Early Imperial Roman tips?

[Xavi]

Hello there,

Finally! I have finished painting my corvus belli EIR :D Now, I have a problem: I have not much idea on how to best use them. I have been proxying marian romans for a while against historical opponents, and they did well (Refighting farsalia with historical results was a blast) but IMO they are much easier to use: a pure blade army with some cav support is easy to use.

However, the EIR include a wide variety of troop types and I am unsure that I will do as good with them. I am specially concerned with the use of m,assed Ax there, and what terrain and deployment should I be looking for when playing with them.

If anyone has tips ion how to use this army I would greatly appreciate it :) Thank you in advance.

Cheers,

Xavi

[Bill Sumruld]

Xavi,

Remember the Ax have two very important qualities (1) they love bad going (2) they are about the fastest infantry gets in DBA, Ps in the 1st bound and Wb moving into combat are the only infantry that can move farther in one bound. They are therfore good for controling bad going and threatening the flanks of slower infantry. The are vulnerable to mounted but like Sp and Bd get a +1 against mounted if supported by Ps, giving them a respectable +3 overall. These facts make them a good troop type for some pretty important jobs.

Hope this helps,

Bill

[N. Maximus]

Xavi,

Take the Light Horse option when you can - EIR is more fun with speed. At least your opponent will have to compensate for the LH ability to get to their camp. Otherwise, as Bill noted, get your Ax in the bad going and everybody else in the good, don't forget the Psiloi when going up against mounted. Plan on losing your Arty...I always do - but usually they take something with them.

SPQR,

[Pavane]

The Ax teamed up with Ps support is also useful for hunting Elephants, even in Good Going.

[Xavi]

Thanks for the replies and good tips on the use of Ax :) However, so far I have been playing in mostly "flat" battlefields. There have been hills and the odd forest, but not a lot of scenery. I would like to know what kind of terrain I should be using to put those Ax to good use and specially WHERE should I be puting it. Is it better if I anchor a flank with Ax, or if the basd terrain is in the centre of the table? If the later, Is it a good idea to place all the Bd in one flank and the cavalry in the other? I have found that Cv struggles to win a flank against Kn (yeah, I am that smart ;) ), so I am unsure if this is a sound move or not.

Historical formations seem to have been something like this:

Cv Ps Ax Ax Bd Bd Bd Bd Ax Ax Cv Lh (option of all the cavalry7 going in a single flank)

- Is this a good tactic or is it better to place all Ax in a single place of terrain?
- Should I be using a refused flank tactic, avoiding contact with the enemy in part of the board?
- Do EIR use columns to gfood use or is it better to deploy in ab battle line from the start?

In most cases I have found that terrain is badly placed to use it effectively without adopting a defensive stance. Anchoring a flank in a terrain piece is OK, but doing so you still leave part of the board open for the enemy to move around your forces (a bad thing) and end up surrendering the initiative to the opponent, since you want to use the terrain to prevent your Ax to abandon the bad going. At leastr this is the main problem I have encountered.

In any case, i will try to keep you informed on further developments on this field. :)

Xavi

[David Kuijt]

It is rarely a good idea to monotype your flanks (i.e., have all your Cav on one flank, all your Aux on another, and all your Bd in the center). Doing so makes it easy for your enemy to forecast the future, which makes him a better strategist.

There are exceptions, but they are often forced by the terrain.

[Pthomas]

Xavi,

It is hardly ever a bad idea to try the same type of deployment as was done historically, so the set up you listed would be generally acceptable.

As for terrain, I would be tempted to place two small pieces of bad going (and the type may depend on your opponent's elements). These should be no larger then 3" (75 mm) in diameter and should be offset toward the corners of the board by about 4" (100 mm) from the center point. This allows your blades to dominate the center, the Ax to exploit the bad going on the blade's flanks and the mounted units to work the edges. This is a very generic set up and would be heavily influenced by the opponent's army.

If your general is going to be in the center of your army you can get away with putting command and control blocking terrain like hills and woods, if the general is on a flank, you should try rough and marsh.

There are no really hard and fast rules for deploying terrain and armies, much is situational in DBA, but this is a place to start and you can learn from how your opponents react to your tactics.

[JamesLDIII]

Of course you have to consider who you are fighting first -- different tactics apply vs German warbands or Sarmatian cavalry.

