Heavy Foot in competitions

[DaiSho]

Hi All,

Geoff (a mate of mine) and I had a game of FoG last night which was thoroughly enjoyable.

Not sure how long it took, but I got to his place at 5:30, we had a bit of a chat and some dinner and then got into it. Were finished by 11:00.

I think we probably played about 4hours 30minutes all up.

We got what we called a 'decisive result' (in the sense that we could clearly see who had won the game) although in reality we probably needed at least another 30 minutes to get the final 'points' necessary to break one of the sides, and possibly even then wouldn't have managed to actually break one of the armies.

Geoff, I think, had about 14 BG's and I had 12.

At the time we called it, I had totally smashed 3 of them, and had myself received very light casualties myself. He had no centre at all, so I would have been able to (within 4 turns) have sacked his baggage. So, I'd have 8 out of 14 elements.

In that time I may have been able to manouver my battle line around to deal with the other heavies that were on the other side of some difficult terrain and get the required other points neccessary to get a 25:0 victory. No guarantees... I may have lost a BG or two, but it was all over bar the shouting.

Now, my reason for this post is that whilst this seemed to be a fairly relaxed game, we wouldn't have been able to play much quicker.


So, do we care that heavy foot armies aren't going to be particularly 'up there' in the scores for competition due to their necessity to take longer to complete a game?

Just opening it up for discussion.

Ian

[Scrumpy]

Depends on the scale and the tourney. I am guessing that HF armies do better at 25mm where they dominate more of the board, and I have found that they are very difficult to deal with in period themed games.

Last sunday I fought an Anglo-Danish army that was wall to wall armoured -os sp or - hw hw, a tough nut to crack for shoot & scoot armies. Especially when all the terrain falls on the outsides and does not break him up.

[expendablecinc]

Hi All,

....
So, do we care that heavy foot armies aren't going to be particularly 'up there' in the scores for competition due to their necessity to take longer to complete a game?

Just opening it up for discussion.

Ian

Dont se why not. Swiss (as an example) have won their share of comps and theres not much more than heavy foot in the entire army.

anthony

[AlanYork]

I think there is something in what you say, heavy foot are slower and therefore it will be harder to get big scores in competitions. I recently played in a 650 pt tournament in Birmingham where the table was 5 feet by 3 feet or something very similar. That certainly helped.

I like heavy infantry armies myself and I think that FoG has gone a long way to rebalance things from the DBM days where obscure cavalry armies seemed to win everything and armies that historically conquered the known world; Alexandrian Macedonian and Romans, were either skirmished out of it by two guys hurling rocks, rolled over by warband or ridden down in droves.

I used to quite like DBM tournaments to start with but as time progressed and I saw the only way to win was deploy my Macedonians with minimum pike and a "hollow centre" with maximum troops on the wings to defeat Javanese, Hawaiian, Sha To Turks, The Shinga Shanga Men of Dinga Danga or whatever the latest Tournament Tiger army was that particular month, well I got to thinking that it may be ok as a game but it isn't really WARgaming. Flying columns of pike on the wings was once suggested...cos Alexander used his pike like that didn't he...yeah, right......

Now IMO heavy infantry are worth having and putting pike in the middle, heavy cavalry on one wing and elephants or lighter cavalry on the other actually works. Even when I lose I don't feel like I was battling the rules as well as my opponent as I did in DBM.

Yes you probably do need a strong mounted arm if you want to get maximum points but at least you won't end up walking away thinking "what's the point?" after the might of Imperial Rome has been swept away by an army based on a coin or Alexander's phalanx spent all day being held up by a couple of Mountain Indian javelin throwers!!! FoG isn't perfect but it's certainly better than what we had. Us footsloggers will at least finish mid table now, if only we could say the same for York City FC!!!!

[nikgaukroger]

I've only played one (mainly) HF against HF game and although it didn't result in an army break I think if we both had more practice with the armies (first outing for both) it would have been quite possible.

With more mixed HF/MF types I've not seen any issues with finishing unless the players weren't really going for the win - e.g. at the IWF I finished 5 out of 6 games with the WotR including 2 games against essentially foot opponents.

[Phaze_of_the_Moon]

Once players are experienced and the metagame evolves, one shouldn't need maximum scores to win a tournament. Normal wins in the first few rounds then winning draws against one's rival should be good enough much of the time.

