Medieval Tactics & Orbats

[nickdives]

Chaps,

I played my first game last week and have a few questions. The enemy billmen/men at arms were arrayed in 5 columns each 4 bases deep (5 columns wide) This does smack of the mobile Roman Chorts whizzing around and as far as I can see the only counter is to adopt the same formation and hope for a better die role. Shooting at them is ineffective, as is facing them in anything other but the same formation. Any thoughts?

Also why, in FOG, are the Lancastrians not allowed pike, reading around and looking at the Poleaxed source books there are a number of battles in which pikemen were present on the Lancastrian side.

Cheers

[grahambriggs]

Shooting at them can be effective. Troops only count their first three ranks for the "1 hit per x bases". So if you do one hit on a BG of 4 in column that will trigger a shooting test (you've done 1 hit per 3 bases).

A formation 5 bases wide and 4 deep would be very powerful to it's front. So work the flanks. Presumably your opponent has longbow there that your men at arms can chew through nicely. You may need to sacrifice a unit frontally against his juggernaut to make sure they don't do something nasty to you.

[peteratjet]

If the 5-column juggernaut was faced by a more conventional 6-base BG of bills, 2 deep, flanked by longbows, the outside columns would probably be shot to pieces on approach, then end up fighting 3-4 dice vs 6 in melee against the bows, assuming they expanded, and depending on the success of the shooting. Even a POA up, that's not a good siuation. Meanwhile the central 3 columns would be fighting a BG half their size on equal terms. On average, the defending BG does slightly better, as it can draw overall in melee and still defeat one of the attacking columns, and you are staking only 1 BG against 3 . I like those odds.

[hazelbark]

Agreed. It reminds me less of a mobile roman cohortt and more of people rounded about to be slaughtered and sold to the slave auctioneers.

I suspect a few more games as you get the game mechanics you will see how that is a weaker formation.

[david53]

Agreed. It reminds me less of a mobile roman cohortt and more of people rounded about to be slaughtered and sold to the slave auctioneers.

I suspect a few more games as you get the game mechanics you will see how that is a weaker formation.

A good game mechanic is do'nt fight it to its front take the flanks, by doing this you've a good chance at his Longbow.

[AlanYork]

The problem is the list which allows the multiple 4 base BGs of bill and therefore allows WOTR billmen to zip around like Roman cohorts. You shouldn't have to be devising tactics to deal with that in the first place.

I've brought this up in a previous topic so I won't go on at length about it here as it would be a little dull to repeat the debate and besides I don't want to hijack this topic, but to cut a long story short it turns out that the 4 man bill units are a "hangover" from the Hundred Years War lists.

I feel WOTR is one of the weaker FoG lists, put together sloppily and as an afterthought really. Apologies if that sounds harsh and over critical, that's not my intent. Frankly though, the Poleaxed ones would be much better as they are period specific and better researched.

[nikgaukroger]

I feel WOTR is one of the weaker FoG lists, put together sloppily and as an afterthought really. Apologies if that sounds harsh and over critical, that's not my intent. Frankly though, the Poleaxed ones would be much better as they are period specific and better researched.

Feel free to knock up some alternative ones and post them in the Player Designed Lists sub-forum with a bit of reasoning - it'd be useful to us if there should be any list revisions.

Go on, you know you want to - money where mouth is and all that

[AlanYork]

I feel WOTR is one of the weaker FoG lists, put together sloppily and as an afterthought really. Apologies if that sounds harsh and over critical, that's not my intent. Frankly though, the Poleaxed ones would be much better as they are period specific and better researched.

Feel free to knock up some alternative ones and post them in the Player Designed Lists sub-forum with a bit of reasoning - it'd be useful to us if there should be any list revisions.

Go on, you know you want to - money where mouth is and all that

I probably will at some point though I don't have a great deal of time currently, but to be going on with...

Bow to bill ratio doesn't look right to me, I'd increase the number of bills to make it 1 to 1 or thereabouts. WOTR battles were not decided by bowfire but by hand to hand combat. The Poleaxed lists are pretty much in agreement I believe.

Those multiple zippy 4 man units of bill, they would go. I'd put them into bigger, less maneuverable BGs of 6 to 8. WOTR battles were 3 big blocks of troops lumbering into each other after an exchange of longbow fire, not small Romanesque cohorts turning to flank, counter marching etc as they can do now.

