Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

I most often look at armies for their strengths. Sometimes I find
this a little blinding .

So, I thought that thinking about negatives might be helpful.

As an example, the 100 Years War English list has very few scouting
points, as it has few light troops. The regular knights are cost
effective, but getting impetuous charges out of them requires
careful planning and must involve a charging general. The longbowmen
are not as good as bowmen in some shooting circumstances, especially
against elephants.

Anybody else care to post some negatives about armies they've used?

Frank Gilson

[Mark Stone]

--- On May 18 Frank Gilson said: ---

> I most often look at armies for their strengths. Sometimes I find
> this a little blinding .
>
> So, I thought that thinking about negatives might be helpful.
>
> As an example, the 100 Years War English list has very few scouting
> points, as it has few light troops. The regular knights are cost
> effective, but getting impetuous charges out of them requires
> careful planning and must involve a charging general. The longbowmen
> are not as good as bowmen in some shooting circumstances, especially
> against elephants.
>
> Anybody else care to post some negatives about armies they've used?

My preferred army, both for historical interest and playability, is Later
Paleologan Byzantines. It has relatively few negatives: no regular light
cavalry, and you can't get both SHK and Almughuvars. It has some required
regular HC (with just lance, no bow). Not something I'd go out of my way to
buy, but not exactly a negative, as these guys do have uses and you don't have
to buy too many of them.

Medieval Spanish: can't get bow-armed light cavalry. Can't get regular light
infantry. Must take some shieldless CB.

Medieval French: the negatives here are many, but somehow that's not the point.
You can get excellent SHK and you can get Brigans backed by a S standard. The
whole point of the rest of the army is to deliver those two troop types to the
right place at the right time. The rest of the army is good enough in that role
that it comes down to generalship. So yes, you lack decent 4-to-a-stand
shooters; yes, you lack shielded LI; yes, you lack LC of any kind; yes, you're
in serious trouble against elephants having only the Brigans to use. I still
think it's a much better army than tournament play makes apparent.

Feudal French: pretty much same as above. You get cheaper/more abundant but
lower quality knights. Your support troops are fairly mediocre, but they should
still be good enough to deliver the knights, the Brigans, and the sacred
standard where they need to be.

Anything prior to 1000 AD: No knights, therefore no historical interest.

That's my $.02 worth.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/18/2004 22:10:16 Central Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:
IMO these aren't really weak armies. They just don't have the
"traditional" set of missile weapons that we have come to depend on.

BTW, historically missile troops were auxiliaries in most armies. It
is really unusual to see historical armies where missile troops were
the main troop type. In some armies, like Classical Indian, the
archers were in abundance but were the reserve troops behind which the
army reformed if things did not go well.

Historically, spears of various types (JLS, LTS, P) were the preferred
weapon for the majority of armies. Even the majority of HTW are a
type of spear, as are L.

I've often wondered why shooting is so effective -- so much so that
most people prefer to maximize shooting if possible -- when
historically it did not play a significant a role for a vast number of
armies.

Larry

I am afraid I will have to disagree. I feel shooting is appropriately
effective in Warrior. I also think shooting played a role in far more armies in
more situations to a greater degree than is commonly accepted. Sure, Marathon
wasn't 'decided' by shooting, but we have a tendency to oversell the commonly
known western major ancient battles as somehow representing the whole period and
all parts of the world. The missile weapon was far more important in all of
the east at all times, for example, but whenever one of these discussions come
up, the examples use classical mediterranean battles as 'speaking for' all
4485 years and all over the world. But it is a sensitive issue and I am aware
that we are not all in agreement.

I also feel that those who feel 'victimized' by Warrior shooting are often
doing so when doing some decidely risky things from an historical standpoint.
Sending 300 knights in against 800 longbowmen can be disastrous in Warrior.
That's because it was pretty damned risky in real life too. Players often do
not stop and look at what is actually being represented by their decisions on
the tabletop. A wall of hoplites could care less about shooting. A handful of
unsupported knights has to be more worried about it.

