Slitherine

Over the weekend I played a competition match against Ottoman Turks, with Serb allies.

The army list used by my opponent had a staggering 19 BGs, and this included the Serbs. All the LH archers and Cav were taken in 4s, and there was also some BGs of 2 using the Qapu Khalqi Cavalry. By contrast, I was using Ancient British, a reasonably large undrilled army, yet I only had 14 BGs.

Obviously this gives the Turks a massive amount of firepower- the small BGs can easily be angled in against targets to give lots of shooting. This part I can accept, although it does seem odd that smaller BGs can shoot better than larger ones.

The real problem is that, even if I catch the evading cavalry, I would need to rout 10 BGs to break the army. This is a hard task over a 4 hour game. If the Ottoman player plays carefully then he is in no real danger of losing.

It seems to me that the option of taking cavalry in 4s and 2s makes some armies too large. Was this the intention of the lists, or am I just playing the wrong tactics?

I tend to agree with you! It's difficult with lists that aim to cater for anywhere from 600 to 1000 pt armies to specify upward limit for no of BGs. Previous prehistoric rulesets made you pay in points for each "unit" you used so there was a cost if you chose lots of small ones. In FOG 3x4 LH are better "value" than 2x6 LH, by common consensus. On the other hand, the skill in army construction is one of the plus points of these rules.
Having tangled with a careful Ottoman, I know the frustration, without enough LH and shooting of your own, they can dodge all over the place. I think this is why we are seeing so many armies with 3 or 4 BGs of LH. However, I guess that just shows their value in game and historical terms?

Martin

WhiteKnight wrote:I tend to agree with you! It's difficult with lists that aim to cater for anywhere from 600 to 1000 pt armies to specify upward limit for no of BGs. Previous prehistoric rulesets made you pay in points for each "unit" you used so there was a cost if you chose lots of small ones. In FOG 3x4 LH are better "value" than 2x6 LH, by common consensus. On the other hand, the skill in army construction is one of the plus points of these rules.
Having tangled with a careful Ottoman, I know the frustration, without enough LH and shooting of your own, they can dodge all over the place. I think this is why we are seeing so many armies with 3 or 4 BGs of LH. However, I guess that just shows their value in game and historical terms?

While it is all well and good to have a lot of small BG's it is by no means certain that 3*4 is always better than 2*6.

If a BG of 4 loses a base it will permanently be at -1 on it's CTs

A BG of 2 bases is destroyed if it loses 1 base while a BG of 4 superiors or better needs to lose 3 bases.

A large BG multiplies the benefit of generals in close combat. Two BGs of 6 superiors led by two generals are better than three BGs of 4 led by two generals.

A BG of 10 needs 4 hits to make it take a CT from shooting.

Etc.

There a places where a large BG is good and places where small ones are of more benefit.

While it is all well and good to have a lot of small BG's it is by no means certain that 3*4 is always better than 2*6.

If a BG of 4 loses a base it will permanently be at -1 on it's CTs

A BG of 2 bases is destroyed if it loses 1 base while a BG of 4 superiors or better needs to lose 3 bases.

A large BG multiplies the benefit of generals in close combat. Two BGs of 6 superiors led by two generals are better than three BGs of 4 led by two generals.

A BG of 10 needs 4 hits to make it take a CT from shooting.

Etc.

There a places where a large BG is good and places where small ones are of more benefit.

i'm not sure this is what richnz was driving at.

the ottoman list states that the elite/superior cavalry has 6 elements available, and there has to be 2-6 elements in the BG.

the intention is probably to provide *1* BG of between 2 and 6 elements, but a gamesman can interpret that as 3 separate BG. this effectively inflates the army by *6* breakpoints, where the troop type should only add 2.

so you can equivocate about how easy it is to break small BG, but if they're only there to inflate the army and spend the game chasing down the opponents light troops, then the negative POA are meaningless.

the practical reality is that the list is being exploited to provide an unforeseen advantage. it also makes competition games exceptionally boring, which is something i've taken up FOG to avoid...

I would be very happy to see my opponent field BGs of 2 as 1 unlucky death roll and good bye expensive elite BG, hello 2 attrition points.

