Combined Arms vs. Spam

[RushAss]

Another good point made by Hannibal in another thread (http://yourmovegames.com/forum/index.php/topic,4721.0.html) that I thought deserved it's own thread.

He's been mentioning combined arms vs. Spamming for a while.  Here's his definition of Spamming from that thread:

...All spamming is when you identify something that is worth its points, you go hard in that direction for your army build.  You don't take nothing but that unit (for example, an army of nothing but archers), but you are definitely spending the vast majority of your points that way.

This is not to say spam = bad.  A pure close-and-hose army can be fun to play, as can a stand and shoot.  My point is that most games don't encourage people to take combined arms, because usually it's better to simply go hard one way (shooty or fighty for example) than take a more even mix.

To me, combined Arms is more than just "A little of this, a little of that".  It is an army build based upon synergy where each unit has it's own role with the intention of having the the whole shebang work together as an organic whole.  

However, I do believe that there are some factions where the classic concept of combined arms just doesn't work as well as a Spam approach would.  One of those factions is The Dwarves.  You can certainly work both archery and cavalry into many builds and have it work well, but the relative high cost of Dwarven line units and the Antonians (When compared to other light cavalry) makes it a difficult thing to do consistently.  Last year, my generic 2000 point build at the Championship tournament in Boston was this:

2 Axemen
2 Militia
1 Spearmen
1 Battle Axemen
1 Longbeards
1 Antonians

Against certain opponents like Elves I would swap out the Battle Axemen for Hammermen or more Axemen.  This is a pure close-and-hose army and it worked relatively well when I used it.  If I had chosen to add archery I would have had to make some tough choices along my line, so I generally didn't take any.  Yes yes yes, I know that to some Crossbowmen are the very definition of "combined arms", but I feel they usually don't get a lot of use out of their ranged attack unless you are doing stand and shoot.  

Another faction that probably doesn't benefit much from combined arms is Lizardmen because their archery is never worth it and they lack a true cavalry unit.  

Umenzi also don't live up to combined arms in a true sense, but they have their own version of it.

On the flip side, there are quite a few factions that excel at combined arms IMO.  Hawkshold may be the best because they have reasonably priced line units and many cavalry options.  Orcs, Undead, Dark Elves, and Historicals also strike me as really good at using combined arms.  

In my mind, a faction needs to have most (but not necessarily all) of the following to allow it to excel at combined arms:

1 - Reasonably priced line units that don't suck despite their cost (See Hawk Swordsmen)
2 - Reasonably priced archery
3 - Reasonably priced cavalry
4 - A healthy variety of line units
5 - Lack of the need to include at least 1 super expensive unit in you army in order to make it work.

If you look at Hawkshold, they have got all 5 of these going for them.  Many others have 3-4.  The Undead generally don't benefit from point #5, but it is just so easy for them to include something like Death Knights when so many of their other units are so cheap.  Same for the Umenzi.

Credit to Hannibal for consistently pimping this in many previous threads. Thoughts?

[iamJMAN00793]

If I understand what you mean when you say "combined arms" then I really like to use the Elves of Ravenwood in this fashion. I will buy a few line infantry, a couple of archers with some flanking Stag cav or Centaurs and I find that this works very well.

[BubblePig]

Chad makes a pretty good case for taking an archer to accelerate breakthrough, but I have a feeling if you crunch the numbers that on average cannibalizing those points and beefing up one or two line units gets you more bang for your buck in most cases (Though this could be problematic for some factions because that line unit either doesn't exist or won't meet Core.) I would not term abandoning spending those points on archery as 'spamming,' though. I feel it is a symptom of having to always spread your points thinner than you would like, and that at higher densities combined arms would become more generally attractive. (Apologies to Marcus if that last sentence is just a crude restatement of his points 1 - 5 above, from a slightly different angle.)

[Hannibal]

Yeah, I think Bubblepig summed up my thoughts pretty well.  Archers will have a bit of "dead" points in their hit boxes and weak engaged attack already, and while that's not a lot, if you combine it with an engaged penalty it results in even more dead points than the 20% I mentioned to Chad in the other thread.  Maybe even somewhere approaching 40-50% of the unit's cost.

