Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/16/2002 21:03:56 Central Daylight Time, gar@...
writes:

> I have never been much for close order foot. Having played this game for
> years (including TOG), I never saw much use for it.

Greg,

The NICT final round game saw two close order foot armies meeting and
therefore the NICT was obviously won by a close foot army, and those two
players both got there by getting their close foot into contact several times
before that game and the issue of national champion was decided by the clash
of close foot.
In fact, this is true of the previous year as well.

The main challenge of close foot is that it is the only troop type that
cannot charge the bound after a normal march. After said march, a body is
240p from the enemy. Everyone else but COF can cross at least half that
space and then charge the rest in the very next bound. That is a two bound
propostion for COF. This gives the opponent too much time to react.
The second challenge is that COF cannot catch evading LI in a charge even if
the LI roll down.
The conventional wisdom for getting COF in the fight is a combination of
forced march AND having units of cav or, even better, loose foot support the
COF by charging the LI and preventing it from keeping the COF out of the
fight.

Another overlooked way is to play fast. The top players using COF armies
that I have observed are very businesslike. They understand that nothing can
really stop their wall of COF from getting into eventual contact except time.
They know the combat table, stay focused, and brook no delay. They do not
spend 30 minutes in their own approach phase figuring out moves as that only
plays into the enemy hands. If forced marched, their COF is just over nine
bounds from the enemy table edge. Play nine bounds and that wall of COF has
to touch something. You may think I am joking, but the tempo of the game is
at least as important as any other factor.
Ask Chris Damour.....

Jon


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

[Greg Regets]

Since I obviously know nothing about selling anything, (all this time I was
under the false illusion that customers tended to dictate how a product would be
vended, not the vendor), and nothing about the hobby and game industry (my wifes
family fortune not-withstanding), I will just move on to a tactics question.

I have never been much for close order foot. Having played this game for years
(including TOG), I never saw much use for it. This may in part be due to playing
primarily 15mm, but the thought remains that close order foot is so slow that
rarely, if ever in my experience, does it get in proper contact - and if it
does, it tends to get into contact with something that it would rather avoid.

Now, I have played a double-handfull of 25mm games, and have still not managed
to get my close order foot in contact with anything they can be hurtful towards.
What I had at Fort Worth Wars, was pikemen, and lots of them. Naturally there
was a good sampling of things on the tables that were hurtful to my pikes. My
counter, predictably, was to put things in close proximity to my pikes that
could kill the potential pike killers. Even a simpleton like me can figure that
one out.

So, the question is, what are some good ideas for getting close order foot in
benefitial contact? To save everyone a bit of typing, I will outline my
thoughts, so the close order foot tacticians can give me the skinny on what I am
clearly missing.

1. You can obviously force march, but in my crazy thought process, all I come up
with is the idea that this is total guess work, and you will get them in good
contact only by random chance and pure luck. I was hoping for something a bit
better. In Fort Worth, I forced marched all 80 of my pikes, in every game, and
still never managed contact with a single pike stand.

2. You can pin an enemy with lights, and move close foot up to hit. Now this
will gets them there, but my experience has been that getting the lights out of
the way is a major issue. Times I have seen my opponents try this, they usually
ended up making a dissorder mess and getting charged by something like Irregular
Spanish from 120p, outside charge range. Not good.

3. You could buy four figure LI or LC units to pin with, allowing you to move up
between them, into contact. This has promise in my mind, but what I have seen is
that the crafty charger can make them evade in front of the close order foot as
it comes up (by making an evade straight to the rear not healthy), making a big
mess as in example 2.

4. I had thought of buying huge units and deploying in column, allowing the
wonderful extra move made by expansion to get you into good contact. What I hate
about this though, is that I hate huge units. This might be stupid on my part,
please feel free to give your views on this.

So, those are the things I have thought of. I would very much like to hear other
peoples views on the effective use of close order foot. Again, please feel free
to state the obvious, and don't think it will insult me, as I have clearly
missed the obvious. I can honestly say that I have been playing a very long
time, and have never been in close combat with my own close order foot, and only
with the enemy close order if he was in dire straights (dissordered,
outmaneuvered, etc). About all I have ever done with it, was pin it with
el-crapola troops of my own and go kill something else.

There must be some magic that I am missing.

Thanks ... G



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

[scott holder]

Hee hee, Greg has never played against me, Jake, or Damour obviously.

