Post by ashimbabbar on Dec 9, 2023 1:01:40 GMT
A now-defunct and disappeared site
had proposed a few new troop types in HOTT, those that struck me as interesting were those with « Large » in their name – the Large Warband ( LWb ) and Large Spear/Phalanx ( LSp ).
Basically they’re stands worth 3AP, twice their normal counterparts’ depth and 1 factor stronger.
Evidently they’re meant to be as strong as supported units but cheaper ( 3AP instead of 4 ) at the cost of flexibility.
The author saw the LWb as an agressive troop of large humanoids but not large enough to justify rating them as Behemoths – giving Bugbears, Gnolls and Half-Ogres as examples. I myself would add the elite wedge-arrayed germanic barbarians.
Now for a rant you may freely skip : I have seen barbarian wedges in some army lists rated as Behemoths, and really I can’t find words strong enough to express how stupid it is. Now let us understand each other – if you want a german barbarian army with Behemoths that’s fine. Victor Hugo in his travelogue Le Rhin mentions huge auroch-drawn german war-chariots so give them that, give them jotun giants, wingless dragons, animated trees, undead mammoths, give them giant robots if you feel like it – but don’t expect me to have guys equipped exactly the same as the Warbands behave as Behemoths that bat around the Knights who trample the others and are stymied by the Spears the others drive into the ground. I'd sooner give up the game.
Rant over.
To quote the author
• Foot type
• 300p move
• no BGo penalty
• +4 vs Foot, +4 vs Other (like supported Wb)
• Base size twice the depth of a single Warband element
• combat results (positive and negative) like Warband
• impetuous followup (like Warband)
• no second-rank support
• 3pt element cost
The underlying concept is an element with a built-in second-rank support that cannot be detached.� Double-based Wb that cannot unstuck, in essence.
In addition, note that there are few viable 3pt elements in the rules.� This adds another useful one without much significant change in the game itself.
This seems a balanced suggestion.� 3-pt elements are necessarily numbers-limited by the rules, and the advantages of combat power over normal Warband in two ranks are offset by usual flexibility disadvantage � frontage versus depth � and the fact the (virtual) rear rank dies when the front dies to shooting.
As to the LSp, to quote the author
This is a similar idea to LWb; a very tough, static foot type based on the movement, combat factors and combat results of double-ranked spear.� This allows representation of 17th century Spanish Tercios, dense pike blocks in Macedonian or Later Swiss armies, and also allows the representation of groups of figures that are large and tough, but not so large as to work as Behemoths, but fight in a conservative, static manner (rather than aggressively like LWb).
• Foot type
• 200p move
• BGo penalty same as Spear
• +5 vs Foot, +5 vs Other ( same as supported spear)
• Base size twice the depth of a single Spear element
• combat results (positive and negative) like Spear
• no second-rank support
• 3pt element cost
The underlying concept is an element with a built-in second-rank support that cannot be detached.� Double-based Sp, in essence.
In addition, note that there are few viable 3pt elements in the rules.� This adds another without much change in the rules.
This seems a balanced suggestion.� 3-pt elements are necessarily numbers-limited by the rules, and the advantages of combat power over normal Spear in two ranks are offset by usual flexibility disadvantage � frontage versus depth � and the fact the (virtual) rear rank dies when the front dies to shooting.
MY OPINION
• I don’t think the Large Warband is a good idea as it drives most every other Foot type into the ground, so if it was allowed there would be an inflation of armies with LWb and of LWb-killer armies with Knights and Behemoths. And LWb armies designed to counter the LWb-killers and…
So I would only accept it for paired lists.
Ye Example: the battle of Argentoratum
Cæsar Julian - not yet emperor Julian the Apostate - faced an invasion by a coalition of the Alamanni in the neighborhood of Strasbourg which was called Argentoratum at the time. He had 13.000 men and the invaders were anywhere between 15.000 and 35.000.
What I find rather charming is that the bulk of the Alamanni wouldn't fight unless their kings fought on foot - they wanted to make sure they wouldn't merrily ride away in case of defeat.