I am assuming these are elite shooty cav, so they are strung out 1 deep, say 3 BGs in a row to minimise shooting losses.
Up against foot archers they are likely facing at least 3 dice back at each group, possibly 4 or more on the ends.
1 hit is enough to force a test, so muppety cheap and nasties can force a test on them. Every test will be on -1 as 1 hit is 1 per 2. 3 hits means a 1/6 dead BG, and more shooting on the remaining bgs. They would need to hide behind the rest of the army to be safe.
so expensive, neutered BGs, which then put the rest of the army in harms way. Perfect.

OldenTired wrote:i'm not sure this is what richnz was driving at.

the ottoman list states that the elite/superior cavalry has 6 elements available, and there has to be 2-6 elements in the BG.

the intention is probably to provide *1* BG of between 2 and 6 elements, but a gamesman can interpret that as 3 separate BG. this effectively inflates the army by *6* breakpoints, where the troop type should only add 2.

so you can equivocate about how easy it is to break small BG, but if they're only there to inflate the army and spend the game chasing down the opponents light troops, then the negative POA are meaningless.

the practical reality is that the list is being exploited to provide an unforeseen advantage. it also makes competition games exceptionally boring, which is something i've taken up FOG to avoid...

I can assure you that fielding three BGs of 2 bases is perfectly OK and has been conisdered and allowed by the list writing team. There are plenty of cases where BG size has been used as a tool to limit the number of BGs and this is not one of them.

I was mainly replying to the contention that the same number of bases in more BGs is always better. It isn't. BGs of 2 bases while very maneuverable are really fragile. Paul's comments about how his eyes would light up if he saw three BGs of 2 bases comming for him are very much my thoughts too.

I am regularly running LH archers in BGs of 6 through choice not because I am forced to.

BG's of 2 are VERY vulnerable to shooting unless they deploy 2 ranks deep (so if cavalry can't evade) and with friends immediately to either side.

These 2-base BGs of bodyguard cavalry in an Ottoman force may well be there to both maximise the BG count and to act as rear supports a la triarii ...it would be asking for trouble to put them straight into the fray! In which case, having them as Sup rather than Elite ( if thats allowed ) would be adequate.

I dont think the Sultan would have shoved these guys into the battle early on, and at the back of my mind is a ORBAT for Mohacs in which these guys were right at the rear of the deployment, behind the Janissaries who were themselves behind a line of wagons! ....and guess what, in front of the wagons was a line of artillery fronted by obstacles!

Attack that lot if you dare!

Martin

hammy wrote:
I can assure you that fielding three BGs of 2 bases is perfectly OK and has been conisdered and allowed by the list writing team. There are plenty of cases where BG size has been used as a tool to limit the number of BGs and this is not one of them.

<marge>mmmmmmmmm</marge>

i'm not convinced.

it still seems like an opportunity to add a unfair advantage to a list that is already strong. could i reiterate richnz's NINETEEN BG?

your response indicates that yet again the favour is placed on shooting armies...

ah well. better start painting that HYW English if i want to be at all competitive.

OldenTired wrote: your response indicates that yet again the favour is placed on shooting armies...

ah well. better start painting that HYW English if i want to be at all competitive.

Well at the Leeds doubles the first two places were taken by armies with plenty of propper heavy foot supported by medium close combat foot with very limited shooting power.

That said the last time I faced Ottoman I lost but I was still learning the ropes and I suspect I could have played a lot better.

ah well. better start painting that HYW English if i want to be at all competitive.

...and would you want to take longbowmen against romans?

Shooty cav armies are nasty to heavy infantry, but look a bit lacking against supported knights, who then die horribly to pike and longbows, who get beaten up by impact foot

and so on

I only mentioned shooting as I was using HYW this weekend

hammy wrote:

OldenTired wrote: your response indicates that yet again the favour is placed on shooting armies...

ah well. better start painting that HYW English if i want to be at all competitive.

Well at the Leeds doubles the first two places were taken by armies with plenty of propper heavy foot supported by medium close combat foot with very limited shooting power.

That said the last time I faced Ottoman I lost but I was still learning the ropes and I suspect I could have played a lot better.

did they 19 BG? that might have been the problem....

...and would you want to take longbowmen against romans?

