Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2018 NICT Lists
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> List Lore
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1052
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:08 pm    Post subject:

Just playing with you Frank (and Mark) Wink
_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2033
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:43 pm    Post subject:

Todd Kaeser wrote:
I do find it amusing that both Mark and Frank love the idea of regular shooting combined with the ability to fight in combat, be maneuverable in and out of terrain, and have above average morale with a few shock units to make the schwerpunkt...... yet have a great dislike of playing MesoAmerican armies Rolling Eyes Wink Laughing

Todd


My problem with playing Meso-Americans is the lack of mounted. Having some line or shock units that are guaranteed to move after all opposing foot is enormously beneficial. I'm not interested in armies that lack that benefit.

My problem with fighting against Meso-Americans is that I think the circulating combatants rules are unbalancing. Of all the list rules they are my least favorite. Generally I think we do a good job with list rules. Most are reasonable, and go a long way towards giving lists some individual flavor. But I am definitely not a fan of circulating combatants.

That's a highly personal opinion, and I don't expect things to change, and I'm okay with that. But I do get grumpy about having to face Meso Americans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1052
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:14 pm    Post subject:

I get you Mark - I personally don't enjoy using Biblical armies (NKE aside). Despite my love of Meso armies I don't love the history nor feel for the armies. I know they are good armies (especially with the double ranks of fighting at all times). Maybe I will go out of my comfort zone and try to play Neo-Assyrian/Bab sometime and see.

I personally like the idea of different flavors for armies - there are circulating combat rules for Romans, Swiss, etc... Troops that did not have shields historically now have them (Moogs) to make them playable. Pikemen need 3 cpf and Hoplites as well to be halted. Crusader formation, Norman/Companion rules, Varangians keeping javelins, we have many, many rules that aid armies historically. Having lost many games with my Tepanecs (and defeated them as well) they are certainly not super charged IMO.

Todd

_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2033
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:23 pm    Post subject: Re: 1st place Rob Turnbull Alexandrian Imperial

Frank Gilson wrote:
2 Alex L
2 Companions L
2 Companions L
3 Indian sub El 2B,jls, 1 jls arm drv
3 El El 2B,jls, 1 jls arm drv
2 Indian MC MC, jls,sh
4 Indian Archers MI, LB, 1/2 2HCW
2 LI Reg C li, jls, sh
2 LI Reg C li, jls, sh
2 LC Reg B lc jls
2 LC Reg B lc jls
3 Mac El 1pk, 1jls Irr C El
4 Pk Hi/MI Pk, sh
8 Bactrians Lc, jls, b
4 Pk Hi/MI Pk, sh
4 Hypaspists Rg A/B LHI/LMI LTS,sh
4 Peltasts Rg C LMI LTS,jls sh
2 LC Reg B lc jls
2 LC Reg B lc jls
2 LC Reg B lc, jls


I don't have a lot of comentary on this list. Alexandrian Imperial is a very strong list, and there are several variations within the list worth playing; this is one of them.

The point here is to maximize the use of elephants by taking the Indian contingent. That brings the total number of elephants here to 9. To go with that you have a minimal number of pike who are deployed in "attack" configuration rather than "hold the line" configuration -- 2 16 figure units rather than 1 or more 32 figure units. The line is instead held by the excellent quality light troops -- lots of regulars in both LI and LC, shields for the LI, and some rank and a half among the LC. Finally you have the Peltasts and Hypaspists who can operate in terrain or work in tandem with the elephants for a combined arms charge.

There are some down sides here. When you take the Indians you are obliged to take the Indian MC and the Indian archers, neither of which are really worth the points on their own. So you're spending points you could use elsewhere... for example this configuration does not hold frontage very well, and works best by finding terrain to operate between. That's certainly doable given typical tables these days, but there are certain opponents and certain tables that this army would really struggle with. Ewan's army, for example, is well designed to carve through just this configuration of Alexandrian Imperial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
lilroblis
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 433
Location: Cleveland Ohio

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:31 pm    Post subject: Alex Imperial

You are correct - the list is very elephant heavy and relies on the excellent light cavalry to hold space - the foot is all vulnerable to shooting - but is high quality - probably the best support troops in the game for elephants - I won a number of games with companions and foot - no elephants actually fought - when they did the B class helped - I think Ewans army, and Meso Americans amongst others would have made for very difficult opponents - however the macedonian hc is much better than one might think and if someone fails their waver test is more than adequete to take out lmi/lhi
It was a fun list to play, and if played patiently is very strong. The Indian bow and MC never routed and destroyed some units - it was also good for holding a flank - but again with the goal of not dying, and exploiting over eager enemies it did OK. It is always a target - so exposed flanks for companions etc are not abnormal, as people rush to attack them
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
lilroblis
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 433
Location: Cleveland Ohio

