Question Regarding The Early German List

[bddbrown]

Phil and I are thinking about fighting Early Germans versus Early Imperial Romans.

* I notice that Sarmation Cavalry in the Early German list have Lance, Bow and Sword. Is this a typo?

* The Early German ally section has the archers as having a BG size of 6-8 bases but a maximum bases of 0-4. Can I take a unit of 4 bases?

And this should be an interesting fight as the Early Germans seem to have no advantages except numbers. It should be a good idea as to whether numbers can win through. I have my doubts.

[bddbrown]

Thinking about this match-up a little bit I am not sure the match up between German infantry and Roman Legionaries feels right.

At impact the two troop types are even - they are both impact foot - although the Romans are superior so have a slight edge.
At melee the Germans are totally outclassed with the Romans getting a PoA for Skilled Swordsmen and better armour (Armoured versus Protected) and they are still superior.
Given the Romans are less likely to fail CT as well, I cannot see any advantage to a frontal fight at all.

It strikes me that the only sensible course of action for a German general is to avoid combat with the Legionaries for as long as possible. And yet this does not fit with my perception of how things should work. The Germans felt they had a chance and did not avoid a frontal fight. It seems that the common perception that the Romans had to resist the initial ferocity of the German charge is not true in this case at all. There is no ferocious charge - more of a whimper!

In any case, this fight should give us a good feel as to whether the points system is right.

[nikgaukroger]

Phil and I are thinking about fighting Early Germans versus Early Imperial Romans.

* I notice that Sarmation Cavalry in the Early German list have Lance, Bow and Sword. Is this a typo?

* The Early German ally section has the archers as having a BG size of 6-8 bases but a maximum bases of 0-4. Can I take a unit of 4 bases?

Sarmatians should be Lancers, Swordsmen with no Bow PoA. Looks like the Beta lists have not kept up to pace with the main lists

Thanks for the point on the archers in the ally as it is wrong in the main lists as well - as are the Javelinmen I think.

[bddbrown]

Thanks for the reply Nik.

Any chance I can get hold of an updated Early German list Nik or at least let me know what the light infantry lines should read?

[nikgaukroger]

One for Richard I think, however, I think if you went with a single unit of each of 6-8 bases being allowed you'd be OK.

[thorsten]

Hi,

we played Early Germans vs. Romans (Republican, if I remember correctly) three times. The Germans hardly ever managed to rout Roman units. And lost all games. The Germans look very impressive when set up - and when routing...

Thorsten

[bddbrown]

Well we've played one game of Early Germans versus Early Imperial Romans. Victory to the Germans! Of course I tried to avoid the Roman legionaries like the plague and pick off the support troops on the flanks. Fighting Romans head on is a healthy option!

[lanceflint]

A general list question really, what about those warband types that were particularly noted to be more dangerous than the rest, such as selected Bodyguards, Galatians, Chatti, Gaesati and Attecotti?

I have seen no mention of Superior Warband anywhere yet and so would these give some armies a chance to take on those Legionaries who at the moment seem so unbeatable?

Lance.

[nikgaukroger]

Superior warband do exist where appropriate