Giving ADLG a proper go

I only have the edition of ADLG prior to the current one and other than a couple of games against Paul Dawson I haven't really played many games with these, or the current version of the rules.  However, I got to thinking (dangerous as always) that building a couple or three 120pt armies from my existing troops wasn't too much of a stretch after building a standard DBA Army.  This is also known as rampant expansionism, mission creep or a simple 'ooh shiny complex'.  The only issue I can see is the almost automatic urge to just add a few more options to cover all the bases to build a standard 200pt ADLG army.  Before you know it I could be up to DBM/DBMM figure counts!

The difference between the figure counts is less pronounced with cavalry heavy armies as these use a single base in both ADLG and DBA.  Infantry heavy armies with two bases for heavy and medium infantry in ADLG are where things really show up.  Lets have a look at the difference using a Late Imperial Roman force as an example (because it is somewhere in the middle as a 'combined arms force).

There isn't a great deal in the way of alternatives in the DBA army list for the Western Late Imperials.  Two legionary elements, three auxilia, two light cavalry and two cavalry (which include the general) are mandatory which covers 75% of the army!  The remaining three elements provide options as follow.  Firstly two of Auxilia Palatina or Velites (can be one of each), then lastly one from Clibanarii (3Kn), Catafractarii/Alans (4Kn), legionaries, bolt shooters, Lanciarii (3Bd) or warband .  So optional choices are limited.  For my last three elements I went with options of 1 x Auxilia Palatina, 1 x Velites and 1 x Catafracts (4Kn).  Oh and for what it's worth the Eastern Empires options are even less flexible!

Late Imperial Romans as a 12 Element DBA 3.0 army plus camp

One thing I have noted is that the Late Imperial Roman army list defines Clibanarii as 4Kn and Catafracts as 3Kn, I think this is the wrong way around as most lists show cataphracts as 4Kn which is why I changed them in the last paragraph! 

Late Imperial Romans as a 200pt ADLG force with two commands

Next lets look at the ADLG version, I excluded Foederati (Huns, Goths etc) to make the comparison closer, My selection still only has 12 units. However, it looks bigger as it has separate bases for it's two generals and of course the heavy and medium infantry are double based. What is less obvious is that this army has two commands so it's more like Big Battle DBA, it also has a fortified camp which prevents Light Cavalry raids on it. On top of which it has paid points for special capabilities for some units.

The Final selections were; First command   a brilliant general, 1 x Elite Heavy cavalry (Impact), 1 x Equites Sagittarii Light cavalry, 1 x Elite Cataphracts, 1 x Equites Heavy Cavalry (Impact)1 x Elite Legionaries (Impact, Armour, Missile Support), 1 x Elite Auxilia Palatina (Impact, Missile Support).  Second command, an ordinary general,  2 x Legionaries (Armour, Impact, Missile Support),  2 x Auxilia Palatina (Impact, Missile support), 2 x  Light Infantry Archers.  Plus a Fortified Camp.

 

A better view of the ADLG army

ADLG differs from DBA in that it has a points based army creation system so it has those interesting moments of self doubt about making choices, just like the old WRG ancients army list quandaries.   You know, the should I make those Hun horse archers elite or take a unit of light infantry archers instead kind of thing, rather than the straight 12 element choice of DBA.   It also has special capabilities (as shown above) in some lists.  So the Legionaries above can have armour, missile support and elite status as options. Me being, well, me I have gone for armour and missile support for the Legionaries, impact is mandatory  For the auxilia again missile support and mandatory impact.  The mounted command also took the elite option for it's the infantry reserve.

ADLG has other things going for it too that I like, light infantry and cavalry archers actually shoot at stuff, and units degrade rather than die in an all or nothing way.  Why I haven't used the rules more I really don't know, as I do really like 'chrome' within the rules of a game and the extra figures gives the whole army a better appearance.  

Any way as a result of all of this thinking my painting table is now packed again, after I did really well in November in clearing stuff down.  The western gunfight figures are on the back burner (or is that the left side burner as per the picture), as masses of Baccus 6mm horsemen take centre stage. These are mostly Late Roman/Early Byzantine horse archers and Hunnic heavy cavalry who will be proxying as Byzantine Boukellarioi.  It's a good thing I like painting horses.

I haven't imposed the mess which is my painting table on you for a while!

As you can probably tell I'm having a bit of an upsurge with my painting mojo after a fairly slow year.  I cleared 128 infantry and 30 cavalry figures from the lead pile in November and at this rate will be ahead by a couple of hundred figures compared to January 1st.  Retirement eh, what is it good for?  Well painting teeny tiny soldiers apparently!