|
Allies
Jul 9, 2016 20:59:44 GMT
Post by ammianus on Jul 9, 2016 20:59:44 GMT
I use a variety of Allies. For example, with my Patrician Romans I generally add a CV & 2 WBs (generic Germanic).
|
|
|
Allies
Sept 1, 2016 8:36:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by Haardrada on Sept 1, 2016 8:36:36 GMT
I think it is worth checking what allies your armies are allowed and noting what allied elements you could swap with your existing army.Recently I found I could change my II/38a Hsuing nu in several different ways. Allies II/21a Chiang and Ti offer an extra Cav element plus either 3 Aux (largest type)more 3/4 Aux or Bw or additional Ps options. and Allies II/41a Western Han offer a Kn (Chariot) or Cav element plus 8cb/4cb (largest type)more 8cb/4cb or Aux,Hd,Art or more Cav or Lh.
The obvious elements to drop from the Hsuing nu list are 2/3 Lh or the Ps.
With further reading I've noticed a very potent allied force for the III/64b Ghaznavids., the Rajput allies could add more ellies (giving you up to 4)but I think that would be too much of a pip drain.But adding 2 Kn and 1 3bw/bd could be interesting, but the question is which 3 elements to loose? 1× Cav/El(Gen), 3 Cav,1Lh/3pk,1 Lh, 2 Sp/4bw,1 3bd/3wb and 2 3bw.
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 24, 2016 22:13:34 GMT
I take a couple of South Welsh 3Lb and the compulsory South Wales Gen (cav) to give a bit of firepower to my North Welsh - although, with the drain on pips, not sure it is worth it! Simon That's my plan too. On the flank the PIP cost is less.
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Sept 24, 2016 22:16:15 GMT
I knew that III/40b ally was common, but I thought there was one list that could have a III/40a ally. On checking this morning I can't find it. Looks like I misread it previously. I'm planning on using them - two 4Bd and a 4Bw is a useful block of troops.
|
|
|
Allies
Nov 29, 2016 14:14:12 GMT
Post by timurilank on Nov 29, 2016 14:14:12 GMT
Two Allies.
I am wondering if anyone has any experience using the two allied contingents option in a game?
Of the 4th/5th c. barbarian armies I am currently painting, these may field two allied contingents.
The early Visigoths (II/65b) can have both Carpi (II/52) and Greuthingi (II/67b). Early Vandals (II/66) can have both Alan (II/58) and Suevi (II/72c).
|
|
|
Allies
Nov 30, 2016 9:07:17 GMT
Post by vodnik on Nov 30, 2016 9:07:17 GMT
...sometime 2/73 Bavarians fought with 3/13 Avar allies against Franks or Slavs:
|
|
|
Allies
Nov 30, 2016 10:06:15 GMT
Post by timurilank on Nov 30, 2016 10:06:15 GMT
...sometime 2/73 Bavarians fought with 3/13 Avar allies against Franks or Slavs: This is true.
In the example I gave, an early Vandal army could field two allies for the same battle. This would require four Vandal elements to be replaced by for example:
Alans (1 x LH(g), 1 x LH) Suevi (1 x Cv(g), 1 x 4Wb)
This may prove interesting in a campaign.
|
|
|
Allies
Dec 1, 2016 9:55:10 GMT
Post by twrnz on Dec 1, 2016 9:55:10 GMT
Two Allies.
I am wondering if anyone has any experience using the two allied contingents option in a game?
Only in historical refights involving hoplites where I was trying to model the assembly of allied contingents. I found the PIP penalty worked well and on a number of occasions meant the allies were not as enthusiastic. But then perhaps on the day I was rolling lower than normal.
|
|
|
Allies
Dec 1, 2016 12:35:08 GMT
Post by timurilank on Dec 1, 2016 12:35:08 GMT
Two Allies.
I am wondering if anyone has any experience using the two allied contingents option in a game?
Only in historical refights involving hoplites where I was trying to model the assembly of allied contingents. I found the PIP penalty worked well and on a number of occasions meant the allies were not as enthusiastic. But then perhaps on the day I was rolling lower than normal. That was what I expected.
I am considering some form of tribal integrity for the barbarian armies for the upcoming Migration to Kingdom scenario. As an example, the Asding and Siling Vandals operate as one army yet each would have similar move restriction as an allied contingent (group moves).
