Slitherine

Loking at the first game I played, I have been thinking about the way shooting is used. It seems to me that you cannot use missiles to much effect other than annoyance of battle groups unless the shooters are amassed into a large group. Was this historically accurate or intended in the rules to be this way?

Brainsnaffler wrote:Loking at the first game I played, I have been thinking about the way shooting is used. It seems to me that you cannot use missiles to much effect other than annoyance of battle groups unless the shooters are amassed into a large group. Was this historically accurate or intended in the rules to be this way?

The more shooters you have the more chance of success. However I managed to rout a BG of 8 Thracian MF with 6 Poor LF Javelinmen the other day. (Because the Thracians were 4 ranks deep and we managed to score 2 hits repeatedly).

So to achieve anything with small numbers of shooters you need luck. To improved your chances you need lots of shooters.

(Like the BG of 12 pikes we routed later in the same battle with 7 dice of superior cavalry bowmen and 4 dice of poor javelinmen!)

Brainsnaffler wrote:Loking at the first game I played, I have been thinking about the way shooting is used. It seems to me that you cannot use missiles to much effect other than annoyance of battle groups unless the shooters are amassed into a large group. Was this historically accurate or intended in the rules to be this way?

Shooters can cause disruption and even, sometimes, rout units. However, on their own they won't win a game.

This "feels" about right - in the pre gunpowder era shock was more potent that missile. Even armies that were heavily reliant on missiles tended to use shock to deliver the winning blow.

Well, it feels right to me too. I think it's somewhat of a realistic idea that throwing a handful of javelins into a sizeable battlegroup is not going to do much. The problem is that with the starter armies of Carthage and Republican Roman, you have small groups of javelins, therefore they have rubbish range and the groups are only 4 bases. Many of my friends are not seeing the point in using just these groups as at best you are getting around 2 dice and needing 5+. With these kind of odds, theres not much chance of doing anything!

I just wanted something to back up the reasonings as to why the game was designed this way. Having not yet bought Storm of Arrows, things maybe very different in the Middle Ages with bows firing a lot further and with bigger groups.

What can I use to argue against "what's the point in using the LH / LF?"

Many good players are choosing armies with lots of light troops and doing very well. Not a bad argument to start with.

The question is really how do I use them.
LF types were common in most ancient armies and they wouldn't have had them along without reason. They can screen heavier troops, chase off enemy LF, delay an enemy advance, ambush from covering terrain, move swiftly in difficult areas and wear an enemy down with harassing fire. They were used to counter elephants and scythed chariots. They can move in battle lines with horse and can interpenetrate and be interpenetrated by more troop types than the majority of others. They can charge and chase down routers to prevent them rallying. What they can't do is fight effectively hand to hand or carry out battle-winning missile fire, well not often!
LH is a different breed, now they really can be major contributors to a battle win if the terrain is right and there are enough of them!

Martin

LF can be used to disorganize the enemy if they are not themselves screened. You send them forward and that triggers CMT not to charge and if they charge with the variable movement you have a good chance of disorganizing the battle line, of course then you need to be able to capitalize on this.
On the other hand missile troops are very good against small cavalry units, not that difficult to get the hit per base requirement and usually good POA, and even better if you manage to get them in difficult terrain.

I think if you look at the battle reports from the Numidians ( there are 5 of those ) you will see some excellent examples of good use of these troops.
In the battle that I refereed a couple of weeks ago I was dissapointed that the romans didn't maximize the use of their lights, there was a good plantation on their right flank that would have become a fortress if the cretan archers with velites support were sent there and it would have rendered most of the heavy carthaginian cavalry useless, having to go around the plantation and being totally exposed to the deadly cretan missile fire.

just my two cents

seldon

Brainsnaffler wrote: What can I use to argue against "what's the point in using the LH / LF?"

I recently used 50 bases of LH/LF in an 800 AP comp. I did reasonably well. If you look on the AAR subforum the 5 games are described as BHGS CHALLENGE AAR No 1/2/3/4/5 - NUMIDIANS... There are photos to help explain the battle / tactics.

Neil

You mentioned that this was the first game you played. Beleive me, you will need to get a few more under your wing to understand the nuances fully. he first game I played I thought having LF archers was absolutely pointless, but then aftera few more games and undestanding of teh mechanics I saw their benefit and where they have advantages.

There have been plenty of instances where I have now routed a MF BG, disrupted/fragmented HF BGs and charged them with other BG's.

Missiles work well. There are times that you do need to "gang up" ona BG and shower them with arrows so you can get as many dice as possible to roll and attempt a cohesion test. Even disrupted I find puts the opposition on the back foot and he starts changing his strategy. This means you have already started to get an upper hand and need to look to consolidate. And what did you use in the end?? 1-2 BGs of LF archers. Not bad in my books.

In my experience, 3 BGs of 4-base LH with bows, and some room to maneouvre will pretty much shatter (by cohesion loss) most enemy BGs over 3-4 turns of bowfire...

DVeight wrote:You mentioned that this was the first game you played. Beleive me, you will need to get a few more under your wing to understand the nuances fully. he first game I played I thought having LF archers was absolutely pointless, but then aftera few more games and undestanding of teh mechanics I saw their benefit and where they have advantages.

There have been plenty of instances where I have now routed a MF BG, disrupted/fragmented HF BGs and charged them with other BG's.

Missiles work well. There are times that you do need to "gang up" ona BG and shower them with arrows so you can get as many dice as possible to roll and attempt a cohesion test. Even disrupted I find puts the opposition on the back foot and he starts changing his strategy. This means you have already started to get an upper hand and need to look to consolidate. And what did you use in the end?? 1-2 BGs of LF archers. Not bad in my books.

Are these fights spread out groups being ganged from several directions? I ask because my buddy and I have been playing Cartho vs Romans and we both like to keep tight battle lines with flanking cav, LH, EL. Dont see many ways of 'ganging up" in these situations.

Montagu wrote: Are these fights spread out groups being ganged from several directions? I ask because my buddy and I have been playing Cartho vs Romans and we both like to keep tight battle lines with flanking cav, LH, EL. Dont see many ways of 'ganging up" in these situations.

Even a tight battle line can be ganged up on by light horse archers, the ends of the line are easy to gang up on but in the middle f the line it is easy to focus two BGs of LH on one enemy BG and with a bit of work you can get three or most of three on one. It is much harder to do with javelin cavalry because they have a shorter range.

hammy wrote:

Montagu wrote: Are these fights spread out groups being ganged from several directions? I ask because my buddy and I have been playing Cartho vs Romans and we both like to keep tight battle lines with flanking cav, LH, EL. Dont see many ways of 'ganging up" in these situations.

Even a tight battle line can be ganged up on by light horse archers, the ends of the line are easy to gang up on but in the middle f the line it is easy to focus two BGs of LH on one enemy BG and with a bit of work you can get three or most of three on one. It is much harder to do with javelin cavalry because they have a shorter range.

Yep. pretty much the case. I have been working with 3 BGs of LH bowmen and in most cases run two BGs of LF bow that are working together. The focus is on the ends and on any position where the opponent may have exposed himself. I play Serbian medieval mid period so tend to always have more Cavalry and can run off most opposition cavalry. Knights are a different story.