Building onto Jon's comments, minimizing time distractions is key.
Also, having possible buffer troops way out in front (LI come to mind)
to either pin the opponent or simply to keep him from pinning you, is
another tactic that enables the COF to get up close and personal. Adam
Weitz usta use 12 element COF blocks of pike and used them as mobile
terrain features. The idea wasn't to get them into contact but to keep
pushing forward funneling your stuff where he wanted to slam on it.
Again, in order to do that, he needed something in front of the COF to
prevent the usual LI "dance" from slowing up the inexorable move
forward. The changes from TOG vis a vis COF and LI have even mitigated
that somewhat. You're still potentially screwed if LC does this but
again, that's when you need you're own LC to attempt to drive off the
enemy LC so that your COF mob can move forward.

I ran Galatians in the 25mm Mini at CW last year. Never any problem
getting the Irr A MI into contact with all three opponents in a 3 hour
game.

And force marching them *first* also potentially gets your COF right at
the centerline of the table from the gitgo. As long as you can get some
flank support up there in bounds 1-2, then you've placed a potentially
large stumbling block in your opponents path. Or he simply beats up
everything around it in hopes of killing it via waver tests:):)

All of this is one reason why this game remains so fresh. Jon (the
other one who spells his name that way) made that comment at the show
last weekend, ie., this game never gets stale and doesn't need endless
revisions in order to keep it fresh:):)

scott

[Ewan McNay]

"Greggory A. Regets" wrote:
> I have never been much for close order foot. Having played this game for years
(including TOG), I never saw much use for it. This may in part be due to playing
primarily 15mm, but the thought remains that close order foot is so slow that
rarely, if ever in my experience, does it get in proper contact - and if it
does, it tends to get into contact with something that it would rather avoid.

I think that, while my bias in 15mm is toward non-close-foot also, this
is overstated. After a previous iteration of such a debate, I took a
heavy-foot Crusader army to the Crusades Theme one H'con, where I fought
Ottomans, Arabs, and some LC force, and got good wins in all cases.
This was a serious boatload of close foot, though: 7 24 man units (and
some of those were CB, which helped to give some flexibility). There is
something in the overload approach. You mention that you had 80 pike;
this is not a lot, and is sufficiently small to be avoidable while being
sufficiently big to be expensive; I think you are falling between the
two stools.

In contrast, I'm about to take Seleucids to Crusades (the Con, not the
theme!): I have a minimum of 96 pike per list, I believe, plus some MI
B. Now, partly these function as mobile roadblocks so that I can kill
things with the elephants, granted; but I think that most of your
tactics below have some good kernels. 96 is still not a huge number,
and I have debated doing a 'serious pike' list - where I'd have maybe
200 pike. That would be 25 elements-wide with no gaps and two deep,
which in reality probably translates to something like 4 feet of
frontage. Difficult to avoid that many.

> Now, I have played a double-handfull of 25mm games, and have still not managed
to get my close order foot in contact with anything they can be hurtful towards.
What I had at Fort Worth Wars, was pikemen, and lots of them. Naturally there
was a good sampling of things on the tables that were hurtful to my pikes. My
counter, predictably, was to put things in close proximity to my pikes that
could kill the potential pike killers. Even a simpleton like me can figure that
one out.

I guess that I am surprised that there were many pike-enemies. Realy
the only nasties are pike-armed elephants and Irr foot with HTW; IrrA
JLS LMI are a crapshoot but you have the advantage. The Irr foot are
not that popular because they lose so badly to cav armies, and in many
pike armies there are the overwhelmingly useful scythed chariots to deal
with this foe: force march the pikes with the chariots and send the
chariots in first.

> 1. You can obviously force march, but in my crazy thought process, all I come
up with is the idea that this is total guess work, and you will get them in good
contact only by random chance and pure luck. I was hoping for something a bit
better. In Fort Worth, I forced marched all 80 of my pikes, in every game, and
still never managed contact with a single pike stand.

Yeah, this is not the best idea. Better to send out the usual light
pickets and be able to march your pikes where you wnt them. Sure, they
march more slowly, but that's rarely an issue: they will still arrive in
time to fight.

> 2. You can pin an enemy with lights, and move close foot up to hit. Now this
will gets them there, but my experience has been that getting the lights out of
the way is a major issue. Times I have seen my opponents try this, they usually
ended up making a dissorder mess and getting charged by something like Irregular
Spanish from 120p, outside charge range. Not good.

