terrys wrote:Simon and I decided that we needed to test what happens when warband take on high quality legionaries.
Just how good is the double POA that the legionaries get in melee?
This is what happened when my Early Imperial Romans took on Simons Ancient British.
Armies:
Romans:
3 BG's Legionaries each 6bases HF Sup, arm'd, Impact, Ssw
...each with attached 3 LF Sup, bow
2 BG's 4x Cav, Ave, JLS
1 BG 6xMF, Ave, arm'd, JLS, Sw
1 BG 6xMF, Ave, prot, JLS, Sw
1 BG 6xMF, Ave, unp, bow
1 BG 6x LF, Ave, unp Bow
1 BG 2x Lt Art
1 BG 4xLH, Ave unp, JLS
Fortified Camp
Attrition points:11
Ancient Brits (from memory - may not be accurate)
6 BG's 8x MF, Ave, Imp, Sw
4 BG's 6xLF, Ave, Sling
4 BG's 6x LH, Ave, JLS
1 BG 4x LCH, JLS
2 BG's 6x MOB, ???
attition ponts:17
Anyway --- to the battle.
I formed up from right to left.
1 BG of LF on the table edge.
Next to that the arm'd MF auxila (there was some rough terrain here) with the Prot MF auxilia behind
Then came the 3 BG's of legionaries
Then the MF bowmen, the Art, and the LH pushed forwards.
The fortified camp protected my left flank (24pts well spent here - even if compulsary)
My 2 cav BG's were at the rear providing support.
Simon formed up (from my right to left)
2 BG's LF pushed forwards in the scrub.
Behind that on a gentle hill, but 6mu's from the table edge were 2 BG's of MF warband
Behind them were the 2 mobs
Next to this was his camp
2 LH BG's were pushed ahead of the camp
1 BG of LCH
The 4 remaining MF warbands
2 BG's of LH
2 BG's LF in ambush on the far left.
I attacked and advanced toword the hill on the right with 1 BG of legionaries, both the auxilia MF and the LF. (with 6 BG's of foot and his camp here, they'd go a long way towards victory)
I wheeled the other 2 legionaries towards the 4 warband MF to the left supporting their left with the bows and artillery. The LH kept out range of Simons LH. One of the Cav BG's moved to support my left flank with the other one moving forwards behind the legionaries.
Simon held the warbands back and pushed forwards with all his LH and LF.
Nothing particular happend early on. other than my pushing forwards to the bottom of the hill at back right of table. (one of the auxilia BG's became DISR, but I rallied it). Simon moved the LCH round to threaten my left.
I moved my legionaries and arm'd MF to within range of his warband on the hill with the hope that I'd tempt them to charge - and sure enough they did.
Running through the combat on this side of the table....
One of Simon's MF charged into my HF/MF line. He won the impact phase against each - killing a base in each case. (he had his general in combat). I beat him in the melee phase with both BG's, but he failed to lose a base of to fail cohesion (+1 for general, +1 for rear support)
We fought another round of melee where I lost another base of auxilia to none of Simon's, but he at least went DISR.
Simon's other warband eventually charged into my prot MF which had by now filled the gap between the arm'd MF and the table edge. I decided that I needed to win now rather than later (with the arm'd aux being 1 base off auto-breaking) so I threw my general in with the prot MF.
The result of this was:
1) The MF with the general lost and became DISR (Simon was on a +POA) I lost a base and the general !!)
2) The Arm'd MF lost another base (3 in 4 goes) and auto-broke.
3) The legionaries held again.
The MF on the flank dropped 2 levels on it's rout test (-1 for unprot flank) and broke.
On the left things went just as well (really)
One of Simon's warband was in position to charge my bowmen, so the plan was to contract the bows and move my cavalry through the gap.....The bows rolled a double 1 for their CMT, so had to stay. This meant I could only form column with the cav and move up next to them on the right. To the left of the bows I had another unit of cav, and the artillery with the LH between them and the camp.
Simon charged his warband into the bows/cav. His LCH into my other cav and the art.
His LCH made short work of the Art/Cav, abnd his warband beat the bows, although were held up by the other cavalry.
To help out I charge one of my legionaries into Simons warband, but one of his others intercepted so I had to fight both - with overlaps on each side. I also charged my LH into his 2 BG's of LF that were moving up past the camp.
The legionaries were fought to a standstill, causing a casualty to each warband over 2 bounds.
The LH failed to disrupt the LF on contact, and were badly beaten in the melee (12 dice to 4) and broke off FRAG
At this stage I had 5 BG's broken (2xMF, 1x Cav, 1x Bowmen, 1x Art) plus the LH wavering for 11 pts of attrition to break my army. Simon had........0 points of attrition.
