Hey all,
I keep finding my lists trending to larger armies of lower quality troops (quantity is quality on its own - and flanks care not for your quality that much)
But I really want to play elite armies, like Alexander Macedonian but honestly just don't know how to approach them.
How does one use these armies without just getting flanked by numerically superior opponents - like 11 TUG/13UG armies with 12/13 command cards still. Does anyone have some example lists and deployment tips to share?
well in terms of tugs my Skull rollers winner from last year was quite small ;)
[attachment deleted by admin]
Welcome to my world. I also tend to play with small armies and, while I have had some success, (for instance in one glorious burst of unmitigated luck I won a tournament with a five TuG Swiss army) I am sure I would have much more if played with larger, 'average' quality armies. That said, I want to make clear that MeG is my favourite ancients rule set and does most things better than other sets. However, we have to note that MeG has been deliberately designed to level the playing field between average and elite armies.
The author Simon wrote that one of his goals was to allow more armies to be competitive - if you were around during the days of WRG you might remember when a handful of killer armies won every tournament (in Australia at least). This is a laudable goal, although it can skew the balance between game and simulation to the former.
More specifically, the historical instances of large, levy armies breaking when the best troops in the army were rolled, are unlikely to be repeated in MeG. Instead, all armies break when they lose half their TuGs whether they are elite guardsmen or peasants. Furthermore, small armies struggle to destroy 50% of large armies even if they don't lose much themselves (the most common problem I face). So recognising that elite (small) armies usually start with an inherent disadvantage against their larger opponents, what can you do?
First, avoid the temptation to play overly defensively. Sitting in the corner waiting for the opponent to throw his levy frontally on your elite troops, is unlikely to work against good players - they will take the initiative you have surrendered and concentrate on unhinging your line at its most vulnerable point. Even if your line proves impregnable, the most likely outcome of such defensive play is a draw.
Second, learn the art of protecting your flanks. By this I do not mean only protecting the flanks of individual TuGs with other TuGs (often not by being contiguous but staggered) but using terrain to protect at least one flank of your entire battleline. A deep water feature is my preferred option. You can also anchor one flank on terrain or a fortified camp and then pivot your line around this feature so you are fighting across the width of the table rather than its length. Just remember to leave a unit or two to extend the other end of the line as you pivot or you will find this flank hanging in the breeze.
Third, try using terrain to break up the table. This might force him to deploy his army in separate areas and/or slow down some of his troops. Even if you can delay parts of his army getting into contact that might give you time to win in front and turn to face the new threat. If you can't get terrain, at least fight on one flank or the other so as to have one vulnerable flank rather than two. This also slows your opponent from bringing all his army into contact. Just beware of flank marchers!
Fourth, I have yet to find an answer to the double line conundrum. If you do not break the enemy's front line in its entirety you will find individual TuGs pursuing towards the second line and being caught in the flank. As I mentioned earlier, the second line will almost certainly be little affected by the route of the first. You just have to hope that your other TuGs can break through the front line fast enough to help.
All that being said, don't give up when things look tough. I have been on both sides of an apparently hopeless battle only to find luck intervening to change the result. In any case, I still prefer my Mongols, Swiss, Spartans and the like to hordes of levy!
I hope this helps but I have to admit that while following my own advice usually saves me from losing games in tournaments, winning them is a far more difficult proposition.
https://www.dracostandard.co.uk/ArmyStats
This is a set of stats on Uk players and army use. According to it a chap called Jason Broomer used to kick a bit of arse with Alexandrian Expeditionary. If I remember online chat from the time correctly, part of how he did so was with the, impressively historical tactic, of a unit of Companions with Alexander leading from the front (ie exceptional unit with shatter and an extra +2 with one file).
On the broader point about small 'elite' armies, I generally think they are more likely to work when highly mobile to allow you to overwhelm part of your opponents army. I have, for example, had some success with Jurchen (cataphracts and lancers backed by some Chinese foot) and Albanian Principalities (Skilled shooters and gendarmes).
I'm still often, pleasantly, surprised by how well troops/armies I wouldn't have considered viable can work in MeG. I'm not saying all is equal by any means but I wouldn't rush to judgement either.
