Poor Troops - Theory and Practice
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:14 am
POOR TROOPS – THEORY AND PRACTICE
There have been a number of threads on Poor troops and on points balancing that discuss specific cases and also touch on some theoretical principles. The gist of the response from the design team is that Poor troops have uses that make them cost-effective. This post is a start at outlining theory and practice on this subject. Because Poor troops are a more complex subject, it is unfortunately much longer than my counterpart post on Superior troops – “You can’t go far wrong taking Superior troops.”
POOR THEORY:
1. The design team’s statements indicate that the design intention is not that Poor troops should be cost-effective when thrown into combat, but that they are useful when used judiciously for appropriate purposes with understanding of their limitations. Superior or Elite troops may flexibly serve and dominate their opponents in many or all roles, but planning to use Poor troops requires consideration of different roles in a battle and highlights the principle of picking the right tools for each job – horses for courses.
2. In the interplay of complementary principles of concentration of force (physically and in combat power) at the critical points and economy of force elsewhere, Poor troops serve as economy of force troops – use them and save points here that can be used to enable a more powerful concentration of force elsewhere.
3. Poor troops are weak at generating close combat or shooting hits on the enemy and weak at sustaining hits. They are most strained when asked to do both, and when they take cohesion losses have a very hard time bouncing back. When it comes to fighting, they can serve well where they can add hits to aid other friendlies without strains on their cohesion.
4. Economy of force roles for Poor-quality troops include:
cheaply adding “filler” to the army’s BG count
meeting compulsory list minimums to free points for critical BGs
garrisoning fortifications, defiles, or other defensive positions that need to be held, or as RB Scott suggests in an “impregnable position, but one where they enemy cannot ignore them because they could successfully intervene if ignored.”
extending the line of battle to outwing the enemy, possibly inducing him to thin and weaken his line or deploy reserves on the flanks instead
psychological tactics, acting as bait for an attack, or a threat the enemy underestimates due to quality
using POA or Cohesion Test abilities, such as cancelling Lancer or Swordsmen POAs or penalties for being shot at by firearms or artillery or defeated by certain troop types
screening, delaying, and skirmishing, where speed and the ability to evade are not reduced by lower quality
if relatively durable battle troops, pinning one or more enemy BGs in a fight long enough for friends to make headway against their flanks
covering a friendly BG’s flank with the threat of an intercept charge
maneuvering to attack or shoot the flank or rear of an enemy pinned in its front
chasing down weak enemy troops, routers, or raiding the enemy camp
5. You can’t wing it in battle with Poor troops – you need to rely heavily on a good doctrine and battle plan since you can’t count on quality to carry you through.
6. It is risky to recruit Poor troops without knowing you have a clear role for them. The greater the uncertainty that a Poor BG will have a suitable role in a forthcoming battle, the lower its expected value and the more cost-effective it is to take more versatile troops instead. Since tactical roles are more predictable against a known and familiar opponent than a random foe, Poor troops are less attractive in open competitions.
7. Poor troops benefit from and need rear support much more than Average troops – fortunately this can be provided by small, cheap Poor BGs. Use the standard rear-support principle of 2 bigger BGs in the first line, 1 small one in supporting column more than 3 MUs behind.
8. Keep thinking about potential routs when fielding Poor troops, to minimize the bad effects and exploit any flank opportunities against their pursuers.
9. Poor troops favor large BGs and bases in extra rear ranks to boost their ability to skip shooting cohesion tests and absorb losses. These large BGs can greatly benefit from Commander bonuses.
10. Use every effort to keep Poor troops in close combat on at least an even POA, since they bear an accelerating penalty as POAs turn unfavorable. They are 9% less effective than Average if hitting on 3-6, 17% less effective if hitting on 4-6, 33% less effective if hitting on 5-6, and an essentially useless 83% worse than Average on a 6 to hit.
11. Poor troops mean more cash and painting time spent on a per point basis, plus a usually grungier appearance, all good reasons for unpopularity.
12. Poor troops demand skill to plan and use them properly and psychological toughness to accept their disabilities. As Scrumpy wrote, “It is soul destroying to roll 3 6s in combat, only to have the re-rolls fail to score hits, and then you lose.”
