Army based on light troops

[lorenzomele]

I would like to paint a new army having as core troops Ax/Ps and some mounted, and having low Ag to let light foot use difficult terrain.
I am examining Thracians, Ancient Spanish and Numidians.
Anybody had experience using these or a similar army?

[LAP1964]

I think you might have to wait a while for an answer.So people can get used to Ax pursuing in V2. Maybe you could look at something like the Lysimachid,lots of Ax+some nice support troops.
LES

[lorenzomele]

Some week ago I played a campaign based on 69d.C. roman civil war. All armies were EIR, and RAxS were used in large numbers.
The campaign was structured with 2 levels, we started as provincial legati in the civil war, and eliminated players were reintroduced to fight barbarian raids along the borders. So I played different opponents in my 4 games: 2 vs EIR, one vs Chatti and the last vs Dacians. I was appalled to see how RAxS are weak now. The complulsory follow up vs foot is deadly. Even supported RAxS now are in danger when facing warbands.
This is the reason I prefer larger number of PsS now instead of AxS.

[LAP1964]

So do you think Ax are going the way of the dodo,in DBMM ? :'(
LES

[lorenzomele]

Mixed feelings about AxS. In good going I saw them die horribly to Pikes Sp and Bd.

[additz]

Why have Ax to pursue in V2? What is the reason for this rule-change?

additz

[lorenzomele]

Don't know, I guess to represent a more dynamic combat style, not tied by rigid formation keeping.

[Barritus]

Lorenzo

In DBM days I had some success with an Aitolian Hellenistic Greek army. The first time I took it was in a 350 point competition with one army list allowed. With 0 Aggression and lots of compulsory terrain I had an army style which most opponents had trouble with. Its main drawback was having only ally generals.

Command 1: Some hoplites, artillery, LH and Ps; Command 2: A few hoplites, LH and artillery, and more Ps; Command 3: Some Ax (S), LH and Ps; Command 4: a few LH and Ps. Command 4 always flank marched.

Game 1 v Thracian: A draw as opponent was too cautious and my own attacks developed only slowly.
Game 2 v Ottoman Turk: Both on-board allies were unreliable, and opponent was able to surround and destroy them, while C-in-C and flank march took down opponent's C-in-C's command;
Game 3 v Scots Common: I broke his small French ally command, then whittled down his Pk with artillery, finally attacking and breaking through the Pk with my Sp.
Game 4 v Late Imperial Roman: I broke up his block of Wb and Art (F) with Ps on the flank, while the Sp held his Kn (X) and (F) for another win.
Game 5 v Beja: Perfect terrain ruined by three unreliable allies and bad tactics on my part, although I came close to breaking a command.
Game 6 v Khazar: I was the invader on a table with effectively no terrain, facing an all-mounted army, yet I again came close to breaking a command.

Since then, I've gradually increased the amount of heavy infantry at the expense of light troops. This is mostly because of larger army sizes (400+ AP). Higher proportions of light troops seem to work much better with smaller armies - I also did well with a Ps-heavy version of the army in a 300 point competition.

My main concern with the idea is the difficulty of getting enough terrain onto the table. I find it hard to get a lot of terrain onto a DBMM table, compared with DBM. As a result, Ax and Ps have more difficulty projecting their power across the table.

So I suppose all this goes to say that Aitolian Hellenistic Greeks are another army to consider, but it's an idea which works best with smaller armies, say, 350 points or less.

[LawrenceG]

I would like to paint a new army having as core troops Ax/Ps and some mounted, and having low Ag to let light foot use difficult terrain.
I am examining Thracians, Ancient Spanish and Numidians.
Anybody had experience using these or a similar army?

I've used Scots Irish - Ax(O), Ps(I) and Cv(O) chariots.

I learned a few lessons with it at the Munster Open http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic=459.0



I improved the army design and did well in several games at Britcon.

Britcon 2009 2009-08-14 1 Scots-Irish  1 - 24 David Thompson (OTA)
Britcon 2009 2009-08-14 2 Scots-Irish  23 - 2 Tony Dennis  (East Franks with a lot of Kn)
Britcon 2009 2009-08-14 3 Scots-Irish  13 - 12 Jeavon Hood (Neo-Assyrian Empire )
Britcon 2009 2009-08-14 4 Scots-Irish  14 - 11 Donal Coghlan (THematic Byz)
Britcon 2009 2009-08-14 5 Scots-Irish  4 - 21 Stephen Brittain (Seljuq Turk)
Britcon 2009 2009-08-14 6 Scots-Irish  25 - 0 Tom Worden (Ghaznavid)


The two defeats were due to silly mistakes on my part. I would say that a brilliant general is essential to get the flank march on quickly. The flank march is necessary because you can't take on most opponents frontally. I've not tried it in 2.0. I think it would still work, but the new environment of plentiful Bw(S)/Bd(S) that can fight in terrain could make things harder compared to the mostly Cv(S) opponents of the past.

