Idea to give Barbarians a chance.

[Ranimiro]

First, before applying this idea, romans should be out of the IMPACT FOOT cathegory (and get their own with the same bonus in charge)

But TRUE IMPACT FOOT should be allowed to BREAK OFF from a melee (just like cavalry) given that:

- Their movement is equal or greater than that of the enemy they are fighting with in the terrain the melee is taking place.
- They pass a CMT

I think is relatively simple, as it uses mechanisms that are already there in the game, and is historical and logical too.

[hazelbark]

You could make it for undrilled foot. Solve your roman special rule issue.

[Ranimiro]

Indeed. Thanks for the idea.

[hammy]

Personally one of the things I really like about FoG classifications is that Roman legionaries are essentially similar to barbarians. That said undrilled impact foot probably do need a little bit of a lift.

Breaking off and charging again is not IMO a good fix as it is not really justified by the historical record.

[jlopez]

I think is relatively simple, as it uses mechanisms that are already there in the game, and is historical and logical too.

Historical? I'm not aware of any battles where troops categorised as Impact Foot broke off and charged again.

[Ranimiro]

It depends on your definitions of CHARGE. Many contemporary authors postulate that there is no way men (no matter their training and experience) can sustain the kind of intense phisical action and emotional stress that represent what we call MELEE for more than 5 or 10 minutes. This leads to the speculations that prolongued battles were a series of clashes separated by period were both armies stand several feet away yelling at each other and hurling things to one another (And this period of relative calm between series of clashes was the moment to use the pilum too, not while preparing to receive the charge or even less, while charging yourself)

No rules model this idea in detail, maybe thats why impact foot troops do not perform as well as expected by historical records.

Anyway, Its just an idea, it can me modeled far simpler by just giving the Impact foot a +1 in melee if they pass a CMT (representing the regaining of momentum but not actually separating units)

[pcelella]

Yes, Goldworthy describes just this sort of action in his book, "The Fall of Carthage". Sabin has talked about it also. It would coincidentally explain a lot about when the Romans changed lines also.

But although I think this may be a nice mechanism to allow the barbarians to get repeated chances to charge, I think that their breakoff should be no more than 1 MU to their rear. Anything more than that seems too far for undrilled troops.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[nikgaukroger]

It depends on your definitions of CHARGE. Many contemporary authors postulate that there is no way men (no matter their training and experience) can sustain the kind of intense phisical action and emotional stress that represent what we call MELEE for more than 5 or 10 minutes. This leads to the speculations that prolongued battles were a series of clashes separated by period were both armies stand several feet away yelling at each other and hurling things to one another (And this period of relative calm between series of clashes was the moment to use the pilum too, not while preparing to receive the charge or even less, while charging yourself)

These lulls in the battle, which would break out spontaneously along the line, are subsumed into the combats where BGs meet as at any one time part of the line would be furiously hacking away at each other and another would be a few metres apart yelling and throwing things. This would be true of all such combats and so you could not realistically pick one troop type and apply a rule to represent this without doing so for all. And before anyone asks, the case where it needs to be modelled - mounted Vs infantry - already has a rule

[nikgaukroger]

Yes, Goldworthy describes just this sort of action in his book, "The Fall of Carthage". Sabin has talked about it also. It would coincidentally explain a lot about when the Romans changed lines also.

The idea really started with Keegan's "The Face of Battle" and was taken up by Sabin in "The Face of Roman Battle" and is now pretty much universally accepted I believe - which is why younger modern historians such as Goldsworthy use it in their books.

[Skullzgrinda]

Personally one of the things I really like about FoG classifications is that Roman legionaries are essentially similar to barbarians. That said undrilled impact foot probably do need a little bit of a lift.

Breaking off and charging again is not IMO a good fix as it is not really justified by the historical record.

Quite the opposite. Most of those classified as undrilled impact foot were do-or-die types, from what I've read.

