Slitherine

Tired of watching your brave Ancient Spanish ridden down by knights or watching Skythians run circles around your Medieval French? Never participated in competitions because of the anachronistic encounters and über-armies? There is a competition format than can solve both problems: historical pairs. This requires each player to bring two armies that are historically matched (actually fought or could have done so) with the army lists already drawn up. From the second game, the player with the lowest score chooses which pair of armies to use and his opponent chooses which of the two lists he will use. In both cases, both players must look at all army lists before deciding. In the first game, the choice of pairs can be decided randomly, by agreement between players or by unseeded players.

Example: Peter has decided to attend with a Roman and Carthaginian pair and John with a Later Crusader and Ayubid Egyptian pair (see lists below). Both lists are roughly based on historical battles and include special rules specific to the pair. Peter's pair does not strictly respect the Osprey army lists as he feels Hannibal's Spanish troops should be graded as superior to reflect their veteran status. In the second game, Peter plays John and having fewer points decides to use his own pair as he knows how to use both armies and hasn't got a clue how to work either of John's armies. John now studies both the Roman and the Carthaginian lists to see which is the best but can't see anything obvious. After a while he decides to go for the better command and control of the Carthaginian list. Peter will use the Romans.

Pair 1: Battle of Cannae, Mid Republican Roman vs Later Carthaginian

Roman List, 804 points

Consul Paulus C-in-C TC
Consul Varro FC

1 Consular Legion Velites 8 LF, Unp, ave, dr., javelins, l.spear
2 Consular Legion Hastati 8 HF, Pro, ave, dr., Impact foot, Swordsmen
3 Consular Legion Principes 8 HF, Arm, ave, dr., Impact foot, Swordsmen
4 Consular Legion Triarii 4 HF, Arm., sup, dr., Offensive Spear
5 Raw Legion Velites 8 LF, Unp, poor, dr., javelins, l.spear
6 Raw Legion Hastati 8 HF, Pro, poor, dr., Impact foot, Swordsmen
7 Raw Legion Principes 8 HF, Arm, poor, dr., Impact foot, Swordsmen
8 Raw Legion Triarii 4 HF, Arm., poor, dr., Offensive Spear
9 Roman cavalry 4 Cv, Pr,, ave., und., l.spear, Swordsmen
10 Allied Velites 8 LF, Unp, ave, dr., javelins, l.spear
11 Allied Hastati 8 HF, Pro, ave, dr., Impact foot, Swordsmen
12 Allied Principes 8 HF, Arm, ave, dr., Impact foot, Swordsmen
13 Allied Triarii 4 HF, Arm., sup, dr., Offensive Spear
14 Allied cavalry: 4 Cv, Pr,, ave., und., l.spear, Swordsmen

Fortified Camp

Special Rule: If a Hastati unit is disrupted or fragmented and has fought at least one round of melee, it can be replaced in combat by a Principes unit during the Roman movement phase. In order to achieve this, the Principes unit must be within movement distance of the front of the enemy unit in melee and both the Hastati and the Principes unit must pass a CMT. If successful, the Principes unit replaces the Hastati and these are placed immediately behind. The Principes must match the frontage of the replaced unit exactly, contracting or expanding as necessary. Triarii BGs can replace Hastati and Principes in combat as per the above rule. Hastati cannot replace Principes or Triarii in combat and Principes cannot replace Triarii in combat.


Carthaginian List, 806 points

Hannibal C-in.C IC
Mago TC
Hasdrubal TC

1 Numidian cavalry 4 LH, Unp, ave, und., javelins, l.spear
2 Numidian cavalry 4 LH, Unp, ave, und., javelins, l.spear
3 Numidian javelinmen 8 LF, Unp, ave, und., javelins, l.spear
4 Balearic slingers 8 LF, Unp, sup, und., slings
5 African Spearmen 6 HF, Arm, sup, dr, Offensive Spear
6 Gauls 12 HF, Pro, ave, und., Impact foot, Swordsmen
7 Spaniards 6 MF, Pro, sup, und., Impact foot, Swordsmen
8 Spaniards 6 MF, Pro, sup, und., Impact foot, Swordsmen
9 Gauls 12 HF, Pro, ave, und., Impact foot, Swordsmen
10 African Spearmen 6 HF, Arm, sup, dr, Offensive Spear
11 Spanish cavalry 4 Cv, Pr,, sup., und., l.spear, Swordsmen
12 Gallic cavalry 4 Cv, Pr,, sup., und., l.spear, Swordsmen


