Galatians

[Barritus]

In 279BC you can get Thessalian and Aenianian allies - Cv and Ps, with an optional ally general.

Now if you don't take the ally general, I assume you can spread these troops through the army as you wish. But the question arises, how do you calculate the number of Ps? It says 1-3 Ps per Leader and Nobles. Well, the Cv are the Nobles, but what's the "Leader"? The ally general makes sense if you use him. But what if you don't? Do you then get 1-3 Ps for the Galatian general whose command they're in? What if you split the Greeks between multiple commands (for example, one Noble per command)? Do you get 2-6 Ps (for Galatian leader plus Thessalian Cv)?

[MarcP]

This sounds like gamesmanship to me 

I would argue that you can only have Psiloi in a ratio to the Thessalian cavalry and Thessalian Leaders.

I use a Galatian army and extra Ps(S) would be useful, but I would not try to claim Thessalian followers for Galatian generals !

[LAP1964]

In 279BC you can get Thessalian and Aenianian allies - Cv and Ps, with an optional ally general.

Could be the 0-1 for the AG is an error?
As he has to command ALL and ONLY Thessalians and Aenianians.
Note also in the list fluff text "Followers must initially deploy with nobles"
LES

[Barritus]

This sounds like gamesmanship to me 

It depends on what part you mean. :-) I agree that including a Galatian general in the count for determining available numbers of Thessalian Ps sounds dodgy. But assigning the Thessalians directly to a Galatian command doesn't sound too bad to me. The list notes say that Thessalian and Aenianian nobles and followers joined the invasion of Greece in 279BC. But it doesn't say in what capacity, and I don't know what the primary sources say. I imagine it's possible they joined as individuals (or perhaps clan groups) rather than as a single formal allied contingent.

I would argue that you can only have Psiloi in a ratio to the Thessalian cavalry and Thessalian Leaders.

I agree. I just wish the list said that explicitly. And on a related note, I assume the mounted attendants the Galatians get at this time are in a ratio to the Galatian cavalry only, and not the chariots or Thessalian Cv.

I use a Galatian army and extra Ps(S) would be useful, but I would not try to claim Thessalian followers for Galatian generals !

I agree again.

Out of interest, how do you structure your Galatian army?

[Barritus]

In 279BC you can get Thessalian and Aenianian allies - Cv and Ps, with an optional ally general.

Could be the 0-1 for the AG is an error?
As he has to command ALL and ONLY Thessalians and Aenianians.

Entirely possible it's a mistake. I've put a related question in the Errata thread, and maybe someone will say something about it at some stage.

Note also in the list fluff text "Followers must initially deploy with nobles"
LES

Good point. What do you do if you flank march or delay the Greek command? Do you have to bring the command on in one group? (Or in multiple groups with Cv and Ps in each?

[LAP1964]

. What do you do if you flank march or delay the Greek command?

Hope you don't roll a 1,to start with.
LES

[LAP1964]

Note also in the list fluff text "Followers must initially deploy with nobles"

Good point. What do you do if you flank march or delay the Greek command? Do you have to bring the command on in one group? (Or in multiple groups with Cv and Ps in each?

I take it that "deploy with"means touching? If yes that going to lead to a formation of a Cv(O) with a Ps touching 3 sides,or would that be 4 sides,as the AG isn't listed as a "Noble" ? 
LES

[MarcP]

Barritus :- I'd agree that you should be able to organise the Thessalians into any command you like if you don't take the Ally General . Also agree that yoiur Psiloi are in proportion to the Thessalian nobles and (optional) Ally General only.

The followers is an interesting one. I'd argue that they should be in proportion to the cavalry (i.e. not the chariots or Thessalians), but the phrasing is Irr Cv(O).  This was a snag for me when I took the army to Roll Call. For the record I used it with Paionian allies in 275 BC, organised as follows :-

CinC Wb(S), 18 Wb(S), 2 Irr Cv(O) chariots, 2 Irr Cv(I) followers  + 2 Army Baggage - 28 ME

Sub  (Wb(S)), 18 Wb(S) + 2 Army Baggage - 24 ME

Sub (Cv(O) chariot), 6 Irr Cv(O), 7 Irr Cv(I), 6 Irr Ps(I) + 2 Army Baggage  22 ME

Paionian Ally General (Irr Ps(S)), 4 Irr Lh(O), 6 Irr Ax(O), 4 Irr Ps(S), 1 Irr Ps(O), 5 Irr Ps(I), 2 Command Baggage - 18 ME

You either win or lose with this army - no draws ....
 I lost to Indo-Greeks (stomped by elephants after I rolled high and had to deploy first)
, then beat a Han Chinese army, lost to Attalid Pergameme
 and beat Early Carthaginians

[MarcP]

If I played again, I'd swap 4  of the Ps(I) into the Subbies command, move 2 Wb(S) to the CinC and the 2 Irr Cv(I) in the C to the cavalry command.  This is because you never meet enough cavalry to make rear support useful and some manouvreable troops would be useful elsewhere.

The Followers are a pain, 2 Pips to manouvre, horribly vulnerable to Bw and as expensive to lose as Cv(O). Why are Gallic followers treated like this ? Followers of Knights are classed as being in the rear ranks  and this seems reasonable for Gauls as well. It is not as if Celtic armies are that effective ?