Well, there are lessons here, grasshopper . This is essentially what
I usually do. LI are best - they can evade through the pike without
problems, or make a counter to do likewise. Your LC are better off
removing the other guy's LI, to allow your LI to do this. Pike armies
are of necessity combined-arms, and have to - *have* to - be used as
such.

> 3. You could buy four figure LI or LC units to pin with, allowing you to move
up between them, into contact. This has promise in my mind, but what I have seen
is that the crafty charger can make them evade in front of the close order foot
as it comes up (by making an evade straight to the rear not healthy), making a
big mess as in example 2.

I guess it is hard to respond too fully without seeing the problems that
you face on the table, but I think that you have absolutely the right
idea, just (apparently) the wrong execution. Are you allowing your
light forces to get too far ahead and thus be flanked by opposing
lights? This is bad regardless of the use of pikes [Chris D will
recount the time this happened, in that same Crusader tourney, and I
pursued a LC and LI unit repetitively through one another through the
middle of the entire Ottomand army!]

Provided that your light units are facing the enemy line, and not
completely isolated in the face of superior enemy lights, I guess I just
have not found this to be an issue. I tend to often have a peltast or
similar unit in the mix, which can both support and offer somemissile
fire, aiding in driving away enemy lights in preparation for pike
arrival.

It seems as though you are not having problems finding *targets* for the
pikes, which was always my problem. Given that, I would persist with
these approaches. What else do you havein the army besides pike? A
typical list my be a useful adjunct to this discussion.

> 4. I had thought of buying huge units and deploying in column, allowing the
wonderful extra move made by expansion to get you into good contact. What I hate
about this though, is that I hate huge units. This might be stupid on my part,
please feel free to give your views on this.

I typically run most of my pikes in 32s, with one or two small (16)
units. Optimal expansion-move would be 40-man units, but that just
seems too cumbersome; the 32 allows me to go from 1- to 4-wide, without
(for me) being too clumsy. 16-man units are too easily shot, too
inflexible, and too expensive in command points IMNSHO.

> There must be some magic that I am missing.

In general, pikemen are cheap; hence it is often/usually the case that
if your pikes are not fighting you will have superiority elsewhere.
Using them in such an anvil (or funnel) role is fine - you don't *have*
to fight with them. If your army is built around getting pikes into
combat, though, you need (i) more pikes and (ii) dedication to this goal
. Lots of light support troops not only to pin the enemy but to
prevent yourself being pinned; and just keep rolling. If you're not
fighting, bounds are quick, and you can expect to get the whole way
across the table. I've had Syrian IrrD MI LTS guys chasing LC off the
opposing table edge. An alternative that I have seen used effectively
is to mix in missile troops - so that if the enemy stays away he is
pecked to death, but if he closes in then he is playing your game. Reg
LMI B are best for this, which unfortunately is not a common pike-army
troop type.

Not too much deep thought here; I am having problems visualising the
problems *you* are having with approaches 2-3 .

Ewan

[Greg Regets]

I would like to thank everyone for the comments, and rest assured, you have
given me some good ideas for the future.

Scott is right, the game never seems to get boring. Just when I had exhausted my
fare of horse and knight armies, I finish my 25mm Seleucids and have a new set
of things to work on.

My list was, as best I can remember;
C-in-C with 5 Reg EHC
2-in-C with 7 Reg SHC
8 Reg SHC
(this is the last time I ever play with two generals)
2 x 2 models of Seleucid elephants
2 x 8 Reg LI det. (last time I ever buy these as det.)
2 x 4 Reg LC
2 x 32 Reg pikes
1 x 16 Reg pikes
2 x 16 Reg Peltasts
1 x 16 Reg Thracians
2 x 12 LI JLS Sh
4 x naughty scythed chariots
(I was a bit short in points)

I know most people don't buy the SHC with this army, but I know the guys around
here and they all buy lots of LO bowmen. The SHC worked well for me and I doubt
I would ditch them. I know most guys buy the Arabs as MI bowmen, but my thought
was that as LI JLS Sh, they could get in terrain (it was preset) and free up my
Peltasts to operate with the elephants. Also it saved me from buying other LI
JLS guys, which I somewhat need with this army (in my opinion). Again, this
worked fairly well.

All in all, I can't say I was dissatisfied with the army, having big wins in two
games and a solid win in the third, while losing next to nothing. Thats a big
thing with me when running a new army, getting the defense solid first. Perhaps
its a football thing - get a solid defense going, the offense will show itself
eventually.

