Or, Why do I always get the table with no terrain when I use Vikings?

In this final article I will consider two extremes - foot armies and cavalry armies. Life is not easy using these type of armies, but it certainly is interesting. Each has its own unique characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. In many ways they are enjoyable to use. Employ a simple battle plan, pick your disposition carefully, and let the army roll.

Foot armies - that is armies where generally all but one, possibly two units are foot - include some of the early "Biblical" armies, Greek Hoplite (since the cavalry is generally so poor you may as well leave them at home), Jewish, Early German, Annamese, Early Saxon, Welsh, Mexican, Inca, Viking, Russ, Scottish, Japanese, Anglo-Danish, Swiss and One Hundred Years War English.

In general all foot armies tend to operate better in 25mm than 15mm, assuming that play is on a 6'x4' table. In 25mm it is possible for foot armies to cover their flanks adequately, with perhaps a little help from terrain. This forces the opponent to accept a frontal assault which probably favours the all foot army since they have greater staying power, or to attempt a flank march. A flank march has an element of risk associated with it, and can be partially countered with terrain or your own flank march. In 15mm it is not possible to line up wall-to-wall, so all cavalry armies have an initial advantage in their greater manoeuvrability. However, do not despair if you are planning to launch your 15mm Franks on an unsuspecting wargaming world.

A few months ago I was given a very rough time by a Kiwi wielding an Aztec army. Oh Ho! Aztecs you say. Nasty. All those slings and clubs. Actually the slings and clubs were irrelevant because I was using an army that had even more infantry than his, plus cavalry on top. It was a Korean army - mainly D grade but cheap and plentiful. The Aztec won mainly through careful deployment and husbanding his reserves. There were two woods on the table, one on his right flank, the other on his left. However they did not completely block off the flanks - cavalry could ride around the edge, and his centre was open.

The Aztecs deployed their only two units of light infantry in the woods, one in each. These units were expressly there to prevent any flank marching and were steadily withdrawn back by counters as I pressed forward and tries to flow around him. The rest of the army was deployed in the centre, in two lines. The first line was more solid than the second.

The second line served two functions. It reinforced the first line when the initial assault was thrown back by my infantry, and it acted as a reserve to counter my flanking units when they eventually managed to work around the flank.

The key ingredients in the success of the foot army was careful use of light infantry and judicious use of a reserve. Therefore light infantry are a valuable resource in such armies. Loose order foot armies have the advantage of swift movement but are vulnerable to attack cavalry. Close order foot armies, such as franks, are far less vulnerable to foot, but are slower moving. This can be partially offset by force marching if you feel it is important to grab terrain or push forward as fast as possible. And don't be afraid to force march most or all of your close order foot.

Cavalry armies have the advantage of manoeuvre, but have no ability to deal with rough terrain. There are two solutions to this problem - one is to ignore rough terrain, which will work provided there is not too much of it about. The other solution is to take one or two units of foot, if your list permits it. Such foot in cavalry armies is almost invariable very poor quality. Never mind. It's cheap and it's only purpose in life is to contest terrain for as long as possible while the cavalry get on with the job of winning the game.

Cavalry armies include Skythian, Later Achaemenid Persian (if you leave the foot at home), Parthian, Sarmatian, Sassanid, Hunnic, Bulgar, Ghuzz, Avar (a popular choice), Turk, Mongol and some of the Eastern medieval armies. Most of them originate from the Central Asian steppes, and as such use the bow as their principle weapon. They usually consist of lightly equipped cavalry (LC, bow, perhaps javelin and the option of shield) with a core of heavier armed nobles.

Such cavalry armies are usually unable to take out close order infantry in a frontal assault, although Parthian SHC and Avar EHC stand a better chance than most. This means that cavalry armies must rely on manoeuvre. The basic aims of cavalry armies against most opponents is: 1) pin the close order infantry (and elephants if present) down with light troops; 2) concentrate the heavier cavalry against the support troops; 3) try and strip off/rout the support to expose the flank of the infantry. With a bit of luck a rout or two might induce a failed waver test in the surrounding troops.

