pyrrhic list question
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
pyrrhic list question
I just noticed this the minimum cavalry in a early pyrrhic list is 8 heavy cav .When comparied to other hellenistic / greek lists it is one of the highest minimums allowed is this correct ? It makes a 650 pts list very problematic 136pts in cavalry is a big chunk of points . is this a typo ? just asking
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: pyrrhic list question
Nopyrrhus wrote:is this a typo ?
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
I cannot recall the thinking exactly. Probably to ensure that the army contains both lancers and light spear cavalry in the earlier period. And of course the minimum normal Cavalry BG size is 4. The overall total minima do not exceed the normal total minima for a list.pyrrhus wrote:why so much cav as a minimum?
I would have to respectfully disgree with you , but I can see how your hands were tied by the minimum of 4 stands for cav . Just as note in the alexander list not even the thessalians have a minia of 4 they are totaly optional which seems strange as they were at almost every major battle . I am taking them any way just wanted to know your thoughts
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Don't worry about it - the chances of getting complete agreement on something as wooly as army lists is nilpyrrhus wrote:I would have to respectfully disgree with you ,
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:34 pm
- Location: Welsh Marches
Unfortunately army lists can only be a guide, and their intention is merely to give people a guide. It is difficult to agree on them, and it's a shame that so much store is necessarily set in them for the purposes of competitions or anachronistic encounters (which appears to dominate the hobby).
In the case of Pyrrhus he was an ambitious and capable warrior king whose country lacked resources. Consequently he was forever looking for power bases to further his ambitions. That goes some way to explaining his strategy and adventures where he appears to chop and change and be inconstant. As a result his armies were very varied in nature, possibly consisting entirely of Greek mercenaries drilled as phalangites when he returned to Italy from Sicily. No army list has ever been satisfactory with regard to Pyrrhus as far as I can see. What at least this one does is to provide "a taste" of the Epirot king's forces, unfortunately it is not a very satisfactory one from my point of view.
One solution I have found is to research an army such as Pyrrhus' and look for a similar army list that might be used to give a fair approximation of it. If you look at the Ptolemaic Egyptian and the Early Successor lists you may well find that you can design a satisfactory "Pyrrhic" wargames army. I have.
Unfortunately that means that your army will not be recorded as "Pyrrhic" in any competition, but at least you'll know what it was supposed to be.
In the case of Pyrrhus he was an ambitious and capable warrior king whose country lacked resources. Consequently he was forever looking for power bases to further his ambitions. That goes some way to explaining his strategy and adventures where he appears to chop and change and be inconstant. As a result his armies were very varied in nature, possibly consisting entirely of Greek mercenaries drilled as phalangites when he returned to Italy from Sicily. No army list has ever been satisfactory with regard to Pyrrhus as far as I can see. What at least this one does is to provide "a taste" of the Epirot king's forces, unfortunately it is not a very satisfactory one from my point of view.
One solution I have found is to research an army such as Pyrrhus' and look for a similar army list that might be used to give a fair approximation of it. If you look at the Ptolemaic Egyptian and the Early Successor lists you may well find that you can design a satisfactory "Pyrrhic" wargames army. I have.
Unfortunately that means that your army will not be recorded as "Pyrrhic" in any competition, but at least you'll know what it was supposed to be.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld