Can an infantry-heavy Empire army compete (and be fun...)

[pw]

Hi All, I've just accidentally bought myself a load of Empire stuff which is all set to be the basis of a Nuln army (goodness knows why as my first Empire army is still unpainted!).

So, the question, can an infantry heavy Empire army compete? To keep with the Nuln theme I'd like to have lots of guns and the toys I've got would allow:
7 Handgunner units
2 cannon units
Steamtank
2 Helblaster units
4 Halberds
4 Crossbows

I'm wondering if I need to top this up with some knights or if more infantry could prove an interesting way forward?

[Geep]

Pistoliers would suit the theme and give you some cavalry to paint.

I haven't tried it, but I imagine an all infantry army could be very effective as long as you have decent terrain.

[Pugwash]

For my money it's all about the terrain.  If you have lots of forests and hills, then your infantry will be very hard to dislodge.  Your artillery can deny big sections of the battlefield; break-up and even destroy units who venture into them.  But it also depends on your opponent.  If they are willing to come after your infantry and take the modifier to hit in an effort to drive you out, then  you have a good chance of winning.  If not, it could be a slow game...

Of course, I'd be interested to hear a dwarf players perspective.  My experience of Empire was that it was quite hard to get them into good terrain positions if you're playing an enemy with high leadership and cavalry or fliers (aka High Elves) and you risk getting caught with brigades out in the open with a failed order.  Otherwise you should have a fair chance.

[Guthwine]

A big problem for that army will be I guess if your enemy makes it into a defended position before you do. Also I think chaos will be a great challenge as they are quite good getting infantry out of a forest and theyll eat up a whole a brigade if they catch them in the open.

But I think the main issue is going to be commands, as youll always will make charges at least at a -2 and youre basically forced to play defensively and on initiative.

I think you should try it and see if the playstyle fits you. For me personally I think it would be a to defensive list.  

[azrael71]

I keep toying with this style of army for a number of forces.
But everytime I play them I get trounced.
That said we don't use that much terrain  so it might work.
When I first started playing I learnt from a guy who always played dwarves, once they got dug in that was the end of the game

[pw]

I've played dwarfs quite a few times but the ability of rangers to chase down cavalry, their high command to grab decent positions and their extra-wound/armour make them rather different to an Empire infantry list. I suspect, as Guthwine suggests, that I'this list might be too defensive to be particularly enjoyable. Maybe I'll break the theme to add in pistoliers and some cavalry but keep in plenty of handgunners/cannons for the theme. I'd already decided that the steam tank was going to be the general rather than a steamtank so I'm clearly not 'fluffy' enough to take completely rubbish list on purpose!

[Haranin]

I play both empire and dwarves.

I would think a heavy infantry empire army would struggle - what makes the dwarves work well is the armor save combined with 4 hits; and leadership 10. The dwarves can suck up punishment, and dance around the table as fast as a leadership 9 knight army. The Empire simply don't have any of that.

Empire relies on flagellents and knights for offensive work- going pure halbard means you really lack any real punch.

Shooting can be useful to break up the enemy, but can't win you the game.  Taking 7 handgunner units is insane. The only way you can get some of them to shoot at the same target is the W formation; which will shatter on impact by knights/offensive infantry/dwarves/flyer flank charges. i.e. if you lucky you might get to kill one or two things with it before it dies horribly.

Hellblasters suffer from the same problem dwarf flame cannons do- its a one stand unit and an easy kill for pretty much anything.

Empire tends to play best as a combine arms force- roughly 40% by points in knights, 40% in halbards/flagellents and 20% cannons and crossbowmen. Crossbows die like flies, so I tend to make a virtue of that by using them as a screen for my infantry blocks- in particular Flagellents. The hope being if the enemy wipes out your infantry screen, they will be to hurt to advance into your flagellents and you can counter charge in your turn. At least it prevents the enemy from leading your flagellents around by the nose... Infantry fixes the enemy in place, knights work the flanks. A hero on a griffen can be handy. Wizards for scroll caddies. Pistoliers can make useful cannon escorts; once the enemy flyers have shot their bolt, they can go off and annoy the enemy. Remember to point one stand per unit of pistoliers in the escort role to the rear - it allows initiative charges front and rear. 