The most one sided result I've ever had with these rules.
Funnily enough, I didn't feel like I was in for a hammering at any stage before the last 2 bounds. I felt I'd still win on the right, and that the Cav and legionaries would hold up on the left.
The reason I lost so badly was that simon never lost a general in combat, in spite of the fact they fought everywhere,and I lost mine in his first combat. Simon's also rarely failed a cohesion test, although to be fair he did maximise his chances - generals in the front rank and rear support in most places.
In spite of losing 11-0 it was a thoroughly enjoyable gme.
Down to the warband/Legionary (double POA) issue.
1) Simon maximised his chances of surviving cohesion tests by ensuring that he had generals with the most threatened BG's, and provided rear support where possible
2) The legionaries were overlapped in their only 1:1 combat. In the other combat they were supported by arm'd MF, who are in theory better than warband in melee, but the general in the front rank made a big difference.
3) I suffered quite badle from attrition. The overlapped lost 2 bases, and the other 1 base. The auxilia auto-broke after losing 3 bases. Simon only lost 2 or 3 bases, mainly because he didn't lose many combats. (more dice plus a general)
4) The legionaries were about the only steady BG's I had at the end of the game.
5) I thought that adding the 3 LF to each BG of legionaries would give me the edge on not receiving 1HP3.
That was a mistake - the LF had to be superior, which meant they cost 24pts for each BG. I could have taken a 4th BG of legionaries if I'd left them out.
In summary -
1) Legionaries do not break warbands easily if they're used properly - full marks to Simon for this)
2) Without the double POA I would have lost easily
3) The result was pretty realistic, in that the legionaries held out to the end, while their support troops were defeated. (moral - make at least half your units legionaries)
***** From this game I would suggest that we retain the double melee POA. (Ssw & armour)
An additonal point worth making - I advanced as fast as possible to get my legionaries into Simon's warband, because it was my best chance of winning..... Perfectly historical.
How many time do you see blades advancing to take on greater numbers of warband in a certain other set of popular rules?
Ancient Britons vs Romans - a famous British victory
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28411
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Ancient Britons vs Romans - a famous British victory
Here is the report you have all been waiting for.
Nah ............ I'm going to refuse to lend him the figures.......but seriously why not, we'll try it next game. 
The generals on the British side were Boedecae as an IC giving lots of range of effect and 2 TCs to allow me to throw them into the generals. My idea was to keep the TCs close to the IC so even if they died the pretty redhead could hold the troops together through the ensuing cohesion tests. As it happened my TCs all survived and led successful attacks so it wasn't needed. I decided that redesigned I would drop a BNG of slingers to add a 3rd TC - so it would be an IC and 3 TCs to give me 3 power charges.
We did conclude from the game that the Romans need the ++ in melee or they are in a mess. As it was the game felt very even indeed. Although I won big I was always at rish on my left and Terry was always under great pressure on my right. The Terrain will affect the game a lot...it was actually quite poor for a Briton attack as it was - too little going suited to the MF warriors. If the ROmans were just a + in melee I think I would have run over Terry whatever - the numbers would have just been too much.
Si
The generals on the British side were Boedecae as an IC giving lots of range of effect and 2 TCs to allow me to throw them into the generals. My idea was to keep the TCs close to the IC so even if they died the pretty redhead could hold the troops together through the ensuing cohesion tests. As it happened my TCs all survived and led successful attacks so it wasn't needed. I decided that redesigned I would drop a BNG of slingers to add a 3rd TC - so it would be an IC and 3 TCs to give me 3 power charges.
We did conclude from the game that the Romans need the ++ in melee or they are in a mess. As it was the game felt very even indeed. Although I won big I was always at rish on my left and Terry was always under great pressure on my right. The Terrain will affect the game a lot...it was actually quite poor for a Briton attack as it was - too little going suited to the MF warriors. If the ROmans were just a + in melee I think I would have run over Terry whatever - the numbers would have just been too much.
Si
A couple of minor additions to Terry's comments....
1. My Lh were 4 bases in size - I prefer 6s but these were made small with the intention of flank marching but the camp and the terrain made this a bit pointless until after I discovered (2) below.
2. While Terry's LF supports may be seem a mistake they countered part of my plan. I had 24 slingers and 16 LH javelinmen. My idea was to use these to force some legionaries down to DISR with missile fire. At 6 bases armoured I need 2 x 5s for a test, and a 6 for a fail, but with the support I needed 3 Hits to make them test, which was very hard to do indeed. So this design did stop me using my skirmishers to try to get me a way to charge the legionaries with good odds. I spent a lot fo the game running away with them as a result.