Special Rule: Gallic and Spanish infantry in melee can recoil 2 inches during their own movement phase if they pass a CMT. If this rule is used, all Gallic and Spanish BGs must recoil at the same time and all must pass the CMT. If one unit fails the test, all units fail to recoil. Any Roman units in contact automatically follow up and maintain contact to fight another round of melee. If Roman bases not in combat meet a fresh unit as a result of the follow-up, they will fight in the impact phase if they can maintain a legal formation. If not, the Roman unit contracts by the minimum necessary to avoid the enemy unit.



One of the problems of the historical pairs format is the need for two historically matched armies as not every player has or can borrow them. To get around this, the system can be modified so that two players form a team and between them field one pair of armies. One of the two players will use the team's pair and the other will play with the pair provided by the team they are drawn against. Once the match-ups have been decided, the players without armies look at the lists provided by their opponent and decide which army to use. At the end of the competition there will be two scores, one a team and a player score. Who gets to use the armies within a team is up to the partners. They could decide to both play two games with them or on the basis of the team they are facing.

Example: Peter and Paul team up with Peter's Roman and Carthaginian pair (see above). In the second game, they are are drawn against John and James with the Later Crusader and Ayubid Egyptians (see below). After a quick chat, Paul agrees to let Peter use the team's armies as Peter expects to make a hash of it if he has to play with the Crusader/Egyptian pair. John and James on the other hand are pretty laid back about it so throw a coin to decide who will play with the team's pair: James is the winner and gets to use the Crusader/Egyptian pair. Peter now shows the Roman/Carthaginian lists to John and James does the same witth Paul. Once John and Paul have decided which army to use, the games can start.

Pair 2: Battle of Arsuf, Later Crusader vs Ayubid Egyptian

Later Crusader List, 806 points

Richard Lionheart C-in-C IC
Robert de Sablé TC
Hugh of Burgundy TC

1 Templar Foot 3 HF, Arm, ave, dr., defensive spear + 3 MF, Arm, ave, dr, xbow
2 Templar Knights 4 Kn, H.Arm, sup, dr., lancers, swordsmen
3 Crusader Foot 3 HF, Arm, ave, und., defensive spear + 3 MF, Arm, ave, und, xbow
4 Anglo-Norman Knights 4 Kn, H.Arm, sup, und., lancers, swordsmen
5 Crusader Foot 3 HF, Pr, ave, und., defensive spear + 3 MF, Pr, ave, und, xbow
6 French and Flemish Knights 4 Kn, H.Arm, sup, und., lancers, swordsmen
7 Crusader Foot 3 HF, Arm, ave, und., defensive spear + 3 MF, Arm, ave, und, xbow
8 Hospitaller Knights 4 Kn, H.Arm, sup, dr., lancers, swordsmen
9 Hospitaller Foot 3 HF, Arm, ave, dr., defensive spear + 3 MF, Arm, ave, dr, xbow

Fortified Camp

Special Rule: The Crusader camp is loaded on mules and carts. It moves as a BG of undrilled HF and has an escort of men-at-arms so counts as fortified.

Ayubid Egyptian List, 802 points

Saladin C-in-C IC
Muzaffar al-din TC
Taqi al-din TC

1 Foot Archers 8 LF, Unp, ave, und., bow
2 Foot Archers 8 LF, Unp, ave, und., bow
3 Bedouins 6 LH, Unp, ave, und, lancers, swordsmen
4 Turcomans 6 LH, unp, ave, und, bow, swordsmen
5 Turcomans 6 LH, unp, ave, und, bow, swordsmen
6 Turcomans 6 LH, unp, ave, und, bow, swordsmen
7 Armoured lancers 6 Cv, Arm., sup, und, lancers swordsmen
8 Armoured lancers 6 Cv, Arm., sup, und, lancers swordsmen
9 Mameluks 4 Cv, Arm, sup, bow, swordsmen
10 Mameluks 4 Cv, Arm, sup, bow, swordsmen

Special Rule: The Ayubid player automatically has the initiative.