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:34 pm    Post subject: Alex Imperial

One more comment - the pike are always for attack - everything in every army I take is designed to fill a role - the indians in this list had minimal duties however
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2033
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:23 pm    Post subject: Re: 10th place Dan Woyke Kingdom of Vijayanagara

Frank Gilson wrote:
2 **Irr B EL (1JLS,2JLS,B)/PA 178
2 *Irr B EL (1JLS,2JLS,B)/P 116
3 Irr B EL (1JLS,2JLS,B)  175
3 Irr B EL (1JLS,2JLS,B)  175

2 Irr B HC L,B,Sh * 91
2 Irr B HC L,B,Sh * 91
2 Reg C EHC L,Sh* 88

4 Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh* 89
4 Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh* 89

4 Irr C LMI 2HCW,SH/JLS,SH 73
8 Irr C MI LTS,SH 121
4 Reg C LMI B 58
4 Reg C LMI B 58
4 Reg C LMI B 58

8 Irr D LI B 41
8 Irr D LI B 41

6 Irr D LMI JLS,SH 61

Scouting: 30
* Elephant Proof


I'm sympathetic with Dan's intent here. It really feels like somewhere in these late Indian lists there ought to be a really good one, but each list is a little different, and each list offers a plethora of choices. It's a tough period to figure out.

Let's start with the good here: 10 elephants, all Irreg B, and while they lack P they all have at least 2 crew with JLS which is very nearly as good (better when fighting other elephants). In addition there's an abundance of elephant-proof cavalry that can chase off light troops and other skirmishers that attempt to screen off the elephants.

So you have 10 quality elephants, and the necessary support troops to get them into the fight. That's powerful.

The quality of the army rapidly goes down hill from there. There are two LMI units for rough terrain, but neither is good enough to be aggressive in terrain. A couple of cheap LI units would serve equally well if the goal is just to hold or delay in terrain. The LTS unit serves no real purpose. There are 48 figures of dense shooting, but they are shieldless, making them brittle and hard to use. The LI is shieldless, low morale, and not very abundant. Overall this army does not hold frontage very well, nor does it hold terrain very well when using terrain to cut down frontage.

The battle is essentially going to be: can the elephants get into victorious combat faster than then flanks and support troops of this army collapse?

Keep looking, Dan. There's a good army in there somewhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2033
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:04 pm    Post subject: Re: 5th place Jake Kovel Early Vietnamese

Frank Gilson wrote:
6x LI, B, Reg C 46 Ally 1
4x LHI, JLS, SH Reg C 106 Ally 1
4x LHI, JLS, SH, Reg C 106 Ally 1
2x EL, I w/JLS. 1 w/JLS, B, and P standard 129 Ally 1*
2x EL, 1 w/JLS. 1 w/JLS, B, Irr C 107 Ally 1
6x LI, B, Irr C 49 CinC
4x LI, CB, Irr C 41 CinC
4x LMI, B, Irr C 49 CinC
4x LMI, CB, Irr C 49 CinC
1x EL, 1 w/JLS, Irr B 100 CinC*
6x LMI, 2HCW, SH  6x LMI, JLS, SH 133 CinC
6x LMI, 2HCW, SH  6x LMI, JLS, SH 133 CinC
8x LI, JLS, SH, Irr C 73 Sub 1
8x LI, B, Irr C 57 Sub 1
1x El 1 w/JLS, Irr B 55 Sub 1*
2x LHI, 2HCW, SH, Irr A  2x LMI, JLS, SH, Irr B 91 Sub 1
2x LHI, 2HCW, SH, Irr A  2x LMI, JLS, SH, Irr B 91 Sub 1
2x LHI, 2HCW, SH, Irr A  2x LMI, JLS, SH, Irr B 91 Sub 1
2x LHI, 2HCW, SH, Irr A  2x LMI, JLS, SH, Irr B 91 Sub 1


I'm probably the worst person to comment on Jake's list. He and I do not think about lists in remotely the same way.

For example: I'm baffled that the CinC and the Sub are in single elephant staff elements. That seems to detract from the fighting power of the army, where elephants are the main reason to play the list.

I suppose the point here is to showcase the Irr A LHI and use them to maximum effect. The elephants are then present to spread unease among the enemy, and play a limited supporting role (although the Irr A and elephants can't charge together. Irr As go in first and elephants follow up on an overlap? Maybe?). But these guys just aren't very tough. Let's look at a couple of cases.

Case 1: against shock cavalry. Let's assume that (a) the elephants get near enough to some SHK to cast unease on them, and that the SHK have at least one other cause of unease. Unlikely, but it could happen. Let's assume further that the LHI, who have to move first, manage to get to 120p from the SHK (or LI or something that lets them get going impetuously). Again, unlikely against a skilled knight player, but could happen. Finally, let's assume that the LHI roll up 1 and the knights roll even.