Martin
If your 5 elite units can take out the 5 mediocre units facing them and one carries on to the camp, that will win a lot of games and get you 10 points even if you don't win.
True Lawrence but it relies on your five elite units breaking the five mediocre units in front of them before they are charged in the flank themselves. I am not suggesting small elite armies can't win, rather that they are harder to win with, in open tournaments at least.
Quote from: martymagnificent on January 10, 2025, 02:36:32 AM
https://www.dracostandard.co.uk/ArmyStats
This is a set of stats on Uk players and army use. According to it a chap called Jason Broomer used to kick a bit of arse with Alexandrian Expeditionary. If I remember online chat from the time correctly, part of how he did so was with the, impressively historical tactic, of a unit of Companions with Alexander leading from the front (ie exceptional unit with shatter and an extra +2 with one file).
On the broader point about small 'elite' armies, I generally think they are more likely to work when highly mobile to allow you to overwhelm part of your opponents army. I have, for example, had some success with Jurchen (cataphracts and lancers backed by some Chinese foot) and Albanian Principalities (Skilled shooters and gendarmes).
I'm still often, pleasantly, surprised by how well troops/armies I wouldn't have considered viable can work in MeG. I'm not saying all is equal by any means but I wouldn't rush to judgement either.
Martin
I'd love to find Jason's lists for his Alex Expeditionary or his Alexandrian Macedonians - looks like he did quite well.
Quote from: SteveO on January 10, 2025, 02:12:48 AM
Welcome to my world. I also tend to play with small armies and, while I have had some success, (for instance in one glorious burst of unmitigated luck I won a tournament with a five TuG Swiss army) I am sure I would have much more if played with larger, 'average' quality armies. That said, I want to make clear that MeG is my favourite ancients rule set and does most things better than other sets. However, we have to note that MeG has been deliberately designed to level the playing field between average and elite armies.
The author Simon wrote that one of his goals was to allow more armies to be competitive - if you were around during the days of WRG you might remember when a handful of killer armies won every tournament (in Australia at least). This is a laudable goal, although it can skew the balance between game and simulation to the former.
More specifically, the historical instances of large, levy armies breaking when the best troops in the army were rolled, are unlikely to be repeated in MeG. Instead, all armies break when they lose half their TuGs whether they are elite guardsmen or peasants. Furthermore, small armies struggle to destroy 50% of large armies even if they don't lose much themselves (the most common problem I face). So recognising that elite (small) armies usually start with an inherent disadvantage against their larger opponents, what can you do?
First, avoid the temptation to play overly defensively. Sitting in the corner waiting for the opponent to throw his levy frontally on your elite troops, is unlikely to work against good players - they will take the initiative you have surrendered and concentrate on unhinging your line at its most vulnerable point. Even if your line proves impregnable, the most likely outcome of such defensive play is a draw.
Second, learn the art of protecting your flanks. By this I do not mean only protecting the flanks of individual TuGs with other TuGs (often not by being contiguous but staggered) but using terrain to protect at least one flank of your entire battleline. A deep water feature is my preferred option. You can also anchor one flank on terrain or a fortified camp and then pivot your line around this feature so you are fighting across the width of the table rather than its length. Just remember to leave a unit or two to extend the other end of the line as you pivot or you will find this flank hanging in the breeze.
Third, try using terrain to break up the table. This might force him to deploy his army in separate areas and/or slow down some of his troops. Even if you can delay parts of his army getting into contact that might give you time to win in front and turn to face the new threat. If you can't get terrain, at least fight on one flank or the other so as to have one vulnerable flank rather than two. This also slows your opponent from bringing all his army into contact. Just beware of flank marchers!
Fourth, I have yet to find an answer to the double line conundrum. If you do not break the enemy's front line in its entirety you will find individual TuGs pursuing towards the second line and being caught in the flank. As I mentioned earlier, the second line will almost certainly be little affected by the route of the first. You just have to hope that your other TuGs can break through the front line fast enough to help.
All that being said, don't give up when things look tough. I have been on both sides of an apparently hopeless battle only to find luck intervening to change the result. In any case, I still prefer my Mongols, Swiss, Spartans and the like to hordes of levy!