After three and a half hours Peter has managed a score of 11-9 largely thanks to his intensive training with the pair which compensated for John's clear superiority as a player. On the other table, after a lengthy shooting match, James managed to lead the Egyptians to a clear victory against Paul's Crusaders, winning 21-4. The final scores are:

John and James Team: 30
Peter and Paul Team: 15

Individual scores:
James: 21
Peter: 11
John: 9
Paul: 4

In the next round, the draws will be decided on the basis of the team scores.


Both formats allow for four balanced games between historical opponents and weaker players are given a slight advantage in that they will most likely use their own pair of armies with which they are familiar. Better players on the other hand, will often be playing with their opponent's weird and wonderful creations and will have to depend on their abilities rather than experience to win. Another advantage is that the armies do not have to respect the Osprey army lists exactly, indeed they may be of your own creation if you have a desperate urge to field some of your more obscure DBM armies. Nor do the lists have to adhere strictly to the usual 800 points (don't go mad though!) and special rules can be added to reflect tactics or strategies specific to a battle or campaign. Be careful to test your lists though as any deviation from the normal lists or rules could cause one list to be significantly better and if your opponent spots this you may be faced with insuperable odds. It pays to design balanced lists and trust to your skill...or luck!

If this system appeals to you and you would be willing to participate if a historical pairs competition was organised at the BHGS Challenge (for example), please make yourself known on this thread. If no one is interested, thanks for taking the time to read this post.

Julian

Tired of watching your brave Ancient Spanish ridden down by knights or watching Skythians run circles around your Medieval French? Never participated in competitions because of the anachronistic encounters and über-armies?

David

PD:

jlopez wrote:From the second game, the player with fewer points chooses which pair of armies to use and his opponent chooses which of the two lists he will use.

Hello again, Julian! Interesting idea. The passage above confused me badly, though. You say "fewer points" but do not specify what kind of points you mean. At first, I was convinced you meant army list points, and I was thinking "So if I show up with a pair of 450-point armies, I am virtually guaranteed to get to choose my own lists?"

Then it hit me that you meant points in the competition thus far, hence the "from the second game onwards" passage

Granted, only a clueless newb like me is likely to make that mistake, but perhaps you might wish to edit the quoted section for clarity?

possum wrote:

jlopez wrote:From the second game, the player with fewer points chooses which pair of armies to use and his opponent chooses which of the two lists he will use.

Hello again, Julian! Interesting idea. The passage above confused me badly, though. You say "fewer points" but do not specify what kind of points you mean. At first, I was convinced you meant army list points, and I was thinking "So if I show up with a pair of 450-point armies, I am virtually guaranteed to get to choose my own lists?"

Then it hit me that you meant points in the competition thus far, hence the "from the second game onwards" passage

Granted, only a clueless newb like me is likely to make that mistake, but perhaps you might wish to edit the quoted section for clarity?

I've made it clearer. Thanks.

Julian

Not wanting to knock what you say in any way would it not as it is starting to come in to events know to have specific compitions run using only say only one Army list book therefore making for a closer historical fight just a thought.
Dave

david53 wrote:Not wanting to knock what you say in any way would it not as it is starting to come in to events know to have specific compitions run using only say only one Army list book therefore making for a closer historical fight just a thought.
Dave

Fair comment but from experience I know it doesn't work.

Let's say "Rise of Rome" only? I'd probably take Parthians every time and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't lose many games. If I took my average Mid-Republican Romans I suspect I'd get creamed most of the time by better quality (Late Republican) or more mobile armies (Parthian or Bosporan). Look at the Legions Triumphant pool at RollCall and you'll see there isn't much variety in terms of army types.

The problem with restricting army lists is that it is extremely hard to wean out those lists which are likely to have a significant advantage. It also doesn´t prevent you from extracting the last ounce of benefit from some lists. For example, if you field Attila's Huns you can have an Ostrogoth ally with four BGs of 4 LF, poor, bow. For 32 points you get 4 BGs which bumps up what is already a very hard army to beat to something like 17 BGs. Considering most of them can evade, most of your opponents are going to struggle to get a result while you will find it a lot easier. Why bother taking a slow HF undrilled army when you can face something like that?

