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 

Early Bulgar 1200 points
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Tactics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ed Kollmer
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 952

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:49 pm    Post subject:

I agree that the Post Mongol Russian list is WAY more optimal - we all have our irrational loves.... Scott and his Burgundians Shocked Ed and his Andalusians, etc...

Just rereading this thread. Somehow I missed this comment by "Hail Meister Champ".
"Irrational loves". What does that mean???? Confused
At least I am in good company with "irrational loves" like Scott...

I think my wife said she has an "irrational love" with me. Very Happy
Ed the Rash Irrational Lover.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
LarryEssick
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:32 am    Post subject: Re: Actual lists

Frank Gilson wrote:

Mongol
CinC PA Reg A EHC/HC L,B,Sh 204 (ouch again)
Sub P Reg A/B EHC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B 119
2E Reg B LC JLS,B 46
2E Reg B LC JLS,B 46
2E Reg B LC JLS,B 46
6E Reg C LC B 82
4E Reg C LC JLS,B/B 66
4E Reg C LC JLS,B/B 66
4E Reg C HC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B 130
4E Reg C HC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B 130
4E Reg C HC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B 130
4E Reg C HC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B 130
1195, 12 units, 2 cmds, 100 scouting


Frank's Mongol list is great but not what I would play. Biggest advantage of Mongols is ability to outscout opponents and (as I learned) the ability to remove terrain.

You need very few actual strike troops and you don't really want your LC fighting anything. You also do not need to upgrade anything to EHC since you never want to be in a position where you give up the option to skirmish and evade. It is a different way of looking at the army.

I would play it this way:
Temujin CinC, HC L,B,Sh w PA & 2 Reg A HC L,B,Sh + Guards 1E Reg A HC L,B,Sh (200)
Cavalry 1E Reg B HC L,B,Sh + 1E Reg B HC L,B,Pa (86)
Cavalry 1E Reg B HC L,B,Sh + 1E Reg B HC L,B,Pa (86)
Cavalry 1E Reg B HC L,B,Sh + 1E Reg B HC L,B,Pa (86)
Cavalry 1E Reg B HC L,B,Sh + 1E Reg B HC L,B,Pa (86)
Mongol Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool
Mongol Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool
Mongol Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool
Mongol Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool
Mongol Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool
Mongol Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool
Mongol Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool
Mongol Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool
Turkish Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool
Turkish Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool
Turkish Horse Archers 4E Reg C LC B (5Cool

1182 points, 142 scouting, 16 maneuver units.

You still have 18 points left over so could spend on various things. One option if you prefer 2 commands is to drop 2 Turkish LC and field a SG as:

Subatai SG, HC L,B,Sh w P & 2 Reg A HC L,B,Sh + Mangudai 1E Reg A HC L,B,Pa (128)

That puts the army at 1194 points, 120 scouting, 15 maneuver units but has the flexibility of 2 commands.

Another option is to downgrade the Turkish LC to Irr (saving some points) and to field a Turkish SG as LC in place of one of them with small loss in scouting (a 2E B/C unit could be fielded losing 6 scouting points).

Probe and deny with the LC, maneuver all the HC to the point of attack when you decide where that will be. Sh in front rank of HC when attacking mounted, Pa rotates to front rank if necessary to dismount. Deal with terrain by trying to remove it from play.

Only another LC army should ever catch you if you don't want to be caught. Substantially what I used at Siege of Augusta in 25mm on narrow tables with good success (would have been better if I'd known I could remove pre-set terrain).

Nothing quite like deploying half your army on table while the other half flank marches and still being able to control the pace of play.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
LarryEssick
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:34 am    Post subject:

Grrr, stupid autoformating emoticons. Should be (58 ) on LC points not (5Cool.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1114
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:10 pm    Post subject: one general = no flank march

Mongols also have a substantial advantage flank marching, which should be exploited...and to do so requires at least one Sub-general.

4E LC units are pretty inefficient compromises between 2E and 6E, but not terrible.

