Later Seleucid Power Version

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue May 14, 2013 9:09 am

I recently played in a restricted (to the Campaigns of Hannibal) competition at Campaign. 800 point 3 hour games against lots of Pike and impact foot. With only three hours it seemed that there would be time for the initial clash and a bit of exploitation, but no long end game. So I decided to maximise impact So I could win a head to head clash. Only three units of pike so each could have a general. The army (in deployment order):

2x6 poor sling
8 poor mob
4 poor LHG, LtSp, jav
2x8 sup pike
12 avg pike
2 scythed chariots
2 elephants
4 drilled sup cataphracts
2 scythed chariots
2 elephants
2 x 4 drilled sup cataphracts
4xTCs

As it turned out my standard deployment was to lead with the superior pikes with 4 elephants on one side and the average pike on the other. Cataphracts on one flank or split. Chariots with one BG rear supporting the elephants. All the other troops really to distract the enemy.

Results were:

1. Vs Dave "I give up " Ruddock with Late Seleucid. Dave went for 6 8s of pike, 6 armoured offensive spear MF and 6 Galatian warband (in column to get past terrain) plus a few cataphracts and support troops. They came forward in a line whereas we echeloned forwards with the elephants and superior pike. The galatians charged in column without orders and were in turn hit by elephants. The other elephants and a file of superior pike hit the MF and the pike lines closed. The MF didn't like this one bit - two bases lost at impact and fragmented and then their general died which routed them. The Galatians saw that and disrupted and the elephants ground them into the dirt. I also edged the pike on pike combat and killed another general in a cataphract clash. 90 minutes in ith his pike line crumbling and elephants about to charge the pike flank Dave conceded. 25-0

2. vs Clive Holland Later Macedonian. Clive had 2 x 6 MF, about 6 pike units and a BG of 8 Galatians plus 3 BGs of superior cavalry. Looked quite good for us as the MF and cavalry had nothing they wanted to fight in the open. However the terrain gave a gap into which the heavy foot went while either side of them was uneven so a MF unit in each and two cavalry in reserve. We were able to crunch one of the MF between pike and catapracts in the terrain and got lucky in the gap - one of my pikes charged without orders into a solid line of pikes , won the impact and then ground down a unit despite overlaps. Also the elephants broke through some average pike frontally. All a bit lucky for a small win.

3. Vs Attalid Pergamene run by guest general Dave Handley (James hamilton had put the list together but they were short a team member). 2x8 galatians and 2 elephants were the power troops. 2x8 drilled MF, some superior skirmishers and some decent LH and Cav rounded it out. The centre of 8 Galatians and 8 MF plus 4 cavalry held out against superior pike and elephants and cats for long enough that the average pike were hit front and flank (2 pike units gone) and the camp and mob died. 11-9 loss.

4. vs Gallic, Peter Card. The Gauls had 1 unit of LF, 3 of cavalry and the rest warband. The warband really didn't like the elephant/cataphract/pike combo and since I had more skirmishers couldn't slow them down enough to get in terrain or envelope flanks. Hence they had to take them on frontally. Initial success in taking out an elephant BG didn't continue and elephants and cataphracts chewed through two units of warband whilst the pikes went straight through a HF/Cav ally (ally general died at impact) to take out the army 22-3.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Wed May 15, 2013 8:53 pm

Did the scythed chariots get to do much? They are fun to think about, but I never have had the stones to actually run them.

Marc

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Thu May 16, 2013 8:36 am

babyshark wrote:Did the scythed chariots get to do much? They are fun to think about, but I never have had the stones to actually run them.

Marc

Yes they were good value. One unit was rear support to elephants most of the time. The other a threat out on the flank. The flank threat guy was useful in all 4 games in combination with my other troops - they drew off an extra enemy unit from the centre - not bad for a 30 point unit you don't mind losing. I found that keeping them alive as a threat rather than just throwing them in was the key.

kevinj · Post by **kevinj** » Thu May 16, 2013 1:35 pm

Scythed Chariots can provide rear support? That sounds like an erratum waiting to happen.

mbsparta · Post by **mbsparta** » Thu May 16, 2013 1:37 pm

We have changed to using 12 stand pike BGs. 8's are just too brittle. The Seleucid army is a fun army to play ... lots of options, cool units and great fodder for the Scipio brothers to beat up on.

