whilst these got worked up for the chase...sorry...the charge. To the general surprise and amazement of their barons, these peasants did also turn out to be useful as they occupied the attentions of those enemy BGs too effeminate and shifty to get up close and personal to the knights.

Just to show that the new management in Constantinople is politically correct and inclusive we enrolled a couple of Drilled Byzantine cavalry BGs and one Turkish LH BG to join the fun. Their main task was to make sure no one spoiled the knights' fun with a flank charge. As we didn't expect these foreigners to put up much of a fight and we didn't want to stress them by imposing impossible tasks we just asked them to die as slowly as possible.

In charge of this merry crowd, our inspired poet Emperor, Baldwin the Mad, spent most of his time running up and down the skirmish line providing them with moral support mostly through reading rousing verses of his own composition and the occasional use of the flat of his sword. Worked a treat. Peter de Courtenay and Geoffrey de Villehardouin completed our expert team of tacticians and repeatedly demonstrated their generalship by joining their chums in the front rank of the cavalry and hacking away at the enemy.

To keep things as short as possible I will only refer to those pieces of terrain that played a part in the deployment of BGs and/or combat. Right and left as seen from my side. Enemy army lists may contain mistakes.


Latin Greece, 1266 AD
1 IC, 2 TC

4 x 4 Frankish Knights, Superior, Undrilled, HA, Lance, Swordsmen
2 x 4 Byzantine Cavalry, Average, Drilled, A, Lance, Swordsmen
1 x 4 Turks LH, Average, U, Undrilled, Bow, Swordsmen
1 x 6 Archers, Poor, Undrilled, U, bow
5 x 8 Archers, Poor, Undrilled, U, bow

13 BGs

Game 1 (my third FoG game and first with this list): vs Portugese

3 TC
2 x 4 Knights, Superior, Undrilled, HA, Lance, Swordsmen
1 x 4 Dismounted Knights HF, Superior, Undrilled, HA, HW
1 x 6 Jinetes, LH, Average, Undrilled, P, L.Spear, javelins
1 x 4 Jinetes, LH, Average, Undrilled, P, L.Spear, javelins
1 x 8 Javelinmen MF, Average, Undrilled, P, L.Spear
1 x 8 Crossbowmen, Undrilled, P, Crossbow
1 x 6 Spearmen, HF, Undrilled, P, Defensive Spear.
1 x 6 Archers, Poor, Undrilled, U, bow
1 x 8 Archers, Poor, Undrilled, U, bow


1 English Ally TC
1 x 6 Dismounted English Knights HF, Superior, Undrilled, HA, HW
1 x 8 English archers, MF, Drilled, P, longbow, Swordsmen (no stakes)


Terrain: Open field in the middle of the table and another on the right flank in the middle.

I deployed three BGs of Knights in between the two open fields with a continous line of archers in front from the right flank to past the field in the middle of the table. Facing my knights were the two Knight BGs and the Crossbowmen. My opponent placed the javelinmen opposite the central terrain piece (and my baggage) and his LF archers opposite mine on the right flank.

The Turks followed by the Byzantine cavalry and one BG of knights were deployed on the left flank. Facing them were the enemy LH, the dismounted knights, the English dismounted knights and the longbowmen.

The two parts of my army were separated by a good two feet whilst the Portugese used their spearmen to cover this gap.

On the right flank, I charged two BGs of knights into the crossbowmen and the other knights into both enemy knight BGs. The idea was to wipe out the crossbowmen and then turn against the enemy knights flank whilst these were busy. Unfortunately, the crossbowmen didn't cooperate and it took three charges and a further two rounds of melee before the bastards realized that fruit knives didn't constitute adequate hand-to-hand weaponry against knights. Fortunately, my more numerous archers drove off their opposite numbers and were able keep the enemy knights busy after these had routed my knight BG.