I think in the future I might spend my extra points to make the two 8 figure LI,
units rather than det. I was also thinking on cutting the Thracians into 2 x 8
figure units. Maybe some up-armor would be on my list somewhere.

On another tact, has anyone ever played or considered playing this army as
mostly one element frontage units (other than lights and elephants)? There is
little doubt it is a good combined arms army, and I have played many other
armies this way. I get the idea this may not be as effective in 25mm as it is in
15mm. We shall see.

Anyway, thanks again for the comments, and please keep any additional thoughts
coming. I find these sort of discussions very helpful.

G


---- Original Message -----
From: Ewan
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] CO Foot Tactics


"Greggory A. Regets" wrote:
> I have never been much for close order foot. Having played this game for
years (including TOG), I never saw much use for it. This may in part be due to
playing primarily 15mm, but the thought remains that close order foot is so slow
that rarely, if ever in my experience, does it get in proper contact - and if it
does, it tends to get into contact with something that it would rather avoid.

I think that, while my bias in 15mm is toward non-close-foot also, this
is overstated. After a previous iteration of such a debate, I took a
heavy-foot Crusader army to the Crusades Theme one H'con, where I fought
Ottomans, Arabs, and some LC force, and got good wins in all cases.
This was a serious boatload of close foot, though: 7 24 man units (and
some of those were CB, which helped to give some flexibility). There is
something in the overload approach. You mention that you had 80 pike;
this is not a lot, and is sufficiently small to be avoidable while being
sufficiently big to be expensive; I think you are falling between the
two stools.

In contrast, I'm about to take Seleucids to Crusades (the Con, not the
theme!): I have a minimum of 96 pike per list, I believe, plus some MI
B. Now, partly these function as mobile roadblocks so that I can kill
things with the elephants, granted; but I think that most of your
tactics below have some good kernels. 96 is still not a huge number,
and I have debated doing a 'serious pike' list - where I'd have maybe
200 pike. That would be 25 elements-wide with no gaps and two deep,
which in reality probably translates to something like 4 feet of
frontage. Difficult to avoid that many.

> Now, I have played a double-handfull of 25mm games, and have still not
managed to get my close order foot in contact with anything they can be hurtful
towards. What I had at Fort Worth Wars, was pikemen, and lots of them. Naturally
there was a good sampling of things on the tables that were hurtful to my pikes.
My counter, predictably, was to put things in close proximity to my pikes that
could kill the potential pike killers. Even a simpleton like me can figure that
one out.

I guess that I am surprised that there were many pike-enemies. Realy
the only nasties are pike-armed elephants and Irr foot with HTW; IrrA
JLS LMI are a crapshoot but you have the advantage. The Irr foot are
not that popular because they lose so badly to cav armies, and in many
pike armies there are the overwhelmingly useful scythed chariots to deal
with this foe: force march the pikes with the chariots and send the
chariots in first.

> 1. You can obviously force march, but in my crazy thought process, all I
come up with is the idea that this is total guess work, and you will get them in
good contact only by random chance and pure luck. I was hoping for something a
bit better. In Fort Worth, I forced marched all 80 of my pikes, in every game,
and still never managed contact with a single pike stand.

Yeah, this is not the best idea. Better to send out the usual light
pickets and be able to march your pikes where you wnt them. Sure, they
march more slowly, but that's rarely an issue: they will still arrive in
time to fight.

> 2. You can pin an enemy with lights, and move close foot up to hit. Now this
will gets them there, but my experience has been that getting the lights out of
the way is a major issue. Times I have seen my opponents try this, they usually
ended up making a dissorder mess and getting charged by something like Irregular
Spanish from 120p, outside charge range. Not good.

Well, there are lessons here, grasshopper . This is essentially what
I usually do. LI are best - they can evade through the pike without
problems, or make a counter to do likewise. Your LC are better off
removing the other guy's LI, to allow your LI to do this. Pike armies
are of necessity combined-arms, and have to - *have* to - be used as
such.

> 3. You could buy four figure LI or LC units to pin with, allowing you to
move up between them, into contact. This has promise in my mind, but what I have
seen is that the crafty charger can make them evade in front of the close order
foot as it comes up (by making an evade straight to the rear not healthy),
making a big mess as in example 2.

I guess it is hard to respond too fully without seeing the problems that
you face on the table, but I think that you have absolutely the right
idea, just (apparently) the wrong execution. Are you allowing your
light forces to get too far ahead and thus be flanked by opposing
lights? This is bad regardless of the use of pikes [Chris D will
recount the time this happened, in that same Crusader tourney, and I
pursued a LC and LI unit repetitively through one another through the
middle of the entire Ottomand army!]

Provided that your light units are facing the enemy line, and not
completely isolated in the face of superior enemy lights, I guess I just
have not found this to be an issue. I tend to often have a peltast or
similar unit in the mix, which can both support and offer somemissile
fire, aiding in driving away enemy lights in preparation for pike
arrival.

It seems as though you are not having problems finding *targets* for the
pikes, which was always my problem. Given that, I would persist with
these approaches. What else do you havein the army besides pike? A
typical list my be a useful adjunct to this discussion.

> 4. I had thought of buying huge units and deploying in column, allowing the
wonderful extra move made by expansion to get you into good contact. What I hate
about this though, is that I hate huge units. This might be stupid on my part,
please feel free to give your views on this.

I typically run most of my pikes in 32s, with one or two small (16)
units. Optimal expansion-move would be 40-man units, but that just
seems too cumbersome; the 32 allows me to go from 1- to 4-wide, without
(for me) being too clumsy. 16-man units are too easily shot, too
inflexible, and too expensive in command points IMNSHO.

> There must be some magic that I am missing.

In general, pikemen are cheap; hence it is often/usually the case that
if your pikes are not fighting you will have superiority elsewhere.
Using them in such an anvil (or funnel) role is fine - you don't *have*
to fight with them. If your army is built around getting pikes into
combat, though, you need (i) more pikes and (ii) dedication to this goal
. Lots of light support troops not only to pin the enemy but to
prevent yourself being pinned; and just keep rolling. If you're not
fighting, bounds are quick, and you can expect to get the whole way
across the table. I've had Syrian IrrD MI LTS guys chasing LC off the
opposing table edge. An alternative that I have seen used effectively
is to mix in missile troops - so that if the enemy stays away he is
pecked to death, but if he closes in then he is playing your game. Reg
LMI B are best for this, which unfortunately is not a common pike-army
troop type.

Not too much deep thought here; I am having problems visualising the
problems *you* are having with approaches 2-3 .

Ewan

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[Ewan McNay]

I'm not trying to argue here that any given list selection is 'right' or
wrong; just a few comments on a list I also run, somewhat differently.

On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Greggory A. Regets wrote:
> My list was, as best I can remember;
> C-in-C with 5 Reg EHC
> 2-in-C with 7 Reg SHC
> 8 Reg SHC
> (this is the last time I ever play with two generals)

You would run more or fewer? Seleucids are *doable* with only one
general, and I don't expect that I would usually want more than two - I
think one of the virtues of the army is good cheap troops, which are
diluted by generals. OTOH, I would definitely want a general in my SHC if
that were an option - but I haven't seen a list that allows generals with
the Line/Settler cav.

I take your argument about something to face LMI B, but would use the
peltasts for that in preference.

> 2 x 2 models of Seleucid elephants
> 2 x 8 Reg LI det. (last time I ever buy these as det.)

I prefer running Els in 3s, but that's not a big deal. Attaching LI means
that the Els cannot go long, which can be bad; if I wanted integral LI I'd
probably put them on the El bases.

> 2 x 4 Reg LC
> 2 x 32 Reg pikes
> 1 x 16 Reg pikes
> 2 x 16 Reg Peltasts
> 1 x 16 Reg Thracians
> 2 x 12 LI JLS Sh

Yes, I think that these are a poor buy, if they're the Arabs (and they
have to be): they can never be prompted to charge other LI without
wavering, so have no real function that I see. If running the NASAMW
list, as I suspect, buy the Reg LI S, Sh and take these guys as either LI
or MI B.

> All in all, I can't say I was dissatisfied with the army, having big wins in
two games and a solid win in the third, while losing next to nothing. Thats a
big thing with me when running a new army, getting the defense solid first.
Perhaps its a football thing - get a solid defense going, the offense will show
itself eventually.

This suggests that despite not actually fighting with the pikes, they
functioned correctly in corralling things to kill with SHC/LHI (I think
that the Thorakitoi LHI are well worthwhile, btw). Congrats!

> On another tact, has anyone ever played or considered playing this army as
mostly one element frontage units (other than lights and elephants)? There is
little doubt it is a good combined arms army, and I have played many other
armies this way. I get the idea this may not be as effective in 25mm as it is in
15mm. We shall see.

No. Yuk! I do often run things in columns - including elephants - but
would not want to try to fight the game that way! I am not a fan of small
units, though, in any case.