Northern border spears. I'd like to see the justification for them being armed with spears as oposed to billmen. Let's assume this troop type was "lifted" from the DBM list (I'm not saying it was but they appear in both). There must have been a basis for this troop type in the DBM list but I can't find any source that says the Northerners were armed any differently to other English troops, just that they were "rougher".

That's enough to be going on with. I realise it's easy to criticise others but hope you feel that it's been backed up with some substance.

Regards
Alan

[nikgaukroger]

I feel WOTR is one of the weaker FoG lists, put together sloppily and as an afterthought really. Apologies if that sounds harsh and over critical, that's not my intent. Frankly though, the Poleaxed ones would be much better as they are period specific and better researched.

Feel free to knock up some alternative ones and post them in the Player Designed Lists sub-forum with a bit of reasoning - it'd be useful to us if there should be any list revisions.

Go on, you know you want to - money where mouth is and all that

I probably will at some point though I don't have a great deal of time currently, but to be going on with...

Bow to bill ratio doesn't look right to me, I'd increase the number of bills to make it 1 to 1 or thereabouts. WOTR battles were not decided by bowfire but by hand to hand combat. The Poleaxed lists are pretty much in agreement I believe.

Those multiple zippy 4 man units of bill, they would go. I'd put them into bigger, less maneuverable BGs of 6 to 8. WOTR battles were 3 big blocks of troops lumbering into each other after an exchange of longbow fire, not small Romanesque cohorts turning to flank, counter marching etc as they can do now.

Northern border spears. I'd like to see the justification for them being armed with spears as oposed to billmen. Let's assume this troop type was "lifted" from the DBM list (I'm not saying it was but they appear in both). There must have been a basis for this troop type in the DBM list but I can't find any source that says the Northerners were armed any differently to other English troops, just that they were "rougher".

That's enough to be going on with. I realise it's easy to criticise others but hope you feel that it's been backed up with some substance.

Regards
Alan

Alan, if you do get time to do a "proper" alternative it will be useful and appreciated

[philqw78]

Northern border spears. I'd like to see the justification for them being armed with spears as oposed to billmen. Let's assume this troop type was "lifted" from the DBM list (I'm not saying it was but they appear in both). There must have been a basis for this troop type in the DBM list but I can't find any source that says the Northerners were armed any differently to other English troops, just that they were "rougher".

Obviously taken from a book written by a shandy drinker.

[hazelbark]

The little 4 base HF units are not zippy in my view.

While a few to guard flanks might be handy, a larger unit with a general is often better.

I think it is one of the parts where people see the zippiness of MF drilled and try the same tactics.

So while I don't disagree with your history, i am not certain the ahistorical approach is the right oen for the army either.

[nickdives]

The little 4 base HF units are not zippy in my view.

While a few to guard flanks might be handy, a larger unit with a general is often better.

I think it is one of the parts where people see the zippiness of MF drilled and try the same tactics.

So while I don't disagree with your history, i am not certain the ahistorical approach is the right oen for the army either.

I think the problem is if you face 4 of these "zippys", all in one base wide columns with anything wider the danger is that your hits are spread about a number of units whereas all of theirs are concentrated on a single unit.

We are having a big 1,000 point scrap tomorrow, we shall see how it all works!

[rbodleyscott]

I think the problem is if you face 4 of these "zippys", all in one base wide columns with anything wider the danger is that your hits are spread about a number of units whereas all of theirs are concentrated on a single unit.

No doubt, but then what are all your other troops doing while they are so concentrated?

[hazelbark]

I think the problem is if you face 4 of these "zippys", all in one base wide columns with anything wider the danger is that your hits are spread about a number of units whereas all of theirs are concentrated on a single unit.

We are having a big 1,000 point scrap tomorrow, we shall see how it all works!

The problem being each single hit forces a test. So particularly the outsides of this column will be testing a LOT. The whole concept of shooting as a game tactic is after enough tests you will eventual fail some. Then those tend to get worse.

Not to mention this formation is exceedingly hard to break out of to engage an enemy. It feel impressive but its density isn't as helpful as surmised IMHO.