I've not found it a problem getting terrain onto the table. A large rough or difficult hill reaches well into the middle and can't really be stopped.

[Tim Child]

I don't have any armies based on mass Ax (I note the forthcoming possibility for enormous numbers of Irr Ax(I) and Ps(O) in the Palaiolgians, but taking them means losing all the other stuff I have always regarded as obligatory, such as the Serbians).  However, my Epirote Byzantines and my Later Mycenaeans always have a lot of Ps - the Trojans can have up to 50 Ps(I), (O) and (S), and they all have a role to play.  En masse, even Ps(I) can hold against opponents in DGo, and are always a threat out wide or wherever the enemy lines can be stretched to form a gap.  I find them very effective in holding back massed foot until I am ready for them, and it can be quite demoralising for the enemy player who realises that he has spent 10-12 Ps, and yet he hasn't really scratched the command (but don't, as I did in a practice game, then lose the general...)  If nothing else, they can be a big reserve line behind the other fighting troops, as a cheap element to throw in to prevent the enemy turning on the flank of an internal gap.

Ps(O) will support other Ps, so a second rank behind Ps(S), or even Ps(I), gives you a really good chance against enemy Ps, LH(I/F) or as a delaying force against LH(O/S).

I like Ps(S) a lot - they can be surprisingly deadly and surprisingly resilient.  However, they are brittle, as 2 is a low starting point, and in their own bound (when the don't get the (S) defensively) a low combat-dice roll will see them as dead as a Ps(O) would be.

For me, the art with massed Ps is to remember that you have a lot of numbers on your side, and try to use that to get outside small enemy groups.  4 enemy Cv, for example, can only be 4 wide, and cost as much as 14 Ps(O).  It only takes 1 or 2 Ps(O) to get behind the Cv and the game gets very interesting indeed.  But over-commit with the Ps and suddenly those 4 Cv can be killing 2ME per bound...  It's often a situation where you toy and play with the enemy - threat and counter, dog and pounce - until one side or the other decides that the situation has to be brought to a head.

Tim Child

[william]

I have used Thracians, nice list, Kn(I) wedge filler helps ME count, some Lh(O) and loads and I mean loads of (S) foot, won a few games but you will take a lot of punishment.

I like the look of Spanish options, though the regular option has to many Ps(S) to be really usefull, a fun list with expendables looks a serious possibility.

Compulsory follow ups is a downer but Irr Ax(S) are reasonably cheap so they will be big armies. Good thing as well with these two armies they can be part of quite a few other armies as mercenaries or allies.

I have had some success with a Patrician Roman army, taken in Illyria it does not have to have any compulsory mounted. Huge army with minimum blades, 6 Irr Lh(S) and 3 generals gives room for rakes of regular and irregular Ax(S), both of which can be supported by baulks of Reg Ps(O), enough for deep formations or squeezing into terrian, mounted hate it and foot stuggle against it, it was better without pursuits and now will take a lot of casualties but was fun all the same.

I think though that Irr light troops will/do not work well in difficult terrian, paying irregular ineptness hurts them something horribly and that is what was nice about this Patsies list, enough Regulars to do nasty things in DGo.

A Dalami list would also look interesting, again with a mix of supported regulars and Irregulars, Cv(S) filler and anice elephant to play with too. Something to convert my Ghurid Ax(X) into 

William

[LAP1964]

Patrician Roman army,   irregular Ax(S), which can be supported by baulks of Reg Ps(O),

Is this what most think,or has it been confirmed by Phil somewhere?
LES 

[Swampster]

I've though about trying Sertorius's Lusitanians.
It has the option of a Roman ally to hold the low ground while the regular Ps swarm the wooded hills.

[Tangent]

I use Albanians bk4 with mixed results. LhO and BwI/PsO are the mainstay. Prefer Ps as BwI proved ineffective. Mixed results due to bad composition i suspect. You can mix Ax, Ps and Lh but best to keep foot together separate from Lh especially as they are irr. If you do use foot with mtd try using ambush and ut them somewhere useful. Ag 1 you can have 2 of them and get them in opponants half of table. Theoretically can use up to 48 Ps/BwI , 12 Ax and  56 Lh. I don't like to take so many since a good player can use terrain especially water features to create a thermopylai affect to take away the advantage of numbers and manouverability. This happened in one game against 100YW English and was forced to fight frontally with disastrous results