Foederati Roman list

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:49 pm

Sorry for the double postings.. my last list message was lost in the ethernet somewhere....

Hello,

Using my figs for an upcoming 800 point event I thought I'd try out the following...

I'm a complete newbie and am seeking input on tactics and list construction..Also, what should be deployed when...I'm assuming the Alans and the Armored Cav are my strike troops backed up by the equites. The foot should provide a decent anchor/pivot and the palatina dominiate rough. I've opted for more mounted to gain a +3 initiative.

1xFC - Flavius Ardabur himself. Certainly NOT inspired but capable!
2xTC

1BG - Palatina
6xMF (protected,superior,drilled,lt.spear/sword)
3xLF supporting archers
2BG - Palatina
6xMF (protected,superior,drilled,lt.spear/sword)
3xLF supporting archers
3BG - Alans
6xLH (unprotected,superior,undrilled,bow/sword)
4BG - Foederati
12xHF (protected,avg,undrilled,Impactfoot/sword)
5BG - Foederati
12xHF (protected,avg,undrilled,Impactfoot/sword)
6BG - Equites
4xCV (armored,avg,drilled,lt.spear/sword)
7BG - Equites Alani
4xCV (armored,avg,drilled,lance/sword)
8BG - Equites Armored
6xCV (armored,avg,drilled, bow,sword)
9BG - Equites Sagattarii
6xLH (unprotected,avg.drilled,bow)
10BG - Auxiliary Archers
6xMF (protected,avg.,drilled,bow)
11BG - rabble
4xLF (unprotected,avg,drilled,sling)

Thoughts? Any glaring weakness??

Madcam.

jlopez · Post by **jlopez** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:06 pm

Average BGs that are going to end up fighting in melee need to have 6 elements at least. With only 4, they autobreak with two losses which makes for rather stressful combat situations. Even the slingers are bit weak as a result, if they take a hit from shooting they'll spend the rest of the game avoiding anything another loss and autobreak.

Not too keen on the auxiliary archers either. I find them way too fragile but maybe I'm a wimp.

I'm not too much of a fan of FC myself but that's personal. I prefer to splash out on an IC or an extra TC or manage with three TCs. For the extra points the FC doesn't really do an awful lot of good unless you're planning on flank marching on a regular basis.

Julian

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:33 pm

1xFC, 2xTC

A basic command structure, it will cope with the size of your army but does not really have anything exciting about it. You could almost manage with 3 TCs if you are willing to take the initiative hit

2 * Palatina 6 MF (protected,superior,drilled,lt.spear/sword) 3xLF supporting archers

OK, this is a very meaty bunch of medium foot, 2 BGs of 9 bases of superior MF. Not the absolute best there is but better than most armies will have.

1 * Alans 6xLH (unprotected,superior,undrilled,bow/sword)

Nice but do they really need to be superior? Your superior BGs are limited and these guys will work fine as average. Superior is definitely better but if you are restricted as to how many superiors you have there are better troops to upgrade IMO.

2 * Foederati 12xHF (protected,avg,undrilled,Impactfoot/sword)

OK, two big BGs of protected impact foot. These really need a general to give them a bit more oomph against most opponents. A cheap BG of 6 bases of average troops to sit in a column behind the joint and provide rear support would be handy too. With these as the core of your army I would go for 4 TCs rather than FC,TC,TC

1 * Equites 4xCV (armored,avg,drilled,lt.spear/sword)

Nothing wrong with these, decent agile cavalry. Good against skirmishers and OK against good cavalry. Put them in one rank and they can evade too.

1 * Equites Alani 4xCV (armored,avg,drilled,lance/sword)

As a reserve / hole expoiter these are fine. They are not going to lead your army to glorious victory but will be good at exploiting enemy weakeneses. As drilled they should be able to get to where you want them.

1 * Equites Armored 6xCV (armored,avg,drilled, bow,sword)

These would be far better as superiors than the Alans, if you drop to 4 bases they will be essentially Roman Ghilmen, as 6 you need to stick in one role as switching from two ranks to one takes more than one turn.