Julian

I like the idea but am very limited on historical pairs of armies

Sumerians
Libyans
Hittites
Assyrians
Successors
Classical Indian
Slave Revolt
Han Chinese
Tibetan
Late Roman
Visigoth / Frank
Various allied contingents (Dacians, Sarmatians, Armenians etc.
Hunnic
Lots of Arabs
Normans
Lots of early medievals
Lots of late medievals
Swiss
Later Hungarian

Granted there are a few pairs in there but not many considering the thousands of figures I posses My collecting has focused very much on one army for a given period and then in some areas I have picked up another. I think I would be limited to either Late Roman and an enemy of said or to a pair of medievals if I can make two at the same time.

hammy wrote:I like the idea but am very limited on historical pairs of armies

Sumerians
Libyans
Hittites
Assyrians
Successors
Classical Indian
Slave Revolt
Han Chinese
Tibetan
Late Roman
Visigoth / Frank
Various allied contingents (Dacians, Sarmatians, Armenians etc.
Hunnic
Lots of Arabs
Normans
Lots of early medievals
Lots of late medievals
Swiss
Later Hungarian

Granted there are a few pairs in there but not many considering the thousands of figures I posses My collecting has focused very much on one army for a given period and then in some areas I have picked up another. I think I would be limited to either Late Roman and an enemy of said or to a pair of medievals if I can make two at the same time.

Excluding civil wars, which can make interesting pairs, I see:

Hittites vs Assyrians
Macedonian vs Classical Indian
Chinese vs Tibetan
Late Romans vs Franks
Late Romans vs Huns
Late Romans vs Visigoths
Late Romans vs Arabs
Late Romans vs Sassanids (if your arabs can morph into Persians)
Huns vs Visigoths
Early Crusader vs Syrians/Fatimids/Seljuks
Later Crusader vs Syrians/Fatimids/Ayubids
Any combination of Arab/Turkish states
Any combination of European medieval kingdoms
Swiss vs Late German
Swiss vs Burgundian Ordonnance
Swiss vs Italian Condotta
Late Hungarian vs Ottomans (if your arabs can morph into Turks)

Methinks you have a fair selection...Even if you feel badly done to in terms of armies, I'm sure you and Martin could scrape something together for the alternative team format.

Julian

jlopez wrote:

(if your arabs can morph into Persians)

Mr Lopez, agents are on their way to deal with this suggestion ...

nikgaukroger wrote:

jlopez wrote:

(if your arabs can morph into Persians)

Mr Lopez, agents are on their way to deal with this suggestion ...

It's the bow-cases again, isn't it? Damn...

Julian

I like the overall concept w/ the obvious caveat of most people not having enough lead to make historical pairs. I have around 5 armies and only 2 could be historical pairs, and even then only because they existed at the same time although they never fought - Romans and Kushans.

Also, the flexibility w/ the points for each army and the special rules leave HUGE holes for competitive players to explore, especially the latter. I can just imagine players making up these really, really complex rules for their historical pair that a player forced to choose will not understand the implication of something so complex. I'd say bring a pair of contemporary armies, up to 800 points. Hard to make it more restrictive than that and expect lots of players.

carlos wrote:I like the overall concept w/ the obvious caveat of most people not having enough lead to make historical pairs. I have around 5 armies and only 2 could be historical pairs, and even then only because they existed at the same time although they never fought - Romans and Kushans.

Also, the flexibility w/ the points for each army and the special rules leave HUGE holes for competitive players to explore, especially the latter. I can just imagine players making up these really, really complex rules for their historical pair that a player forced to choose will not understand the implication of something so complex. I'd say bring a pair of contemporary armies, up to 800 points. Hard to make it more restrictive than that and expect lots of players.

Armies aren't that much of an issue, specially if you use the team concept. The organisers could match isolated players with compatible armies to form ad hoc teams for the competition.

The fact armies are few points over is neither here nor there. However, you are quite right that special rules can have many unseen consequences. The two pairs published in my first post I put together in about 5 minutes just to provide examples but as you can probably tell with the Roman special rule it actually took me a while longer to work out the consequences of allowing such deviations from the rules.

As an organizer I would probably want a look at all lists to make sure nothing too weird, complicated or badly-thought out was added as a special rule. Another way around is that special rules are only used if both players agree to using them so if you are unfamiliar with them you can decide to do with them for a straight game but if you fancy something a little different or are feeling adventurous you can have a go.