POOR PRACTICE:
LIGHT TROOPS: The standard filler other than Mobs is LF in minimum size BGs @ 2 points apiece and armed with Slings or Javelin/Light Spear (JLS). Unlike Mobs, they can be used in low-risk tactical roles. LH are more expensive but also more survivable, and can be used more actively in combat. Even Poor LH is a serious threat to LF in the open. While it can’t inflict a cohesion loss with a flank or rear charge, Poor LH is still helpful for that and cost effective at raiding the enemy camp or cutting off routers. Poor BGs are almost as useful as quality lights in roles where skirmisher abilities rather than dealing damage are important. Poor Lights are seen fairly commonly.
PIKES AND SPEARS: While Pikemen are concentration of force rather than economy of force troops, they are one of the more popular uses of Poor quality since they keep the usual POA benefits and with favorable net POA the reroll penalty is minimized. At 4 or 5 ranks deep, they save 8 or 10 points per file, representing a significant economizing on the cost of concentration of force. If Steady, both Pikemen and Spearmen even in just one rank will deny POAs to Lancers, Swordsmen and Heavy Chariots, and if deeper Pikes can score a net 2 POAs in their favor when receiving a mounted charge.
Use Poor Pikemen and Spearmen as a threat or blocking force against troops that don’t want to face them, such as melee mounted, as flank cover, or a maneuver base or mobile terrain feature to shelter other troops against mounted.
Their morale is vulnerable to heavy shooting and they will be beaten down by good infantry once disrupted. Even so they may tie down important enemy formations long enough to win the battle elsewhere. If intended to fight, use big BGs and don’t let them be thinned down.
Spearmen: Spearmen have only one dedicated POA and are almost always going to be Protected or Unprotected rather than Armoured. They lack the concentrated power of Pikes, and against the economy of force or longer frontage there is the advantage of 3 rank depth for casualty replacement and splitting incoming enemy shooting with other friends.
Poor Spearmen are fairly versatile. If Medium Foot they are very happy in Uneven and Rough terrain, but are less credible opponents for enemy mounted in the open – this can, however, be useful in drawing in enemy mounted to attack them.
The standard type is Poor Undrilled Protected Defensive Spearmen @ 4 points, a very reasonable cost. The Poor savings per file is 2 points per rank, representing a lower savings per file frontage than using Poor Pikes – or, put another way, it is relatively cheaper on a frontage basis to upgrade them to Average quality. Against this is the argument that the purpose of Pikes is concentration of force but these purpose of Poor Spearmen is to occupy frontage at minimum cost, and the 50% greater frontage of Poor troops makes them worthwhile. An extra point for Drilled where available can make Spearmen a great deal more useful, and Unprotected is a worthwhile savings if you know you will be facing armoured non-missile troops.
SHOOTERS: Poor infantry shooters are normally unprotected and carry just a Bow (or free Light Spear), so at 3 points, or 4 points if drilled, are cheap enough to have a filler benefit while still offering some combat potential. Poor shooters are likely to disappoint in a shooting duel, and as indicated above the reroll penalty will be painful unless you are hitting on 4s or better. Since shooters will have a bad close combat POA, the reroll penalty will hit hard if they are contacted as well. If used, they should be used where they will not be hit, or paired with a tougher BG that will take the bulk of the incoming damage. It’s been suggested that mixed formations of Spearmen or Light Spear with Bow may be useful as Poor for the roles those types fill.
OTHER FOOT: For expensive front-line battle troops like Legionaries, the percentage discount for Poor is relatively small, unless you also downgrade armor and training as well, and downgrading this way will usually be rejected as making them too vulnerable, unless this is targeted for a particular known opponent that is a good match-up. For example, Republican Poor Legionaries cost one point more than Average warbands and at + Armour POA in melee are a good match for them.
Other than Pikemen and Spearmen, Poor HF can live a dangerous life in the open against mounted and are generally less attractive than Poor MF who can use or hide in terrain. Mobs are a popular Poor filler type, but for filler purposes LF at 2 points each are cheaper per BG and better at escaping danger.
MOUNTED BATTLE TROOPS: Too expensive not to use in combat, the savings from Poor quality horse are usually seen to be outweighed by the reduction in shooting or close combat power as well as morale brittleness. However, Poor may work where doctrine allows these not to be factor. For example, Hammy advanced the use of Poor Drilled Byzantine Lancer Cavalry as a flank charging force that can inflict cohesion loss and has the benefit of Lancer POAs and enemy cohesion test penalties. Although Poor, the Lancers are maneuverable and can’t safely be ignored. Because they are Poor and thus “really cheap, you have a better chance of getting them in the right place and Poor Drilled will pass a CMT 62% of the time (assuming a general nearby), so you have a pretty decent shout to get them where you want them at the right time.”