I haven't really had the time to go through Rushass's post in detail, other than to say that I have used "combined arms" as a pretty narrow, game-specific term.  Technically, any army that uses infantry and cavalry is combined arms.  And you could make the assertion that if you used beatstick units with tank units, that is combined arms as well.  But in practice, those two armies fall under the Close & Hose description in terms of this game.  I tend to define combined arms in BGFW as a build that takes 1-2 ranged units in an otherwise close & hose army.

[Niko White]

If I understand what you mean when you say "combined arms" then I really like to use the Elves of Ravenwood in this fashion. I will buy a few line infantry, a couple of archers with some flanking Stag cav or Centaurs and I find that this works very well.

This is totally correct, Ravenwood is a glorious combined arms force, I pretty much never regret taking 1-2 of their foot archers even given the cost.

Of course, they're also easily the best core archers in the game, and as BubblePig points out, Ravenwood doesn't really have a hard-hitting line breakthrough unit unless you're playing a toughness faction and the tree can get there.  That said, I think an archer or two can be a reasonable investment with either disrupted + no engaged penalty or the switch to (-1) -0/-0.  It isn't wrong that archer defense skill and health boxes and so on aren't all that useful in the early game, but most units aren't so incredibly specialized that you're only paying for the most useful stats.  I think saying that archers are 50% "dead" is crazy; then they'd be a gigantic waste of points in all cases, which isn't true.

I think the reason people find archers marginal in a lot of cases is that they tend to have low attack stats, but also low dice, and fire half as often as engaged units fight.  This means you need to actually get your odds per die up reasonably high if you want the archers to have an early-game impact.  This is pretty easy on 6/5 elves (doubly so with Spirit Guidance or Precision) or on artillery, but not all that easy on 5/5's unless you have a chump to shoot at.  In general, really, 5/5 archers are best as chump clearers, which is a great role with a lot of the armies people are fielding these days, so I find them pretty good.

[RushAss]

I also think Ravenwood is a great combined arms force, but I didn't list them as among the best for 2 reasons.

1 - While awesome and usually worth it, their archery is still quite expensive and detracts points from the line.there.

2 - While awesome and usually worth it, their cavalry is still quite expensive and detracts points from the line.  While a faction like Hawkshold has 2 Cavalry units less than 250 points it can chose from, Ravenwood has none.

So if you just take 1 Ravenwood Archer and 1 Stag Cavalry at 2000 points, you've spent more than 25% of your points right there.  That usually adds up to having to either field a shorter line or having a weaker unit or two occupying a spot.  That's not to say that doing this is a bad idea.  I do this often myself, it's just more awkward than trying to do it with something like Orcs, Undead, Hawks, etc... because of the points costs of these supporting units.

[Niko White]

Sure, but on the flip side they're vastly more likely to earn their points back against factions where it is reasonable to take them.  The 5/5 Hawk archers are going to be garbage in a lot of cases because the opponent doesn't give you a good target.

[Chad_YMG]

One key point with Ravenwood is that their archers intersect magnificently with Spirit Guidance.

An archer is generally assigned to help out in the key battle (hence my argument that its abstract inefficiency is balanced by how important what damage it does is to the overall battle).  That implies that each point it does is worth more than a random point throughout the battlefield.

Let's say the enemy unit is a 2/2 on defense.  (Most often it will be worse, since we're talking about the breakthrough fight you're hoping to win.)  Before the lines engage the Ravenwood player will typically roll four dice needing 3s and 3s (-1 for long range) or 4s and 3s.  The most common outcome of this will be two hits and one damage, at which point Spirit Guidance does another point. Spending a command action to do a point of damage to the unit you most want to kill is pretty outstanding.

[Niko White]

Oh yeah, agreed, though High Elf archers are nearly as good just because 6/5 is so strong and Precision can get up to 2/3's of a point against a lot of the weaker units you're trying to break through.

[Hannibal]

My point isn't "can archer units be useful."  They certainly can because, as Chad said, they can concentrate fire on key location.  The question to me is "could those points be better spent elsewhere?"  And the answer (in a close & hose army) is usually: yes.  So short of taking a stand and shoot, the archery units go back in the box.  Usually, for example, if I'm trying to turn a flank and I have a choice between Knights or Light Cav+Bowmen, I'll take the Knights.  Even with Ravenwood, as much as I'd like to take those archers, it's already a pricey army and I usually feel better served with investing that 230 pts upgrading Stags to Centaurs and taking some more Brownies.