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


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1980
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:22 pm    Post subject:

The maneuverability of all those Mongol regulars can give your opponents fits, but the Mongols are vulnerable to being overwhelmed by cheaper light cav of equal or greater fighting capability. Ewan demonstrated this with Huns some years back, as I recall.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
LarryEssick
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:49 pm    Post subject: Re: one general = no flank march

Frank Gilson wrote:
Mongols also have a substantial advantage flank marching, which should be exploited...and to do so requires at least one Sub-general.

4E LC units are pretty inefficient compromises between 2E and 6E, but not terrible.

Frank


Inasmuch as this is in the tactics forum....

At 1600 points the observation about flank marching holds value. I'm not as sure that it holds that same value at 1200 points.

At Siege of Augusta I sent half the army on a flank march in each of the three games we played. It was a novelty but not a necessity. None of the games was decided by the flank march and none of them was decided before the flank march arrived. It would have been just as efficient to have placed all of the units on board from the start and perhaps more effiecient. At 1200 points it seems to me that the value of the flank march is even less.

OTOH, the army is vulnerable if the enemy flank marches. So, being able to send a flank march on one or both flanks of substantial size would serve to drive back any enemy. That would be worth consideration but might also be overthinking things. I'm not sure.

The question of 2E/4E/6E LC is something tied to purpose. I have seen people use 2E units to squeeze into tight spaces and to attack exposed flanks. I have also used 2E LC and watched it prove useless against any sort of shooting. The use of 6E units gives greater shooting capability but at the expense of maneuverability. Thus, 4E becomes a compromise. It allows the unit to be 1E wide in deep skirmish and to deploy side-by-side with others used similarly. It also allows the unit to be 2E/4E wide to take up space.

When there are so many LC on the table at one time there is a real traffic control issue. By using 4E units there is a compromise between shooting density and maneuver and traffic control that I was not achieving with the 2E/6E combinations.

This is probably related to my intent of only using the LC as a shooting/pinning force and not as an attack troop. I simply want to rotate as many units forward, shoot as often as possible, and attempt to disorder or tire enemy units. At 1600 points there are only 4 more LC elements that can be obtained so saving points by combining into 6E units does not get much.

One argument would be to combine into 6E units and equip front elements with JLS and/or Sh/Pa. My worry is that doing so will tempt me to use the units in attack and stick them in against enemy troops. That puts my units at risk and I want to avoid that. However, it could be useful to players who dismount their LC -- although that creates somewhat awkward 3E infantry units. I suppose an ideal 6E LC unit with 2E JLS,B,Sh + 2E JLS,B,Pa + 2E B could be formed. OTOH, if foot was the goal state then why not 12E units (becoming 6E foot) or just purchase Chinese infantry?

Certainly a difference in tactical employment. My intent is not to dismount and not to attack with the LC. Using 4E units seems to reinforce that tactical approach best for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
LarryEssick
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:59 pm    Post subject:

Mark Stone wrote:
The maneuverability of all those Mongol regulars can give your opponents fits, but the Mongols are vulnerable to being overwhelmed by cheaper light cav of equal or greater fighting capability. Ewan demonstrated this with Huns some years back, as I recall.


IIRC I did mention that only another LC army really puts you at risk. Huns have an added advantage because their LC fights 1.5 ranks.

Anytime a person plays a one dimensional army there is a risk of a horrible mismatch. Huns v Mongols would be one such case. OTOH, unless there is reason to suspect that such an encounter is likely to happen there is no need to worry about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1980
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 3:17 pm    Post subject:

There are other risks too. Any of the cheap Asian spear armies can cover table edge to table edge with LTS,B foot which pretty much negates the maneuverability advantage of the Mongols (Later Tang, 10 Independent States, Yuan, Koryo Korean, Ming Chinese).