My plan with the non-missile army is not to show Warrior has it right - I
already believe that to be true obviously - but to show *why*.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/18/2004 22:51:46 Central Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:
So, what does a player do to make Marians work in open play? That is
a tougher question. Does he give up on any bias towards historical
compositions? Does he work hard on controlling terrain placement in
order to create a favorable battlefield? Does he bribe the tournament
organizer so that he never faces a K army? >>

One thing Todd has begun to work out is the when and how of entering fulcum
and using the replacing in combat rule. Entering fulcum has no real benefit if
the enemy is approaching in a moog/K combination, so what's next is setting
up the army to take advantage of the feudal player needing to apply two such
units to make one fulcum problematic.
Against one of these all LC/K armies we have seen here, the Marians would
have a simpler time.

J


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Larry Essick]

> > Anybody else care to post some negatives about armies they've
used?
>
> My preferred army, both for historical interest and playability, is
Later
> Paleologan Byzantines. It has relatively few negatives: no regular
light
> cavalry, and you can't get both SHK and Almughuvars. It has some
required
> regular HC (with just lance, no bow). Not something I'd go out of my
way to
> buy, but not exactly a negative, as these guys do have uses and you
don't have
> to buy too many of them.

An interesting topic and one that generally only occurs among better
players. It is very uncommon for a player to take an army of nothing
but negatives -- unless he's Chris Damour, in which case it all
works.... ;-)

Mark's point about negatives might be expanded a bit. It is generally
good to look at the negatives in your army and figure out what role
those troops should play.

Historically, the troops would have had a function in the army. Often
assigning them a similar role will produce surprising (and good)
results.

When I played Early Carthaginians I ran Reg MC JLS. I went so far as
to paint them up with riders being thrown violently backwards off the
horses as enemy spears slaughtered them! They were among the most
successful units in my army and a secret to my success. This occurred
because I found a role for them as a very mobile and flexible flank
attack force. They became an invaluable reserve and, actually, seldom
died.

I think that we often overlook very good armies because we don't
appreciate what can be done with the troops we don't like. We are too
enamoured by the Irr B or Irr A or whatever and move past some really
good armies as a result.

So, this is a really good thread that might produce some very helpful
advice. I'm looking forward to seeing what people contribute.

Larry

[Mark Stone]

--- On May 18 Larry Essick said: ---

> An interesting topic and one that generally only occurs among better
> players. It is very uncommon for a player to take an army of nothing
> but negatives -- unless he's Chris Damour, in which case it all
> works....
>
> Mark's point about negatives might be expanded a bit. It is generally
> good to look at the negatives in your army and figure out what role
> those troops should play.
>
> Historically, the troops would have had a function in the army. Often
> assigning them a similar role will produce surprising (and good)
> results.
>
> When I played Early Carthaginians I ran Reg MC JLS. I went so far as
> to paint them up with riders being thrown violently backwards off the
> horses as enemy spears slaughtered them! They were among the most
> successful units in my army and a secret to my success. This occurred
> because I found a role for them as a very mobile and flexible flank
> attack force. They became an invaluable reserve and, actually, seldom
> died.

Well, Larry is making a more sophisticated point here than I was trying to make,
but it's a good one. I suppose at one extreme you have troop types like Late
Roman Legionaries (MI HTW,JLS,D,Sh), Burmese elephants (el w/crew of 6 w/Bow),
or English longbowmen (LHI LB,2HCW,Sh,stakes) that concentrate many potential
threats, but also a lot of points, in a few figures. At the other extreme you
have "utility" troops that maybe can do only one or two things well, but also
don't cost that much. These lower performance troops can be regarded as a
liability, but they can also have a wonderfully simplifying effect on your
tactics, by forcing you to think how to use them, and then restricting yourself
to using them in only that way. Larry's MC JLS guys are a good example of this.

The last time I played in the NICT, I played Serbians (the now-deprecated NASAMW
list). I took a not-required troop type that looks like a liability and turned
it into the backbone of the army: Irr A MC L,Sh. My entire army (see:
http://www.digitalpilgrim.com/play/banneret/wrg/serb1600mtd.html) consisted of
12 stands of knights, 8 stands of Irr A MC, 11 stands of LC and 40 stands of
LI.

My thinking was this: I tend to be such a finesse player I was getting myself in
trouble by taking too much time with the intricacies of my own armies and never
getting to decisive results. Better to take a more one-dimensional army and
force myself to be more aggressive. So my entire army was screen and lancers.
Nothing else.

