You won't be surprised to haer that we have been running similar multi-phase simulations wince the beginning with sampes of several 1000 at a time. Probably a reason why much of the combat system feels well balanced.

Martin, could you remind me what that base scenario is on which you are basing ...

martindneiluk,sorry to ask again (I do because I think your application is great to really test alternative proposals), could you please do the same calculations as you did in the last post but with an extra PoA for the Barbarians at impact? They will be + at impact and -- at melee. In my opinion ...

martindneiluk,sorry to ask again (I do because I think your application is great to really test alternative proposals), could you please do the same calculations as you did in the last post but with an extra PoA for the Barbarians at impact? They will be + at impact and -- at melee. In my opinion ...

Clearly the analysis shows, as the others do, that the barbarians are dead ducks after one round of melee and impact under the proposed change and the current rules. Continuing the simulation will only make the results worse for the barbarians. Doing n rounds of -- POA melee when they are at 66 ...

It is ironic that this debate is the mirror image of the normal DBM concern that barbarians were too strong with respect to legions :)

I suspect the historical performance would suggest a single POA for the Romans in melee - the accounts seem to be of the "tough fight but we chopped through them ...

In order to reduce the effectiveness of Roman legionaries vs barbarian foot without having to remove the skilled swordsmen ability alltogether, how about this for a solution:

Skilled Swordsmen no longer gives a POA but instead gives a -1 to enemy infantry's death roll making winning combats harder ...

In order to reduce the effectiveness of Roman legionaries vs barbarian foot without having to remove the skilled swordsmen ability alltogether, how about this for a solution:

Skilled Swordsmen no longer gives a POA but instead gives a -1 to enemy infantry's death roll making winning combats harder ...

You need to simulate at least the melee phase with the overlaps for it to be roughly correct.
Also typically barbarians will have generals in front rank and Romans not.
Add rear rank +1 for barbarians in the CTs as also likely.
Need Death Rolls as well.

Inportant outputs are - who breaks first ...

For comparison only (I’m not advocating it)... if we instead gave the the Barbarians a + POA at impact the result would be:

Romans fragged 2.525% an increase from 0.982%
Romans disrupted 28.123% an increase from 13.659%
Barbarians fragged 3.329% a decrease from 6.708%
Barbarians disrupted 13 ...

You need to simulate at least the melee phase with the overlaps for it to be roughly correct.
Also typically barbarians will have generals in front rank and Romans not.
Add rear rank +1 for barbarians in the CTs as also likely.
Need Death Rolls as well.

Inportant outputs are - who breaks first ...

Therefore -and caming back to rule mechanisms- how could we solve the problem of the poor underrated warbands (that no one fields)?

One option which we are considering is to change the CT modifiers to

-1 if foot losing impact combat vs drilled impact foot
-2 if foot losing inpact combat vs ...

I've got lots of crap warband and I'm determined to use them for the fun of it. So cough up that ally list please. Pronto!



Martin

On page 14 of "Decline and Fall" the Later Visigoths have Italian Ostrogoths as allies. These are on pp 16-18 but there is no Ally list for them (there is a starter army and main list but that's it). I couldn't find anything in the errata, faq etc.

Pointers welcome.

Martin

In an earlier response Simon said : "In addition once you lose a few legionaries 2 LF give 1 dice in melee at the factors of the legionaries."

Does this mean that if he legion is armoured skilled sword the two LF are too?

This comes as a bit of a surprise. Can you point out the relevant rules for ...

The Section "Resolving Shooting" is missing from the shooting phase chapter.

Just look at the RHS coloured bookmark in every other page in that chapter and you will see it listed, but it ain't there.

Maybe I have a rogue copy (unlikely), or I'm blind as a bat (more likely). But how did we get ...

Yes, as Nik says, the skirmisher BG didn't have to join the fray as an overlap. I only realised this when I witnessed Nik perform the manouver a few weeks back. I was non-plussed but its all there in the rules.

Martin

Just to add some slight, but probably irrelevant detail to the situation I described...originally the gap was 2 bases wide but my opponent expanded his line to one side thus narrowing the gap. I hadn't anticipated this and had lazily placed my skirmishers at an angle behind my in contact BG, rather ...

Yes, it puzzled some of us at the club too. I guess it all hinges on the definition of "direct"; does it mean without intervening BGs or even impassible terrain? (which I'd think is logical).

Martin

In the rules the restricted area affects a battle group 2 MUs directly in front of an enemy battle group. The game situation was as follows.

Two battle groups with vases A and B in melee contact with enemy C. There is a one base gap through which skirmishers S want to move in order to reach routers ...

In table B) Combat Mechanism it says Chariots shoot "1 dice per base" but in the Gallic list light chariots do not list a shooting capability. This looks wrong. I assume light chariots will shoot with javelins?

Martin