On the left flank the knights and one byzantine BG charged the English longbowmen in the open after laughing off their shooting. The Byzantines broke immediately and it took the knights three charges before the longbowmen lost a fight and eventually decamped. The other byzantine and the Turks routed one enemy LH before being themselves routed by a counter attack by dismounted knights and a LH.

The Portugese javelinmen in the centre ignored the hail of arrows to push my archers right back to the baggage where the latter resisted in close combat just long enough to save the camp from being sacked when time was called.

The game was a draw. Despite a good deployment, excellent match-ups and good manoeuvering I just couldn't match my opponent's dice until the last few turns which didn't allow me time to exploit local victories. The game was useful in that it demonstrated the LF's ability to distract the enemy and destroy isolated ones.

Result: 16-16

Game 2: vs Alexandrian Macedonian

My opponent's first game which he lost by deploying his mounted in front of his pike. My knights duly made mincemeat of them. On the right flank my LF eventually beat the Agrianians and Cretans (both superior) in melee thanks to being uphill and in two ranks vs one. However, it took something like six rounds of melee and a couple of leaders to boost them.

Result: 32-0

Game 3: vs Medieval Irish

4 TC
1 x 4 Cavalry, Superior, Undrilled, A, Lance, Swordsmen
2 x 4 Cavalry, Superior, Undrilled, A, L.Spear, Swordsmen
2 x 6 HF, Superior, Undrilled, HW
2 x 6 HF, Average, Undrilled, HW
2 x 6 HF, Poor, Undrilled, HW
2 x 8 MF, Average, Undrilled, L. Spear
1 x 8 MF, Undrilled, U, longbow
2 x 8 LF, Poor, Undrilled, P, L.Spear, javelins
1 x 6 LH, Average, Undrilled, P, L.Spear, javelins

Terrain: Wood on the right flank in the middle facing an open field on his side of the table. A large steep hill on the left flank in the middle and 4 inches beyond it another steep hill.

I deployed my knights facing the gap between the wood and the steep hills with the two byzantines on their right flank. Two units of archers in the wood. All remaining archers facing the steep hills with the Turks in support.

Facing the wood were a unit each of LF and MF javelinmen. Facing the steep hill on the flank were a unit each of LF and MF javelinmen and the longbowmen. A unit of cavalry and the LH were opposite the gap between the steep hills. Opposite the gap between the steep hill and the wood were the HF with a unit of cavalry on each flank.

The Irish LH moved forward and charged my archers before I had time to reach the hill on the flank. The rest of the enemy slowly moved over it with nothing but my Turks to face them at the bottom of the slope. However, my archers lasted long enough for another unit to join the combat and eventually rout the LH. By the time the longbowmen and the MF had come off the hill I had reformed the skirmish line and shot the unprotected longbowmen into oblivion whilst falling back from the javelinmen MF.

Meanwhile two units of archers raced unopposed on to central steep hill and turned to face both flanks. Undettered by the terrain the Irish charged uphill with a cavalry unit and sent a HF unit lumbering up the other side. To my surprise the cavalry routed one of the archers but was finally beaten by the second archer unit. On the other flank the enemy LF javelinmen wiped out both my archers in close combat in one turn but its supporting MF unit was caught in the open and ridden down by a byzantine cavalry unit covering that flank.

In the centre, my knights advanced against the Irish HF and charged. After a couple of charges, they all settled down to a long-drawn out hacking match where the loss of bases and inferior morale of the Irish was decisive in their ultimate defeat. Meanwhile, I sent the remaining byzantine unit around the rear of the knights to shore up the left flank which was being threatened by Irish cavalry.

A hard fought battle which the Irish lost mainly because they didn't challenge the central steep hill and wasted valuable units to face off my LF whilst their terrain troops spent most of the game tramping over a steep hill on a flank which I was never going to contest.

