Slings and darts

[Stevewales88]

Hi Martin,
I have been looking at WRG army lists and thinking how they would be made in C&K. Looking at Inca and Mexican armies they have or can have LMI armed with JLS and slings. Lots of them. I wonder how to account for the slings in C&K where the troops are not skirmishers? And then there are darts. Again the Mexican armies can field lots of dart armed LMI, and in the Book of Hosts books there are plenty of armies where their throwing weapons have been classed as darts. Any thoughts?
Thanks Steve

[martin goddard]

Interesting topic Steve.

Firstly , weapons need to be paid for.
This would mean if the chaps want shooter status they must pay for it.

I don't know much about Mexican armies.

Maybe bow(for darts)  and spear armed  unarmoured shieldless/shielded  auxiliaries.

I don't think many would be intimidated by masses of unarmoured foot troops?

martin

[Moggy]

I agree, most armies had some limited missile troops. Even if just a lot of slings.  These can be pretty effective as a weapon.

The funny thing is that if they are shield-less they actually work out cheaper than normal blokes with shield/spear.

Doesn't the rules say that the general term used covers a wide range of missile armed troops anyway!  Only issue I can see is what type of troops should they be. I doubt close order would be appropriate for slingers so would probably come down on the side of them being Aux troops.

Derek

[Stevewales88]

I used to play WRG 5th edition with an Aztec army. Nearly all reg A or reg B LMI with some irr A LMI. They may have lacked armour Martin but I assure you that they were dangerous! Very high morale especially with warrior priests as sacred, quite mobile, good in terrain etc. I had a memorable win in Bristol against a Late Imperial Roman army, those with the HTW, JLS, D and Sh legionaries. Impetuous (for me) against non impetuous (unfriendly cover for him) played out very well for me.

Interesting point Derek about missiles in the rules covering different weapons and I think I agree with you that Aux is the better fit.
Steve

[John Watson]

I have assumed that C & K uses generic missile troops, so that although the rules say "bows" it really means "long range missiles" and therefore covers slings, darts, bows, crossbows, throwing axes etc. I agree with Derek that slingers need space so would be auxiliaries or skirmishers. My limited knowledge of American ancient armies would lead me to think that the majority of non skirmish infantry would be unarmoured, shieldless auxiliaries, with perhaps the best troops being armoured, shieldless auxiliaries.
Those western armies that I know of that used slings (Greeks, British, Byzantine, Vikings etc) would all be covered by foot skirmishers.
John

[Stevewales88]

Mmm my understanding of Inca and also Central American warriors is that shields were common while armour as we know it in the west did not really exist. Certainly not metal. My instinct is shielded unarmoured auxiliary, quite a few with missiles, and for the better troops veteran or elite.
Steve

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

Shields and missile weapons often had very different uses in the ancient and medieval world
Skirmish troops tended to have bucklers for melee combat if they had any shields at all which would not count as 'shielded' in the usual manner. Otherwise they relied on speed of evasion.
Missile weapons were divided into those used to disorder and dishearten the enemy or goad them into a reckless advance immediately before a melee, or longer range weapons hence the DBA distinction between 'Bows' and 'Psiloi' who used darts, javelins, slings and throwing axes aka skirmishers
Some infantry also used close quarter throwing weapons such as javelins, darts, quoits and throwing axes before closing into melee. This is often reflected in them having a higher combat value in an initial charge.
Since Mexican armies largely faced off against other similarly attired and equipped types types, a numerical advantage was important. Psychological intimidation was just as important in warfare as equipment. You must not discount the padded cotton armour which proved both lightweight and effective, so much so that Conquistadores often favoured it over their metal equivalents...

Neil

[Stevewales88]

Very very interesting Neil. And just to correct myself it looks like the Incas used metal while the central American civilizations did not to any extent. So any thoughts anyone on what an Aztec army list might look like for C&K?
Steve

[mellis1644]

Slings have generally the same rage generally as bows (not longbows/composite/crossbows bows) but need more space for the users. So are always more of a skirmishing weapon. Many rules do not differentiate between the two for shooting in the ancient period. Slings were (are) deadly weapons in trained hands, and less affected by weather etc. They are unglamorous but effective.