I agree that Mongol is a fun list, and at least as competitive as some of the other light cav armies we've been discussing here. But there are lots of other non-A list armies that will take Mongols down with ease.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
LarryEssick
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:33 pm    Post subject:

Mark Stone wrote:
There are other risks too. Any of the cheap Asian spear armies can cover table edge to table edge with LTS,B foot which pretty much negates the maneuverability advantage of the Mongols (Later Tang, 10 Independent States, Yuan, Koryo Korean, Ming Chinese).

I agree that Mongol is a fun list, and at least as competitive as some of the other light cav armies we've been discussing here. But there are lots of other non-A list armies that will take Mongols down with ease.


I don't know. I think that it is pretty easy to go thru the army lists and to say "this army beats that army." I'm not sure that there is any army that is nemesis free.

The bigger question is, "How likely is it that a bad match up will occur?" Or, put another way, "Will someone field an army just to deal with Mongols and, if so, what else can it beat?"

Keep in mind that an army moving 80 paces per turn is going to have a hard time winning -- especially if forced to deploy in its own rear zone. All of the various experimental rules and adjustments to deployment areas that get made may push a LC army off the table but it isn't a match up issue -- it is a rules issue. But, if the bulk of the table is there for the LC to retreat across it can be impractical for an all foot army.

I also very much like the shooting numbers when it is skirmished LC vs shieldless MI. That means points spent upgrading to HI or on Pa. Otherwise 8@1 v 4@5 is 2CPF per. The LC takes the recall/evade but the MI must test. Presuming a deep table it is a match up that I'd be willing to take.

Again, that is an advantage of the 4E unit that skirmishes 1E wide and 4E deep. It counts 6 figures for casualty calculations. It avoids the 2CPF if the infantry rolls down. And the infantry gets 1 roll against all of the LC units whereas the LC rolls separately for each unit -- increasing the chances of an up roll along the way.

All told it is probably a wash as up and down rolls by the Mongol probably balance out. But, the infantry army has to rely on avoiding waiver tests where the Mongols generally do not. The Mongols only have a problem if the table is not deep -- either as at Siege where we only had 4' deep boards or because of deployment rules that let the infantry forward of the standard rear zone.

While not an ideal match up it is far from an "easy" victory for the infantry army.

Still, the greater point is that a player should not worry about someone bringing an army specifically to deal with Mongols. Maybe if Mongols were winning every tournament -- or the same player was winning every tournament using Mongols -- but I'm not sure that is happening. So, instead of worrying about what could beat it I think that the better thought is to presume nobody is going to build just to beat me. That means the armies I'm likely to face are the ones that people are typically playing and that they will be built the way they normally are built.

With 22 maneuver units on the board at 1600 points I feel generally capable of matching up against most armies. With 204 scouting I feel generally confident that I'll see their whole army deployed before I have to make any decisions.

If those two factors together are not sufficient then I'll lose. Considering how bad I am at Warrior right now, I go into games expecting that outcome. What I found at Siege of Augusta was that I was able to hold my own due to those two things against pretty good players -- certainly players that have been playing steadily while I've been away from Warrior.

Shoot, the last time I played Warrior seriously it was called 7th....

Part of my point here is that people are building Mongols currently with the worry that they need to deal with the "what if." I'm suggesting that Mongols are stronger if you don't worry about that.

At 1600 points 6 strike units massed in one spot are enough to win if winning is possible. Everything else is designed to fix the enemy in place until those strike units attack.

Are there things that will beat Mongols? Of course. But, substitute any army name and the answer is still the same. If it were not we'd all be playing Late Imperial Romans.... Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Ed Kollmer
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 952

PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:02 am    Post subject:

Got me thinking!!!
I, at time, play a Golden Horde army. It is really MattK's Timurid army. I think I might use that tactic.
It is in 15mm. At present my "go-to" 15mm army is Andalusian. The Cid is my hero. However, my list consultants (MattK and ToddK) are revising the army.
I was informed just last week that the army was "not ready"
They seemed ready when I opened the box. They were shouting "Allah Akbar"
and "God, Spain, and the Cid" Laughing
EK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Tactics All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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