Large camps and camp tactics?

Hi, I was thinking that a larger camp would make for a nicer model, yet have noticed that players tend to minimize camp sizes.

However, are there any potential benefits to having a large (and garrisoned) camp, e.g. to exert a larger ZoC, or to cover a flank?

It would be nice to have a large camp model without jeopardizing success in the game...

If you were going to garrison it with artillery and wanted to have a large field of fire the bigger the camp the better.

Originally Posted by vonBerlichingen

However, are there any potential benefits to having a large (and garrisoned) camp, e.g. to exert a larger ZoC, or to cover a flank?

That idea resembles protecting your valuables by putting them out on the streetcorner marked "free."

Almost none of my camps are small, and some are bigger than maximum size, because I like to make nice camps. But I don't delude myself that there is any gamewise advantage to doing so, because there isn't.

How about bait?

My main opponent "Angry" Anderson has the habit of shunting his camp well off to one side, sometimes out of the deployment zone. It acts as bait pretty effectively (though I'm still not quite sure if that's intentional, so maybe he is deeper than I suspect!) But a larger camp, off to one side, would just make an easier target, surely?

A recent (to me) development in camp models has been the "slice" wherein a short frontage is presented as a cross-section, all the way back to the inner camp. This seems a great idea and is a way of minimising camp size. I suppose it can present a wee problem of crowding too deep into the deployment zone. But it seems a better option than a large camp would be, leaving only enough room to line a single line of troops...

I suppose that another way to model a large camp would be to delimit where it "officially" ends, and leave the rest extending back from the 2'x2' gaming area, which is how I was thinking of modelling certain Littoral armies' camps, provided that they start with a waterway to their rear...

Re. baiting with camps, do I understand correctly that the +2 for foot or camp followers defending their own camp literally refers to their army's own original camp, so that the captors of an enemy camp would not get that +2?

Regardless of the legalese/Barkerese, this interpretation would seem to make intuitive sense, supposing that the camp's original owners would have more at stake in defending their camp, would be more familiar with their own camp's layout, and would be much less tempted to distract themselves by looting and drinking...

Originally Posted by vonBerlichingen

do I understand correctly that the +2 for foot or camp followers defending their own camp literally refers to their army's own original camp, so that the captors of an enemy camp would not get that +2?

That's correct.

Originally Posted by vonBerlichingen

How about bait?

I have considered this idea, although it did not quite work as I expected. My theory is that rather than garrison my camp, I keep an archer or other shooter near, if not in range, able to get in range quickly. The enemy spends a lot of pips to get his light horse, or ideally more than one, in position to assault my camp. Assuming I keep my losses below two stands, if he takes my camp, no big deal, the archer shoots the light horse out at 4 to 2 with no retreat for the unit in the camp. Then reoccupies the camp. If there are a lot of light horse, keep firing. You get at least one enemy casualty out of this plan, and he loses a lot of tempo moving the light horse nowhere near threatening the rest of your army.

When I actually tried this, the enemy light horse was not able to take the camp due to poor rolls on its part and reasonable rolls by my camp followers. So I can't testify that it works. However I am now a lot less concerned about deep penetrations by enemy light horse heading for my camp. I don't say do nothing, but panic is not required. If you don't have a shooter, a spear to assault the camp at 4 to 2 likely would do as well, the light horse has great difficulty holding the camp, until you take it back, consider it a prisoner of war facility holding the enemy light horse away from action.

Of course if you have lost two units, likely the loss of your camp will lose the game, and you may need to take steps to prevent the deep raid sooner. On the other hand, if you have lost two units, you likely have other issues you need to worry about, in the front lines. So often DBA is about getting overlaps and door closings with the overlaps so having fewer stands in the main action than the enemy is a big problem. Its not all bad that the enemy volunteers to take eleven or fewer stands to the fight when he sends his light horse "elsewhere".

That's exactly how I - somewhat by accident - ended up defending my camp last weekend. I originally kept the Bw back covering a BUA. My opponent "Fighting Mad" McGuire raced a LH right round to attempt the camp, and simply ended up wasting a LH since it was easy to move the Bw to cover when the LH fled back right into the Bw's locality. So yeah, bait would work, but the camp I had was routine size.

I like the minimum camp size, less chance of being destroyed if you get an element recoiled with its back to your camp and destroyed.

Kingo