If I had to deploy first (was the attacker) and I was facing early Sarmations (4x Kn, 7x Cv, 1x Lh), I'd try either to be as broad as possible to shut down movement possibilities for the enemy cav or I would pick one half of the board and go for the enemy camp (since mounted troops don't get a +2 in a camp, and if the enemy takes a Ps to defend the camp (or leaves a CF), I have a chance to defeat the element and capture the camp. In either case the psiloi is not on the front lines but supporting three blade or three auxilia elements. I'd probably put my Ax in column and try to get the enemy force to commit his knights against my blade line, while I screen my auxilia with my own cavalry against his cavalry. My Lh would support the blades against the knights.
Maybe something like this:
CvCVAx(Ax)BdBdBD(Ax) Lh
-----Ax------Ps
-----Ax

If there's bad going on the board that's useful my Ax column is oriented on it or on the opposite side of it from where I plan to go so the enemy commander will deploy his Kn on one side of the BG but then be unable to transfer the Kn to the other side in time. Or I'll put the Ax column behind one of the blad elements so I can choose which side to advance on.

Now DK will critique my setup...

[David Kuijt]

Now DK will critique my setup...

Am I so harsh? ;) Or are you inviting abuse? :D

The main reason I haven't chimed in yet is that the questions Xavi asks are too general for a fast answer, and I don't have time to write a treatise.

As JLD3 and others say, it depends upon the opponent, terrain, objectives, etc. Focusing on one opponent (the Early Sarmatians mentioned by JLD) -- if you win terrain, put out a central patch of BGo (marsh is good, as is Steep Hill) and some flanking pieces with paths at least 3-5 base widths between them (I advise 5, but 3 is easier for beginners). Don't crowd the board up more than that. Split your Aux to win the central piece (2 Aux) and occupy the non-central pieces as needed to control enemy movement through the gaps. Use the wall of psiloi-supported blade that JLD suggests as your main wall in the gap in which you choose to fight. Make sure your flanks are secured with Aux in BGo giving you an overlap when his Kn charge in. If you are facing lighter troops (Cv or LH) you can push forward without an overlap; if he's got his Kn opposite you, take a static position with secure flanks (and overlaps) and pray you roll high. In case your prayers are not answered, have your only LH as a reserve, and when he breaks through your line with a Kn, stuff the hole with your LH and roll high.

More about terrain against Sarmatians -- I'm in a road-y mood this last year or so. Roads are a great way to wrong-foot the enemy, especially for slower armies. Put a marsh in the center with a Roman Crossroads through it, and you will have some great options in attacking his backfield.

If you lose terrain? Don't lose terrain against an all-mounted army. If you do, find a good defensive position (gentle hill, or one flank tied to a patch of BGo), give your Blade the position of honour with psiloi support, keep your reserves mobile, and roll high.

[JamesLDIII]

Am I so harsh? ;) Or are you inviting abuse? :D


Mostly the latter...Actually, I haven't played EIR vs Sarmatians so I was mostly extrapolating Thessalians (Cv/Lh, Spr, Ps) vs Skythians/Parthians (Kn/Cv, LH), armies that I actually own.

[Lee Shackelford]

Xavi,

Ignore DK's advice at your peril

Lee Shackelford

[Xavi]

[Don't worry Lee :)]

So, yo are telling me that:

- Romans vs Mtd army in GGo = dead romans
- Romans vs Mtd in GGO + BGo = able to win.

Seems a quite grim prospect that you should be winning 25% of your battles against mounted armies. I would think that "suicide runs" could be quite effective as well, no? Those Ax/Ps charging straight into the xenemy Kn in order to mess up the battle line (creating a checkerboard formation when the enemy Kn advance). Would that work, or is the risk of losing t2 elements too great a danger for the romans for it to work?

Xavi

[David Kuijt]

So, yo are telling me that:

- Romans vs Mtd army in GGo = dead romans
- Romans vs Mtd in GGO + BGo = able to win.

Not quite so bad as that. It's the knights that are bad. Against a Cav army the Romans have a chance, although playing on a pool table they are at a disadvantage. Against LH on a pool table your artillery are a major-useful tool, nearly making up for your lack of mobility. The LH still have the advantage, but LH are nearly as difficult to play with, as to play against, so there are lots of chances for the enemy to make mistakes.


Seems a quite grim prospect that you should be winning 25% of your battles against mounted armies. I would think that "suicide runs" could be quite effective as well, no? Those Ax/Ps charging straight into the xenemy Kn in order to mess up the battle line (creating a checkerboard formation when the enemy Kn advance). Would that work, or is the risk of losing t2 elements too great a danger for the romans for it to work?

Suicide runs are basically suicide. You are presenting your army piecemeal for your enemy to destroy. You can adopt that sort of formation facing warband with some hope of success, but not against knights.

[Xavi]

OK, point taken: "Knights are bad for Roman health" ;) The other mounted are dangerous, but not as dangerous. A Cav army has the advantage on GGo mobility and equals or beat the roman troops in combat factors. However, they are vulnerable to Art and Ax in BGo, so trhe chances are not that grim. The romans are still the underdog here, though. Correct?

Cheers,

Xavi

[David Kuijt]

With Cav it's the mobility that matters -- using your sole Psiloi for psiloi support the Cav have no combat-factor advantage, and if you put the psiloi behind your blade wall you have a CF advantage (there, at least, although your auxilia will be complaining if they're in GGo also).