1 * Equites Sagattarii 6xLH (unprotected,avg.drilled,bow)

Good troops, can support the Alans or skirmish, well worth having.

1 * Auxiliary Archers 6xMF (protected,avg.,drilled,bow)

6 is not a good size for this BG unless you intend using it to rear support the Foederati. As a 4 base BG it should be able to exploit opportunities created by the Palatina. I think you can save points by dropping to 4 bases.

1 * rabble 4xLF (unprotected,avg,drilled,sling)

4 is rather small for these. If they are a 4 then make them poor and hide them.

Overall try and find points to go to 4 TCs and for another BG of 6 average anythings to rear support the foederati. Save points by dropping the Alans to average and change the armoured sagattarii to a 4 base BG of superiors, either get more rabble or make them poos and hide them.

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:39 am

Thanks Hammy,

Just what I was looking for...

Taking your advice what about the following...

FC
3xTC

3*4 CV (armored,SUP,drilled,bow/sword) Equites Armored.
1*6 LH (unprotected,Avg,undrilled,bow/sword) Alan
1*6 LH (unprotectec, Avg, drilled, bow) Sagitarrii
1*4 Cv (armored, Avg, drilled, lance/sword) Equites Alani
1*6 MF (protected,Avg, drilled, lt.spear/sword)+3LF archers Palatina
1*4 MF (protected, Avg,drilled, bow)
2*12 HF (protected, Avg, undrilled, IF/sword) Foederati
1*4 LF (unprotected, poor, drilled, sling)

800 points, 11 battlegroups

Has the 4 commanders to lead it about and can still retain the +3 initiative in order for all the horse to have the opportunity for open spaces. Can reserve one TC to bolster the Foederati. I did drop down to one section of Palatina. Not sure I would want to have all the terrain troops especially if I am try to keep open space for the mounted. This way, they, with the slings can at least contest/threaten rough. The bow is there for support. certainly not enough for front line service. One group of lancers to help in the scrum. Leaving them drilled, allows for more movement.

All that said, I would really like to know if something like this would be viable... You & Nik have done well with these rules. Would facing this lot cause you two develop a cunning tactical plan? Or more likely.... Look at that rot! Why bother?

Madcam.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:37 am

That is not a bad list, you have three BGs of good quality shooty cavalry and another couple of shooty light horse, the two big impact foot BGs are going to be difficult to ignore. Overall it is IMO well worth a pop.

Would I be concerned id I faced this with say my santa hooey dodah list.... I am not sure. My SHNC list is designed to smash enemy foot and I suspect that three BGs of armoured spear and one of pike would not be good for the foederati as my sword and bicklet men would not be nice for the now average auxilia. That said the rest of the army would be more than a handful for the rest of mine and if I too out the foederati and palatina I would still be little more than half way to a win.

I am not sure it would scare the pants off me but it definitely does not look like road kill.

hercimurthemediocre · Post by **hercimurthemediocre** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:07 pm

First off, I concur with everything Hammy said in response to your list Scott (and I will certainly seek and value his advice in the future.)

However, there is one detail about the list that I should point out.

Hammy said:

the two big impact foot BGs are going to be difficult to ignore.

These will likely be a HUGE target for me. My Armored/Superior/Skilled Sword Legionaries will be seeking them out. It seems somewhat even to start with. We're both impact, I'm superior, but you can throw in a general to even it out. But in the melee, the legionaries will be at ++, needing 3s or better to hit, and re-rolling 1s. It will be ugly.

What's worse, is with you being so big, I'll likely be able to put 3 of my smallish BGs on your one. Your size will most likely assure that you take one or more casualties per melee. Mine will be nicely distributed and I'll likely roll out of any casualties. I've seen it happen from both sides of the table.

Just ask Andy about the time this very thing happened and I then used one group to turn to the left, one to the right, and one to keep running up the middle.

It's a virtual schwerpunkt made easier by your using a large BG.

