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 Burgundian

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Tactics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:36 pm    Post subject: Early Burgundian

CinC PA Irr B SHK/EHK L,Sh 196
Sub similar 136
2E Irr B SHK/EHK L,Sh 124
2E Irr B SHK/EHK L,Sh 124
2E Irr B SHK/EHK L,Sh 124
2E Reg B SHK/HK L,Sh/L 103
8E Irr C LC CB 89
3x4E Reg D LI CB 78
4x6E Reg D(1 C) LMI 2HCW,LB,Sh/LB stks 368
2x4E Reg D(1 C) LMI 2HCW,LB/LB 108
4E Reg C LMI 2HCW,LB/LB 66
4E Reg C LMI 2HCW,LB,Sh/LB stks 78 = 1594
18 units, 2 cmds, 30 scouting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:41 pm    Post subject:

Here is a version of Early Burgundian...something of a HYWE alternative.

One benefit is with the option to have LC CB you can get to 30 scouting points, unlikely to be outscouted...while HYWE really only gets up to 18, easily doubled or outscouted.

Early Burg also has solid knights, arguable more 'impetuous' capable than HYWE which can require generals charging.

LB have the option to have more be D class for points savings...although whether that is good or bad is debatable given the trouble we get ourselves into with our Ds.

There is a mix here of LB with stakes (and also shields and 2HCW) and those without...those with are designed to permit some 'terrain like' use of them in between terrain pieces.

...and yes, if you want to use stakes you really do need both 2HCW AND shields so the math all works out when you get charged.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:16 pm    Post subject:

There are generally two ways to go with knight armies - one is to use aggressive light troops to open up opportunities for the knights by stripping skirmisher cover away from enemy troops who are potentially vulnerable to knights. This approach will lead you to Early Polish / Later Polish / Wallachian, with Wallachian being the best expression of this style in my opinion. Chris Damour and I won Cold Wars with Wallachian, and Dave Stier won the NICT with Wallachian.

The other way to go is to use dense shooting to create tired and/or disordered foes who are then even more vulnerable to knights. This approach will lead you to 100 Years' War English and Early Burgundian. Frank and Dave Stier have won Cold Wars more times than I can count running 100 Years' War English, but I actually think Early Burgundian is the better expression of this style of army, and Frank gives a very solid rendition of it here.

I'm not much for stakes myself. Getting the timing of placement correct is hard, and they serve no purpose against elephants. Also, as Frank notes, to be effective enough you must have both stakes and shields in addition to 2HCW. That's a fair amount of points. I prefer the more points efficient LMI with 2HCW,LB. On the other hand, if you're going to run without stakes then you're going to take more wavers for being charged. And if you're going to run without shields you're going to take more wavers from enemy shooting. So you probably need to be entirely C class, which is also a fair amount of points.

So even though I would play this list slightly differently from Frank's proposed version here, I think his version is valid. My Shang, by the way, don't particularly want to go up against this (chariots hate stakes).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Ewan McNay
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2769
Location: Albany, NY, US

PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:18 pm    Post subject:

Todd K and Matt also-K painted me two units of knights this winter... so I plan to use them at H'Con. My guess is that I will be running either HYW - my people! - or this list. And getting slaughtered because I haven't run a longbow army since I think 1997.

Embarassed

Frank/Mark: I'd welcome you rapidly running through the math on why all of shields/stakes/2HCW - thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Ewan McNay
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2769
Location: Albany, NY, US

PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:19 pm    Post subject:

Oh, also (and posting without list to hand): isn't one of the values of this list the ability to mix LB and CB if desired, getting two full ranks with a front rank of LB?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:29 pm    Post subject: shields, stakes, whatnot

Sure, Ewan,

Clearly because you can get things like stakes, shields and/or 2HCW for the longbowmen (and/or armor) you will run some amount of those options...not just Reg D/C LMI LB, nothing!

The initial option is just to run them as dense shooters as LB,Sh.

That's ok...and gives them the option to not be in skirmish but not fire...but you would frequently be in skirmish (where shields are not used) and Shield alone doesn't increase the fighting capability of the longbowmen.

So, typically you will find some amount of LB as I, Dave or Mark run them as LMI 2HCW,LB...intended to largely live in skirmish but sometimes fight (if the enemy has been disordered through shooting or by a charge from knights).

If they don't have 2HCW, they can't really add significant damage under those circumstances.

Some amount of the LB can find stakes useful should they wish to pretend to be terrain features...holding a gap or whatnot that you don't wish to contest. Overcoming such LB is tough (other than carefully used elephants)...but...the have to have shields (so shooters, even lights, can't blow them up behind their stakes) AND for the combat math to work out against various foes they need 2HCW...or they still lose fights and get pushed off their stakes.

Moreover, 2HCW damage plus the support shot often disorders many opposing units, even if they win...and you still have the option as loose order foot to break off if it looks like you wouldn't be caught in pursuit (remember the stakes as obstacle slow the enemy down).

Finally, LHI or not...generally we don't buy the armor upgrade...it makes them expensive...however, it's possible for a few units you could do that. If they are intended to stand behind stakes then just the front rank to LHI works...if they are intended to be skirmishing then both ranks need it.

Depends on how many non-LB troops you want Wink...on HYWE if you buy a Brigan unit or two...you won't have points for LHI...whereas on Early Burgundian it comes down to a knight unit, or a bunch of LHI upgrades.

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


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:02 pm    Post subject:

Just to emphasize a couple of Frank's points:
* If you buy stakes, that means you intend to stand behind them, not skirmish behind them. It therefore follows that if you are going to stand, you must have shields to protect you from enemy shooting, because you won't be in skirmish.
* If you are standing behind stakes, you must have a hand to hand weapon, otherwise I can bounce you off of your stakes with any opposing foot unit that has a hand to hand weapon. Consider peltasts charging LMI LB,Sh behind stakes:
** LB support shoots for 6@2 = 12 = 1 CPF (even rolling up 1 still just 1 CPF). LB then fights 4@3 = 10. So without an up roll somewhere, not doing 3 CPF and only putting out 10 hth.
** Peltasts charge with 6@3 +1 (charging) +1 (JLS) -2 (stakes) -1 (support shooting) = 6@2 = 12.
** 12 > 10 so the LB recoil or break off. Stakes are now useless (or worse than useless if the peltasts pick them up).

Bottom line: with stakes you need Sh to protect against enemy shooting, and you need 2HCW to be sufficiently resistant in hth combat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 8:44 am    Post subject: CB

I realize we failed to answer Ewan's point with regard to CB in the 2nd rank behind LB.

Yes...you can do that...but...you are worse off if those shooters are supposed to be skirmishing (as you no longer get the extra figures of the CB).

You are also no better, usually, and sometimes worse, at long range (as you don't get the extra figures of the CB).

If you carefully work out the +1, even and -1 die roll shooting math of LB/CB vs. LB you will find it matters in only relatively few case...i.e., it is better to have the CB if you are shooting at SHC/HK/EHK/EHC/HC (as long as you are not skirmishing and at close range...hrm)...and 'same CPF effect' more or less otherwise.

If you intend to use CB in the 2nd rank, you will need to be able to 'not skirmish'...which would mean stakes, and as above 2HCW...OR it may mean you run some guys like that as HI or MI (close instead of loose)...who you may still arm with stakes!

But, then who would charge their mounted lancers into such a unit?

Frank
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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