I have time this weekend to test these ideas.
|
|
|
Allies
Dec 1, 2016 18:28:47 GMT
Post by twrnz on Dec 1, 2016 18:28:47 GMT
Wargame commanders tend to select army and troop composition for perceived effectiveness. In contrast historically generals and kings were often lumbered with what was available. This is often the case with allied troops who could bulk out a smaller army. In my view the allies in hoplite warfare in Classical Greece model this well. Your tribal confederation sounds another perfect example.
|
|
|
Allies
Dec 1, 2016 19:02:33 GMT
Post by timurilank on Dec 1, 2016 19:02:33 GMT
Wargame commanders tend to select army and troop composition for perceived effectiveness. In contrast historically generals and kings were often lumbered with what was available. This is often the case with allied troops who could bulk out a smaller army. In my view the allies in hoplite warfare in Classical Greece model this well. Your tribal confederation sounds another perfect example. Thanks. I have two historical scenarios prepared and I shall test one tomorrow. This is the Battle of Auha 291 AD which was fought between the Tervingi and Gepid with both armies employing allies.
|
|
|
Allies
Apr 1, 2017 9:34:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by Haardrada on Apr 1, 2017 9:34:24 GMT
Used Feudal English Kn as allies for North Welsh (added mounted punch)- very successful at the English Open. Also as allies for South Welsh, at the Welsh DBA Open. The bow-heavy South Welsh needed a little variety. The English Kn did a lot of the close fighting, while the Welsh archers stood off and shot. Quite successful. I've been checking on what allies are available for my existing armies( prompted by the Historical opponents thread) and remembered this post highlighting the availability of Feudal English VI/23 as an ally of both the North and South Welsh and found the North Welsh IV19c can add Medieval French IV/64b with the Kn/Bd option(although by the date of the French involvement in the Glendwr Rising maybe it should be the IV/64c list.😊).
|
|
|
Allies
Apr 2, 2017 22:17:42 GMT
Post by macbeth on Apr 2, 2017 22:17:42 GMT
I have regularly been using 1xHCh and 2x3Bd Sea People allies for my I/6b Early Libyans - removing 3xPs in the process.
I won't say that they have been world beaters but the boys have made 3 wins from 6 in each of the last to Cancons. At the risk of offending my colleagues on this board who find Littoral Landings unconscionable, there have been the odd moments where my opponent (lets face it Ag 3 Libyans seldom set terrain) have put down a waterway and my strong and swiftly striking Sea Peoples have rocketed in on the enemy flank.
(to mollify them I can also recount that as a tactic it backfires as often as it succeeds)
Sadly I have not been able to get a similar result with Medieval Irish/Scots Isles combination - replacing the 3xPs with 3x4Bd has not stiffened the Irish enough to take on the world
So it goes
Cheers
|
|
|
Allies
Apr 3, 2017 0:15:46 GMT
Post by gregorius on Apr 3, 2017 0:15:46 GMT
I have regularly been using 1xHCh and 2x3Bd Sea People allies for my I/6b Early Libyans - removing 3xPs in the process. I won't say that they have been world beaters but the boys have made 3 wins from 6 in each of the last to Cancons. At the risk of offending my colleagues on this board who find Littoral Landings unconscionable, there have been the odd moments where my opponent (lets face it Ag 3 Libyans seldom set terrain) have put down a waterway and my strong and swiftly striking Sea Peoples have rocketed in on the enemy flank. (to mollify them I can also recount that as a tactic it backfires as often as it succeeds) Sadly I have not been able to get a similar result with Medieval Irish/Scots Isles combination - replacing the 3xPs with 3x4Bd has not stiffened the Irish enough to take on the world So it goes Cheers David, what would be your call regarding the declaration of terrain type when fielding allies? 1. Would you expect that terrain type to be declared for allies? 2. Or should your opponent be left to do the investigation for themselves when Army/troops are declared? Cheers,
|
|
|
Allies
Apr 3, 2017 2:21:39 GMT
Post by macbeth on Apr 3, 2017 2:21:39 GMT
I have regularly been using 1xHCh and 2x3Bd Sea People allies for my I/6b Early Libyans - removing 3xPs in the process. I won't say that they have been world beaters but the boys have made 3 wins from 6 in each of the last to Cancons. At the risk of offending my colleagues on this board who find Littoral Landings unconscionable, there have been the odd moments where my opponent (lets face it Ag 3 Libyans seldom set terrain) have put down a waterway and my strong and swiftly striking Sea Peoples have rocketed in on the enemy flank. (to mollify them I can also recount that as a tactic it backfires as often as it succeeds) Sadly I have not been able to get a similar result with Medieval Irish/Scots Isles combination - replacing the 3xPs with 3x4Bd has not stiffened the Irish enough to take on the world So it goes Cheers David, what would be your call regarding the declaration of terrain type when fielding allies? 1. Would you expect that terrain type to be declared for allies? 2. Or should your opponent be left to do the investigation for themselves when Army/troops are declared? Cheers, I do not see a problem with declaring the terrain type of the Ally - I was once accused of scamming because even though I declared the terrain type of my Ally troops I did not allude to the fact that this entitled them to still stage a landing. I conceded and put the Sea Peoples back into the main battle line and recommenced the battle without the landing, but was then ripped apart by my opponent. There is no justice.
|
|