So, to recap, I just pissed away my ace in the hole and I'm sure now that all my legionaries will see are arrows and horsetails.

JF

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:42 pm

That was never going to happen anyways...

One reason I chose to take 3 BGs of superior Armored horse. Also, don't let my one BG of lancers catch you silly swordsmen in skirts with their lances!

I'm sure to have a bunch of in game questions. And if mulitple BGs are a bonus, I remember from MoAs with skirmishers I can negate many with few...

Madcam

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:47 pm

One the question of frontage...

with 12, I can opt to go 6x2, 4x3, or 3x4.....

Care to give me the +/- of each?

Madcam.

hercimurthemediocre · Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:23 pm

Well, if you can afford to go deep, go deep.

Obviously you don't get any more than two ranks in combat.

However, once you are in 6x2 and fighting, you pretty much stay 6 wide even when taking losses. (this was a nuiance lost on me for a number of my early games.) So, what happens is that you get thinned down to one rank as the fight goes on (if your cohesion holds out.)

If you are deeper, you have more options to expand out and fill in as the melee goes on. This actually might be the way to go with a 12 stand BG as long as doing so isn't getting you overlaped somewhere. I think 4x3 is as deep as you'd want to go without being a waste.

Also consider that only the front three ranks count for the 1 hit per 3 bases thing in shooting. So, if you were 3x4, you would only count as being a 9 stand unit vs shooting.

That's all I can think of.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:51 pm

12 5x2 with 2 reserves in third rank is my compromise default formation for 12s, 4x2 + 2 for 10s, though 4x3 provides more casualty absorption without losing frontage.

spike · Post by **spike** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:56 pm

Being Picky

Far too many "Roman" cavalry - List says 4-20 and there are 26!
"Foderate Cavalry" not included in these maxima

Spike

madcam2us wrote:Thanks Hammy,

Just what I was looking for...

Taking your advice what about the following...

FC
3xTC

3*4 CV (armored,SUP,drilled,bow/sword) Equites Armored.
1*6 LH (unprotected,Avg,undrilled,bow/sword) Alan
1*6 LH (unprotectec, Avg, drilled, bow) Sagitarrii
1*4 Cv (armored, Avg, drilled, lance/sword) Equites Alani
1*6 MF (protected,Avg, drilled, lt.spear/sword)+3LF archers Palatina
1*4 MF (protected, Avg,drilled, bow)
2*12 HF (protected, Avg, undrilled, IF/sword) Foederati
1*4 LF (unprotected, poor, drilled, sling)

800 points, 11 battlegroups

Has the 4 commanders to lead it about and can still retain the +3 initiative in order for all the horse to have the opportunity for open spaces. Can reserve one TC to bolster the Foederati. I did drop down to one section of Palatina. Not sure I would want to have all the terrain troops especially if I am try to keep open space for the mounted. This way, they, with the slings can at least contest/threaten rough. The bow is there for support. certainly not enough for front line service. One group of lancers to help in the scrum. Leaving them drilled, allows for more movement.

All that said, I would really like to know if something like this would be viable... You & Nik have done well with these rules. Would facing this lot cause you two develop a cunning tactical plan? Or more likely.... Look at that rot! Why bother?

Madcam.

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:04 am

Spike,

Your list Fu is no good...

The Alans (LH, Avg, bow, sword) are Hun/Alan mercenaries on page 22....

There are only 22 "Roman Equites"

But that is still 2 too many...

hmm....

Madcam

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:54 am

madcam2us wrote:One the question of frontage...

with 12, I can opt to go 6x2, 4x3, or 3x4.....

Care to give me the +/- of each?

Madcam.

With impact foot it depends a bit on the situation. If you can get an overlap then wider is better but also less maneuverable. If you have a general fighting you want to maximise the bases that get the boost so again want a wider frontage. If on the other hand you are against the Roman mincing machine you really want more depth to absorb the inevitable base loses.

Against an army with decent foot I would go 4 wide and 3 deep. 4 deep is wasting your size as the 4th rank doesn't count for HP3B.

