Hott Arthurian Armies (and dba too)

[Paul Potter]

Over the weekend I got to meet up with Darrin and Lonnie up in the far norther reaches and played in Darrin's new Arthurian campaign system which was well thought out. I'm hopping for a chance to get to try it again at some point. Maybe Darrin can be coaxed into posting about it.

all of which reminded me about how much I enjoy the Arthurian period for hott and for dba, I like the blending of celtic, germanic, roman, christian and pagan all in the same setting.

some of the funnest hott games I have played at the local club have been from the 'Arthurian' period.

I'm posting here in hopes that others will put up pictures and ideas about gaming this period. To start things off here are a couple pic of some elements I started working on after being inspired by Darrin's campaign.

the first fig will be a hero or paladin (Lancelot or some such), the middle element will be a general, perhaps Arthur himself as a hero or knight, the squatting cymric archer is a slm fig. the last stand will be the Green knight which I'm trying to give a fantasy celtic feel to. I'd really like to find a small set of antlers to attach to the head of his horse, but anyway he'll have more green and perhaps some celtic swirls:





-Paul

[Gregorius]

Hi Paul,

Looks like the beginning of another great project. I notice you identify the archer as SLM. What about the other figures?

Cheers,

[EnglishAL]

the old ral partha line had a deer miniature that had decent antlers that would probably be in scale for the green knight.ral partha europe or ebay might have the figure avalable.

[Chris Brantley]

Originally Posted by Gregorius

Looks like the beginning of another great project. I notice you identify the archer as SLM. What about the other figures?

Barded cav look like Pass o the North late Romans. The axeman on horse looks like one of the new Copplestone Castings "Northlander" barbarians modified to sit astride a POTN horse. Not sure about the others.

[Alan Saunders]

Oddly enough I've been looking at my Arthurian-era Dark Age DBA armies for HOTT. Most convert OK, but the Saxons are a bit of a poser. In DBA they are Warband (mostly), which seems to translate to HOTT OK. Except in DBA Warband are disadvantaged by bad going; in HOTT they aren't. If I'm playing a Saxon force in HOTT I'm going to maximise bad going, given that my opponents will tend towards Spears, Hordes and various mounted. This doesn't seem quite right to me.

I'm wavering between Spears and Blades at present; Spears is what they become later (in the Middle Anglo-Saxon list), whereas Blades gives then a slight Warband-like edge over British Spears, whilst still making them vulnerable to British mounted.

(Note: My HOTT for this period is based on a fairly straight conversion of the DBA lists; I don't use Heroes, Magicians or anything like that. So the British army is for example 3 x Riders and 9 x Spears, with one of the Riders being the general, and being swapped for a Knight if he's Arthur. HOTT Played with just the 'no-frills' 2AP elements is surprisingly interesting; it makes for a tense game not being able to rely on powerful, high AP killer elements like Heroes.)

(I'm happy to share any lists people want, if people want to see where I'm coming from)

[Gregorius]

Hi Chris,

Yes I thought that POTN was part of the package, but I wasn't so sure.

Cheers,

[Paul Potter]

Originally Posted by Gregorius

Hi Paul,

Looks like the beginning of another great project. I notice you identify the archer as SLM. What about the other figures?

Cheers,

The other fellows are correct. the Green knight is from the copplestone characters set, the other horsemen and horses are Pass of the North and that is the pass of the north Arthur fig with shield and sword added.
the priest is slm and the Green knights female consort is from the Tres corbies warrior women of Ireland range.

-Paul

[Lewchips]

I shall enjoy watching your armies come together Paul as usual.

Originally Posted by Alan Saunders

I'm happy to share any lists people want, if people want to see where I'm coming from

Alan, My first game of HotT was a straight out Romano-British and Pict bash using my DBA armies without any fantasy elements. It was a really enjoyable game. I'm always interested in seeing peoples list. They sound interesting.

Cheers,

Barry

[Alan Saunders]

Originally Posted by Lewchips

I shall enjoy watching your armies come together Paul as usual.



Alan, My first game of HotT was a straight out Romano-British and Pict bash using my DBA armies without any fantasy elements. It was a really enjoyable game. I'm always interested in seeing peoples list. They sound interesting.

Cheers,

Barry

Hi. As I say they are pretty much conversions of the DBA lists, with a few compromises to take into account troop types not found in HOTT.

Sub-Roman British
1 x Rd (Gen), 2 x Rd, 9 x Sp

For Arthur replace the Rider general with a Knight. You could possibly drop a Spear and add a Shooter. And, in the earlier armies, drop a couple of Spear and replace them with a couple of elements of Saxons.

Saxon

1 xWb (Gen), 11 x Wb

This is the army I have issues with. Warband is probably the correct type with regard to the interaction with the British Spear and mounted. But it does mean that the Saxons become a highly effective rough-terrain army, which doesn't seem to be right. Running them as Spears is maybe a better way to force them into being used they way they operated. It's open to discussion, and I need to try more games before settling on an final definition.

Pictish - Early

1 x Kn (Gen), 2 x Rd, 1 x Wb, 7 x Sp, 2 x Lk

The Knight is a chariot. I have tried running chariots as Riders, and they seemed less 'right' than they do as Knights - after all, they are really mounted Warband when all's said and done.

Normally I ignore Psiloi, but in armies with a fair number of them, or that seemed to have ambushes as a possible tactic I depict them as Lurkers.

Pictish - Late

1 x Rd or Sp (Gen), 2 x Rd, 8 x Sp, 2 x Lk

With a Rider general this is almost identical to the Sub-Roman British army - the Lurkers are the only variation.

Scots-Irish - Early

1 x Kn (Gen), 2 x Kn, 1 x Kn or Wb, 8 x Wb

See above for the Knights - as a classification this works well against my Early Imperial Romans too.

Scots-Irish - Late

1 x Kn or Wb (Gen), 11 x Wb

In this case the HOTT Warband classification seems justified.

Welsh

1 x Rd or Wb (Gen), 10 x Wb, 2 x Lk

Pretty much a Late Scots-Irish, with Lurkers

A couple of later lists, extending into the early Viking period:

Viking

1 x Bd (Gen), 9 x Bd, 1 x Bd or Wb, 1 x Bd or Sh

I normally run both the Shooter and the Warband, just for the sake of variety and flexibility.

Norse-Irish

1 x Wb (Gen), 8 x Wb, 2 x Lk, 2 x Wb or Bd

The Blades are Ostmen. It is a general theme of my DBA to HOTT conversions that Auxilia (which is what the Norse-Irish really are) become Warband. I know this changes their strengths and weaknesses a little, but at the end of the day this is really an exercise in using DBA armies that were sitting about doing nothing in a game I really enjoy - HOTT. I'll happily compromise a bit of historical accuracy in order to get an enjoyable game.

(One of the more interesting games I have tried is Rhoxolani Sarmatian - 12 x Kn - against Alan - 12 x Rd. A tricky one for the Alan, but not impossible to win.)

[Bobgnar]

Originally Posted by Alan Saunders

Oddly enough I've been looking at my Arthurian-era Dark Age DBA armies for HOTT. Most convert OK, but the Saxons are a bit of a poser. In DBA they are Warband (mostly), which seems to translate to HOTT OK. Except in DBA Warband are disadvantaged by bad going; in HOTT they aren't. snip

How are Warband disadvantaged in bad going in DBA vs HOTT? Neither take the -2 penalty and both move 200. Neither get second rank support. True DBA Wb are +2 vs mounted but they get a second move into combat.