On the NPOW circuit, when I had a choice of which pair to use I often chose my opponent's pair for the sheer novelty factor or the interesting special rules.

Julian

It's the bow-cases again, isn't it? Damn...

Nope that is only a factor for Skythians and Seljuqs.

To answer the matched pairs argument, this is frequently raised by POW players. It was tried at a recent flames of war tournament, which had to be cancelled due to lack of entries.

In theory it sounds great. In practice people don't like it because:

- You have to lug two armies to any competition
- Other people get to touch and possibly damage your toys (a significant factor if you have spent a lot of money)
- This favours the person who brings the armies - they know initimately the strengths and weaknesses of both armies
- People who don't go to a club like to use the same army all weekend as they don't get to game that much
- Too much hassle

To repeat - in theory sound, in practice, no competition.

dave_r wrote:

It's the bow-cases again, isn't it? Damn...

Nope that is only a factor for Skythians and Seljuqs.

To answer the matched pairs argument, this is frequently raised by POW players. It was tried at a recent flames of war tournament, which had to be cancelled due to lack of entries.

In theory it sounds great. In practice people don't like it because:

- You have to lug two armies to any competition
- Other people get to touch and possibly damage your toys (a significant factor if you have spent a lot of money)
- This favours the person who brings the armies - they know initimately the strengths and weaknesses of both armies
- People who don't go to a club like to use the same army all weekend as they don't get to game that much
- Too much hassle

To repeat - in theory sound, in practice, no competition.

The matched pairs were brought in for POW precisely because we were getting situations where in the Napoleonic period you were getting 80% of players taking either the French or the Russian Imperial Guard which made for excruciatingly boring games.

I agree with your third point but I think of it as an advantage. It tends to make for a more level playing field. In NPOW, I've played several difficult but interesting and fun games against players I would otherwise have massacred in an open competition. The fact better players have to use unfamiliar armies is a challenge and gives poorer players a sporting chance. However, I suspect you are right and the take-up will be minimal but I thought it worth having a go rather than mumble incoherently into my pint of bitter about how boring and same-ish competitions have become!

Julian

I like this idea very much indeed and although I could only provide paired armies in 25mm ( Goths v late Roman and Late Seleucid v Republican Rome ), within local clubs we could provide no end of pairs in both major scales.

Long ago (1970'S/80'S) back in Essex, a person was deemed champion when they had won a number of comps in which they used a variety of armies, both their own and other peoples, mostly on terrains set by a third party, and the only games taken seriously were those between historical opponents. There's a side of me that says any return in that direction would be worth considering!

That having been said, we recently tried a couple of games of Italian Condottiere v New Kingdom Egypt and although the Italians won both games, the first was a close-run thing. FoG's mechanisms don't seem to favour one historical era's armies over another's. All we have found is as the table size allowed for a game increases, armies based on shooting cav/LH do better and better, and as the length of time allowed for a game decreases, armies based on large amounts of BGs become hard to defeat unless the player using that army commits a kind of suicide!

Martin

WhiteKnight wrote:I like this idea very much indeed and although I could only provide paired armies in 25mm ( Goths v late Roman and Late Seleucid v Republican Rome ), within local clubs we could provide no end of pairs in both major scales.

Long ago (1970'S/80'S) back in Essex, a person was deemed champion when they had won a number of comps in which they used a variety of armies, both their own and other peoples, mostly on terrains set by a third party, and the only games taken seriously were those between historical opponents. There's a side of me that says any return in that direction would be worth considering!

That having been said, we recently tried a couple of games of Italian Condottiere v New Kingdom Egypt and although the Italians won both games, the first was a close-run thing. FoG's mechanisms don't seem to favour one historical era's armies over another's. All we have found is as the table size allowed for a game increases, armies based on shooting cav/LH do better and better, and as the length of time allowed for a game decreases, armies based on large amounts of BGs become hard to defeat unless the player using that army commits a kind of suicide!

Martin

Since you provide both armies, scale isn't much of an issue. You'd probably have to specify fewer points for 25mm scale but that's about it. Same goes with 10mm or any other scale. All that matters is you bring two balanced, historically matched armies that can get a result in 3,5 hours.