The beauty of the MC was they were cheap enough that I didn't worry about losing
a unit or two, but dangerous enough to be a real threat. And being MC isn't
that much of a disadvantage. LB and CB are at the same factor against MC as
they are against EHC, for example.

The end result was that I had my best finish ever in the NICT. My only loss was
to eventual champion Dave Markowitz (running 100 Years' War English). And the
MC went, in my mind, from being a liability to being role players that were
very cost effective for their limited role.

Another example: Boyd clearly sees the required close order foot of 1st Crusade
in a similar light. Almost everyone looks at those troops and sees a huge
liability. Boyd, on the other hand, has invested time and thought into how to
get them to do one or two useful things, and adapted his tactics for the army
accordingly. The result, if carefully thought through, can be an unexpectedly
successful army.


-Mark Stone

[Greg Regets]

I have been playing Knights of St. John in 15mm since before TOG 7.6
rules changes. Back then the weakness of the army was basically
everything in the army. The 7.6 changes made this a much better
army.

My new 15mm army for the rest of the decade is Early Byzantine. The
biggest weakness I see for this army, is very limited victory
conditions against quality players that do not make huge mistakes.
Frontal combat against certain types of opponents will be a bit more
than problematic.

What balances these limitations, at least in my mind and more to the
point, in this scale, is the ability to dictate combat on my terms
against most opponents, due to high mobility and very high quality
combat light cavalry. Played properly, it should be possible to
eliminate enemy light troops, which will usually give a modest number
of points, and push a command reasonably close to the 1/2 retirement
scenario. If an opponent lacks light troops for me to kill, he will
be basically playing for a draw, unless I do something stupid and let
him shoot me up.

The other big weakness is the general ... and of course Theodora. ;-)

greg


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <larryessick@b...> wrote:
> > > Anybody else care to post some negatives about armies they've
> used?
> >
> > My preferred army, both for historical interest and playability,
is
> Later
> > Paleologan Byzantines. It has relatively few negatives: no regular
> light
> > cavalry, and you can't get both SHK and Almughuvars. It has some
> required
> > regular HC (with just lance, no bow). Not something I'd go out of
my
> way to
> > buy, but not exactly a negative, as these guys do have uses and
you
> don't have
> > to buy too many of them.
>
> An interesting topic and one that generally only occurs among better
> players. It is very uncommon for a player to take an army of
nothing
> but negatives -- unless he's Chris Damour, in which case it all
> works....
>
> Mark's point about negatives might be expanded a bit. It is
generally
> good to look at the negatives in your army and figure out what role
> those troops should play.
>
> Historically, the troops would have had a function in the army.
Often
> assigning them a similar role will produce surprising (and good)
> results.
>
> When I played Early Carthaginians I ran Reg MC JLS. I went so far
as
> to paint them up with riders being thrown violently backwards off
the
> horses as enemy spears slaughtered them! They were among the most
> successful units in my army and a secret to my success. This
occurred
> because I found a role for them as a very mobile and flexible flank
> attack force. They became an invaluable reserve and, actually,
seldom
> died.
>
> I think that we often overlook very good armies because we don't
> appreciate what can be done with the troops we don't like. We are
too
> enamoured by the Irr B or Irr A or whatever and move past some
really
> good armies as a result.
>
> So, this is a really good thread that might produce some very
helpful
> advice. I'm looking forward to seeing what people contribute.
>
> Larry

[Larry Essick]

> The end result was that I had my best finish ever in the NICT. My
only loss was
> to eventual champion Dave Markowitz (running 100 Years' War
English). And the
> MC went, in my mind, from being a liability to being role players
that were
> very cost effective for their limited role.
>
> Another example: Boyd clearly sees the required close order foot of
1st Crusade
> in a similar light. Almost everyone looks at those troops and sees a
huge
> liability. Boyd, on the other hand, has invested time and thought
into how to
> get them to do one or two useful things, and adapted his tactics for
the army
> accordingly. The result, if carefully thought through, can be an
unexpectedly
> successful army.

Well, I used to make my best "money" by looking for weaknesses in my
opponent's armies and exploiting them.

For example, in my first ever tournament I was running Normans and I
knew there would be two Classical Indian armies. I knew that the
Indians would have problems with their morale and being kept eager, so
I deliberately designed on OB to contain minimal knights and lots of
2E LI units that I then placed in ambush.