Sub 2000 points cannons are distruptive to the enemy, not unit killers. Use lotharie's cannon article for targeting advice. Use cannons to punish infantry in columns... and try to keep your infantry in columns. You need the support to win fights. Your infantry sucks on a unit basis. In a brigade basis, in columns, its ok.

If I am fighting against the empire, anything less then 20% of their points on knights I am happy- the empire player is giving up to much of their best mobile assualt force to win.

Classic panzer tactics are the key- the knights need to boot the enemy fast to avoid to many losses. 2-3 units of knights per brigade means you can lose a stand or two and still have a powerful formation.

I generally go with 1.5 brigades to characters- You need at least two heros and a general. Right flank, left flank and center. The general needs to be at the point of main effort, but can swap back and forth along the line as needed. I generally start him in the center or where the most critical first moves are... if the knights/pistolers are slow the first turn or two with the flanking manuavers, its not a big deal. Getting the crossbows out a move or two for a screen, and getting the cannons onto a hill is important.

Empire is an attritional force. You need cheap halbards to bulk up your BP and extend a line past the enemy. Don't be afraid to throw away units to get the enemy into a bad position for your knights to do the real killing.

I've tried the gunline and fought against it... in warmaster I have never seen it work. It just takes to long to kill things v. close combat, and losing a stand here and there doesn't stop an attacker from getting into close combat.

YMMV.

[pw]

My experience of the Empire is almost identical. I do like the idea of a Nuln army though so I may end up using handgunners as Crossbowmen (I don't use any handgunners in my current Empire list).This does of course mean that I've got rather more than I'll ever need!

[Brad]

Many many years ago, when I still actually managed to get the occasional game of Warmaster, I fielded an infantry-heavy Empire army.  It does well when there's lots of terrain to hide in, but suffers if your opponent's heavy cav gets in amongst your lines and starts rampaging through the flanks of your brigades.

[David Wasilewski]

We play by a general rule that we can all expect to have approx one third of the table covered in terrain. If you don't cavalry is too powerful!
An infantry heavy army will generally have more stands, a higher BP and therefore be an attrition type force. No matter what though you will need some knights and some flagellants to do the killing.

Dave

[Claus]

Fully agree with comment from David W.

If there is enough terrain ....it could be managable.

When we play in Austria we have at least 6-8 terrain pieces on the table (some woods, some hills, som grain fields....) which at the end give some good possibilities to get "defended" positions for infantry units.
In grain fields we also apply special rule that infantry can pursue cavalry and flyers as long as they are inside the field.

We also are testing/playing now a lot with a special rule that infantry is allowed to pursue Cavalry and flyers 1 tim when being in the edge of this units and winning the close combat result.

This makes Cavalry mor vulnerable when being charged by mass of infantry and so far it turned out to be good new rule. (it brings more balance into the game and reduces a little the domination of cavalry units)

regards
Claus

[pw]

Just the other day I was chatting with a friend after a couple of games (1 Warmaster, 1 Warhammer) about how impressive it is that terrain makes such a difference in WM. The whole 'Cavalry are too powerful' debate gets flipped around if there's a very cluttered board when infantry become able to move about at will while Cavalry await ambushes!

The table we used had plenty of terrain but not enough to make cavalry a poor choice (3 large hills, river, 2 woods, town, fenced field). The river was particularly interesting as the two crossing points for cavalry were close to woods which made getting the infantry in place to secure the crossings an important part of the game.

[David Wasilewski]

We play with a lot of fields. The house rule we play with is that units that charge into fields do not get the +1 dice charge bonus. This helps make infantry blocks a bit more resilient without taking too much away from the cavalry. 

On a full, large game we play on a 9 foot by 6 foot table with about 4K per side. There will be about 20 fields (4 inch by 4 inch) and about 4 bases (4 inch by 4 inch) representing built up areas. There will be about 8 forests of varying size and roads and rivers crisscrossing the table. There may also be 6 marsh areas (approx 4 inch by 4 inch). In totality, this seems to cover approx one third of the table.

I agree if you clutter up the table too much (half or more) then infantry suddenly becomes king over cavalry.
The balance is needed - cavalry should win in the open but infantry should hold its own in semi open (fields) and 'win' in dense terrain.

Dave