[madaxeman]

These lulls in the battle, which would break out spontaneously along the line, are subsumed into the combats where BGs meet as at any one time part of the line would be furiously hacking away at each other and another would be a few metres apart yelling and throwing things. This would be true of all such combats and so you could not realistically pick one troop type and apply a rule to represent this without doing so for all. And before anyone asks, the case where it needs to be modelled - mounted Vs infantry - already has a rule

one might (probably unfairly) argue that this is a post-hoc justification for the current rules, (and one based on arbitary DBx-esque element/unit concepts to boot) rather than a suggestion for revisions.

On the flip(pant)(ish) side you could also argue that a "steady foot vs steady foot" Post-melee outcome where undrilled impact (or shock) foot could break off to charge home again would marginally tip the odds towards barbarians without unduly affecting game balance, and could also be justified by a more FoG-centric Reading of Keegan et al to boot.

And it would be more fun and create more decision points in the game too.....

[Ranimiro]

These lulls in the battle, which would break out spontaneously along the line, are subsumed into the combats where BGs meet as at any one time part of the line would be furiously hacking away at each other and another would be a few metres apart yelling and throwing things. This would be true of all such combats and so you could not realistically pick one troop type and apply a rule to represent this without doing so for all. And before anyone asks, the case where it needs to be modelled - mounted Vs infantry - already has a rule

one might (probably unfairly) argue that this is a post-hoc justification for the current rules, (and one based on arbitary DBx-esque element/unit concepts to boot) rather than a suggestion for revisions.

On the flip(pant)(ish) side you could also argue that a "steady foot vs steady foot" Post-melee outcome where undrilled impact (or shock) foot could break off to charge home again would marginally tip the odds towards barbarians without unduly affecting game balance, and could also be justified by a more FoG-centric Reading of Keegan et al to boot.

And it would be more fun and create more decision points in the game too.....

Yes it would. Haven´t thought of that benefit.

[nikgaukroger]

one might (probably unfairly) argue that this is a post-hoc justification for the current rules,

Not so much unfair as utter bollocks

[jlopez]

It depends on your definitions of CHARGE. Many contemporary authors postulate that there is no way men (no matter their training and experience) can sustain the kind of intense phisical action and emotional stress that represent what we call MELEE for more than 5 or 10 minutes. This leads to the speculations that prolongued battles were a series of clashes separated by period were both armies stand several feet away yelling at each other and hurling things to one another (And this period of relative calm between series of clashes was the moment to use the pilum too, not while preparing to receive the charge or even less, while charging yourself)

No rules model this idea in detail, maybe thats why impact foot troops do not perform as well as expected by historical records.

Anyway, Its just an idea, it can me modeled far simpler by just giving the Impact foot a +1 in melee if they pass a CMT (representing the regaining of momentum but not actually separating units)

Ah yes. Contemporary authors. Note the first word. Call me old-fashioned but there is a limit to how far you can go to fill the gaps in our knowledge of ancient military history. The primary sources don't mention these Kit-Kat breaks other than Polybius' description of the legions at work. Now I know that relying on boring old primary sources isn't fashionable these days but given that Polybius or other authors with actual battle experience never mentioned these break-offs, I find them more convincing than the psycho-babble of modern authors.

Here's a description of a battle between Romans and Gauls which I think is quite explicit about when the pilum was used and the lack of breaks during the melee.

Polybius. 2.30:

"When the men who were armed with the pilum advanced in front of the legions, in accordance with the regular method of Roman warfare, and hurled their pila in rapid and effective volleys, the inner ranks of the Celts found their jerkins and leather breeches of great service; but to the naked men in the front ranks this unexpected mode of attack caused great distress and discomfiture. For the Gallic shields not being big enough to cover the man, the larger the naked body the more certainty was there of the pilum hitting. And at last, not being able to retaliate, because the pilum-throwers were out of reach, and their weapons kept pouring in, some of them, in the extremity of their distress and helplessness, threw themselves with desperate courage and reckless violence upon the enemy, and thus met a voluntary death; while others gave ground step by step towards their own friends, whom they threw into confusion by this manifest acknowledgment of their panic. Thus the courage of the Gaesatae had broken down before the preliminary attack of the pilum. But when the throwers of it had rejoined their ranks, and the whole Roman line charged, the Insubres, Boii, and Taurisci received the attack, and maintained a desperate hand-to-hand fight. Though almost cut to pieces, they held their ground with unabated courage, in spite of the fact that man for man, as well as collectively, they were inferior to the Romans in point of arms."

