Topic: First tentative steps into unknown territory...

[A neutral shade of black.]

I was indeed planning on going for the TVI mounted EC in infantry. Self-sacrifice is a very nice thing to do, so it just serves to make the leader of this Revolution (the EC general) that much nobler.

Here's a quick attempt at such a list, 2000 pts:

[list, too long to quote]

I like the list itself, actually. Just a few things that I would have changed (obviously, given my lack of strategical knowledge, because of background rather than tactics):
- I'd like the EC to be a missile magnet, though having on a horse would be rather anti-fluff. Don't know how I should tackle that, but there - he'll probably stay on foot;
- one caddie could get swapped out for a warrior-priest, who would go... somewhere, I don't quite know. Oh, yes, actually - in some greatswords, if I take them. Four scrolls is overkill but two is too little. Why don't you guys have a Seal of Ghrond?
- I would field two blocks of infantry so as to loosen up my deployment zone. What I'd invisioned being 24 swordsmen with 10 FC (though the rank would be useless, since that small they'd die anyway and they're only good at flanking) and possibly five handgunners (stand ad shoot - not too good against anything except cavalry, but still a little bit of damage) ;
- the knights should probably be in a single unit of ten for fluff purposes (I'd have prefered eight, but that made the point of so much cavalry - ranks - moot);
- the patriots idea was so good, I'd have wanted flagellants;
- a helblaster would have been fun (I like the idea of it blowing up). Then again, a STank would also have been fun (dragon-wagon), and you know my position on that.

Anyway, most of that probably strategically sound. Right now, though, this thread is still conceptualising - I'll post the list in the adequate forum when I've brewed one (though I'm definitely going to build from your example, so thanks for that).

And to Skeeter: "a bit well written?" How dare you? How dare you? I will not tolerate this affront to my dignity! I challenge you to a duel on the field of honour, tomorrow mor-

Oh, wait. I'm not supposed to be a knight, eh? Damn.

Ah, well.

*stabs Skeeter*

>.>
<.<

[Racticas]

Note that the stank becomes quickly non-fluffy if this republis is placed around Marienburg.  The surrounding region in a wretched swamp that has already claimed at least one Steam Tank in it peaty depths.

[Konrad von Richtmark]

Four scrolls is overkill but two is too little. Why don't you guys have a Seal of Ghrond?

Oh, we do. The Warrior Priest has it built-in. At a ludicrous cost, though, paying for a bunch of mostly-useless extras...  

If you intend to go TVI or something like the list I posted (which is essentially TVI with some minor differences when it comes to auxiliary units), handgunners easily turn useless. Your battleline needs all the space it can get, easily blocking the handguns' lines of fire.

Handgunner detachments are ideal for defensive semi-gunline lists, where they have clear lines of fire against approaching foes, and can use the detachment rules to max effect by support-firing or counter-charging when someone charges the parent unit. However, none of this is feasible in a TVI list using the infantry horde offensively.

If you insist on having small arms fire support, I'd rather take an independent unit of crossbowmen. Their range allows them to fire from a hill above the heads of the infantry, their range sufficient to reach the enemy deployment zone from your own in case your foe would insist on going on the defensive.

And personally, I think a 10-man knight hammer on the flank is just bloody awful. 10 kniggets is a frontal nutcracker, belonging in the centre of your line. Further, it's imo the single un-fluffiest thing you've suggested this far. Galloping into frontal melee shouting death or glory sounds like what Bretonnian kniggets would do.

Empire isn't about frontal nutcracking anyway. Empire is, imo more than any other army, about combined arms (not necessarily combined in equal measures, but combined nevertheless). Not only do we have the widest selection of different troop types in the entire game, we also get our stuff at a cheap-to-reasonable price and can afford outnumbering our foe unit-wise and pull off outmaneuver operations.

So, rather than relying on a 10-man hammer unit about as subtle as the average rhinoceros, split them into two MSU units of 5 with musician only. Just because you're leaving the pixies behind it doesn't mean their tactical doctrines are of no further value to you.

[Border Prince]

Self-sacrifice is a very nice thing to do, so it just serves to make the leader of this Revolution (the EC general) that much nobler

or more stupid of course... Sorry, couldn't resist.

Nothing wrong fluff-wise putting him on a horse. Although you want the Republic to emphasise equality, there is no reason why that has to mean everyone is identical (although I know that is quite close to the current interpretation of equality in the French revolutionary tradition). Equality can be as simple as one law applied to all (rather than different laws for different classes) without favouritism, what could be seen as the tradition of equality of the less radical of the French Enlightenment tradition. Who of course can be regarded as in some sense responsible for the intellectual ideas of the revolution, so fit fine. They would have no problem with someone in a deserved office being entitled to ride a horse. Evidently take this with a pinch of salt, I am a contented Burkean in this field.

If you keep the other characters on foot, I think that would also help. Your general could either be the object of adulation of your troops. Alternatively, he could be from a slightly older background. Although he supports the ideals of the republic, he was raised to lead, and ride a horse when so doing. Given the urgent need for the republic to have someone to lead their army who will not fail, he might be chosen on a meritocratic basis, but have kept his horse. The last justification is simply that he is a product of his socio-cultural circumstances: in WFB I cannot think of a human society where leaders are not typically mounted, and to lead on foot would be both difficult to conceive, but also contrary to military tradition.

The best, and simplest reason is that generals need to be on horseback, even in a mainly infantry army: they can then move to where they are needed, and have a (slightly) superior view compared to being on foot. Both of which are considerable advantages. You might have an army from a revolutionary republic, but that is no reason to suppose they are blind to immediate practicalities.

[Shadowwolf]

[ERROR; QUOTE TOO LONG]

Geez, I wish I could write posts like that....

Love you French id...  patriots! Good Luck, and be shure to post pics when finished!