The Norman army 923-1040AD . . .

[stockwellpete]

I posted this before in the "Small armies in the game thread". I am just wondering if their list could be modified just a little bit to make them a bit more viable in multi-player and tournament play.

"The Normans (923-1040AD) are the pre-Norman conquest army that really carved out the Duchy of Normandy at the expense of its neighbours - and at the end of the period there was a lot of internal instability and civil war too.

One possible army pick (1200pts) gives you a very small army of 24 units that would really struggle in multi-player . . .
13 armoured lancers = 832pts
6 defensive shield wall = 216pts
1 mob = 15pts
4 missile skirmishers = 120pts

I think the Normans should be quite a tough army to play against really because they were a militarised society and they were very effective fighters. But the army here is not particularly good and on some terrain-heavy maps would be hopeless. I am wondering if there is anything that can be done to help them a bit. Just looking at how other rule sets and TT figure manufacturers deal with them and there seems to be some support for the idea of light cavalry (not light javelin light horse cavalry) as a troop type for the Normans. Maybe a couple more defensive spears (0/8 instead of 0/6) and one more light crossbowmen option (0/2 instead of 0/1)?

The dismounted lancers option in the Norman list is very expensive because they are 72pts a go and any army with a lot of them would only just top 20 units. You can dismount the cavalry at the start if you have picked them, but then you are only getting 240 men for 64pts instead of 480 men for 72pts (equivalent huscarl spear unit for purposes of comparison). The 240 man unit will only last for around 3 complete turns in melee against its 480 man equivalent so dismounting is really not a good idea."

I am interested in the extra cavalry type option but this may be a "resources" question rather than a historical one. There is a standard lancers unit with round shield in the editor that might do as "Norman cavalry", but I am not exactly sure when the kite shield became standard in Normandy. It was probably after 1000AD and this list goes up to 1040AD.

[rbodleyscott]

Well of course the kite shield came in part-way through the date range of that list, so we did not make a special kite shield model and split the list just to use it.

The post-1040 Knights will use kite shields, of course, and so another reason to use the round shield model for the earlier period was so they could be easily told apart from the later Knights.

[Athos1660]

I posted this before in the "Small armies in the game thread". I am just wondering if their list could be modified just a little bit to make them a bit more viable in multi-player and tournament play.

"The Normans (923-1040AD) are the pre-Norman conquest army that really carved out the Duchy of Normandy at the expense of its neighbours - and at the end of the period there was a lot of internal instability and civil war too.

One possible army pick (1200pts) gives you a very small army of 24 units that would really struggle in multi-player . . .
13 armoured lancers = 832pts
6 defensive shield wall = 216pts
1 mob = 15pts
4 missile skirmishers = 120pts

I think the Normans should be quite a tough army to play against really because they were a militarised society and they were very effective fighters. But the army here is not particularly good and on some terrain-heavy maps would be hopeless. I am wondering if there is anything that can be done to help them a bit. Just looking at how other rule sets and TT figure manufacturers deal with them and there seems to be some support for the idea of light cavalry (not light javelin light horse cavalry) as a troop type for the Normans. Maybe a couple more defensive spears (0/8 instead of 0/6) and one more light crossbowmen option (0/2 instead of 0/1)?

The dismounted lancers option in the Norman list is very expensive because they are 72pts a go and any army with a lot of them would only just top 20 units. You can dismount the cavalry at the start if you have picked them, but then you are only getting 240 men for 64pts instead of 480 men for 72pts (equivalent huscarl spear unit for purposes of comparison). The 240 man unit will only last for around 3 complete turns in melee against its 480 man equivalent so dismounting is really not a good idea."

I am interested in the extra cavalry type option but this may be a "resources" question rather than a historical one. There is a standard lancers unit with round shield in the editor that might do as "Norman cavalry", but I am not exactly sure when the kite shield became standard in Normandy. It was probably after 1000AD and this list goes up to 1040AD.

Compared for example to the French, the in-game Norman have an advantage in that they can field more max Armoured lancers. With Medium (1197 pts) :

Max Armoured lancers (dismountable)
- French : 14x 64 = 896
- Norman : 18x 64 = 1152

Max Dismounted Armoured Lancers
- French : 4x 72 =288 (+ some
- Norman : 10x 72 = 720

... while French can use more Light troops :

Max Massed Archers/Crossbowmen
- French : 3
- Norman : 3

Max LF :
- French : 7
- Norman : 4

Max LH
- French : 2
- Norman : 0

Normans seem to be kind of specialised in Armoured lancers with more HF/non-light Horses and fewer LF/LH.
I don't think that giving them additional light troops or defensive spears would be a good idea.
Otherwise both armies would be identical, provided the number of Armoured lancers were reduced in the Norman army.

I think the Normans should be quite a tough army to play against really because they were a militarised society and they were very effective fighters. But the army here is not particularly good and on some terrain-heavy maps would be hopeless.

I find them tough for the period and against Armies such as the French in SP.
And both armies prefer open terrains.

I don't know whether fewer available Light troops and more Heavy ones is a disadvantage.

Differences between army lists add flavour, diversity in army composition, which is nice from my pov.
However, I guess it is not the best thing for MP competitions. I understand that.

My 2 cent.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Balance is important, but only within the bounds of what we know about the armies historically. Ultimately, there are going to be armies that were strong historically that are not for even points tournament play. I am okay with that. It is impossible to balance the hundreds of lists perfectly, and there were quite a few historically successful armies that were "high points" armies, deploying smaller but more experienced/well armed forces. Not that I'm opposed to the small change proffered here, but it wouldn't be a huge deal to me if the Normans weren't tournament-strong. Look at all of the Steppe armies, for example. They're not tournament strong, despite their historical reputation.

[desicat]

In the same vein the L_Pyrrhic 274-272 BC Army has zero medium infantry, that can be quite crippling. Also no allies listed. Possibly add some Loose and/or Superior Warbands to the army since Gaulic Mercenaries are documented as accompanying his army into Macedonia and the Peloponnese (he had major issues with them throughout the campaign as well).

If not I would suggest the Gauls as allies. The Macedonians should be considered as well since he was the de facto ruler of Macedonia prior to his death.

[rbodleyscott]

In the same vein the L_Pyrrhic 274-272 BC Army has zero medium infantry, that can be quite crippling. Also no allies listed. Possibly add some Loose and/or Superior Warbands to the army since Gaulic Mercenaries are documented as accompanying his army into Macedonia and the Peloponnese (he had major issues with them throughout the campaign as well).

If not I would suggest the Gauls as allies. The Macedonians should be considered as well since he was the de facto ruler of Macedonia prior to his death.

Well they were 2,000 Gauls out of 20,000 infantry, and they are already in the list. There is no historical reason why they should be Loose Order, nor an ally contingent.

However, it seems unlikely that he would not hire any mainland Greek mercenaries, and they would be thureophoroi at this date, so I will add some to the list.