E

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/18/2002 04:12:21 Central Daylight Time,
adster68@... writes:

> Apart
> from their speed what else gives lose order foot the balancing
> advantages that make them so popular?
>

The ability to move in terrain.
The ability to catch LI and other evading foot in a charge.
The ability to charge the bound after marching, especially impetuously so
that cav can't cancel and force the waver.


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 10/18/2002 5:24:03 AM Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:


> Brush, woods, marsh, minor water features, gullies, skirmish capability (for
> those with missiles), expansion in a follow up. The last two are HUGE!
>
> >>Not to mention the avoidance of the -2 when disordered!
> The extra charge distance also allows for taking away the impetitious
> charge of one's opponent's impet close order foot. Alot easier when you
> counter or if necessary, and willing to drop the waiver die, retire away
> from Cav charges. The cav has to move to within 40 paces to insure it will
> get a charge off against these maneuverable pests.
>




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

A facinating thread. This goes a long way to explaining the
apparent "LMI obsession" of US posters (I mean "United States"
not "Un-Serviceable"!). My more competitive friends are gagging to
take on gamers who have this faith in LMI /LHI. Their belief is that
the waver against mounted troops is a fatal flaw in the type ( I do
not entirely agree - but bow to more experienced players )Apart
from their speed what else gives lose order foot the balancing
advantages that make them so popular?
Cheers

Adam

--- In WarriorRules@y..., ewan.mcnay@y... wrote:
> I'm not trying to argue here that any given list selection
is 'right' or
> wrong; just a few comments on a list I also run, somewhat
differently.
>
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Greggory A. Regets wrote:
> > My list was, as best I can remember;
> > C-in-C with 5 Reg EHC
> > 2-in-C with 7 Reg SHC
> > 8 Reg SHC
> > (this is the last time I ever play with two generals)
>
> You would run more or fewer? Seleucids are *doable* with only one
> general, and I don't expect that I would usually want more than
two - I
> think one of the virtues of the army is good cheap troops, which are
> diluted by generals. OTOH, I would definitely want a general in my
SHC if
> that were an option - but I haven't seen a list that allows
generals with
> the Line/Settler cav.
>
> I take your argument about something to face LMI B, but would use
the
> peltasts for that in preference.
>
> > 2 x 2 models of Seleucid elephants
> > 2 x 8 Reg LI det. (last time I ever buy these as det.)
>
> I prefer running Els in 3s, but that's not a big deal. Attaching
LI means
> that the Els cannot go long, which can be bad; if I wanted integral
LI I'd
> probably put them on the El bases.
>
> > 2 x 4 Reg LC
> > 2 x 32 Reg pikes
> > 1 x 16 Reg pikes
> > 2 x 16 Reg Peltasts
> > 1 x 16 Reg Thracians
> > 2 x 12 LI JLS Sh
>
> Yes, I think that these are a poor buy, if they're the Arabs (and
they
> have to be): they can never be prompted to charge other LI without
> wavering, so have no real function that I see. If running the
NASAMW
> list, as I suspect, buy the Reg LI S, Sh and take these guys as
either LI
> or MI B.
>
> > All in all, I can't say I was dissatisfied with the army, having
big wins in two games and a solid win in the third, while losing next
to nothing. Thats a big thing with me when running a new army,
getting the defense solid first. Perhaps its a football thing - get a
solid defense going, the offense will show itself eventually.
>
> This suggests that despite not actually fighting with the pikes,
they
> functioned correctly in corralling things to kill with SHC/LHI (I
think
> that the Thorakitoi LHI are well worthwhile, btw). Congrats!
>
> > On another tact, has anyone ever played or considered playing
this army as mostly one element frontage units (other than lights and
elephants)? There is little doubt it is a good combined arms army,
and I have played many other armies this way. I get the idea this may
not be as effective in 25mm as it is in 15mm. We shall see.
>
> No. Yuk! I do often run things in columns - including elephants -
but
> would not want to try to fight the game that way! I am not a fan
of small
> units, though, in any case.
>
> E

[Don Coon]

Brush, woods, marsh, minor water features, gullies, skirmish capability (for
those with missiles), expansion in a follow up. The last two are HUGE!

I run CO foot armies (2 Roman - full of CO foot, Feudal English - less so,
but still quite a few) and love them. I do however also love the loose
order foot the Feudals get (bring on the crossbowmen!).

In the MIR, I always take all 4E of Palistinians, and lots of auxilla. If I
do not, I can not contest any terrain.