I hope this helps but I have to admit that while following my own advice usually saves me from losing games in tournaments, winning them is a far more difficult proposition.
This is a great response, thank you. I definitely need to work on the art of the flank protection and using terrain - I often find my terrain placement is only haphazardly to my benefit.
No worries.
Here is a link to Jason's army from 2019 - http://bit.ly/2sUtZhW when he came third in a tournament. I think he also won a tournament with the army around then too.
I remember Jason wrote about using the army around that time but I can't find it again. If I remember correctly it revolved around winning the PBS and scouting phases and then using masses of skirmishers shooting the hell out of everything before the Agema were committed to the weak point.
Note you can no longer take as many skilled Cretan archers as you could in 2019. Also I don't recall seeing the army used recently or by other players - not sure if that means anything. It might take a special type of player to use, let alone win, with an army containing only three TuGs.😄
He won at Athens. I knew he would score high and his opponents were at a complete loos on how to tackle a mostly skirmishing army . The basic is easy, contentrate fire and you do not need a lot of skilled but a lot of dice. The CL can charge, break off and come back . It is an army that needs patience and control; I used it years ago and it went well except a last game were all my dice failed at the worst time but that happens
Quote from: SteveO on January 11, 2025, 12:44:12 AM
No worries.
Here is a link to Jason's army from 2019 - http://bit.ly/2sUtZhW when he came third in a tournament. I think he also won a tournament with the army around then too.
I remember Jason wrote about using the army around that time but I can't find it again. If I remember correctly it revolved around winning the PBS and scouting phases and then using masses of skirmishers shooting the hell out of everything before the Agema were committed to the weak point.
Note you can no longer take as many skilled Cretan archers as you could in 2019. Also I don't recall seeing the army used recently or by other players - not sure if that means anything. It might take a special type of player to use, let alone win, with an army containing only three TuGs.😄
Awesome! I need to request access though, so hopefully I can get it. Assuming thats the expeditionary, do you have his Alex Macedonian one as well - it looked like he placed quite highly with them as well in tournaments.
No sorry.
Interesting read.
Based on my 6 games experience all using a smaller army.
1. Smaller army needs to be invader to get first move (so you want at least a Talented Commander)
2. Being Invader is like winning Scouting by 33%, but need enough scout cards to maintain this position. I always hold PBS red/yellow to scout, even if I lose Pre game.
3. No secure flanks as I want the larger army to spread out, this reduces his depth, causes his troops to have to move further to get around my flank. Also gives me more places to attack.
4. As little terrain as possible in No-man's land, Terrain here allows the larger to condense in depth and reduces points of attack. (assuming your assault force is Cavalry or close order infantry)
5. Only place terrain in deployment areas
a) Yours , if you get lucky affects your camp deployment
b) There's, This depends on the enemy force, e.g. stop skirmishing cav falling back
6. To deal with double line always try to contact 2 Tugs with each of your charging TUGS , this means none of your units pursue through the line until at least 2 enemy TUGS break.
7. Flanks defense I don't like relying on Terrain the opponent having a larger army is normally better suited to exploit terrain. Depending on enemy force I use (a) echelon (b) a line of TUGS with gaps (c) A unit in single line (d) edge of Table.
My 2 cents
Quote from: sstoker22 on January 15, 2025, 12:15:02 AM
Interesting read.
Based on my 6 games experience all using a smaller army.
1. Smaller army needs to be invader to get first move (so you want at least a Talented Commander)
2. Being Invader is like winning Scouting by 33%, but need enough scout cards to maintain this position. I always hold PBS red/yellow to scout, even if I lose Pre game.
3. No secure flanks as I want the larger army to spread out, this reduces his depth, causes his troops to have to move further to get around my flank. Also gives me more places to attack.
4. As little terrain as possible in No-man's land, Terrain here allows the larger to condense in depth and reduces points of attack. (assuming your assault force is Cavalry or close order infantry)
5. Only place terrain in deployment areas
a) Yours , if you get lucky affects your camp deployment
b) There's, This depends on the enemy force, e.g. stop skirmishing cav falling back
6. To deal with double line always try to contact 2 Tugs with each of your charging TUGS , this means none of your units pursue through the line until at least 2 enemy TUGS break.
