Slitherine

Other than saving a -1 for MF losing to Mtd or HF in open (and the + for Mtd vs MF in open), do you still think the HF a better option? Personally, I like the speed of the MF...they still hit the same (talking Spanish MF impact, sw) as the HF, they still take that cursed -- vs Roman ++ in other fighting...

Curious if taking HF HAS made a difference somewhere along the line or, conversely, if taking MF has made a difference somewhere along that same line?



Dan T.

Unless you can get loads of nasty terrain, MF are the best sort of target for EVERYTHING, especially mounted. I would take the slower spped and fight as HF anyday. If you think otherwise, can I use my Principiate Romans against you sometime, or Parthians, Sarmatians, Saka or Bosphorans?

I on the other hand would go for MF (if drilled) every time - run around, get on flanks, cause no end of trouble.

Mounted are the big difference, so I will take HF if they are expected to stay in the open. Unless the enemy has no close combat cavalry.

José

If facing masses of enemy HF or lancer cavalry I would go with HF myself--avoiding a -1 on cohesion checks can help when facing tough HF.

I find the + vs MF in open for mounted makes MF very difficult to use vs any army with good mounted troops and open terrain.

That said I like my Ancient Biritsh a lot where there are enough skirmishers to keep the problem under control while you work things up elsewhere.

The extra speed is very good especially if you have small drilled BGs to run around the sides.

I am playing around with Thracians at the moment who have Off Sp which at least compensates for the MF effect vs mounted and still has the punch to power through terrain. This would have been my Britcon army had I made it up there. Have fun all who are going by the way.

Si

shall wrote: I am playing around with Thracians at the moment who have Off Sp which at least compensates for the MF effect vs mounted and still has the punch to power through terrain.

I tend to agree. Offensive spear is different than other MF. I think MF is vulnerable in lots of ways and you need various kinds of support for it, from Generals to rear support then it works better.

Terrain as others suggest matter a lot.

Superior medium foot is also a notch better and less common.

Almughavers, Dailami all still do well.

-1 on a test is a massive amount, almost all rolls in my games seem to be lost or past by 1 PIP.

In my experience with my Gallic army, MF are much more useful than HF. The idea is to use your MF for maneuvering.

vercingetorix wrote:In my experience with my Gallic army, MF are much more useful than HF. The idea is to use your MF for maneuvering.

Do you use any HF in your Gallic army? I would think having an allied general commanding some HF would work well for them.

I find 24 Gaesati a must in the Gauls.
Then use MF for highland allies to sweep flanks.
Si

shall wrote:I find 24 Gaesati a must in the Gauls.
Then use MF for highland allies to sweep flanks.
Si

The Gaesati would certainly help--do you deploy them in two 12 base BGs? TC with either? I have a friend who is building a Gallic/Ancient British army to fight my Late Republicans--we've discussed his buying either the Gaesati or the Solduri if he wants Elite and armor (though of course he gets fewer bases).

Cheers,

Dale

shall wrote:
I find 24 Gaesati a must in the Gauls.
Then use MF for highland allies to sweep flanks.
Si



The Gaesati would certainly help--do you deploy them in two 12 base BGs? TC with either? I have a friend who is building a Gallic/Ancient British army to fight my Late Republicans--we've discussed his buying either the Gaesati or the Solduri if he wants Elite and armor (though of course he gets fewer bases).

Cheers,

Dale

Hi Dale

My view for what its worth. Forget the Soldurii - not enough of them to make a real difference.

Take 24 Gaesati as 2BGs of 12 and deploy them 5 wide with 2 spares at the back. The spares at the back are crucial as they need to soak up losses without losing combat dice. Allied TC with them goes into the front rank with the charge. This does then have potential to rumble some Romans - on a good day.

The army is large so even if you are losing the Gaesati will usually keep 5 or 6 roman BGs busy. The trick is then to push hard with the rest of the army to exploit them being kept occupied. If the Gaesati both die then you have lost 4APs in keeping half their army occupied so still not bad as an overall strategic play.

Si

shall wrote: Hi Dale

My view for what its worth. Forget the Soldurii - not enough of them to make a real difference.

Take 24 Gaesati as 2BGs of 12 and deploy them 5 wide with 2 spares at the back. The spares at the back are crucial as they need to soak up losses without losing combat dice. Allied TC with them goes into the front rank with the charge. This does then have potential to rumble some Romans - on a good day.

The army is large so even if you are losing the Gaesati will usually keep 5 or 6 roman BGs busy. The trick is then to push hard with the rest of the army to exploit them being kept occupied. If the Gaesati both die then you have lost 4APs in keeping half their army occupied so still not bad as an overall strategic play.

Si

Si,

Thanks! I like the idea of using the Gaesati as a sort of 'soak off' to keep the enemy occupied while the rest of the army takes care of business -- presumably on the flanks or with local overlaps.

Dale

How can you afford 24 Gaisati? is it in an 800 point army?

how much Cav do you use?

Cav dobn't win battles like the Impact Foot in that army. Can't rememeber exactly but minimum for sure.

I may be recalling the doubles army for a full 24 it might be 20 in the singles one.

I will post the design up with its rationale when I get back from hols.

Si

thanks, could you post the whole army configuration that you use?