Everytime something went past a brush or woods out popped another 2E
unit of LI -- waiver test, waiver test, waiver test.

I beat the first Indian army with only 1 combat all game. Everything
else shook then routed from the ambushes and I got enough points for a
win.

The second game didn't go so well, but I wound up finishing 2d overall
regardless.

So, looking at weaknesses is a key -- weather in your own army or in
that of your opponents.

I remember another game against Samurai. I knew that the Ashigaru
didn't like clear terrain, so I put open spaces towards the Japanese
rear areas. My opponent placed a small village against the center
line. It was the only sheltered terrain, so I knew that he would put
the troops there. I massed Gauls and Celtiberians against it and just
rolled in on turn 1. The game did last 3 or 4 more turns, but it was
already over with the first wave of Irr A w JLS,Sh and Irr B with
HTW,Sh.

So, I repeat myself that this is a worthwhile thread.

I'd be interested to see if anyone is considering playing "weak"
armies and how they plan to overcome the inherent liabilities that
those armies have.

Larry

[Todd Schneider]

I have to ask a question.



I like the topic of this thread, but am wondering if its focus is a bit to
narrow.

Are we talking about our Armies in period, or are we talking about them in
an Open Format?



In Period, myself, I like the Marian and Late Romans. I had fun playing
the Marian Romans, because the new rules make them IMO much more viable
against their common opponents. Their lack of LI and LC can be made up with
some effective maneuvering and Gameplay, although I have to admit some of
the support choices they get can alleviate this. But I had a great time
playing them, even though I didn’t do so well in the tournament.

The Late Romans, well, they appeal to the way I play, as they are more of a
stand and counterpunch sort of army, and match up well versus many of their
contemporary opponents. I don’t mind that they are mostly Reg D, and I can
usually get enough LI and LC to screen well. Using the Legions with proper
support can be a task sometimes, but I’m learning….



Of course, they suffer the same deficiencies as every other Army before
1000AD: Men with Armor Riding Horses beat them every time, unless the dice
gods are benevolent.



Against some opponents, they can face SHC and EHC, but not in the numbers
that many of the Feudal Armies can field. And their troop minimums are
often “points intensive” enough that they way for them to beat Knights, 2 on
1…is often an unviable strategy.



Anyways, the Dogs of War tournament is coming up in a Couple of months here
in KC, so I’ll get yet another chance to see how well my Late Imperial Guys
can do.



Todd



_____

From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg.regets@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 8:54 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Army Negatives as a viewpoint



I have been playing Knights of St. John in 15mm since before TOG 7.6
rules changes. Back then the weakness of the army was basically
everything in the army. The 7.6 changes made this a much better
army.

My new 15mm army for the rest of the decade is Early Byzantine. The
biggest weakness I see for this army, is very limited victory
conditions against quality players that do not make huge mistakes.
Frontal combat against certain types of opponents will be a bit more
than problematic.

What balances these limitations, at least in my mind and more to the
point, in this scale, is the ability to dictate combat on my terms
against most opponents, due to high mobility and very high quality
combat light cavalry. Played properly, it should be possible to
eliminate enemy light troops, which will usually give a modest number
of points, and push a command reasonably close to the 1/2 retirement
scenario. If an opponent lacks light troops for me to kill, he will
be basically playing for a draw, unless I do something stupid and let
him shoot me up.

The other big weakness is the general ... and of course Theodora. ;-)

greg


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <larryessick@b...> wrote:
> > > Anybody else care to post some negatives about armies they've
> used?
> >
> > My preferred army, both for historical interest and playability,
is
> Later
> > Paleologan Byzantines. It has relatively few negatives: no regular
> light
> > cavalry, and you can't get both SHK and Almughuvars. It has some
> required
> > regular HC (with just lance, no bow). Not something I'd go out of
my
> way to
> > buy, but not exactly a negative, as these guys do have uses and
you
> don't have
> > to buy too many of them.
>
> An interesting topic and one that generally only occurs among better
> players. It is very uncommon for a player to take an army of
nothing
> but negatives -- unless he's Chris Damour, in which case it all
> works....
>
> Mark's point about negatives might be expanded a bit. It is
generally
> good to look at the negatives in your army and figure out what role
> those troops should play.
>
> Historically, the troops would have had a function in the army.
Often
> assigning them a similar role will produce surprising (and good)
> results.
>
> When I played Early Carthaginians I ran Reg MC JLS. I went so far
as
> to paint them up with riders being thrown violently backwards off
the
> horses as enemy spears slaughtered them! They were among the most
> successful units in my army and a secret to my success. This
occurred
> because I found a role for them as a very mobile and flexible flank
> attack force. They became an invaluable reserve and, actually,
seldom
> died.
>
> I think that we often overlook very good armies because we don't
> appreciate what can be done with the troops we don't like. We are
too
> enamoured by the Irr B or Irr A or whatever and move past some
really
> good armies as a result.
>
> So, this is a really good thread that might produce some very
helpful
> advice. I'm looking forward to seeing what people contribute.
>
> Larry






