Slitherine

Here's the latest incarnation of my ancient Spanish army...700 pts for a 4'x6' table...using two ally generals. What sort of experiences have you had using ally generals?

Again, thanks to olivier for the incredible xcel sheet!


Comment always welcome!

Dan T.

First of all, 800pts seems to be the standard army size.

Only thing I would change would be to reduce the the Large Shield Cavalry unit down to 4 bases. In a line they can evade from charges and from a block two wide and two deep they can expand into a line. A 6 base unit can still do it but it's more cumbersome if longer-lasting in a melee.

Nothing wrong with allies but you can't disperse their troops all over the table. You have to keep them together to get the maximum benefit from their general so it's good to design them in terms of a flank or centre force. I tend to use allies with two BGs that are going to get involved in melees, usually one big one up front and another in rear support. If for whatever reason the big one gets routed and you can't recover it (because of enemy pursuing for example) you can still get the benefit of the general with the second BG.

Julian

Adding to the above -

The safest detachments from the ally force are those unlikely to need Commander assistance or can rendezvous to get bolstered, such as a BG of LH or shooty cavalry. Otherwise, yes, the ideal is to keep them within decent range of each other. Commanders in the front rank are valuable, but if an ally commander is killed then his BGs are permanently unbolsterable. A very bad scenario is two ally BGs losing cohesion on death of their nearby commander.

Also, the more allies you have, the less value in an IC since there are more troops he can't affect. Consider whether another TC or FC would do. What are the deployments and battle plans underlying your order of march?

Generally I would rarely take an ally to save 10 points - it's almost always to add something specific to the army, preferably in a tidy and cohesive package of troop types that will work well together.

Mike

MikeK wrote:Adding to the above -

...

Generally I would rarely take an ally to save 10 points - it's almost always to add something specific to the army, preferably in a tidy and cohesive package of troop types that will work well together.

Mike

Could you give us an example, please, Mike?

Examples of what I meant are Germans or Gauls taking an ally to have a mix of HF and MF (due to the all HF or all MF options in the lists). The convenience of an HF ally is that the 2 or 3 BGs are likely to be brigaded close together anyway, the disadvantage is they are likely to see heavy combat and this makes leading from the front rank risky since no other commander can step in. More of the delightful trade-offs in FoG!

Another top of mind choice is Jewish spearmen giving Late Republican Romans a good anti-mounted force - my thought would have been HF but there's a set of AARs with a pair of MF Spear BGs that did well at flank sweeps).

Any foot army seeking a complementary mounted force or mounted army seeking some terrain or open field foot would be a typical use of ally contingents to create a multi-arm force - more diverse so tactically more complex and theoretically more versatile.

The Spanish list is one of the minority that has no options for foreign allies (though I looked at an Iberian ally MF/LF contingent for a Gallic list). The odd (but good) thing is that the regions differ only in the min/max of HF and MF and in that only the Lusitanians can field Sertorius, providing the potential for a variety of drilled and undrilled HF and MF Impact Foot (some for maneuver, some to get stuck in).

You can pretty much do what you want in terms of troop choice without needing to take any ally commanders, so for the Spanish I view allies as a way to save 10 points or get a 4th commander, most probably for a detached infantry force of 1 or 2 BGs.

You should change the Cv to 4, not only because it is better, but because it is compulsory for Sertorius.

Have you considered using an ally with a HF BG and LF? You need something more than the Romans if the terrain does not fall in your favour, and the MF will be in trouble in the open.

I prefer a single ally with MF, however, and take the HF as mercenaries.

José

-700pts since that's what's glued & painted so far!...a couple elephants and some offensive MF spears will bring the Romans up to 800 and a 10pak of Celtiberian HF + maybe another 4-pak of LH will bring the Spanish up to 800...eventually !

-ya, somehow i missed that Sert. only gets to upgrade 4 of the Cv to drilled...will probably leave the 6-pak as undrilled...it makes a nice heavy unit to hit a 4-pak Cv with...tho it is tempting to make it a drilled 4-pak...will see...have found the 6-pak capable of holding a fair bit of ground for quite a while when the IC is with them...

-yep...allied BGs kept together...has anyone raced a 2nd general to where one died?...I find by that time, most are busy with their own concerns anyway!!...but ya, that's a risk you take...I kind of like the added suspense ...plus...those 20pts just about get me another 6-pak of slingers or 4-pak of LH...

-yes, only one MF BG with an Ally....plus a 6-pak of LF or 4-pak of LH...so really only the one unit should need him...and yes, less for the IC to do, but he has a huge amount to do as is!!!...probably will make one of the ally gens celtiberian when they are painted

...much has to do with "flavour"...kinda suits the army to have those ally generals saying 'bug off' when someone else comes around to order them ...trickier for game play for sure ...

maybe i'll manage pics and a commentary for the next game we do...(maybe to celebrate whilst the celtiberians and ally generals feast on roman elephant burgers!!!

Dan T.

-

-

MikeK wrote:Examples of what I meant are Germans or Gauls taking an ally to have a mix of HF and MF (due to the all HF or all MF options in the lists). The convenience of an HF ally is that the 2 or 3 BGs are likely to be brigaded close together anyway, the disadvantage is they are likely to see heavy combat and this makes leading from the front rank risky since no other commander can step in. More of the delightful trade-offs in FoG!

Another top of mind choice is Jewish spearmen giving Late Republican Romans a good anti-mounted force - my thought would have been HF but there's a set of AARs with a pair of MF Spear BGs that did well at flank sweeps).

Any foot army seeking a complementary mounted force or mounted army seeking some terrain or open field foot would be a typical use of ally contingents to create a multi-arm force - more diverse so tactically more complex and theoretically more versatile.

The Spanish list is one of the minority that has no options for foreign allies (though I looked at an Iberian ally MF/LF contingent for a Gallic list). The odd (but good) thing is that the regions differ only in the min/max of HF and MF and in that only the Lusitanians can field Sertorius, providing the potential for a variety of drilled and undrilled HF and MF Impact Foot (some for maneuver, some to get stuck in).

You can pretty much do what you want in terms of troop choice without needing to take any ally commanders, so for the Spanish I view allies as a way to save 10 points or get a 4th commander, most probably for a detached infantry force of 1 or 2 BGs.

I like the idea of armies which have the option of HF or MF as allies--like the Early Germans, Ancient Spanish and Gallic ones--taken one of the types as an ally to increase their options--I think it really makes those armies more potent and may be somewhat underrated