Allied commanders/commands

[Intothevalley]

In the new army books there are a number of lists where an allied general is compulsory e.g. gallic/galatian. I've previously steered clear of allied generals as in spite of them being cheaper it leads to complications e.g. in where to deploy certain battle groups (depending on whether they're allied or not), complications which my befuddled mind can well do without.

How do you use allied commanders and their troops and what do you use your allied commands for? Do you put all available hard-hitting troops with them and use them as a semi-expendable strike force (with the allied commander getting into combat), do you just give them ordinary troops that take their place in the line alongside standard non-allied troops, or do you have them as a flank march (and if so do you feel obliged to make them a field commander)? Or do you keep them out the way as much as possible/provide rear support, which seems a bit of a waste? How does this affect the army structure of the non-allied components? Is it worth taking an IC or not?

I'd be grateful for any insights/guidance on the above so thanks in advance!

[petedalby]

Great questions Chad and there will be no right or wrong answers. The generic answer is 'what is your army design trying to achieve?'

Some lists lend themselves to an ally with just 1 BG. For example when I used Ottoman Turks in V2 I had an IC with the main army but a Serb Ally TC who only had 1 BG of Knights with him. So his role was as a very simple strike force.

If the ally comes with a tasty BG but also brings some dross, the dross are quite good for boosting BG count and for providing rear support if that's all they are good for. Archers in a Dacian Ally list are a good example as although they're not compulsory they are cheap rear support for a 12 base BG of warriors and you still get 2 BGs of Falxmen. Probably needs to be a FC.

Generally speaking if you have a large or several allied commands there's less benefit to taking an IC. Still good for initiative but less troops to influence.

I'm not a fan of flank marches - I prefer to have the troops on the table - but I have seen plenty of players use an Allied FC command of up to 3 BGs specifically for flank marching purposes.

I've used WotR quite a bit and as a shooty army it benefits from having an IC. I've never used an ally option as I think it becomes too easy to pick on.

Hope that helps.

[philqw78]

An ally is useful with Gauls, he can have MF and the main army HF, or vice versa
Allies are useful if they give your army something they can't get otherwise

[Intothevalley]

Thanks for the advice. I can see the merits of taking an external ally especially if they bring some troop types not present in the main list. However it's the internal allies that are causing me a headache - especially if the troops available to them don't particularly add anything extra - the gallic example Phil refers to being one of the exceptions. I'll think some more!

Cheers!

[philqw78]

Internal allies are normally pointless

[Intothevalley]

Internal allies are normally pointless

Agreed, but now some lists have compulsory internal allies I have to think about how to use them!

[philqw78]

Sparingly