Slitherine

Hi All,

I've been toying with the idea of MF instead of HF where I have the option. I know there is a disadvantage for MF in the cohesion test, but I'm wondering how big this is. I mean, the advantage of being able to fight in the more difficult terrain can be HUGE. My idea being that if you have enough mounted to deal with any opponent's mounted, then you don't have that huge disadvantage in combat. You have to lose the combat to actually DO a cohesion test (which you'll do 50% of the time I admit) but only get a -1.

Any thoughts? Anyone had great experience with this?

Ian

It really depends on what the rest of your army looks like. I take my gauls as MF, but thats only because I have good cav.

the movement and terrain makes a big difference, but if possible, I would get some MF and some HF.

Running the Spanish MF against Romans, two things keep reoccuring:

1. You never get all that rough terrain you choose at the start! (Well...there WAS one glorious time...but...maybe I only dreamed it!)
2. As someone once said to me, "A -1 is a HUGE deal!" Just ask my buddy the Spanish player how many times NOT taking a -1 by being Celtiberian HF instead of Iberian MF, PLUS having rear support PLUS having a general with the unit JUST barely saw them pass the cohesion test!

Have some heavies (my Spanish army has 2 10-paks each with their own general and a 6-pak of MF in rear support at all times) and the rest MF to swarm the terrain and/or flanks!

With my Hellenistic armies (Ptolemaic, Indo-Greek, etc.) I prefer MF Thureophoroi, they're faster and do better in terrain, and augment HF and good mounted already in the army. The MF work well if you can use them in terrain--the -1 applies when you lose in the open to mounted or HF--so other approaches are to support them with command, or combine with troops such as good cavalry or elephants to reduce the chance of losing.

If I were looking at Attalid Pergamene or Later Jewish where the troop type in question is the primary infantry, and available in larger numbers, I'd be more likely to go with HF for holding the main line.

I have played gauls 2 times.. the first time was with alot of proxies. I took the whole army as MF.. It wasn't pretty.. The 2nd time i took all HF... better.. But in conclusion.. I would take an ally MF of a few BGS and most as HF.. Im build a gaul army cause im planning on building a late Republic army.

For what it's worth I would want to have at least a core of HF if I were fighting in the open, as MarkSieber (my best friend and fellow FoGer
Pointed out.

MF taking an additional -1 to a cohesion check for losing close combat to HF in open IS significant to me. So is mounted gaining a POA in impact for facing MF in the open. That can be huge, especially for lancers.

So, no surprise that I prefer HF. However in the armies Mark mentioned, such as Attalid where MF is the norm, you'll need to use any terrain as much as possible, as well as take advantage of MF's faster movement rate.

Dale

Besides all the other arguments, MF is slightly better at hunting other MF w/ shooty weapons. Being one less turn in effective range of bows and the like is very useful.