Don

Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: CO Foot Tactics


> A facinating thread. This goes a long way to explaining the
> apparent "LMI obsession" of US posters (I mean "United States"
> not "Un-Serviceable"!). My more competitive friends are gagging to
> take on gamers who have this faith in LMI /LHI. Their belief is that
> the waver against mounted troops is a fatal flaw in the type ( I do
> not entirely agree - but bow to more experienced players )Apart
> from their speed what else gives lose order foot the balancing
> advantages that make them so popular?
> Cheers
>
> Adam

[Ewan McNay]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Adam wrote:

> A facinating thread. This goes a long way to explaining the
> apparent "LMI obsession" of US posters (I mean "United States"
> not "Un-Serviceable"!). My more competitive friends are gagging to
> take on gamers who have this faith in LMI /LHI. Their belief is that
> the waver against mounted troops is a fatal flaw in the type ( I do
> not entirely agree - but bow to more experienced players )Apart
> from their speed what else gives lose order foot the balancing
> advantages that make them so popular?

Ever face an Aztec? :)

LM/HI:

* fight just as well as close foot in a foot battle
* can skirmish
* can shoot (if JLS-armed, and you'll find that all of the ones that get
used are)
* move faster, and can go through/contest terrain

Irregular loose foot are somewhat different, relying on impetuous charging
rather than manouvre/missiles; in that case, the 120 pace move is critical
for the reason that Jon noted: can march, approach, and charge, making it
much less likely than close foot to be caught at the halt. Their
diminished impact (b/c 3 per element, not 4) is a down side.

Regular loose, though, especially if double-armed, are great. Take
peltasts, for instance. Yes, they take a waver if charged in the open by
mounted. But, that requires them to have failed any counter, first, and
if they pass the waver test the cav are in trouble - so can often not
afford to charge.

Regular Thracians are not as good by a long way, but they're great for
taking on elephants and the list has no other reg loose so they're
Hobson's choice!

As for troops armed with both JLS and longer-range missiles, they are
*deadly*. Aztecs are the extreme, but LIR auxilia are pretty similar, and
both are well worth the points. Facing cav, for instance, counter to 161
paces and then move in for the shooting-kill next time: one ex-cav unit.

E


> Cheers
>
> Adam
>
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., ewan.mcnay@y... wrote:
> > I'm not trying to argue here that any given list selection
> is 'right' or
> > wrong; just a few comments on a list I also run, somewhat
> differently.
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Greggory A. Regets wrote:
> > > My list was, as best I can remember;
> > > C-in-C with 5 Reg EHC
> > > 2-in-C with 7 Reg SHC
> > > 8 Reg SHC
> > > (this is the last time I ever play with two generals)
> >
> > You would run more or fewer? Seleucids are *doable* with only one
> > general, and I don't expect that I would usually want more than
> two - I
> > think one of the virtues of the army is good cheap troops, which are
> > diluted by generals. OTOH, I would definitely want a general in my
> SHC if
> > that were an option - but I haven't seen a list that allows
> generals with
> > the Line/Settler cav.
> >
> > I take your argument about something to face LMI B, but would use
> the
> > peltasts for that in preference.
> >
> > > 2 x 2 models of Seleucid elephants
> > > 2 x 8 Reg LI det. (last time I ever buy these as det.)
> >
> > I prefer running Els in 3s, but that's not a big deal. Attaching
> LI means
> > that the Els cannot go long, which can be bad; if I wanted integral
> LI I'd
> > probably put them on the El bases.
> >
> > > 2 x 4 Reg LC
> > > 2 x 32 Reg pikes
> > > 1 x 16 Reg pikes
> > > 2 x 16 Reg Peltasts
> > > 1 x 16 Reg Thracians
> > > 2 x 12 LI JLS Sh
> >
> > Yes, I think that these are a poor buy, if they're the Arabs (and
> they
> > have to be): they can never be prompted to charge other LI without
> > wavering, so have no real function that I see. If running the
> NASAMW
> > list, as I suspect, buy the Reg LI S, Sh and take these guys as
> either LI
> > or MI B.
> >
> > > All in all, I can't say I was dissatisfied with the army, having
> big wins in two games and a solid win in the third, while losing next
> to nothing. Thats a big thing with me when running a new army,
> getting the defense solid first. Perhaps its a football thing - get a
> solid defense going, the offense will show itself eventually.
> >
> > This suggests that despite not actually fighting with the pikes,
> they
> > functioned correctly in corralling things to kill with SHC/LHI (I
> think
> > that the Thorakitoi LHI are well worthwhile, btw). Congrats!
> >
> > > On another tact, has anyone ever played or considered playing
> this army as mostly one element frontage units (other than lights and
> elephants)? There is little doubt it is a good combined arms army,
> and I have played many other armies this way. I get the idea this may
> not be as effective in 25mm as it is in 15mm. We shall see.
> >
> > No. Yuk! I do often run things in columns - including elephants -
> but
> > would not want to try to fight the game that way! I am not a fan
> of small
> > units, though, in any case.
> >
> > E
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[Mark Mallard]