THE ROMANS
. Blade General: Julian with the Cornuti elite regiment
. 5 Blades
. 3 Shooters: bowmen
. 2 Riders: 1 stand classical romans, 1 stand horse archers
. 1 Knight: clibanarii
X
THE ALAMANNI
. LWb General
. 2 LWb
. 6 Hordes
. 4 Riders
. 1 Lurker: 2.000 Alamanni in ambush
• I’d be less radical about the Large Spears/Phalanx, I’d say they make a spear-based army a more interesting proposition, so they might be included in lists by general agreement.
Ye Example: the battle of Flodden ( taken from the fine book by Niall Barr )
1512-1513 saw an alliance of France, Scotland and a few Italian states get overall worsted by an alliance of Spain ( including Naples ), England and Empire.
King James IV of Scotland seems to have been a man with very bad luck.
So. With French technical advice and support, he had modernized his army, making it a mostly pike-armed force with heavy siege artillery, with which artillery he took Berwick. He took it and he meant to keep it so when a hastily-mustered English army marched against him he prepared for battle.
He entrenched himself on a hill so the English would have to attack uphill while being pounded by his guns. Only, they were not quite so obliging – they went for the opposite side of the hill. He managed to shift his army in time but it’s then things took a sour turn – although the English army was smaller than his and so outdated it looked like something out of the War of the Roses ( the modern troops were with Henry VIII waging an ultimately futile campaign in France ) they had brought cutting-edge field artillery that could do a number on his troops while his far slower-firing siege guns couldn’t fire straight at the English from the top of the hill. It meant he either had to retreat and forget about Berwick or else go down the hillside under artillery fire into a valley and then attack the English uphill…
That’s what he did. And would you believe his left wing did manage to punch through the English right and rout them ?
And would you believe it just stood there afterward watching the rest of the battle unconcernedly ?
If that’s not being dogged by bad luck…
THE ENGLISH
. Blade general : billmen ( both armoured knights on foot and less well-protected men-at-ams ) led by Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey
. 3 Blades : more billmen
. 4 Shooters : longbowmen
. 2 Artilleries : light field cannons
. 1 Rider : border reivers
X
THE SCOTS
. Large Spear General : king James IV leading ordered pikes ( the first ranks being armoured knights )
. 3 Large Spears : more pike in good order
. 4 Spears : pikes disordered by all the manœuvering under cannon fire
. 2 Warbands : highlanders
So, what is your opinion ?
Ye Example: the battle of Flodden ( taken from the fine book by Niall Barr )
1512-1513 saw an alliance of France, Scotland and a few Italian states get overall worsted by an alliance of Spain ( including Naples ), England and Empire.
King James IV of Scotland seems to have been a man with very bad luck.
So. With French technical advice and support, he had modernized his army, making it a mostly pike-armed force with heavy siege artillery, with which artillery he took Berwick. He took it and he meant to keep it so when a hastily-mustered English army marched against him he prepared for battle.
He entrenched himself on a hill so the English would have to attack uphill while being pounded by his guns. Only, they were not quite so obliging – they went for the opposite side of the hill. He managed to shift his army in time but it’s then things took a sour turn – although the English army was smaller than his and so outdated it looked like something out of the War of the Roses ( the modern troops were with Henry VIII waging an ultimately futile campaign in France ) they had brought cutting-edge field artillery that could do a number on his troops while his far slower-firing siege guns couldn’t fire straight at the English from the top of the hill. It meant he either had to retreat and forget about Berwick or else go down the hillside under artillery fire into a valley and then attack the English uphill…
That’s what he did. And would you believe his left wing did manage to punch through the English right and rout them ?
And would you believe it just stood there afterward watching the rest of the battle unconcernedly ?
If that’s not being dogged by bad luck…
THE ENGLISH
. Blade general : billmen ( both armoured knights on foot and less well-protected men-at-ams ) led by Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey
. 3 Blades : more billmen
. 4 Shooters : longbowmen
. 2 Artilleries : light field cannons
. 1 Rider : border reivers
X
THE SCOTS
. Large Spear General : king James IV leading ordered pikes ( the first ranks being armoured knights )
. 3 Large Spears : more pike in good order
. 4 Spears : pikes disordered by all the manœuvering under cannon fire
. 2 Warbands : highlanders
So, what is your opinion ?