SHK: 5@4+1 charging = 5@5 = 20.
LHI: 3@2+2 (impetuous) +4 (rolled up 1 is up 3 for As) = 3@7 = 18.
Back ranks is 2@0 +2 (impetuous) +1 (rolled up 1 as Bs) = 2@3 = 5.
Total of 23. SHK are tired and disordered and recoiling, but not anywhere close to broken. That's as good as it gets. If the knights also roll up 1 the LHI actually lose, and are themselves recoiling tired, disordered, and shieldless. Even if the LHI win they have no punch on follow up, and they have an overlapping element exposed to literally anything the knight army has in reserve. Not a winning scenario even with all the generous assumptions.

Case 2: against Macedonian pike. Similarly generous assumptions here: the LHI roll up 1 and the pike do not, and the LHI somehow manage to get to 120p without the pike getting to 80 or countering back out of the way entirely. And the elephants are near enough to cause unease and there's something else somehow making the pikes uneasy. All of this is unlikely, but possible. Pikes are 32 figures in a 4x2 block, MI throughout, Reg C.

Pikes: 16@2 = 32.
LHI: 6@5 + 1 (charging) +2 (impetuous) +4 (up 1 is up 4 for As). 6@more=72.
Back rank: 3@3 + 1 (charging) +2 (impetuous) +1 (up 1 for Bs). 3@7 = 18.
TOtal 72+18 = 90, which is not 3 CPF. LHI are now tired, halted, and shieldless. Pikes are disordered but not tired, and are exposed to an elephant charge on the overlap. The Vietnamese still need more than even rolls on Bound 2 to rout the pikes, and the LHI are well on their way to exhaustion. And this is as good as it gets.

So I really don't see it. Maybe there's something I'm missing, But this looks like an army with not quite enough punch and nothing else to rely on. It needs either more elephants (8+ in 3+ fighting units), or better elephants (pike-armed) or shock foot that are double-armed (2HCW+JLS, HTW+JLS, or 2HCT). As it stands it feels like an army that would just barely come up short on a good day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1052
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:32 pm    Post subject:

Mark,

I agree with your thoughts on Jake's list - I too would struggle to run the list, BUT Jake seems to make it work. These type of lists allow Jake to mix it up across the board and he typically places in the top half. There is something to be said for having an aggressive combat list that while not garnering victory all the time certainly gets points. I'm sure the philosophy (assuming here) that Jake wants a 3 at least and would (while not wanting it) take a 3-5 loss instead of a 1-1 tie. I too feel this way and also feel that battles fought that way are often a lot more fun than a skirmish battle.

I think the main problem with the list is the 2 units of shieldless bowmen/crossbowmen but that is just me Smile

Jake is able to redeploy his reserves and fills the gaps. I don't know if he's allowed more elephants - I too would love to see the generals in 2E units capable of fighting, but I don't know if the list allows it.

Todd

_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1235
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:47 pm    Post subject:

Todd Kaeser wrote:
Mark,

I agree with your thoughts on Jake's list - I too would struggle to run the list, BUT Jake seems to make it work. These type of lists allow Jake to mix it up across the board and he typically places in the top half. There is something to be said for having an aggressive combat list that while not garnering victory all the time certainly gets points. I'm sure the philosophy (assuming here) that Jake wants a 3 at least and would (while not wanting it) take a 3-5 loss instead of a 1-1 tie. I too feel this way and also feel that battles fought that way are often a lot more fun than a skirmish battle.

I think the main problem with the list is the 2 units of shieldless bowmen/crossbowmen but that is just me Smile

Jake is able to redeploy his reserves and fills the gaps. I don't know if he's allowed more elephants - I too would love to see the generals in 2E units capable of fighting, but I don't know if the list allows it.

Todd


I could run this type of list...but probably not this specific one or version. I do like to 'fight across the frontage' now and then.

However, such an army is vulnerable to the old 'in and punch' method, whereby some cheap lights screen off 3/4 of your army as 'the good stuff' comes crashing into the last part on one flank. That's likely typically how Jake loses with this army.

SPARTACAN!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2033
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:00 pm    Post subject: Re: 13th place Matt Kolmer 100 Yrs War English

Frank Gilson wrote:
2E R/B SHK L sh +PAS 1/2 HK
2E R/B SHK L sh +PS 1/2 HK
2E R/B SHK L sh +PS 1/2 EHK
2E R/B SHK L sh  1/2 EHK
2E R/B SHK L sh  1/2 EHK
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E I/C LI JLS sh
4E I/C LI JLS sh
8E I/C LI S sh
4E R/D LI LB
4E I/C LC JLS sh
2E I/B SHK L sh


Matt is quite practiced at running 100YWE, and this is a perfectly reasonble way to compose the list. Matt takes a bit more scouting here than you usually see, and the 3rd general gives him a bit of flexiblity to tailor his deployment to his opponent's.

