Auteur |
Message |
SteveR
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 287
|
Posté le: Dim Mar 24, 2024 4:20 pm Sujet du message: Army Design Philosopy |
|
In a discussion over on the rules forum Dan Hazelwood wrote
Citation: | I have a habit of designing armies with Corps A: Mounted. Corps B: Foot. Corps C: mix of each and best commander. This gives me flexibility in deployment to mass the mounted on one side or have mounted on both wings. But i have received a lot of push back from players. That prefer here is my slogging corps, here is the rough going corps and here is the maneuver corps. That structure i find flawed.
I thought this was interesting as I was in the final stages of an army development and practice and saw what he suggested happening to my lists over time. In fact this was the case with my last 2 heavily used armies. In the latter case I started with an strike corps (hammer) and a solid heavy foot corps (anvil) and a third corps that I was not sure what to do with.
I did go through a stage where I made sure to include troops to contest rough going. Now I am not sure that is needed. A dedicated ambush command would be okay but it is a bit small for my taste. I dont like flank marches in 95% of the cases so optimizing for flank marches doesn't make sense either.
So lately I have usually employed a very mixed command with lots of tools, not all of them great troops (often they are 50% mediocre) just a mixture, with good command to be flexible and respond to a variety of circumstances.
What are other peoples' thoughts on design?
|
|
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 287
|
Posté le: Dim Mar 24, 2024 4:21 pm Sujet du message: |
|
sorry - missed the end quote
only this was Dan
Citation: | I have a habit of designing armies with Corps A: Mounted. Corps B: Foot. Corps C: mix of each and best commander. This gives me flexibility in deployment to mass the mounted on one side or have mounted on both wings. But i have received a lot of push back from players. That prefer here is my slogging corps, here is the rough going corps and here is the maneuver corps. That structure i find flawed.
|
|
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
DarkBlack
Barbare
Inscrit le: 20 Mar 2020 Messages: 26
|
Posté le: Sam Mar 30, 2024 5:00 pm Sujet du message: |
|
As someone who doesn't get to play much ADLG and therefore mostly experiences the game vicariously (thanks Madaxeman), this is an interesting topic, thank you.
I did play loads of DBM, though.
I think that the DBM command structure is where the design of: mounted command + infantry centre + terrain command comes from.
Especially for competitive play;
DBM favours 3 commands of similar size, to optimize losses required to break the army and because of the command system.
In DBM, either PIPs can be allocated in game, or are an even probability in each command.
DBM discourages "mixed function" commands, because a command breaks as one. Which means that if a command has troops for multiple roles, failure in one means the failure in the rest. For example, you don't want to lose the Kn in a command because the terrain troops lost.
In ADLG: command ability can be designed into a list.
Everything keeps going until the whole army breaks.
Which means that a versatile core is more viable because the command to control multiple roles can be designated during list design and each part of a corps keeps going even if another part is destroyed.
Small corps with a dedicated role are also more viable; because it doesn't cost points just to have it and it's not brittle due to a low "break point". |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 287
|
Posté le: Dim Mar 31, 2024 4:12 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Good points.
I did not play much DBM but did play a lot of DBR and agree with you that I made much more use of single purpose commands in that set.
Many armies I used were highly homogeneous and I took that philosophy onto ADLG with poor success. In DBR it was perfectly feasible to fight with only part of the army and break successive commands.
in ADLG you have to plan on just about every unit fighting. Ideally you time it so the favorable fights happen first and the unfavorable match ups are delayed but just about every unit will be in combat at some point.
I have a slight disagreement about the utility of small commands. In DBX the micro pip dump command was viable. In ADLG I find small commands are more viable because they are not easily broken (as you say) but this is counterbalanced by the waste of 1/3 of the commanders base CP. An army with two large brilliant commanders can work but the small command will still often have CP going to waste while the large ones starve. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
DarkBlack
Barbare
Inscrit le: 20 Mar 2020 Messages: 26
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 01, 2024 4:19 am Sujet du message: |
|
SteveR a écrit: |
I have a slight disagreement about the utility of small commands. In DBX the micro pip dump command was viable. In ADLG I find small commands are more viable because they are not easily broken (as you say) but this is counterbalanced by the waste of 1/3 of the commanders base CP. An army with two large brilliant commanders can work but the small command will still often have CP going to waste while the large ones starve. |
PIP dump commands did cross my mind, but I left it out as it's not equivalent in my mind.
It's more of a gimmick or work around to achieve in DBx what ADLG just lets you do, i.e. spend points for improved command and control.
With typical army sizes in DBx, one or two elements is not a functional command.
Whereas by "small corps" I mean several units with a free commander that have a role to fulfill, usually skirmishing on one flank, giving other corps something less to worry about.
For example: I had both in my DBM Later Carthaginian army. Along with my Sp and Ax commands, I had a single LH sub as a PIP dump and a small Numidian ally command to skirmish on one flank.
In ADLG the equivalent would be taking brilliant commanders and still a small allied corps. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 287
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 01, 2024 4:01 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I struggle with small command design
Ideally I would like it to be 4 units. Flexible. So it can ambush as a single group or act as a flank march.
I've done this with Siamese - 1 El, two escorts and a LI for example
But again, that wastes a generals excess CP - it usually needs 1, no more than 2 to maneuver.
And my smallest small command is now around 5 or 6 to share the CP around better |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021 Messages: 501
Localisation: Texas
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 01, 2024 6:00 pm Sujet du message: |
|
If your other two commands have good commanders (Brilliant, Strategist) then a small command of about 4 under an included Ordinary can be relatively efficient. (I like 4 to ambush or FM or 5 so you’ve got a surprise extra guy in a nearby ambush). You’ll get a guaranteed 2 every turn (general plus one) making sure they can move 2 groups or do a double move or move the main group while detaching one guy to cover a flank. It also means that you will usually be able to commit the attached general without too much fear that a number of other units will be CP starved if he gets locked in melee. That extra +1 in melee can be handy but can turn into a nightmare if 5-7 other units are starved of CPs. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1545
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 01, 2024 6:18 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Related
When an army is designed. I think both how it will deploy and how it will operate.
The mixed corps even with a strategist will require discipline in movement.
4 MI and 1 LI
4 CV and 2 LH
seems manageable for a strategist who always should have 2 CP plus the internal. 84% of the time it will have 3 CP and 1. So the above looks manageable.
But once units move to flanks, evade, separate and all that. it quickly has needs that start to overwhelm the 3 CP and 1. That is why players prefer the mono-dimensional because the 6 Battle and 2 skirmisher with a brilliant tends to have less demands on the CP.
So if you go for a mixed corps, you are also requiring yourself to be efficient in the groups particularly in the first 2-3 turns to limit the moments where demand of CP exceed supply. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|