So if you are playing against someone whose idea of mobile tactics is to line up and hit you, your results will be even or better and you need only roll well. Against someone who is more clever, you will have more problems and have to be more clever yourself.

Keep your own Cav as a reserve, regardless.

[RonG]

Don't forget the power of your art. Center and hit thier flanks. Then crush their center with blades. Pursue on flanks with aux. Get terrain and roll 6's.:eek:

[Xavi]

Hmmm.... I have been thinking about Art as the weak link in my army (easily picked by the enemy), not a strong element. Maybe I should rethink this....?

Xavi

[David Kuijt]

Hmmm.... I have been thinking about Art as the weak link in my army (easily picked by the enemy), not a strong element. Maybe I should rethink this....?


Art is a very difficult element type to use well. Takes a lot of practice. But if you get the hang of it, it can be very interesting and very effective. A lot depends upon your style of play. But I agree with Ron -- when I use the Romans, I love my Arty.

[Timurilank]

Hmmm.... I have been thinking about Art as the weak link in my army (easily picked by the enemy), not a strong element. Maybe I should rethink this....?

Xavi

Xavi,

You have received a lot of great advice; let me add this. Don't be afraid to loose... it is part of the learning experience. Secondly, you will win one day against cavalry and use that as your blueprint for further success. Secondly, reread the classics and emulate the tactics; Alexander's battle against the Scythians, Arrian against the Sarmatians, also the Parthian campaigns.

cheers,

[Xavi]

I am not afraid to lose ;) I have been doing that consistently for the last 3 months ;) I am new to DBA, but not to wargaming, mind you. In DBA right now I would have a 75-25 win-lose record, I think. I have been using "easy" armies, though: Kn armies where I won terrain and suchlike. Easy to steamroll the enemy under those circumstances. I have been using normans (Kn + Sp) and marians (Bdx2 + Cv) with success.

So, the question is more about "how the hell am I supposed to use BGo and combined arms" than "how do you play DBA" :) Just to carify.

I am still puzzled about a few of the tips given here (specially when it comes to arty), but I will have to test before adding anything here, I think.

Thanks everybody for the given advise :) Very helpful stuff.

Cheers,

Xavi

[adsarf]

A word I would give you on Artillery is that it often does its best work just by sitting there, constraining your opponent's deployment options (if he is attacking) and limiting his scope for manoeurve.

As an example, when I first used my new shiny bolt-thrower in my Syracusan army, I deployed (defending) with it on one flank, and my opponent promptly crowded his entire army onto the other flank. I knew that my Art element had done its work, and I should be happy, but it was new and shiny and I wanted to roll dice with it, so I used an element swap to bring it into the battle, where it got tied up shooting at Psiloi before finally getting killed in hand-to-hand, and was nothing but a pain and grief to me.

Sometimes if you force players to take a risk against your artillery, they'll find it isn't as dangerous as they feared. If you let them avoid it, they will, and often that will hurt them more.

Andrew

[John Meunier]

I would think an artillery sitting alone on a flank would be bait for someone with psiloi or LH to charge up on the first bound and attack it as quickly as possible. (LH stays out of shooting arc, of course)

I owned a EIR army for a while. I never got the hang of using Arty in the army, but I did see it get stomped on enough to never have fear of arty - unless I have Elephants or bow in my army.

[Xavi]

My exact thoughts concerning Arty. So far I have not tested my EIR, so I can't tell from direct experience (only tested it in hotseat in DBAOL to see if it would work... and interesting exercise IMO) but I do not hold high hopes for their battle performance. That way I can only be positively surprised! :D

Xavi

[Little Caesar]

Admittedly, I am not an experienced DBA'er. but I have found that putting my artillery in the center causes the most problems for my opponent. I have arty in my HYW English, EIR, and LIR.

By placing it in the center, I can more easily defend it with other troops and it has a much larger choice of targets since it is smack dab in the center.

I don't play many different people so maybe my opponent hasn't figured out the easy way to handle this set-up, if there is one.

Just my thoughts,
Steve

[Bill Sumruld]

Art is usually best in helping protect or control a flank and then should be coupled with the right kind of bad going for maximum effectiveness.

[David Kuijt]

By placing it in the center, I can more easily defend it with other troops and it has a much larger choice of targets since it is smack dab in the center.


The main problem with this formation is that it is completely defensive. It works fine if your opponent marches ineptly up to fight you. It won't allow you to maneuver, and it won't allow you to advance except in very simple ways. If your opponent decides to force you to maneuver or advance, you will end up abandoning or blocking your artillery.

[Xavi]

So, Arty must be used defensively in a kind of refused flank. Is that it? A flank where you adopt a more or less defensive formation, with your arty and maybe a pair of Aux to cover the terrain ahead while you concentrate your main thrust in the centre and the other flank. Right?