This comes at some cost. As a matter of personal preference, I would take fewer light troops (no LC, maybe 2 LI units), and only one subgeneral. I also wouldn't buy stakes for all the longbowmen.

With the extra points I would mix up the longbowmen a bit, having some units at are 24 figures (as opposed to Matt's 16) LMI LB,Sh/LB and some units that are 16 figures LHI in front (as opposed to Matt's LMI), and these would be front rank LHI,2HCW,LB,Sh,stakes. This gives you some units that can full on stop just about anything other than elephants, assuming you get the stakes down, and that can also act as serviceable follow-up hand-to-hand units when presented with a tired and/or disordered overlap from something the knights have recoiled. The 24 figure units also have greater maneuverability, being able to start in column and then expand out two to one side or the other.

Frank would modify this list to accomodate a Brigans unit, so that you have something that can do service in straight up hand to hand combat with either pikes or elephants. I would not take such a unit because I think the variability in combat results around Irr C foot is too great to rely on them.

So there are multiple ways to approach the English. Each has merit, and the final choice is largely a matter of personal playing style.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1235
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:00 am    Post subject: Re: 13th place Matt Kolmer 100 Yrs War English

Mark Stone wrote:
Frank Gilson wrote:
2E R/B SHK L sh +PAS 1/2 HK
2E R/B SHK L sh +PS 1/2 HK
2E R/B SHK L sh +PS 1/2 EHK
2E R/B SHK L sh  1/2 EHK
2E R/B SHK L sh  1/2 EHK
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E R/C LMI LB 1/22HCW LB sh/Stakes
4E I/C LI JLS sh
4E I/C LI JLS sh
8E I/C LI S sh
4E R/D LI LB
4E I/C LC JLS sh
2E I/B SHK L sh


Matt is quite practiced at running 100YWE, and this is a perfectly reasonble way to compose the list. Matt takes a bit more scouting here than you usually see, and the 3rd general gives him a bit of flexiblity to tailor his deployment to his opponent's.

This comes at some cost. As a matter of personal preference, I would take fewer light troops (no LC, maybe 2 LI units), and only one subgeneral. I also wouldn't buy stakes for all the longbowmen.

With the extra points I would mix up the longbowmen a bit, having some units at are 24 figures (as opposed to Matt's 16) LMI LB,Sh/LB and some units that are 16 figures LHI in front (as opposed to Matt's LMI), and these would be front rank LHI,2HCW,LB,Sh,stakes. This gives you some units that can full on stop just about anything other than elephants, assuming you get the stakes down, and that can also act as serviceable follow-up hand-to-hand units when presented with a tired and/or disordered overlap from something the knights have recoiled. The 24 figure units also have greater maneuverability, being able to start in column and then expand out two to one side or the other.

Frank would modify this list to accomodate a Brigans unit, so that you have something that can do service in straight up hand to hand combat with either pikes or elephants. I would not take such a unit because I think the variability in combat results around Irr C foot is too great to rely on them.

So there are multiple ways to approach the English. Each has merit, and the final choice is largely a matter of personal playing style.


Mark is right that I favor a Brigan unit, which can either be HI 2HCT,Pa front with MI JLS behind...or a loose foot version. I understand the concern with their being Irr C and rolling...whatever dice they roll. However there's really no attack possible from HYWE in certain circumstances (elephants played well the main example) otherwise.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1052
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:27 pm    Post subject:

I have always enjoyed the history and flavor of the 100YW list - I've run it myself on numerous occasions including the NICT years ago. Regular, loose shooters with capabilities to fight.

I agree with Mark and Frank on many of their points. Although I've also run the list with all 4E units and fronted by LHI and choppers. I think I would run a few 6E units with shields and stakes and a few small 2E units with 2HCW and LHI.

I like having the Irreg B SHK units as well - they hit harder as impetuous troops and hit harder dismounted as well. I would probably use only 1 sub as well and funnel the points elsewhere. I don't think the Brigand unit works for me though - a static unit in a flexible line makes problems for me. One can also have a few mixed units of SHK/HK. A little more dangerous but worth squeezing out more points for other areas.

The LC is a conundrum - do the addition of 18 scouting help you enough to take a unit that can also be problematic? I would probably say yes and take it as I've done so with other lists. You just have to be careful with them but they can work in conjunction with a unit of longbowmen and push a flank of opposing lights. Or they can be flank marched or kept in the rear to slow/stop an opposing flank march.

I've also used Early Burgundian with the same type of configuration.

Todd

_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> List Lore All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group