While I agree the ability to put a point of damage anywhere is nice, and probably does compensate for those "dead points" of the unit's melee stats, losing a die or offensive skill for shooting into melee usually takes archers into the "points better spent elsewhere category."

[Niko White]

My point isn't "can archer units be useful."  They certainly can because, as Chad said, they can concentrate fire on key location.  The question to me is "could those points be better spent elsewhere?"  And the answer (in a close & hose army) is usually: yes.  So short of taking a stand and shoot, the archery units go back in the box.  Usually, for example, if I'm trying to turn a flank and I have a choice between Knights or Light Cav+Bowmen, I'll take the Knights.  Even with Ravenwood, as much as I'd like to take those archers, it's already a pricey army and I usually feel better served with investing that 230 pts upgrading Stags to Centaurs and taking some more Brownies.

While I agree the ability to put a point of damage anywhere is nice, and probably does compensate for those "dead points" of the unit's melee stats, losing a die or offensive skill for shooting into melee usually takes archers into the "points better spent elsewhere category."

I get what you're saying, I just disagree. I almost never field a ravenwood or HE army without an archer.

[elgin_j]

My point isn't "can archer units be useful."  They certainly can because, as Chad said, they can concentrate fire on key location.  The question to me is "could those points be better spent elsewhere?"  And the answer (in a close & hose army) is usually: yes.  So short of taking a stand and shoot, the archery units go back in the box.  Usually, for example, if I'm trying to turn a flank and I have a choice between Knights or Light Cav+Bowmen, I'll take the Knights.  Even with Ravenwood, as much as I'd like to take those archers, it's already a pricey army and I usually feel better served with investing that 230 pts upgrading Stags to Centaurs and taking some more Brownies.

While I agree the ability to put a point of damage anywhere is nice, and probably does compensate for those "dead points" of the unit's melee stats, losing a die or offensive skill for shooting into melee usually takes archers into the "points better spent elsewhere category."

I get what you're saying, I just disagree. I almost never field a ravenwood or HE army without an archer.

You know, I don't go the wholehog with Hannibal's view but I am certainly sympathetic.  These days I rarely take Longbows with my Hawks, despite being [arguably] the best range unit in the game.  I certainly wouldn't take them ahead of Knights except in the most difficult terrain.

[Chad_YMG]

One point in favor of archers is that sometimes the key battle you want to win isn't on the flank.

Take my recent game with Kevin.  He was able to set up each flank with a unit of spearmen and could have backed either of them up with another unit if needed.  If I'd upgraded my Stags to Centaurs they still would have been awkwardly placed for trying to turn either of his flanks.  Instead I chose to break through near the middle of his line.

I wouldn't argue that a no-archer army can always be upgraded by adding an archer (and stealing points from elsewhere) but I think it's often the case that the archer version is at least as good and sometimes it's better.

[elgin_j]

One point in favor of archers is that sometimes the key battle you want to win isn't on the flank.

Another point in their favour is they can be used as an excellent back-up unit for middle-of-line infantry units.  They can sit behind them firing away and if their protection crumbles then they are in position (and immediately ready to rock if they have Close, at the cost of no extra CAs) to immediately prevent a pinch/threaten a counter-pinch.  This makes them slightly more versatile than just plonking a melee unit behind the front line and wasting all those points until late in the game.

Still, I rarely take them these days.  The best use I often find for them is negating the danger of an enemy unit taking out weakened melee units late in the game when you can't engage them before they knock off your few remaining hitpoints.

[gull2112]

Archers also have the ability to respond to a crisis more quickly than a unit that actually has to physically move there.

But aside from that, addressing the main issue of spam vs. CA, I must say that spam can work once or twice, but once your opponent knows that's what you're bringing, they become markedly less effective, suddenly the one trick pony isn't so attractive.

Spam generally presupposes no terrain and/or special conditions, if you prefer to play such a generic version then maybe this spams for you.