Gauls MF or HF

[Hepius]

A few years ago I quit DBM and rebased all of my armies for a home written rules set. The quitting DBM was ok, but the whole rebasing thing was idiotic.

I have converted to FoG and am in the midst of a massive re-rebasing project. (Happily, the rebased armies will look great, not like the hodgepodge I used to have).

The question is: how should I rebase my Gallic army? Should I make it a HF or MF army? I don't have experience with FoG, so am at a loss with how to rebase them.

Thanks for the help!

Hep

[flameberge]

I would re-base them as heavy foot with 4 figures to a stand because according to the rules MF can have 3 OR 4 figures to a base and base depth when basing your units is considered unimportant so if you base them as HF you can use them as either HF or MF you just have to tell your opponent what they are before the game starts.

[Hepius]

That's good to know on the basing, but I'm really looking for tactical advice. Would you play this army as a MF or a HF army?

Hep

[Andy1972]

did a proxy gaul fight a few months ago.. I used some of my later hebrew MF as Gaul MF... Use HF! maybe have a small allied unit of MF.. MF really gets clobbered by HF and Cav lancers... MF out in the open, is NOT good.

[neilhammond]

That's good to know on the basing, but I'm really looking for tactical advice. Would you play this army as a MF or a HF army?

Hep

HF generally, but it's worth having a Gallic ally as MF so you can dominate key terrain - probably 2 BGs a MF, possibly 3.

MF on a flank can be very useful. Generally, the flank is where terrain usually ends up so they get somewhere to hide. And the faster move of MF helps if you're trying to sweep around a flank as you HF centre plods forward.

Cavalry charging MF in the open can be a pain, but the MF will sweep away any LH or LF.

Neil

[daleivan]

I also think HF is the way to go. As the previous poster noted, add some allied Gallic MF to cover terrain, swat at skirmishers. You could even put them in ambush

Cheers,

Dale

[vercingetorix]

I know this is different from what the others are saying, but if you have an army of any size (700+ points) take the regular infantry as MF. The reason for this is that taking the terrain is crucial -- plus they move faster. If you still want some heavy foot, you can get gaisati (sp?). Also, your cav is very good -- use it in the open.

also the only downside to MF is that it has a minus on cohesion -- which isn't really all that bad. especially if you have rear support

[WhiteKnight]

I go with Vercingetorix...and he should know!
The soldurii and gaesati give you plenty of HF, and of good quality. Max out on rough terrain and then uneven for the larger MF warbands. Take 4 commanders, too. Use any smaller warbands and cavalry you take as (mobile) rear support.

Martin

[IanB3406]

At first I was all Heavy Foot...now I am thinking different. If you are fighting Pike or Romans it's a bit of a loosing proposition to fight them with heavy or medium foot........The medium foot will have a chance in the terrain.

Option 1:
Take the majority as Medium Foot, with the ally as Heavy Foot Gaesati
Option 2:
Take the majority as Medium Foot + the Heavy Foot Soldurii (This list seems to allow this although Don't ask me if it historical). Take one ally with A couple larger Heavy Foot BG's.

Lots of Terrain. Fast moving medium Foot go there.

You can actually also get a lot of chariots and Cav, and these are pretty flexible with the ability to skirmish or fight. One BG of armored Cav as well.

[alexandathegreat]

A few years ago I quit DBM and rebased all of my armies for a home written rules set. The quitting DBM was ok, but the whole rebasing thing was idiotic.

I have converted to FoG and am in the midst of a massive re-rebasing project. (Happily, the rebased armies will look great, not like the hodgepodge I used to have).

The question is: how should I rebase my Gallic army? Should I make it a HF or MF army? I don't have experience with FoG, so am at a loss with how to rebase them.

Thanks for the help!

Hep

go MF so you can fight in terrian and slow down your oppnent and run to regroup if you lose combat and support each other which really helps

[pezhetairoi]

I'd say pick a campaign and model your army after that.
Find your favorite Gallic leader/period, mimic the army, and enjoy yourself.

Both MF/HF options have advantages. In the end it doesn't matter what you pick -- you have to use it right.

[hazelbark]

The MF require you to spend some thought on terrain and make sure you maximize it whenever possible.

It you are a toss a little bit out carelessly guy, then HF is safer.

[Hepius]

Thanks for all of the advice on this. In the end I based them four to a stand on 40x20 bases. Now they can be HF or MF. If I play them heavy I have some Spanish and some Germans I could take as MF allies.

My army list (off the top of my head) is:

IC
2xTC
1xAlly TC (Gaesati)
1x4 Armored Cav
1x6 Protected Cav
2x4 Light Chariot
2x8 MF Warriors
1x10 MF Warriors
1x8 LF Javelin
1x8 LF Bow
1x12 HF Gaesati

One concern I have is with the size of my warrior battlegroups. I only have nine battle groups in this list at 793(?) points.

[MarkSieber]

The MF require you to spend some thought on terrain and make sure you maximize it whenever possible.

It you are a toss a little bit out carelessly guy, then HF is safer.

I'm a bit puzzled by this and other comments which recommend care in placing terrain. One seems to have almost no control over the placement of terrain. Being able to pick a fair amount is negated because most of it gets moved or removed by your opponent, or shows up on the edges of the table or on the wrong side. Have I missed some approach that brings terrain where you want it, or at least in the main part of the battle area?

[hazelbark]

It has more to do with the sizes and quantity you pick.

If you want lots of terrain don't pick small pieces.
And pick all 4.

Basic stuff like that. At its core you don't have excessive control you are correct.