If I wanted a bit more width I would use a 5,5,2 formation.

hercimurthemediocre · Post by **hercimurthemediocre** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:25 pm

Not wanting to insult any intelligences here but:

You can start deeper and expand frontage to match an overlap. You can also expand by one to create an overlap in your turn too.

Expanding during maneuver (and not in contact) is going to require you to stand in place and pass a CMT.

My rule of thumb is to deploy with the frontage I plan to fight in, especially with undrilled troops.

Another consideration:

I believe you'd want to impact an enemy BG with a lower impact POA with every base that could contact.

If it's not already obvious, if you're fighting with a frontage of 6 with even POAs, then odds are that you'll take 6 (or more) hits. This will likely assure that you loose a base if you loose the combat.

The moral of the story is go 4x3 or 5x2+2 depending on the situation. 6x2 should be reserved for situations when you're confident of rolling over your opponent without taking any losses (this would apply when fighting Doug Anderson who can't seem to roll dice to save his life these days.)

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:34 pm

So wider is NOT better due to:

Being ganged up on by multiple BGs... Poor! Allows a theoretical huge mass of equally trained/morale troops to get decimated by small groups...

Not fighting with elements not in contact... Poor! Local overlaps not taken into accounts???

Manuveur.... OK with this. Makes sense.

Hmm....

Madcam.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:59 pm

madcam2us wrote:So wider is NOT better due to:

Being ganged up on by multiple BGs... Poor! Allows a theoretical huge mass of equally trained/morale troops to get decimated by small groups...

Not fighting with elements not in contact... Poor! Local overlaps not taken into accounts???

Manuveur.... OK with this. Makes sense.

Hmm....

Madcam.

Scott:

There are tradeoffs in the other direction. Larger BGs are less vulnerable to shooting. Running the BG wider (or running it narrow for maneuver, then widening once contact is made) allows it to get more combat dice. Larger BGs can often create an overlap to one side against a smaller BG.

Also, the larger BG can take more casaulties before reaching 25% losses (and thereafter suffering a permanent -1 to CTs) than smaller BGs. And it will need to take more hits before getting a -1 on CTs for H/3B. Neither of these are to be sneezed at.

Another important advantage of larger BGs is that a general in the front rank has a larger effect.

It's all a matter of balancing the tradeoffs.

Marc

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:10 pm

babyshark wrote:Also, the larger BG can take more casaulties before reaching 25% losses (and thereafter suffering a permanent -1 to CTs) than smaller BGs. And it will need to take more hits before getting a -1 on CTs for H/3B. Neither of these are to be sneezed at.

Actually a 12 base BG is not much better than a 10 base one for 25% loses and autobreak on an average BG.

hercimurthemediocre · Post by **hercimurthemediocre** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:21 pm

Ok, once more into this veritable breach.

For my money, I preffer foot BGs of 8.

With only rare exceptions, they go forward and start to win or start to loose. It's really up to the dice. I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I thought "Gee, I wish I would have taken 2 groups of 12 rather than 3 groups of 8." Maybe I was just to dense to consider what the difference may have been.

Bottom line is I think all this pondering might seem useless when your dice (or your opponent's dice) crap out and how you grouped or the depth you deployed in made no difference.

Go Forward, Roll Well, and Live!

(not to discourage anyone who still has curious musings to ponder

)

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:48 pm

For protected HF BGs of 10 are IMO significantly better than ones of 8

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:47 pm

hammy wrote:
babyshark wrote:Also, the larger BG can take more casaulties before reaching 25% losses (and thereafter suffering a permanent -1 to CTs) than smaller BGs. And it will need to take more hits before getting a -1 on CTs for H/3B. Neither of these are to be sneezed at.
Actually a 12 base BG is not much better than a 10 base one for 25% loses and autobreak on an average BG.

That's true. I was thinking of comparing "larger" BGs of 10-12 bases with "smaller" BGs of 6-8 bases.

Marc