I thank you in advance for comments, critiques and reports from the front. There is a lot more to be discovered and said regarding Poor troops.
There have been a number of threads on Poor troops and on points balancing that discuss specific cases and also touch on some theoretical principles. The gist of the response from the design team is that Poor troops have uses that make them cost-effective. This post is a start at outlining theory and practice on this subject. Because Poor troops are a more complex subject, it is unfortunately much longer than my counterpart post on Superior troops – “You can’t go far wrong taking Superior troops.”
POOR THEORY:
1. The design team’s statements indicate that the design intention is not that Poor troops should be cost-effective when thrown into combat, but that they are useful when used judiciously for appropriate purposes with understanding of their limitations. Superior or Elite troops may flexibly serve and dominate their opponents in many or all roles, but planning to use Poor troops requires consideration of different roles in a battle and highlights the principle of picking the right tools for each job – horses for courses.
2. In the interplay of complementary principles of concentration of force (physically and in combat power) at the critical points and economy of force elsewhere, Poor troops serve as economy of force troops – use them and save points here that can be used to enable a more powerful concentration of force elsewhere.
3. Poor troops are weak at generating close combat or shooting hits on the enemy and weak at sustaining hits. They are most strained when asked to do both, and when they take cohesion losses have a very hard time bouncing back. When it comes to fighting, they can serve well where they can add hits to aid other friendlies without strains on their cohesion.
4. Economy of force roles for Poor-quality troops include:
cheaply adding “filler” to the army’s BG count
meeting compulsory list minimums to free points for critical BGs
garrisoning fortifications, defiles, or other defensive positions that need to be held, or as RB Scott suggests in an “impregnable position, but one where they enemy cannot ignore them because they could successfully intervene if ignored.”
extending the line of battle to outwing the enemy, possibly inducing him to thin and weaken his line or deploy reserves on the flanks instead
psychological tactics, acting as bait for an attack, or a threat the enemy underestimates due to quality
using POA or Cohesion Test abilities, such as cancelling Lancer or Swordsmen POAs or penalties for being shot at by firearms or artillery or defeated by certain troop types
screening, delaying, and skirmishing, where speed and the ability to evade are not reduced by lower quality
if relatively durable battle troops, pinning one or more enemy BGs in a fight long enough for friends to make headway against their flanks
covering a friendly BG’s flank with the threat of an intercept charge
maneuvering to attack or shoot the flank or rear of an enemy pinned in its front
chasing down weak enemy troops, routers, or raiding the enemy camp
5. You can’t wing it in battle with Poor troops – you need to rely heavily on a good doctrine and battle plan since you can’t count on quality to carry you through.
6. It is risky to recruit Poor troops without knowing you have a clear role for them. The greater the uncertainty that a Poor BG will have a suitable role in a forthcoming battle, the lower its expected value and the more cost-effective it is to take more versatile troops instead. Since tactical roles are more predictable against a known and familiar opponent than a random foe, Poor troops are less attractive in open competitions.
7. Poor troops benefit from and need rear support much more than Average troops – fortunately this can be provided by small, cheap Poor BGs. Use the standard rear-support principle of 2 bigger BGs in the first line, 1 small one in supporting column more than 3 MUs behind.
8. Keep thinking about potential routs when fielding Poor troops, to minimize the bad effects and exploit any flank opportunities against their pursuers.
9. Poor troops favor large BGs and bases in extra rear ranks to boost their ability to skip shooting cohesion tests and absorb losses. These large BGs can greatly benefit from Commander bonuses.
10. Use every effort to keep Poor troops in close combat on at least an even POA, since they bear an accelerating penalty as POAs turn unfavorable. They are 9% less effective than Average if hitting on 3-6, 17% less effective if hitting on 4-6, 33% less effective if hitting on 5-6, and an essentially useless 83% worse than Average on a 6 to hit.
11. Poor troops mean more cash and painting time spent on a per point basis, plus a usually grungier appearance, all good reasons for unpopularity.
12. Poor troops demand skill to plan and use them properly and psychological toughness to accept their disabilities. As Scrumpy wrote, “It is soul destroying to roll 3 6s in combat, only to have the re-rolls fail to score hits, and then you lose.”
POOR PRACTICE:
LIGHT TROOPS: The standard filler other than Mobs is LF in minimum size BGs @ 2 points apiece and armed with Slings or Javelin/Light Spear (JLS). Unlike Mobs, they can be used in low-risk tactical roles. LH are more expensive but also more survivable, and can be used more actively in combat. Even Poor LH is a serious threat to LF in the open. While it can’t inflict a cohesion loss with a flank or rear charge, Poor LH is still helpful for that and cost effective at raiding the enemy camp or cutting off routers. Poor BGs are almost as useful as quality lights in roles where skirmisher abilities rather than dealing damage are important. Poor Lights are seen fairly commonly.
