Franks vs Several Opponents

[Chris]

Gentlemen,

Four reports of Franks engaging a variety of enemies across space and time . . .

TRIUMPH! rules were employed for these solo scenarios.

The link is:

https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/If%20I%20May%20Be%20Frank%28ish%29


That's weird . . . Apparently, it was the inclusion of the . . . in the link that threw a wrench. Sorry for the problem(s).

As per usual, standard boiler plate language about grammar and spelling, etc.


Thanks in advance for investing your time and for any offering comments and or constructive criticism.

Cheers,
Chris

[Erpingham]

Chris, you need to fix the link in the above post as it doesn't connect properly.

[Justin Swanton]

This does it: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/

[Erpingham]

This does it: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/

Though I suspect Chris wants to link direct to the post title.

[Justin Swanton]

This does it: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/

Though I suspect Chris wants to link direct to the post title.

This takes you to the post (which is at the head of the main page as the most recent addition): https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/2023/01/

[gavindbm]

Chris,

You might be interested that in most recent analysis of DBM results the Franks achieved a success score of 50%.  See https://www.jglwargames.com/army-popularity-and-success-with-dbm-3-3-and-3-4/ for details.

I can say having faced Frankish warbands at a few 25mm DBM competitions they have always proved a tough opponent. John G-L has certainly steered them to top placings in 25mm DBM competitions.  But then the 25mm DBM game is kinder to massed warband than the 15mm game (IMHO).

Gavin

[Chris]

Gavin,

Thanks for the link to the report(s). Will download and print to read over the long weekend of travel.

Gents,

Apologies all around for the linking error.

Here is the direct link, corrected:

https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/If%20I%20May%20Be%20Frank%28ish%29


One can also find the blog and then search for things that might be of interest at:

https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/

Thought it was unusual to have a report generate so many replies in so short of a time . . .

Cheers,
Chris

[Jon Freitag]

Chris, the number of quick replies surprised me too especially since it took me a long read to digest what you wrote.

[Jon Freitag]

Rather than reply on the missing link, my response to Chris' linked post focuses on my unfamiliarity with tournament play and optimizing army lists.

Interesting analysis and an impressive effort, Chris.  Experimentation using repeated trials (even v different opponents) is a good way forward in understanding the problem you are attempting to tackle with your Franks.  Not being a user of these rules or a tournament player, I may be missing the point completely.

Now, if I may be Frank (!), what has been uncovered or discovered in this exercise?  Have you developed a deeper understanding on the Frankish Way of War or have you pinpointed shortfalls in sub-optimal list building for tournament play?  Has the rules' developer built a Frankish Army List that is not competitive in tournament play?  Why this outcome?  Is not the whole purpose of Army Lists in this type of contest to ensure competitive armies on the table? If the Franks find themselves often on the losing end of any contest, perhaps the list is not properly calibrated. What changes to existing Frankish Army Lists would be needed to give the Franks an even shot at victory?

I browsed through my stack of old MWs and #143 is in my pile if the article referenced early-on is of interest to you.

As always, thanks for a comprehensive and thought-provoking post.

[Erpingham]

Apologies for the disappointment but helping folks to access Chris' report seemed a priority.

I found Chris' choice of early Franks interesting simply because, to me, its a pretty bog standard "barbarian horde", without the compensations of the cavalry component one might get from, say, Gauls.  Now, as the Romans often found, a "barbarian horde" could be tough, so its not surprising it can be successful but how does it compare to other migration era Germanics?  Chris has fought with Alemannic armies before, so that is an obvious point of comparison.  Is it that different in the chosen rules from earlier Germans that fought varus or Marcus Aurelius?

[dwkay57]

Gavin's point about 25mm being kinder to the Franks than 15mm is interesting.

Is that because the tabletop battlefield didn't grow at the same scale as the figures which reduces the amount of room that more mobile armies had to get out of the way of the massed warbands?

[gavindbm]

Gavin's point about 25mm being kinder to the Franks than 15mm is interesting.

Is that because the tabletop battlefield didn't grow at the same scale as the figures which reduces the amount of room that more mobile armies had to get out of the way of the massed warbands?

Certainly in DBM in UK it is common to play both 15mm & 25mm games on standard 6x4 tables. 25mm armies are smaller than 15mm (as tend to with play 350 points in 25mm games, and 400 or 500 points in 15mm). Thus fewer moves to get across the table in 25mm games - and sometimes easier to get round wings in 15mm games.

[Chris]

Following the discussion with some interest . . .

Picking up on DK's question and GB's explanation, is this a "standard" irrespective of the army/armies employed?

While the rules certainly allow the meeting of historical opponents, I wonder how they fare with historical battles? And yes, I have read some reports of their employment at previous Battle Days and so forth, but to what extent does the required division into 3 or 4 commands truly reflect history?

On a related note, has anyone else used Franks with other rules (aside from DBM and my brief foray with TRIUMPH!)?

Cheers,
Chris

[dwkay57]

Back in the old days, when fighting with 25mm Early Imperial Romans under WRG 4th/5th, I seemed to find that my success rate went up the larger the battle fought. Part of this I put down to me being able to always get another cohort of legionaries out of the toolbox whilst my opponent had to dig deep and usually came up with the "cruddy" types, and also that the table size was generally fixed at around 6x4 (and my opponents never asked for an extension) it became more difficult to avoid a solid wall of good quality infantry that could generally mash whatever was the way.

Gavin's comments tend to suggest that the larger battlefields at 15mm give more opportunity for the mobile armies.

[Justin Swanton]

Back in the old days, when fighting with 25mm Early Imperial Romans under WRG 4th/5th, I seemed to find that my success rate went up the larger the battle fought. Part of this I put down to me being able to always get another cohort of legionaries out of the toolbox whilst my opponent had to dig deep and usually came up with the "cruddy" types, and also that the table size was generally fixed at around 6x4 (and my opponents never asked for an extension) it became more difficult to avoid a solid wall of good quality infantry that could generally mash whatever was the way.

Gavin's comments tend to suggest that the larger battlefields at 15mm give more opportunity for the mobile armies.

My own take is that for an army with a reasonable contingent of cavalry the cavalry line would be at least as long as the infantry line. Infantry could deploy only so wide and hope to manoeuvre on the battlefield. If they were too long (like the Indians at the Hydaspes) they didn't move or broke up if they tried moving. For my own system a battlefield for a sizeable army (around 30 bases) is 16 battlefield squares wide. 2 bases fit side-by-side into a square. The infantry of a 4-legion army (16 bases) will be 4 squares wide. For a big army around the 50-base mark the infantry (32 bases) will be 8 squares wide. There should always be plenty of space on the flanks for more agile troops to get around. Unless you're doing Thermopylae. And there's that goat path around Mount Callindrome anyway.