[nikgaukroger]

Already the case IMO - here at least.

[JCgoose]

It will be interesting too see what the big Aus tournament is like this year.

[Lycanthropic]

I recently entered a tournament with the Anglo-Danes, I was tempted to play Viking, but I really like the lightened huscarls and average armoured offensive spearmen. So I playtested the hell out of it and decided on Anglo-Danes with Viking ally. 3 TCs, 14 BGs. ALOT of spearmen, 1 superior 6+3 of Viking huscarls, and 3 MF Protected Superior Lightspear Sword.
Playstyle:-
Move fast, practice moving fast, time your practice games, if you take 15 mins to move, you're only going to get roughly 8 moves in a 3.5hr game, so move those fat fingers and only take 5 mins to move. When you command the tablewidth with undrilled impetuous foot, tactics are easy.......you have none.
Back to the tournament, Game 1 vs Foederate Roman, Dream matchups - The Danes are frothing at the mouth. Romans get initiative, throw down terrain and then realise not only are your rough terrain troops better, but the Protected Lancer Cav cannot get a flank on armoured spear. Maximum win (This opponent finished 5th).
Game 2 vs Dominate Roman swarm - The romans turn up with LH for Africa, only 3 legions and lots of armoured auxiliary foot. The Romans cannot commit, cannot shoot, and are pushed across the table. Draw. (This opponent finished 3rd)
Game 3 vs Dominate Roman swarm - More Romans! This time with no real legions, but alot more auxiliary foot who push through terrain like rabid bloodhounds and smashed the huscarls in the face. Loss (This opponent finished 1st)
Game 4 vs French Ordonnance - Knights and pike vs a shieldwall of armoured offensive spear. The armies met in the middle of the table halfway through the game, lots of dice were rolled, we both really should have had dice buckets. Win (This opponent finished 8th).
So the Danes finish 2nd!

[hammy]

My best result with a heavy foot army would be winning the Scottish doubles with Slave Revolt. That was however a 1000 point comp on 6 by 4 tables. My army had 68 HF and about 50 mob IIRC. Out of four games we broke our opponents in three and had a good winning draw against the other.

You need to be positive with heavy foot but if you are then you can win in the time limit.

[petedalby]

3rd place at the IWF went to a Later Anglo-Irish with plenty of Galloglaigh IIRC.

Pete

[dave_r]

1st place at Rome went to an army with plenty of Heavy Foot in it...

[DaiSho]

You need to be positive with heavy foot but if you are then you can win in the time limit.

No doubt this is part of my problem. The armies that I like the history and falvour of aren't the armies that fought the way that suits my style of play. I'm not an overly aggressive player. There will be times I am aggressive, but I'm more likely to make sure my flanks are secure and move slowly than go 'ahh stuff it' and charge into the fray.

The 'Horror Stories' thread is a good example of it sometimes being good to throw caution to the wind. Those stories prove that you can win, and win quickly, and so don't need to 'hang back' - get stuck in...

In fact, in the game which started this whole thread off, the heavy foot combat was over very quickly. If I'd pushed forward harder and quicker into the enemy heavy foot (and got the same result there as I did by delaying until the flanks were won) I would have beaten the enemy foot before the exposed flank could have been attacked. Having drilled hoplites I would have been able to turn quickly to deal with the flankers who were coming to deal revenge.

Don't get me wrong, I don't corner sit (despite what my 'friends' say), but I'm cautious rather than impetuous, and I think (especially in competition) this is not a good trait. We'll see what the new armies I'm creating come out like

Ian

[mellis1644]

You need to be positive with heavy foot but if you are then you can win in the time limit.

No doubt this is part of my problem. The armies that I like the history and falvour of aren't the armies that fought the way that suits my style of play. I'm not an overly aggressive player. There will be times I am aggressive, but I'm more likely to make sure my flanks are secure and move slowly than go 'ahh stuff it' and charge into the fray.

Ian

This is actually a good point and one which is sometimes overlooked. Many armies or army lists, need a certain style of play to be successful. Trying to use the wrong style, or not being able to play in that way will doom you. Some may come easier to you than others and some of it how much risk/reward there is. Sometimes it;s good to play out of your safety zone and see if it works - and laugh and add to the horror stories when it does not.

[hazelbark]

One of the things I like about FoG is that heavy foot battles can actually be interesting.

I think more themed competitions and games would be a good thing.