dave_r wrote:There appears to be several "styles" of army that are in existence at the moment:
- Heavy Foot based
- Shooty Mounted based
- Combined Arms
- Shooty Foot based
I have been trying to categorize these and would actually break it down more. Thoughts?
FOOT-based:
SHOOTY FOOT (plus supports) - has advantages against some opponents, against others requires high skill. Favored by good supporting troops.
Walking-wall foot armies (such as long lines of spears or Impact Foot) - very frontal - best with enough HF for the open ground but some MF armies have no choice but to try this if they don't get needed terrain
PIKE ARMIES: Different tactical style, it delivers a powerful focused punch against a target it can hit but against evasive opponents its force is diffused and it can get nibbled to death. This means a substantial number of BGs of Pikes and supporting solid foot, not armies with Pikes as just part of the toolkit.
TERRAIN-trapped armies: Any army that usually doesn't like what it sees when it peeks out of the trees. Not so much an army type or style as a predicament when terrain goes badly.
LIGHT FOOT armies (Early Lybian) have not yet been published - the quality of quantity remains to be seen. My guess is that they can win, but just moving 120 bases takes so long that the enemy is not likely to stick around to find out.
MOUNTED-based:
SHOOTY MOUNTED ARMIES: This covers a wide range of armies from Light Horse armies to shooty Cav-heavy armies with a variety of other troops thrown in the mix. These can be broken down into two different tactical styles.
The Hunnic style is focused on wrongfooting the enemy and wearing him down with shooting until his army loses its cohesive organization and BGs can be finished off and broken in succession with local charges if not with shooting.
The other uses the strategy of screen and smash or pin and punch, 2 variants both involving attempts to pin or at least screen the overall enemy line with light horse (sometimes cavalry) and maybe threaten envelopment while a heavy strike force (Lancers would be typical) moves to crush a particular part of the line which was weak or is made weak by effective shooting). The difference between the 2 styles is widespread attrition vs. concentration of force at a point.
SHOCK MOUNTED ARMIES: These are armies heavily weighted to lancers (Knights, Cataphracts, or Cavalry Lancers) that focus on massed charges to defeat their (preferably historically appropriate) adversaries. The other troops are there to help get the attack force to the target, but do not exist in numbers or types sufficient to do a screen and smash – it’s just smash. African Vandals and Medieval French are my favorite examples. Some Sarmatian and similar lists can be played this way.
These armies are fun, dramatic, and the battle should be over one way or the other with time to spare for going to eat or to the dealer’s room before the next round. These are the type I recommend to give to new players to try in their first battle.
I didn’t mention heavy chariots or light spear cavalry in the shock mounted army category since I don’t expect any armies that will be dominated by these types.
COMBINED ARMS: An army that combines substantial numbers of multiple combat arms as principal portions of the army and as key parts of a flexible tactical style that is customized to the opponent. This is a matter of degree and combinations can vary. By arms in this context I mean shock cavalry, missile cavalry, light horse, heavier infantry, light infantry, missile foot, and exotic troops (e.g., artillery or elephants). Simple combined arms armies might have 2 or 3 of these in quantity, complex combined arms would have more. These armies can usually be fielded and played in a variety of substantially different ways. This can make them challenging and fun.
From the point of view of army choice, I'm thinking of these on a spectrum from toolkit armies, with troops that can be skillfully used with combined arms tactics to take apart most foes, to kitchen sink armies with a bunch of different troop types that seem situationally useful or otherwise don't quite seem to fit together well. My theory is that good troop and ally choices and solid doctrine can move most kitchen sink armies up he spectrum of usefulness and playability. It just takes more work. Combined arms armies are where thought and skill really make a huge difference – as a corollary to this, the more complex they are, the more complex they are to play well and the more frustrating for a new (or old) player. That said, there are armies that can be initially built and played in a simpler style and then evolve to more complex combined arms.
ELEPHANT ARMIES: These are those few armies where Elephants dominate the player’s tactics and his opponent’s mind. This means at least 4 BGs of elephants, enough to form two brigades of 2 BGs of Elephants each plus supporting troops to keep the Elephants from being flanked or subjected to converged shooting. Elephants are strong but brittle, so there are no sure things when Elephants are committed except that it will be interesting.
What did I miss saying?
Mike
I wonder if the list is out yet?