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT
HYPERLINK
"http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=129pt887m/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups
/S=1705059080:HM/EXP=1085018067/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http:/companion
.yahoo.com"click here


HYPERLINK
"http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2128215/rand=404788165"



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W
arriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"Warrior
Rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.687 / Virus Database: 448 - Release Date: 5/16/2004



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.687 / Virus Database: 448 - Release Date: 5/16/2004



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Larry Essick]

> My new 15mm army for the rest of the decade is Early Byzantine. The
> biggest weakness I see for this army, is very limited victory
> conditions against quality players that do not make huge mistakes.
> Frontal combat against certain types of opponents will be a bit more
> than problematic.
>
> What balances these limitations, at least in my mind and more to the
> point, in this scale, is the ability to dictate combat on my terms
> against most opponents, due to high mobility and very high quality
> combat light cavalry. Played properly, it should be possible to
> eliminate enemy light troops, which will usually give a modest
number
> of points, and push a command reasonably close to the 1/2 retirement
> scenario. If an opponent lacks light troops for me to kill, he will
> be basically playing for a draw, unless I do something stupid and
let
> him shoot me up.

Here is a good example of looking at the army as if it were the enemy
and trying to decide how to handle it.

High mobility means that I want a cluttered table or a way to keep
those mobile troops from slipping away. How do I do that? I do that
by building a battleground where Greg has to group troops together w/o
the maneuver space that he is looking for.

My preferred method of doing this is to place woods in the rear
sectors of the board and then to force march my entire army. Now Greg
has to work in 3/4 of the normal space and has to contend with troops
that cover the board from edge to edge.

(Note: Not personal to Greg, just using his name as part of the
example as it is his army.)

So, the question becomes, what does Greg do to counter that?

Larry

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/18/2004 10:08:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

> I'd be interested to see if anyone is considering playing "weak"
> armies and how they plan to overcome the inherent
> liabilities that
> those armies have.
>
> Larry>>

I have a long term plan to choose an army that has no missiles except for JLS,
for fun, something different and to show conclusively that missiles are not over
powered or whatever in Warrior...lol
The issue is not that I don't 'like' the choices, it is how damned hard it is to
find such an army. The fact that nearly every army has missiles in it is
evidence that they were important weapons to ancient and medieval commanders all
by themselves....
I have a couple of contenders, but this is a long enough term project that I
want to see where the armies of OW and CW stack up. Scots Common, Later Judean
and Spartacan are all early leaders. Medieval French and its ilk are obvious
contenders, but as this year's army is Medieval Spanish and I have been playing
it in all scales and all point values, I am looking for a solution outside
Feudal Warrior.
I plan to overcome the supposed 'weakness' of a non-missile army with bodies
that resist shooting supported by bodies who can place skirmishing missile
troops in a poor position quickly.
I also plan to play fast - but then that's me anyway..lol

[Larry Essick]

> I have a long term plan to choose an army that has no missiles
except for JLS, for fun, something different and to show conclusively
that missiles are not over powered or whatever in Warrior...lol

:-)

Ah yes....

This is how I ran Teutonic Order. I know that I advised taking the B
armed Prussians here earlier, but I generally fielded only the JLS
Prussians as the B was really a liability and the JLS troops were
always equal to the task.

JLS is not really a weak troop type and the shooting power of JLS is
often underappreciated. I remember Bob Plyler making that observation
back when he was running Vikings.

