Upon closer evaluation

Following on from Phil's comments, I have taken a closer look at Fanatic Berbers (DBA III/74) as a likely army to be fielded on day two at Cancon.

I rate it a chance at this stage.

The following documents my evaluation of the army.

The army list comprises, in effect, two choices. First, should a cavalry or light horse general be fielded.  I would opt for a cavalry general over a light horse general every time, however I can see how the latter could be more durable, if the general found himself isolated.

The second  choice is between an additional two light horse, or two bases of three camel equipped cavalry or one base of knights and a base of three crossbowmen.

The remainder of the army are three light horse bases, four bases of infantry, each with four spearmen and three psiloi.

The army has a high aggression factor of four.  This will most likely render it as the invader in most games.  If it were to be the defender, as its home topography is arable and therefore its compulsory terrain feature is a BUA.  Garrisoned by a spear armed element this feature becomes a difficult nut to crack wherever the BUA is placed!

The army's optional terrain features could enable the battlefield to be reduced in size by the inclusion of a waterway and/or river.  A defensible site, by the placement of at least one steep hill in the army's deployment area could also be included.
 
The army's centre could be ably held by the three elements of spears (this would be reduced to two elements if the BUA is garrisoned by one spear armed base), perhaps these two bases could be augmented by a psiloi, if encountering a mounted opposing force, leaving the remaining two psiloi and three light horse to guard the army's flanks.

The light horse could be released to pillage the opposition's camp if an opportunity presents.  Having placed a BUA, I would not need to be concerned with my camp's protection, as I would not have to place one.

The critical decision with fielding this army is its composition, should the Tuaregs (i.e. the two elements of camels) be preferred over the Christian knights and crossbowmen?

Camels are marginally better in close combat with mounted troops than cavalry, but are not as good against foot (i.e. +2 against foot, while +4 against mounted).  Camels move at the same rate as cavalry.  It is unlikely the army will encounter any dunes or oasis, so the preference for camels would be restricted to, will mounted troops be more likely to be encountered or will foot?

If the camels are run, they could be deployed with a light horse element to harass the enemy's flanks if mounted.
 
The knight/crossbowmen combination would provide a sole element capable of distance shooting and  provide a mounted element which is marginally better than cavalry when encountering mounted opposition, but comes with a reduced movement capability (i.e. +3 against foot, while +4 against mounted, but but move in good going at 300 paces).  Additionally, if knights are successful in close combat it must follow up leaving a sole knight element, even supported by light horse, to be easily flanked and killed in the second round of combat.

I think I will play a couple of solo games to see how a Fanatic Berber army, commanded by a Berber light horse general and equipped with Tuareg allies will fair.