I am in the uk i have seleucids, none of the other dozen gamers i know has
seleucids although most of them have atleast two armies - most of them more
than that.

I ended up with seleucids because i was loaned them in a campaign about 25
years ago, i got used to them i guess.

mark mallard


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

[Mark Mallard]

What list has regular thracians. I do not recall seing a list with them. I
would be interested in seeing it.

mark mallard



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

[scott holder]

As for troops armed with both JLS and longer-range missiles, they are
*deadly*. Aztecs are the extreme, but LIR auxilia are pretty similar,
and
both are well worth the points. Facing cav, for instance, counter to
161
paces and then move in for the shooting-kill next time: one ex-cav unit.

>I found the original post ironic considering it came from one of our
friends in the UK. Back in the late 80s and early 90s when TOG was the
ONLY game in town, every UK player I came across ran either Seleucids or
LIR with TONS of double-armed auxilia.

>Two players, me and Jake, thrive on the southeast Asia elephant armies
that also come equipped with hordes of loose order foot, he favors the
Champa-type with irregulars and A class whackos, I favor the Khmer with
Reg B LHI. I have more trouble with cav armies, not because of the
charge issues (I can usually handle that in one way or another) but
because of the shooting, move-and-slide issues and the fact that vis a
vis the opponent, my army is small and thus, I need to keep my flanks
secure either from terrain or *crafty* counter moves:) In fact, in
one NICT game, it was LIR auxilia with darts that shot the absolute
crapola outta me. So........I'm another big fan of loose order troops.

>Another anecdotal story. I've had Galatians for years. Everytime
somebody sees em they say "why don't you remount em as Gauls?" And
they're right, same Irr A impact without the limitations of COF. Sure,
knights give problems but they would whether or not you're Irr A LOF or
COF. It's a little better now since the second rank does get to fight!

scott

[Ewan McNay]

"Holder, Scott " wrote:
> >I found the original post ironic considering it came from one of our
> friends in the UK. Back in the late 80s and early 90s when TOG was the
> ONLY game in town, every UK player I came across ran either Seleucids or
> LIR with TONS of double-armed auxilia.

The UK went through an Aztec-intensive phase, although that was largely
my MK-based contingent. We won the National league one year fielding
four players all running Aztec - despite one team trying to field four
anti-Aztec armies (Syracusan was the best example). The best response
to the Aztec was to run LIR: essentially Aztec with the advantage of
having some cav. I've never thought of Seleucids as being that popular
in the UK.

> >Two players, me and Jake, thrive on the southeast Asia elephant armies
> that also come equipped with hordes of loose order foot, he favors the
> Champa-type with irregulars and A class whackos, I favor the Khmer with
> Reg B LHI. I have more trouble with cav armies, not because of the
> charge issues (I can usually handle that in one way or another) but
> because of the shooting, move-and-slide issues and the fact that vis a
> vis the opponent, my army is small and thus, I need to keep my flanks
> secure either from terrain or *crafty* counter moves:) In fact, in
> one NICT game, it was LIR auxilia with darts that shot the absolute
> crapola outta me. So........I'm another big fan of loose order troops.

I agree that the Khmer's problems come from size rather than loose
order-ness, especially as you run it all as B class!

> >Another anecdotal story. I've had Galatians for years. Everytime
> somebody sees em they say "why don't you remount em as Gauls?" And
> they're right, same Irr A impact without the limitations of COF. Sure,
> knights give problems but they would whether or not you're Irr A LOF or
> COF. It's a little better now since the second rank does get to fight!

In all honesty, a *good* knight player is going to give Aztecs problems
too: the knights get shot up, sure, but still absutely mangle the LMI if
they get into contact (and if the LMI are in skirmish, eventually they
will fail a waver test..). Not so good if the knights are backed by
sergeants!

Galatians? Useless army regardless .

E