Elves

[Rod]

So I started my 2nd Age of Middle Earth ish / High Elven Army.

Using the Battle Valor Elvians.
Now I have the Super Heavy mounted dudes, two-handed Swordsmen, and the archers...

Debating on how to make up the army. My first thought, an equal mix of knights, Elite Foot, and archers...

But knights seem sort of reckless for Elves and their infantry seems to be more like elite pavise? (Dismounting knights?)

So leaning towards Cataphracts, Pavise and maybe a unit or two of Elite Infantry?

Could Also, pick up spear for front rank of Pavise, or use the two handed swordsmen in front of the archers?
http://www.battlevalorgames.com/elvians ... gures.aspx

Thoughts

[Rod]

Came back with only one bag of unpainted lead from Historicon, picked up some spear armed elves from Battle Valor. Trying them out on the bases. Probably only fit three in the front rank unless I cut shields down like I am doing with the Mounted. Love the figures, but the shields are way too big.

Here is the debate, should I put the two handed sword guys on the front rank in front of the archers? Fielded as Pavisiers (has a look like the battle in the LOTR scenes)...

Or use the Spearmen in front with the giant shields and just field the swordsmen as elite foot?

Army composition for these elves was planned to be 3-4 Cataphracts, 3-4 Elite Foot, 4-6 Pavisiers....

Thoughts?

[Kontos]

Spear for the Pavisers. Elite Foot should be swordsmen IMO.

[Rod]

First of all it is fantasy, so do not want to go too crazy with the correctness of my made up toy elf army, that said....

I too was leaning heavily towards the spear guys with the big shields.

The description for Triumph troop types from Meshwesh:
"
A combination formation where a large body of long-distance missile troops are stiffened with a few front ranks of spear or pike, often with the large shield called (in the Middle Ages) a pavise, or similar. As such the formation retained the long-range missile capability of Archers, but with greater ability to hold off enemy mounted and foot. These formations were effective in good going, but performed poorly when the thin front ranks were unable to maintain close formation in bad terrain. Examples are Byzantine kontaratoi, Achaemenid Persian sparabara and the Babylonian formations they inherited from, many formations of the Chinese Warring States period, and Italian Medieval pavisiers.
"
At Historicon one of the players brought Pavisiers in his army (which my Horsebow truly feared....!) he had them modelled as Crossbow behind a Pavise and he was surprised they did not get a benefit from the shields against Archers (foot) when shooting. I pointed out that in reality, the intent of this troop type as I understood it was to represent the front rank being a little more solid in hand to hand (hence the +3 in CC and not shattered by mounted). the big shield on the front rank does not really help against arrows raining down from above which is what is represented by ranged archery, masses of arrows in volleys, it might slow down infantry, mounted, or direct fire (Horsebow).

That got me thinking about the LOTR battle scenes with the two handed Swordsmen in the front rank and the bowmen immediately behind and was wondering if I should try that. It is not the big Shield that improves their survivability in close combat, it is that the front rank is close combat infantry "historically" armed with a long pointy stick (anti-mounted) which is more effective than a dude with a bow and knife in hand to hand.

Reference this pic for example:

[Rod]

So next time I decide to make a Cataphract and Pavisier army... Somebody should point out how many figures that takes!

[Rod]

Going with the Blue and gold look....

[paulgpotter]

Looking good Rod.

[Rod]

Some progress.... but slow been playing with my Granddaughter this week = exhausted

[Kontos]

So she beats you at Triumph! too? How many games did you lose this week?

[Rod]

More progress.... Cataphracts are next.