7. Flanks defense I don't like relying on Terrain the opponent having a larger army is normally better suited to exploit terrain. Depending on enemy force I use (a) echelon (b) a line of TUGS with gaps (c) A unit in single line (d) edge of Table.
My 2 cents
thanks for sharing your thoughts!
1. What are you doing with the first moves in this situation? I find the benefit in choosing terrain type, and secure flank characteristics if there is one to be suit me better. I tried and failed to make a first move have any real hinderance to my opponents plans.
2. This is interesting to me, do you often have the scouting scores as a draw?
I think I had it happen once, maybe twice in the roughly dozen games I played and a few more I spectated. A big reason why I don't value being attacker very much.
3. I like secure flank because it gives the option to squeeze the camp into a corner, otherwise you're forced to be centrally placed to give some coverage to the camp - at least I thought so. If you take defender as well, you get to choose things like if the coastal/river flank is board edge or several BW in.
4/5. This also contradicts what I had thought - and I wonder how much this relates to my smaller army being centred around Pikes / shove+shatter units. A narrow front benefits pikes much more as if you can get fights with your superior units in support of each other theres more chance to benefit from a shove or shatter roll. A wide open table is exactly what I'd want if I have lots of troops as it creates many more possibilities for flanks.
To elaborate on that, the simple example is your assualt needs to basically move atleast 12BW (if not 14/16) to make contact - a smart opponent isn't going to advance the targets of your assaults. This is a lot of ground to cover with your echelon and on a totally open table, you may even end up with a spear rather than echelon and you have two flanks to watch.
Okay I have a small Cavalry army 4 Cav TUGS 3 Inf LS TUGS 2 SUGS, when you talking Alexandrian Expeditionary I was not thinking pikes.
1. As I am cavalry my first move is a double block move of 8 to 10BW setting up a second turn charge.
2. No as I'm invader I just have to not loose scouting to out scout opponent. Draw= Def 33% Att 33%. 10% win Def 10% Att 10 Def 33% etc.
3. I take fortified camp (see SteveO notes) But also find a secure flank only signals your deployment intentions nullifying any advantage from deployment/scouting.
4. I use my Cav in a line and the Infantry in echelon on the flank, so it does not have to move as far.
e.g after a few moves
4.CavT 5.CavT 6.CavT
3.InfT
2.InfT 7.CavT
1. InfT
7 can be used to plug hole that opens between 3 and 4 or protect flank of 6.
If I went a small infantry army what would I change ?
I would go more terrain Hills(rough) Swamp(difficult) and Deep Water (optional). Normal terrain is fine as Dense only advantage defender and Dense pretty hard to get.
Use Swamp and Deep water to try and create flank protection on your side of the board.
Attack with infantry use Cav to protect flanks.
I still don't like secure flank as it only signals your deployment to opponent reducing advantaged of out scouting. Although if forced to defend a secure deep water flank at minimum width (eg 1mm on board) could be used as a diversion. I like mountain wood secure flanks even less as it only lets the bigger force use his greater number of loose and skirmish infantry to greater effect.
As I said only 6 games experience so take as beginners comments.
Quote from: sstoker22 on January 15, 2025, 11:01:42 AM
As I said only 6 games experience so take as beginners comments.
I like how you are thinking this through but all I can say is that your general approach, which is sometimes forced on me if the cards work against me, has not worked for me after many games. Of course, that doesn't mean your approach is wrong for you.
Rather than address each point individually, I will generalise by saying that my experience has been that good players will refuse or delay engaging with your
schwerpunkt while they bring their numbers to bear on your flanks. If you can't break the enemy in front of you quickly, which can be challenging, you just get swamped - think of Orlando Bloom's ill-fated charge in 'Kingdom of Heaven'. That's why I try to impede my opponent's ability to get onto my flanks.
In any case, my advice to Hayung_is to try both approaches a few times - and also to remember that he will need more than winning draws to do well in tournaments.
Thanks Steve,
Good points appreciate the feedback.
Sorry lost power for 2 days so couldn't respond.