Slitherine

My Club is running a small 600 point turnament and I am working on my list comments would be welcome

C-in-C FC
2x Sub Generals TC
2BG: 4 Ghilman Cv, Arm, Sup, Drill, Bow, Sword
1BG:4 Syrian Lancers Cv, Arm, Sup, Drill, Lance, Sword
2BG: 4 Turcoman Cav: Cv, Prot, Av, UnDrill, Bow, Sw
3BG: 4 Turcoman: LH, UnProt, Av, UnDrill, Bow, Sw
2BG: 8 Foot Jav: LF, Unprot, Poor, Undrill, Jav, LS
1BG: 8 Foot Archers: LF, Unprot, Poor, Undrill, Bow

No IC because we ar doing preset terain
Gives me a very mobel force with 11BG

Kevin S

OK, I have a little experience with Seljuqs so here is my 2p's worth.

The Syrian lancers I'd replace with Firenk cavalry (Knights) as you will really be using these as a battering ram, often isolated, so the maximum bang per buck is required hence the need for them to be knights. At the low points value you can take them as Armoured instead of Heavily armoured is needs be.

The infantry BGs are mostly filler IMO so no need for them to be more than 6 bases each - that'll give you some points to pay for the knigts as opposed to cavalry BTW. It may also allow you to have 2 BGs of bow and one of JLS which will also be better as they can inflict damage from further away!

I'd be tempted to have 4 BGs of LH instead of 3.

Hmmmm, avoid the rush and surrender to the Maharajah now I hope there are some woods for me to hide in if I wind up fighting you at the tourney with my Mauryas Indian army Kev

Dave

Nik thanks for the reply was hoping to get your take. I have been back and forth on the knights V lancers, Will most likely go with KN in the end.

Oh and Dave you had better hope for lots of trees MMM superior Bow aginst unprotected foot

Kevin S

Do you think the Kn vs Cv lancer debate is a no brainer to go for knights in every situation, or is this just an "if you only have one unit of lancers, make sure its knights" issue ?

Id have thought the better maneuverability and additional move distance for Cv means they would be a fairly good bet vs shooty cavalry armies generally?

madaxeman wrote:Do you think the Kn vs Cv lancer debate is a no brainer to go for knights in every situation, or is this just an "if you only have one unit of lancers, make sure its knights" issue ?

Id have thought the better maneuverability and additional move distance for Cv means they would be a fairly good bet vs shooty cavalry armies generally?

IMO it is not a clear cut choice. Given the choice between superior drilled cavalry and average undrilled knights I would be torn.

Superior drilled knights are obviously better than average undrilled cavalry but cost a lot more.

I think it really depends on the role they will be required for. I see lancer cavalry as a maneuver force that aims to hit flanks but has the potential to get there and knights as more of a sledgehammer.

and are protected superior lancers woth anything - or will they always lose to armoured stuff ?

madaxeman wrote:and are protected superior lancers woth anything - or will they always lose to armoured stuff ?

With the sheer amount of Cv(S), sorry, Sup, armoured cav, on the table, I would never use protected sup lancers. They'd even be somewhat dodgy against all the protected foot they have to face, w/ only a + against for example archers in melee.

madaxeman wrote:and are protected superior lancers woth anything - or will they always lose to armoured stuff ?

I have used them and am considering using average unprotected lancer cavalry too.

The big benefit they have is they are significantly cheaper than armoured ones.

Would you rather have 3 BG of 4 armoured superior lancers or 4 BGs of protected superior lancers?

I think the points ballance is pretty close and can definitely see uses for protected lancers, just not the same uses as armoured ones have.

madaxeman wrote:Do you think the Kn vs Cv lancer debate is a no brainer to go for knights in every situation, or is this just an "if you only have one unit of lancers, make sure its knights" issue ?

Id have thought the better maneuverability and additional move distance for Cv means they would be a fairly good bet vs shooty cavalry armies generally?

In the Seljuq I think the Knights are a no-brainer as they are most likely the only BG of that sort in the army.

O therwise as you say Cv have some distinct advantages against shooty cavalry - the extra move being the most important IMO.

Cavalry both move faster and are far more maneuverable than undrilled knights. Drilled knights are a different issue but they are really expensive.

I hope they (protected lancers) are Ok as I have just started painting an ostrogoth/gepid army. I dont expect they will punch out many Heavy foot frontally (I'd have a crack at impact foot) but will hopefully find more appealing targets. Should be a fun army to play anyway. I'm going to run the army with plenty (30-40) elements of Impact foot as well (either as gepids or Burgundi allies). Hopefully they will help with the targets the cav cant handle. I am thinking of running the cav in 6 el units rather than 4's.

Martin

Terry is quite a fan of Goths with large numbers of Protected Lancers.

marty wrote:I hope they (protected lancers) are Ok as I have just started painting an ostrogoth/gepid army. I am thinking of running the cav in 6 el units rather than 4's.

The problem with 6s for Protected lancers is that it will be hard to manoeuvre them 1 rank deep. In 2 ranks enemy archers will shoot them on a + POA.

I suppose if you screen them with LF archers it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

I cant say I had really considered running them around 1 rank deep given they cant evade anyway (unless fragmented). I realise they would not give the poa to shooters when in one rank but with that big a frontage they would probably have more people eligible to shoot at them. My thinking is to prevent as much shooting as possible by charging frequently (or with foot screens).

I'm also umming and ahhing about whether it is worth fielding the unprotected foot archers as mediums and if so in what proportion to the lights. My current thinking is that 1 or 2 8 element units of the mediums could be worthwhile.

Martin

2 deep protected lancers are probably okay in 6s but they will need foot screens. LF 1 rank deep are sufficient - they're not trying to win the shooting, they're just there to protect the mounted.

You're mounted don't really want to charge shooty cavalry or LH as soon as they're in range - they want to get up close to increase the chances of catching evaders. They means you want to screen with LF during the approach, but there will still be a turn where you get shot as you withdraw your skirmish screen.

A unit of 8MF bow might be okay to contest a piece of terrain against LF, but of course they'll generally struggle against other MF or HF legionary types. You may want to deploy this unit last to get reasonable match ups. 2 units of 8 MF may work, but they risk becoming a target unless they're well supported by Cv.

You may want to consider a couple of blocks of 6s for the main attack (screened by LF), and a couple of blocks of 4s working with the MF. The 4s can either be 1 deep or 2 deep depending on the situation - if facing LH you probably want to be 1 deep.

Neil

neilhammond wrote:You're mounted don't really want to charge shooty cavalry or LH as soon as they're in range - they want to get up close to increase the chances of catching evaders. They means you want to screen with LF during the approach, but there will still be a turn where you get shot as you withdraw your skirmish screen.

Or roll and see if the Lancers charge through! Can be a surprise at times. LF will be behind the front line and likely bolsterable in the opposing player's turn.

The MF archers seem awkward to me in a cavalry force.