PIKES AND SPEARS: While Pikemen are concentration of force rather than economy of force troops, they are one of the more popular uses of Poor quality since they keep the usual POA benefits and with favorable net POA the reroll penalty is minimized. At 4 or 5 ranks deep, they save 8 or 10 points per file, representing a significant economizing on the cost of concentration of force. If Steady, both Pikemen and Spearmen even in just one rank will deny POAs to Lancers, Swordsmen and Heavy Chariots, and if deeper Pikes can score a net 2 POAs in their favor when receiving a mounted charge.
Use Poor Pikemen and Spearmen as a threat or blocking force against troops that don’t want to face them, such as melee mounted, as flank cover, or a maneuver base or mobile terrain feature to shelter other troops against mounted.
Their morale is vulnerable to heavy shooting and they will be beaten down by good infantry once disrupted. Even so they may tie down important enemy formations long enough to win the battle elsewhere. If intended to fight, use big BGs and don’t let them be thinned down.
Spearmen: Spearmen have only one dedicated POA and are almost always going to be Protected or Unprotected rather than Armoured. They lack the concentrated power of Pikes, and against the economy of force or longer frontage there is the advantage of 3 rank depth for casualty replacement and splitting incoming enemy shooting with other friends.
Poor Spearmen are fairly versatile. If Medium Foot they are very happy in Uneven and Rough terrain, but are less credible opponents for enemy mounted in the open – this can, however, be useful in drawing in enemy mounted to attack them.
The standard type is Poor Undrilled Protected Defensive Spearmen @ 4 points, a very reasonable cost. The Poor savings per file is 2 points per rank, representing a lower savings per file frontage than using Poor Pikes – or, put another way, it is relatively cheaper on a frontage basis to upgrade them to Average quality. Against this is the argument that the purpose of Pikes is concentration of force but these purpose of Poor Spearmen is to occupy frontage at minimum cost, and the 50% greater frontage of Poor troops makes them worthwhile. An extra point for Drilled where available can make Spearmen a great deal more useful, and Unprotected is a worthwhile savings if you know you will be facing armoured non-missile troops.
SHOOTERS: Poor infantry shooters are normally unprotected and carry just a Bow (or free Light Spear), so at 3 points, or 4 points if drilled, are cheap enough to have a filler benefit while still offering some combat potential. Poor shooters are likely to disappoint in a shooting duel, and as indicated above the reroll penalty will be painful unless you are hitting on 4s or better. Since shooters will have a bad close combat POA, the reroll penalty will hit hard if they are contacted as well. If used, they should be used where they will not be hit, or paired with a tougher BG that will take the bulk of the incoming damage. It’s been suggested that mixed formations of Spearmen or Light Spear with Bow may be useful as Poor for the roles those types fill.
OTHER FOOT: For expensive front-line battle troops like Legionaries, the percentage discount for Poor is relatively small, unless you also downgrade armor and training as well, and downgrading this way will usually be rejected as making them too vulnerable, unless this is targeted for a particular known opponent that is a good match-up. For example, Republican Poor Legionaries cost one point more than Average warbands and at + Armour POA in melee are a good match for them.
Other than Pikemen and Spearmen, Poor HF can live a dangerous life in the open against mounted and are generally less attractive than Poor MF who can use or hide in terrain. Mobs are a popular Poor filler type, but for filler purposes LF at 2 points each are cheaper per BG and better at escaping danger.
MOUNTED BATTLE TROOPS: Too expensive not to use in combat, the savings from Poor quality horse are usually seen to be outweighed by the reduction in shooting or close combat power as well as morale brittleness. However, Poor may work where doctrine allows these not to be factor. For example, Hammy advanced the use of Poor Drilled Byzantine Lancer Cavalry as a flank charging force that can inflict cohesion loss and has the benefit of Lancer POAs and enemy cohesion test penalties. Although Poor, the Lancers are maneuverable and can’t safely be ignored. Because they are Poor and thus “really cheap, you have a better chance of getting them in the right place and Poor Drilled will pass a CMT 62% of the time (assuming a general nearby), so you have a pretty decent shout to get them where you want them at the right time.”
I thank you in advance for comments, critiques and reports from the front. There is a lot more to be discovered and said regarding Poor troops.