Result: 29-3

Game 4: vs Ottoman Turks

1 IC, 2 TC
1 x 8 Janissaries MF, Superior, Drilled, P, Bow, Swordsmen
1 x 4 Iaylars, MF, Superior, Undrilled, P, Impact Foor, Swordsmen.
1 x 8 Azabs LF, Poor, Undrilled, U, Bow
2 x 6 Akinjis, LH, Average, U, Undrilled, Bow
1 x 4 Akinjis, LH, Average, U, Undrilled, Bow
1 x 6 Delis, LH, Superior, Undrilled, U, Lance, Swordsmen
1 x 6 Bedouins LH, Superior, Undrilled, U, Lance, Swordsmen
1 x 4 Qapukulu Cav, Elite, Drilled, A, Bow, Swordsmen
1 x 4 Spahi Cav, Superior, Drilled, A, Bow, Swordsmen
2 x 4 Spahi Cav, Superior, Drilled, P, Bow, Swordsmen

Terrain: Two vineyards in the middle of the long edge on my side.

I deployed the skirmish line from the right flank right up to the vineyard with one unit of archers beyond the vineyard to delay an enemy flanking move. The Turks were against the table edge. Behind the archers in between the table edge and the vineyards were the knights in a compact group with a Byzantine cavalry unit on each flank.

Facing my knights were the Azabs who were covering their baggage. Next to them was the Turkish cavalry in reserve. The infantry deployed beyond them facing the vineyards with the light horse extending the line beyond the vineyards.

The Turkish plan was clear. They intended to sweep my LF from the vineyard with their MF, push their light horse through the terrain to sack the camp and turn on the knight's rear whilst refusing the other flank. The cavalry was to remain in reserve to face the knights once these had been committed and shoot them down. Time was on Pedro J. Sanchjez's side since he was 17 points clear of me and I needed a big win to wrest first place from him and stay clear of Juan Miguel Morillas who was third but on the same points as I. I decided to attack all along the line whilst delaying in the vineyards.

The skirmish line, anchored on the vineyards, pivoted left with the mounted line in close support. With no enemy close, I was able to move very rapidly and started to threaten the Azabs and the baggage. The Turks responded by sending an Akinji unit to support the Azabs and formed a line of cavalry opposite my archers and their mounted supports whilst their infantry raced towards the vineyards. A shooting match started with between my LF and the cavalry which I started through sheer numbers. Everytime a cavalry unit became disrupted it charged the opposing LF which fled to safety behind the knights. My generals managed to control most of the knights so they didn´t charge but usually one did which allowed my returning LF to outshoot those cavalry units that were not charged. Eventually one of my knights caught a cavalry unit and another one rolled up on its pursuit and managed to pin down the Janissaries just before they got to the safety of the vineyard. From that moment the chase was on and the Turkish cavalry never really threatened me again. The push through the vineyards was slow and effectively got nowhere especially after the Janissaries routed. On the right flank, my Turks and one archer unit faced off the Akinjis whilst the remain archers got rid of the Azabs and sacked the camp which won me the game.

Result: 32-0

Pedro lost the game largely because he concentrated too many of his LH against the vineyards when they should have been chasing my LF in the open and drawing out my knights away from the skirmish line to be shot up by the cavalry. The loss of the Janissaries was also unfortunate and decisive in securing my vineyard flank. I very much doubt Pedro will repeat either mistake!

General Conclusions:

The army worked very well. The archers were very effective in giving the knights time and space to manoeuvre into position and then delaying any attempt to attack their flanks. They also managed to break a few units, usually isolated, in every game through sheer numbers and with the help of the IC waving them on. The knights did well largely because I used them in one solid block, two ranks deep. The Byzantine cavalry were useful to provide the knights with flank protection or to exploit gaps in the enemy line but were too fragile to risk in hand-to-hand alone. Having said that, the army relies heavily on cooperation between the LF and the knights and I suspect that experienced players will find it relatively easy to separate the two and defeat them piecemeal.

The two things I came away with were:

1. It takes a long time to get in a position to charge units in the flank.
2. Reserves with a general are crucial.

Very good set rules. Compliments to the design team.


Regards,

Julian