Most people take armies with this kind of limitation as if it were
really a challenge -- but they wind up with actual powerhouses because
of the other troop types. Spartacus leads the way with LHI HTW,Sh
that can be Irr A and/or Irr B (depending on what excites you more)
and a solid core of open terrain troops that can be custom built with
either LTS or JLS depending on the opponent.

IMO these aren't really weak armies. They just don't have the
"traditional" set of missile weapons that we have come to depend on.

BTW, historically missile troops were auxiliaries in most armies. It
is really unusual to see historical armies where missile troops were
the main troop type. In some armies, like Classical Indian, the
archers were in abundance but were the reserve troops behind which the
army reformed if things did not go well.

Historically, spears of various types (JLS, LTS, P) were the preferred
weapon for the majority of armies. Even the majority of HTW are a
type of spear, as are L.

I've often wondered why shooting is so effective -- so much so that
most people prefer to maximize shooting if possible -- when
historically it did not play a significant a role for a vast number of
armies.

Larry

[Larry Essick]

I like the topic of this thread, but am wondering if its focus is a
bit to
narrow.

Are we talking about our Armies in period, or are we talking about
them in
an Open Format?

(LE)

Hey Todd,

Actually, I think the topic applies both to in period and open games.
Your Marians are an excellent example of an army that is generally
thought of as weak with lots of negatives to it.

LIR OTOH is a strong army and the ability to be Reg D just makes it
stronger. The low morale is in no way a weakness. I'd run them with
every D troop I could get, except the generals who would be on Reg A
command stands running around rallying troops. No need for prompts,
just shoot until the enemy is disordered and then charge home if that
is beneficial -- otherwise just shoot some more.

LIR should be played with maximum auxilia to cover terrain and maximum
legionaries to cover open space and a small sampling of LC and LI to
fill the gaps and guard the flanks. A few Hunnic LC for any real
work. It is an army w/o any real weakness and the perceived weakness
is really a strength.

So, what does a player do to make Marians work in open play? That is
a tougher question. Does he give up on any bias towards historical
compositions? Does he work hard on controlling terrain placement in
order to create a favorable battlefield? Does he bribe the tournament
organizer so that he never faces a K army? ;-)

What would you advise?

Larry

[Larry Essick]

> One thing Todd has begun to work out is the when and how of entering
fulcum
> and using the replacing in combat rule. Entering fulcum has no real
benefit if
> the enemy is approaching in a moog/K combination, so what's next is
setting
> up the army to take advantage of the feudal player needing to apply
two such
> units to make one fulcum problematic.
> Against one of these all LC/K armies we have seen here, the Marians
would
> have a simpler time.

Well, that is probably good advice.

It is also important to take a look at all of the supporting troops
that are available for the 1000 pts or so that isn't spent on the
mandatory HI legionaries. The army gets lots of LI with S,Sh -- which
is the perfect anti-K troop. It also has lots of useful LC. And, it
has El!

So, part of the way to minimize the perceived weakness is by building
the right supporting troops around the mandatory legions.

Of course, then you have to work out how to handle all the LB and CB
shooting that is common in tourney play. A separate, but related
problem.

Larry

[Greg Regets]

<larryessick@b...> wrote:

>Here is a good example of looking at the army as if it were the
>enemy and trying to decide how to handle it.

High mobility means that I want a cluttered table or a way to keep
> those mobile troops from slipping away. How do I do that? I do
that
> by building a battleground where Greg has to group troops together
w/o the maneuver space that he is looking for.
>
> My preferred method of doing this is to place woods in the rear
> sectors of the board and then to force march my entire army. Now
Greg
> has to work in 3/4 of the normal space and has to contend with
troops
> that cover the board from edge to edge.
>
> (Note: Not personal to Greg, just using his name as part of the
> example as it is his army.)
>
> So, the question becomes, what does Greg do to counter that?


The counter is probably dictated by the opposing army. As soon as the
terrain is placed the plan should be obvious, so it then comes down
to what troops the enemy will be force marching. If he has potential
targets in large enough numbers, lining up and fighting is a good
option. The woods behind only come into play if you are going
backwards, and in the interest of looking at the positive, if he puts
his terrain choices in your rear zone, he has done nothing to shrink
the frontage he must cover. Maybe he can spread out six feet with
you, and maybe he can't. ;-)

If he is something like hard target units, etc ... then flank march
(es) in force will be our choice.

g