3. The game was very historical in feel and the legionaries got well across the table very quickly indeed, even though I tried to slow them down. This was becuase of the Aux support troops. I couldn't stay too close to the lgionaries or I could get charged and caught by the Aux.
4. The legionaries are very very tough frontally. On a straight charge they are well up in odds. Bruces 0.3% chance is once they are in melee. There is about a 35% chace of the romand losing the initial IMPACT and about a 1 in 10 chance of dropping to Frag, and a much higher chance of DISR. So the odds are not terrible but certainly a long shot to take them out (bruce is looking at this). However if forced to fight with overlaps and with smart use of generals and rear support you can make a game of it playing historically.
5. Also note that the army sizes ar very different. If we did have Terry's 3 legionaries against say 5 warband and 2 generals then: 1) If Terry loses this smash the game is over - only 3 pts to break his army if the legionaries go down and not much around to stop the mob, but if the britons lose its 7 more points needed and less easy to catch an knock out. So there is room for 2 waves of Britons in a game.
So in summary. A very even game. At deployment I thought Terry had a slight edge as I had made a mistake putting my family groups on the hill together - it meant 2 BGs next to the camp so a nice target of 6 APs that was very vulnerable. So there was a slight chance Terry could take my army down by destroying everything on my left. I did it partly as a target to tempt Terry up the middle, but then decided it was too good a target and maybe I should have used normal bait rather than my legs to tempt JAWS onto my line.......
However I always had a good edge on the other side. Terry could never afford more than 1 legionary unit over that side while keeping pressure eslewhere. They are tough but if alone they have to fight 2 blocks of MF troops with a general and rear support its pretty tough if they lose the impact round - which is a 35% chance. Thereafter they are 5 bases (as happened) against 10. So even with a ++ it a close run thing - especially as my warrior BGs can soak up base casulaties with impunity whereas The Legioaries can't. ANd if their support troops nearby start to rout and they have to test for these too......
As requested we will re-run the army match ups and see what we get.....see if Terry can get his revenge....after all he makes a much nicer Boedicae than I!!
1. My Lh were 4 bases in size - I prefer 6s but these were made small with the intention of flank marching but the camp and the terrain made this a bit pointless until after I discovered (2) below.
2. While Terry's LF supports may be seem a mistake they countered part of my plan. I had 24 slingers and 16 LH javelinmen. My idea was to use these to force some legionaries down to DISR with missile fire. At 6 bases armoured I need 2 x 5s for a test, and a 6 for a fail, but with the support I needed 3 Hits to make them test, which was very hard to do indeed. So this design did stop me using my skirmishers to try to get me a way to charge the legionaries with good odds. I spent a lot fo the game running away with them as a result.
3. The game was very historical in feel and the legionaries got well across the table very quickly indeed, even though I tried to slow them down. This was becuase of the Aux support troops. I couldn't stay too close to the lgionaries or I could get charged and caught by the Aux.
4. The legionaries are very very tough frontally. On a straight charge they are well up in odds. Bruces 0.3% chance is once they are in melee. There is about a 35% chace of the romand losing the initial IMPACT and about a 1 in 10 chance of dropping to Frag, and a much higher chance of DISR. So the odds are not terrible but certainly a long shot to take them out (bruce is looking at this). However if forced to fight with overlaps and with smart use of generals and rear support you can make a game of it playing historically.
5. Also note that the army sizes ar very different. If we did have Terry's 3 legionaries against say 5 warband and 2 generals then: 1) If Terry loses this smash the game is over - only 3 pts to break his army if the legionaries go down and not much around to stop the mob, but if the britons lose its 7 more points needed and less easy to catch an knock out. So there is room for 2 waves of Britons in a game.
So in summary. A very even game. At deployment I thought Terry had a slight edge as I had made a mistake putting my family groups on the hill together - it meant 2 BGs next to the camp so a nice target of 6 APs that was very vulnerable. So there was a slight chance Terry could take my army down by destroying everything on my left. I did it partly as a target to tempt Terry up the middle, but then decided it was too good a target and maybe I should have used normal bait rather than my legs to tempt JAWS onto my line.......
However I always had a good edge on the other side. Terry could never afford more than 1 legionary unit over that side while keeping pressure eslewhere. They are tough but if alone they have to fight 2 blocks of MF troops with a general and rear support its pretty tough if they lose the impact round - which is a 35% chance. Thereafter they are 5 bases (as happened) against 10. So even with a ++ it a close run thing - especially as my warrior BGs can soak up base casulaties with impunity whereas The Legioaries can't. ANd if their support troops nearby start to rout and they have to test for these too......
As requested we will re-run the army match ups and see what we get.....see if Terry can get his revenge....after all he makes a much nicer Boedicae than I!!