It all sounds simple enough, but how do you achieve it on the table? Most steppe army nobles are double armed, so are 'capable of shooting up an opponent before launching an assault. You will Probably only end up one or two factors up, but it is the edge you are looking for. Extra Heavy cavalry are especially useful in this role because they can absorb return missile fire much more effectively than heavy cavalry, and so are quite capable of attacking auxiliary troops such as light or light medium archers or javalin men.

A combined attack by light cavalry backed up with small units of heavier cavalry is also useful for clearing away enemy light cavalry - the heavy cavalry cannot be readily attacked by the opposing players light cavalry. If light cavalry take 2 CPF they must rally back, but of course the heavy cavalry can charge. Although you are unlikely to catch the enemy light cavalry on the first charge, you put the pressure on the opponent because he continuously has to accept the risk of evading and getting caught, where the main risk for the attack is exhausting the heavy cavalry - but before heavy cavalry become exhausted they will have had the opportunity to initial several charges.

Such attacks by heavy cavalry must be closely supported by your own light cavalry. Not only do the lights absorb some of the missile hits, but they also inflict missile damage on the opponent.

A final point to this combined attack - the evading light cavalry will mean that the flank of the unit they were supporting is exposed. You need to keep some cavalry reserve (preferable a few small units) available to exploit these gaps and harass the exposed flanks. And where do you get the reserves from if part of your army is attacking the lights troops, the nobles are attacking the heavier cavalry and the remained is involved in pinning the enemy core infantry? The answer is that the pinning force must be the absolute minimum possible to achieve such a task, so that you can maximise this small reserve.

And finally, we have the flank march. Cavalry armies should employ this device to work around what would otherwise be a solid, stable front. However, foot armies should not feel that a flank march is the exclusive perogative of mounted armies. Nothing would surprise an opponent than finding a large block of infantry suddenly appearing on a flank.

That just about wraps up this beginners series on WRG 7th. Some (most?) may very well be asking the questing: why is this guy writing about 7th edition when everyone knows that the new WRG rules, DBM, are to be published soon? In answering this question I am going to have to stick my neck out somewhat and give a prediction on what will happen with WRG 7th, DBA and DBM. So here goes...

In the first place, Phil Barker has never, to my knowledge, claimed that DBM is a de facto 8th edition (Slingshot 161 "Guardroom"), although undoubtable some people are looking to DBM as such a replacement. The author sees DBM as a complementary set or rules to existing rules, rather than replacement rules.

I also have reservations about DBM. I have seen various preview copies of DBM, and even played a game using them. They are very closely related to DBA except, naturally enough, for bigger battles. And herein lies the problem. I think that DBA is a terrific set of rules: it is simple, quick, easy to absorb, brilliant for introducing beginners to be hobby, and gives a good and exciting game. It's only fault is that the technical writing style is appalling (as is the case with the other WRG sets).

I find that DBM, in expanding the rules and making it compatible with larger armies/more figures on the table, looses some of the features key to DBA's success without really adding significantly to DBA: It's DBA but more complicated, takes longer to play, more difficult to absorb, not so good for introducing beginners to the hobby. I'm sure it will give a good and exciting game, and that everyone will buy it and try it out, but in the end I believe what will happen is that 7th edition players will return to 7th, DBA players will become DBM players. The one thing I am not sure about is: which way will the 6th edition players jump (yes, in the UK there is still a strong 6th following)?

More Beginners Guide to Tactics Under WRG 7th

Part 1: Pick Your Army {Saga v5n6)
Part 2: The Waver Test and How to Avoid It {Saga v6n1)
Part 3: Movement, Missiles, Melee {Saga v6n2)
Part 4: Competition Wargaming {Saga v6n3)
Part 5: Pilum, Darts and Javelins {Saga v6n4)
Part 7: Foot or Mounted? {Saga v6n6)