Which LITTORAL army ??

[Martin Smith]

Hi all
There's a tournament down our way in a week's time, where the theme is 'any army which has littoral home topography'.
If you could choose any of them from the 2.2 lists (and there are about 42, plus sub-lists), which would you go for, and why? Especially interested to hear what the reasoning is behind your preference. e.g. its strength, mobility, flexibility, aggression high/low etc
Martin

[Redwilde]

I/56a Kyrenean Greek

Ag.0 Hoplites, 5 Chariots, and a way better cool factor than just another NKE army. If you can embrace the cheese of the 2x2LCh//4Sp they give you a super threat to the enemies camp -- ride up and dismount to assault with a Sp.

If you get terrain, but out a few small-mid sized bad going so that your psiloi have some cover but without giving a lot to an opponent with more bad going troops than you, and this also gives your smallish hoplite line nicely limited open fields if facing off against a bigger spear wall.

But O The Cheese -- historically these were not hoplites in halftracks! The carts were just used operationally to get the hopliltes to the battlefield where they always deployed dismounted.

[Martin Smith]

Originally Posted by Redwilde

I/56a Kyrenean Greek

Ag.0 Hoplites, 5 Chariots, and a way better cool factor than just another NKE army. If you can embrace the cheese of the 2x2LCh//4Sp they give you a super threat to the enemies camp -- ride up and dismount to assault with a Sp.

If you get terrain, but out a few small-mid sized bad going so that your psiloi have some cover but without giving a lot to an opponent with more bad going troops than you, and this also gives your smallish hoplite line nicely limited open fields if facing off against a bigger spear wall.

But O The Cheese -- historically these were not hoplites in halftracks! The carts were just used operationally to get the hopliltes to the battlefield where they always deployed dismounted.

Thanks for that one - would you think being low aggression (like the Kyreneans) is an advantage over high aggression (such as with Norse Vikings) in littoral vs littoral encounters?
Martin

[Redwilde]

Well, at least for this competition, you know there's going to be a beach in every battle! So on that count, aggression doesn't matter. For some armies, it may not matter at all.

The Kyreneans do benefit from their low agression for controlling the amount of other terrain on the field. They want some bad going for their Psiloi, but not so much as to give an advantage to an opposing bad-going army; and just enough to give their Sp room to fight, but not so much as to give an advantage to a good going loving army.

[Martin Smith]

Originally Posted by Redwilde

Well, at least for this competition, you know there's going to be a beach in every battle! So on that count, aggression doesn't matter. For some armies, it may not matter at all.

The Kyreneans do benefit from their low agression for controlling the amount of other terrain on the field. They want some bad going for their Psiloi, but not so much as to give an advantage to an opposing bad-going army; and just enough to give their Sp room to fight, but not so much as to give an advantage to a good going loving army.

I see your reasoning. When it comes to play sequence, do you think the defender deploying first, thereby 'declaring' any intention of landing, then moving second gives him any advantage over the invader (who has the chance to 'pick sides', so to speak).
M

[Redwilde]

Hmm, good question. I haven't done a lot of littoral v. littoral games. This tourney theme is certainly the scientific laboratory to test that out!