I agree that FOG works just fine as it is and gives relatively historical results. My complaint with open competitions (or even themes ones) isn't so much that it is wrong for infantry armies to struggle against skirmisher armies so much as it is sooooo boring trying to chase them around. Consequently, you tend to find that if you want a decent chance of winning or at least having fun games, it pays to take faster more mobile armies and that just doesn't do it for me anymore. Call me perverse but I want to lead Varro's Cannae army to victory and prove to the world at large that he wasn't a blockhead, he was just unlucky...

I agree that FOG works just fine as it is and gives relatively historical results. My complaint with open competitions (or even themes ones) isn't so much that it is wrong for infantry armies to struggle against skirmisher armies so much as it is sooooo boring trying to chase them around. Consequently, you tend to find that if you want a decent chance of winning or at least having fun games, it pays to take faster more mobile armies and that just doesn't do it for me anymore

Then don't take an infantry army only. As you say, history is scattered of examples of heavy foot fruitlessly chasing skirmishers. Fortunately we have choice. We don't have to take all infantry. Even Romans can have a decent amount of mounted - so use them.

I have fared reasonably well with Lydians and they are based around 32 Armoured Hoplites. They also have some Cavalry and Light Horse for dealing with those pesky skirmishers. I have indeed clobbered every LH Skirmisher army I have come across with these chaps.

If you don't take an army that is capable of dealing with all comers then don't be surprised when it meets said army it fares badly.

My Medieval French have done OK against skirmisher armies as well - that is why god invented the Longbow. A couple of BG's of Scots Longbowmen definitely keeps the light horse away.

Martin[/quote]

I agree that FOG works just fine as it is and gives relatively historical results. My complaint with open competitions (or even themes ones) isn't so much that it is wrong for infantry armies to struggle against skirmisher armies so much as it is sooooo boring trying to chase them around. Consequently, you tend to find that if you want a decent chance of winning or at least having fun games, it pays to take faster more mobile armies and that just doesn't do it for me anymore. Call me perverse but I want to lead Varro's Cannae army to victory and prove to the world at large that he wasn't a blockhead, he was just unlucky... [/quote]

Reference chasing the skirmishers around drop the size of the tables to 5 foot by 3 for 15mm use the terrian types to block parts and yes you can catch the skirmishers, did it this weekend(not wonderfuly and not all the time) with Swiss against all types of shooty type light horse type armies. I think and this is my own thoughts its fun. I understand about wanting to match up correct forces but like Dave R says it will be difficult I have three 25mm armies non match up. I understand what you said about the army l;ists but I just think you'd be giving people less of a choice and a lot of people like the armies that they use after the expense and time painting them Its a good point you have raised I wish you luck with it.
Dave

dave_r wrote:

I agree that FOG works just fine as it is and gives relatively historical results. My complaint with open competitions (or even themes ones) isn't so much that it is wrong for infantry armies to struggle against skirmisher armies so much as it is sooooo boring trying to chase them around. Consequently, you tend to find that if you want a decent chance of winning or at least having fun games, it pays to take faster more mobile armies and that just doesn't do it for me anymore

Then don't take an infantry army only. As you say, history is scattered of examples of heavy foot fruitlessly chasing skirmishers. Fortunately we have choice. We don't have to take all infantry. Even Romans can have a decent amount of mounted - so use them.

I have fared reasonably well with Lydians and they are based around 32 Armoured Hoplites. They also have some Cavalry and Light Horse for dealing with those pesky skirmishers. I have indeed clobbered every LH Skirmisher army I have come across with these chaps.

If you don't take an army that is capable of dealing with all comers then don't be surprised when it meets said army it fares badly.

My Medieval French have done OK against skirmisher armies as well - that is why god invented the Longbow. A couple of BG's of Scots Longbowmen definitely keeps the light horse away.

You are right but that is my exactly my point. I don't want to take the wargaming equivalent of a swiss army knife to beat all comers. I've done it for years and it just doesn't do it for me anymore. I want to have fun with an army I like and still be able to win a tournament . Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen with the armies I have in mind and I'm not thinking about outrageous armies either. Most of the ones I'd like to field, say an all average Mid Republican Roman army, were actually the ones that were most commonly fielded. However, you don't see them very often in competitions and even less in the top three. I can guarantee you that my world ranking would be much lower if I'd used armies I like rather than competition armies and that is what bugs me.

Julian