Xavi

[David Kuijt]

So, Arty must be used defensively in a kind of refused flank. Is that it?

must is perhaps a little bit strong, but yes. There are lots of exceptions. For example, if you can put your Arty in a position where it can fire at an angle across the front of your main line, and your main line is static (waiting for enemy advance rather than advancing themselves), that works great. Arty can advance to put pressure on enemy bow, warwagons, or elephants; this can be used as a broom to compress the enemy formation as these troops keep trying to get out of the firing arc. Arty is great for shielding a whole flank against Light Horse incursions, especially if firing across a river or a bit of rough or marsh.

[Chris Brantley]

One of the few times the EIR artillery really worked well for me was when I left it about in the center/rear of my battle line (about half-way between the main line and my camp like a hockey goalie coming out of the crease) and left a big hole in the center of my line directly opposite my camp. My opponent couldn't resist charging through, which gave me some nice shots on exposed, unsupported elements. But I suspect this falls into the same category of enemy cooperation mentioned by David K.

[David Kuijt]

One of the few times the EIR artillery really worked well for me was when I left it about in the center/rear of my battle line (about half-way between the main line and my camp like a hockey goalie coming out of the crease) and left a big hole in the center of my line directly opposite my camp. My opponent couldn't resist charging through, which gave me some nice shots on exposed, unsupported elements. But I suspect this falls into the same category of enemy cooperation mentioned by David K.

Not at all -- that was a trap, Chris! The Arty was a fighting lure, a rabbit with nasty sharp teeth.

[John Meunier]

... resisting the urge to break into a Monty-Python bit here

[glenngarth30]

I`v noticed when Ive stuck my arty on the flank its a little vulnerable to fast moving units doing hit and run attacks. Ive found it lasts a little longer with its flank protected by another unit. So I generally stick it near my centre. Where in the few gamse I`ve played it has generally destroyed an enemy element before it got killed itself.

My first ever game (EIR V Anceint Brits) I left my arty on the flank completely unsupported. it got one shot and missed after that it didnt take long for the Brit light chariots to take it out.

[adsarf]

I don't think you can say if Artillery is best in the flank or the centre. You have to be flexible. In the game I described, I set up on the flank ready to swap into the centre if needed. If my opponent had set up his forces to try to overwhelm my Art early in the game, it would have made sense to swap my artillery away from this, but he actually went to great lengths to avoid my artillery, giving himself a really cramped deployment. By moving my artillery back into the centre I then cramped and limited my own response, forcing myself to fight more defensively and so giving him more time to sort out his cramped deployment and win the game. I knew it was wrong, but I wanted my artillery to have a big role in the fight, because it was new...

It also matters who you are fighting against, because artillery is quite sensitive to match-up. Marian Romans are a different matter to Hussites.

Andrew

[MikeC_81]

Hi guys,

I just finished a DBA tournament as a newbie using the Early Imperial Romans and I got rather thrashed by 2 Knight armies (Sarmations and Normans).

I tried to incorporate some of the tactics posted by David K. I had some success exploiting the impeteous nature destroying 2 mounted elements in each loss through baiting my lone Cv and getting a flank for kills but in the end, my opponents just drove more knights in until I died.

I am thinking that part of the problem lies with how I built my army. I took the Bd general and Psiloi as my 2 options and while it proved extermely strong against any kind of Warband army (I won my lone game against a Gallic player despite a several mistakes and bad die at some critical moments) I found I had next to no options against the Knight heavy armies.

Would a better option be to take a Cv General instead to give me more mobility and baiters against knights? Or should I drop the Psiloi as well and get an LH or another CV for 3 Cav, 4 Bd, 4 Ax, and 1 Art?

I think I will take the Cv General option for sure next timem around as I predict that it will give me a lot more flexibility but I am more hesitant at dropping the Psiloi. I like the extra support against Warbands but given how badly I was mauled by Knights, maybe I have no choice?

[El' Jocko]

Would a better option be to take a Cv General instead to give me more mobility and baiters against knights? Or should I drop the Psiloi as well and get an LH or another CV for 3 Cav, 4 Bd, 4 Ax, and 1 Art?


I would definitely keep the Psiloi. Using it to support the blade is your best bet. That said, against the Sarmatians and Normans it can be rough sledding if your opponent wins the terrain roll and puts down the minimal legal terrain--a couple of small patchs of bad going are your best friend in this situation.

- Jack

[Xavi]

I still prefer to max out the cavalry over the Ps. I have always felt that the 4 Ax are enough to deal with stuff that QK the Bd (Wb et al) or that you would be better using cavalry to face of those Kn and drive them into overlaps, that is the only location (overlap) where you should find infantry fighting Kn in the open!! If you wanted to survive, that is.

Cheers,

Xavi