We always use scythed chariots. The models are just too pretty to leave in the box. We have never used them as rear support????

Sounds like you had some fun games.

Mike B

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu May 16, 2013 6:02 pm

It is the worst part of competetive gaming. Finding a better why to use troops: one that's not what they were originally designed for and not what the rules writers expected.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Thu May 16, 2013 7:34 pm

philqw78 wrote:It is the worst part of competetive gaming. Finding a better why to use troops: one that's not what they were originally designed for and not what the rules writers expected.

Yes and no, Phil. The other side of that is that the game would be awfully static if everything were only ever done the way they did it in the good old days. We do try to improve on the performance of the historical examples.

Marc

quackstheking · Post by **quackstheking** » Fri May 17, 2013 4:46 am

I'm not sure how supported I'd feel, if the unit behind me was men in chariots with long spiky things coming out of their wheels - I think I'd want them to move off!

Don

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Fri May 17, 2013 8:48 am

kevinj wrote:Scythed Chariots can provide rear support? That sounds like an erratum waiting to happen.

On the other hand, it's perhaps more surprising that elephants would worry about rear support at all. Would it matter much what type of chariot was moving up behind me so I feel safer?

I've yet to play a rule set where scythed chariots play historically.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri May 17, 2013 9:27 am

babyshark wrote:
philqw78 wrote:It is the worst part of competetive gaming. Finding a better why to use troops: one that's not what they were originally designed for and not what the rules writers expected.
Yes and no, Phil. The other side of that is that the game would be awfully static if everything were only ever done the way they did it in the good old days. We do try to improve on the performance of the historical examples.

Marc

Exactly, its also one of the good bits (for competetive games) because it sets the grey matter working on how to use such things.

mbsparta · Post by **mbsparta** » Fri May 17, 2013 3:15 pm

I fail to see how using scythed chariots in our games in any manner other than their intended historical use is a positive for historical gaming in any setting. Why not use that "grey matter" to try to get the most out of them using them as they were used historically?? There in lies the real "art" of historical gaming.

Mike B

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri May 17, 2013 4:28 pm

But most historical battles were decided before they even started, at deployment or even before that.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Mon May 20, 2013 8:59 am

mbsparta wrote:I fail to see how using scythed chariots in our games in any manner other than their intended historical use is a positive for historical gaming in any setting. Why not use that "grey matter" to try to get the most out of them using them as they were used historically?? There in lies the real "art" of historical gaming.

Mike B

I think there is a confusion of roles here. It's the role of the rules authors to create a simulation of reality. It's the role of the players the get the most out of the simulation. There is historical precedent for generals using troops other than their intended historiacal use. e.g. Hannibal who got his Gallic troops to behave in a most un-Gallic way.

kevinj · Post by **kevinj** » Mon May 20, 2013 9:17 am

How you play is very much your own choice. Competitive play will encourage people to try to extract the maximum they can from the rules and is likely to uncover situations that were not envisaged by the authors. Many of us have done this in the past but now I'm happier if these loopholes are closed once they become apparent.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Mon May 20, 2013 3:12 pm

This isn't exactly new

RJC has been complaining about scythed chariots being able to count for rear support for probably 4 years now, i.e. as long as I have been involved with FoG. and perhpas longer!

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Mon May 20, 2013 9:29 pm

Maybe Scythed Chariots should only be able to give rear support in a WWII Soviet army.

DrQuahog · Post by **DrQuahog** » Fri May 24, 2013 2:50 am

quackstheking wrote:I'm not sure how supported I'd feel, if the unit behind me was men in chariots with long spiky things coming out of their wheels - I think I'd want them to move off!

Don

Well, if the purpose of rear support is to keep you from thinking about turning around and running away....

Later Seleucid Power Version

Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version

Re: Later Seleucid Power Version