But a lot of these Amex armies had a lot of javelins (and short range missile weapons). Other rules tend to give them the same bonus as say Roman legionaries and their pulim as a lot of their missile fire would be just before combat to try to break up the opposing troops a little.

Hope this helps

[Stevewales88]

Interesting and helpful. Slings seem clear enough - basically skirmishers although Inca etc armies could have Aux with missiles to account for the slings amongst the more formed infantry. Still not sure how to account for the Aztec atlatl etc. and such throwing weapons in general. I agree probably just giving a bonus in first contact but I don't know how to implement this in the existing C&K rules and choices of units and options.

[Moggy]

I would tend to treat that as "shock" as per the rules.  I think the term could be a bit more loosely interpreted than it possibly is now. If you pay the points for it I cant see any other way without increasing the scope of the rules.

Of the top of my head I think its a plus 1 dice if attacking up to a max of 2 per fight and costs 3 points per unit.  AS to a maximum number of units I would limit this to 2 or possibly 3 at most.

Derek

[martin goddard]

Draw up a CK list Steve and we can chat about it?

martin

[Stevewales88]

Okay Martin I will have a go at some 300 points Aztec armies as this seems easier and a step towards forming an army list.

So Army A: premises are long battle line with lots of missiles built in, units formed by area so veterans and apprentices mixed together making units trained as opposed to some veterans and some levy, a few more elite units such as warrior priests. Interesting that the old Basic Impetus army lists for Aztec has nearly the whole army as warrior priests! Not sure how to class them though, veteran plus shock or elite.

2 generals free
17 Aux trained with missiles (14x17) 238
2 Aux elite (19x2) 38
1 Aux missiles elite 22 points
Total 20 units 298 points

Army B premise the commoners with their bows and slings behaved more like skirmishers while the main battle line used their missiles just before contact (1/3 units shock, each 3 units has one).

2 generals free
10 skirmishers (7x10) 70
3 Aux elite (19x3) 57
1 Aux elite shock 23 points
8 Aux trained (11x8) 88 points
4 Aux trained shock (15x4) 60 points
Total  26 units  300 points

What do you think, both for historical accuracy (not easy!) and fun to play!
Steve

[Moggy]

Hi Steve

Looking at the two lists you have suggested I can see a couple of issues you may face with them in their current form.  I am basing this on the use of the Nubian army that been quite successful so far.

Army A

Too many units with missiles and not enough core foot troops together with no close order troops. This will leaved you ate a disadvantage whenever you enter an assault.

The advantage of close order is the bonus you get from combined plus the difference in gaining that extra combat dice. I am assuming you have all the missile troops shieldless as well. This provides a double whammy. About the only benefits you would get is enough extra units to always have rear support. If you take a typical combat involving the maximum 3 units plus a skirmisher you would have around 7 dice ( 3 x aux units at 2 plus 1 skirmisher at 1, rear support at 2, then take off 1 for every bow unit). Facing this you would, if facing more traditional armies face 2 close order and 1 aux plus skirmisher who would possibly have 13 dice (2 x 3 point plus 1 x 2 points and 1 x 1 point, plus possible rear support at 2 and close order combined at 2). Also take into account that you only have skirmishers to absorb the hits.  Please bear in mind there are a lot of other factors that "could " contribute.

I would suggest increasing the number of normal fighting troops even if just as levy to provide this bulking out.

Army B

Yet again you will notice the lack of any close order troops. However, I feel this Army is the more survivable of the two.

I accept that you are trying to keep it historical whilst I am looking at it from a gaming point of view as I have little knowledge of the actual nature and composition of the Armies involved. While we don't want "super Armies" we also don't really want armies that may repeatidly suffer.

Nothing more heartbreaking than having your newly made pride and joy beaten over and over. Know that as I have been there myself. Before I did the Nubians I had heard from so many players that the Nubians were the poorest Army with a list at the time. I feel their performance has shown them to be near the top in gaming terms.

I laud your efforts and can see the mezo-americans are of interest to you and will love to see them in action.  Well done.

Derek

[Stevewales88]

Thanks for the kind words and long reply Derek. I have just been right through the C&K army lists and it looks like every infantry army has had its main fighting troops classed as close foot. I will scratch my head and think about it overnight! I am really enjoying this thread though! Oh, all the troops have shields in the two army lists.
All the best to all
Steve