Romans aren't the problem. Piles of Protected Offensive spearmen do the job much better (bigger BG's, cheaper, just as good, etc, etc)

I am dying to face one with my jocks

close combat version
3bgs of 2 elite shooty cav
move as close as possible with your bg of 6 knights, with suitable rear support and general
(6 shots hitting on 5s - you are going to test a lot) but with a range of 4 for shooting and a kn move of 4, you can get pretty damn close.

at some point the cav have to decide if to evade or face the charge, or turn 180 and run away.
The knghts chase, then decision time again. Eventually (quickly) those elites have to fight.
impact - the knights are going to be a POA up on the same dice.
as each fight is seperate, even if the elite'ness of the cav give them some really good dice, the chances are that one of the three bgs will lose even if the knights are unlucky and lose over all.
this brings the death roll in , possibly even 3 if the knights win each section of the combat (which they probably should)
3 death rolls on 1 or 2?
probably one dead , so one dead BG
melee - the cav are in real do do.
12 dice against 4 in two battle groups, with at least 1 poa for the knights.
ouch
thatll be something in the region of 4 hits on each bg.
2 death rolls on a 4?
unlikely that both will make it

very expensive, very dead.

like I said - BGs of 2 = target

OldenTired wrote:[quote="hammyThat said the last time I faced Ottoman I lost but I was still learning the ropes and I suspect I could have played a lot better.

did they 19 BG? that might have been the problem.... [/quote]

No but they did have a fair number of poor light foot to make lots of BGs. The problem was more that I couldn't catch them.

Looking at the Ottoman list (which may have changed slightly from the ones in the beta pack)

There are four really cheap BGs available, one of mob, one of spearmen and two of light foot. In total you could have 4 BGs for less than 50 points... The downside is that if you lose them and as they are all poor and small if you use them you will lose them they are as bad as losing a real BG.

The elites in BG's of 2 are fine till they lose or take three hits from shooting. If you roll badly on the death roll it will hurt.

Overall it is a bit like the DBM Babylonian army with 50 hordes, imposing to start with but not a world beater.

We will see what happens when the Ottoman book hits the streets and people start to use it in UK comps.

paulcummins wrote:
very expensive, very dead.

like I said - BGs of 2 = target

i agree about close combat.

but these BG won't be used like that. they'll be used like 38 point generals to sit behind other BG, add a +1 to cohesion tests, and inflate the overall break points by 4.

but unlike generals they can also fight in a pinch and add to shooting results.

meh. let's wait till they annoy more people than just richnz.

There definitely are negatives to having those small BGs of mounted. But they really only kick in when they are used in close combat or exposed to shooting.

If, for example, I have mostly infantry army with limited shooting power then it's almost impossible for me to break 10 BGs in 4 hours. Especially when the Ottoman players keeps it conservative. With all the time for maneuver (moving around 19 BGs can take a while), shooting, evading etc there's not a lot of time left to chase across the board either.

richnz wrote:There definitely are negatives to having those small BGs of mounted. But they really only kick in when they are used in close combat or exposed to shooting.

If, for example, I have mostly infantry army with limited shooting power then it's almost impossible for me to break 10 BGs in 4 hours. Especially when the Ottoman players keeps it conservative. With all the time for maneuver (moving around 19 BGs can take a while), shooting, evading etc there's not a lot of time left to chase across the board either.

Personally, I would worry more about being defeated by the Ottomans than about not defeating them in the time limit.

Ottomans have done very well in tournaments so far, and they didn't do it by "not losing".

True mini BG's can be held back but if one of them is going to give a boost for CT's then the front rank BG's can't be more than 4 bases can they and all the comments about small BGs still apply.

If you want an army with a lot of BG's I think a low grade Mid Republican Roman can field getting on for 30 BGs at 800 points

6 legions of 4 unprotected velites, 2 * 4 protected average Hasti / Principes plus 2 Triarii work out at 636 points and 24 BGs

It wouldn't be a good army but it would be big.

It'd be interesting to see somebody try it out ...

richnz wrote: By contrast, I was using Ancient British, a reasonably large undrilled army, yet I only had 14 BGs.

from reading the comments, i think we can narrow the problem down there richnz.

your ancient british are poo