[philqw78]

When the men who were armed with the pilum advanced in front of the legions, in accordance with the regular method of Roman warfare, and hurled their pila in rapid and effective volleys, the inner ranks of the Celts found their jerkins and leather breeches of great service; but to the naked men in the front ranks this unexpected mode of attack caused great distress and discomfiture. For the Gallic shields not being big enough to cover the man, the larger the naked body the more certainty was there of the pilum hitting. And at last, not being able to retaliate, because the pilum-throwers were out of reach, and their weapons kept pouring in, some of them, in the extremity of their distress and helplessness, threw themselves with desperate courage and reckless violence upon the enemy, and thus met a voluntary death; while others gave ground step by step towards their own friends, whom they threw into confusion by this manifest acknowledgment of their panic. Thus the courage of the Gaesatae had broken down before the preliminary attack of the pilum. But when the throwers of it had rejoined their ranks, and the whole Roman line charged, the Insubres, Boii, and Taurisci received the attack, and maintained a desperate hand-to-hand fight. Though almost cut to pieces, they held their ground with unabated courage, in spite of the fact that man for man, as well as collectively, they were inferior to the Romans in point of arms.

But the melee starts from a few yards away with the throwing of pila, the odd fruitless rush by the "gaesatae" and then a rush by the Romans. Where in the line did Polybius fight?

[rbodleyscott]

These lulls in the battle, which would break out spontaneously along the line, are subsumed into the combats where BGs meet as at any one time part of the line would be furiously hacking away at each other and another would be a few metres apart yelling and throwing things. This would be true of all such combats and so you could not realistically pick one troop type and apply a rule to represent this without doing so for all. And before anyone asks, the case where it needs to be modelled - mounted Vs infantry - already has a rule

one might (probably unfairly) argue that this is a post-hoc justification for the current rules, (and one based on arbitary DBx-esque element/unit concepts to boot) rather than a suggestion for revisions.

One might if one was unaware of the fact that we originally started alpha testing the rules with breakoffs occurring in infantry melees, but we found that it slowed game resolution too much without adding a great deal of benefit. Hence we decided that it wasn't worth explicitly representing - especially since, as Julian says, there is no certainty that these break-offs even occurred in reality.

[Moro]

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

[jlopez]

But the melee starts from a few yards away with the throwing of pila, the odd fruitless rush by the "gaesatae" and then a rush by the Romans. Where in the line did Polybius fight?

Exactly, the classic volley of pila followed by a charge then a melee until one side wins. No break-offs, no breathers just a good old hacking match.

Polybius wasn't in that particular battle however he did spend some 17 years in Rome as a high-ranking hostage. He was the tutor of the children of Aemillius Paullus who was a Roman general (Third Macedonian War). One of these, Scipio Aemilianus, went on to take Carthage with Polybius in attendance. Makes him a fairly good eyewitness for the Roman army and battlefield tactics of that period. More so than Goldsworthy IMHO.

[jlopez]

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

Frankly, I don't think the rule mechanism is at fault. Superior legionaries in a stand-up fight should win as they did historically. I think the issue is more to do with army lists and this is a criticism that applies to all of them not just the Roman or barbarian ones. There are simply too many superior troops and given the massive difference between them and average troops it is no surprise that most players choose the former.

Average legions vs warband make for much more interesting and sweat-inducing games. Since we're not going to get the lists changed I think it's up to tournament organizers to impose limits in themed tournaments. The SMAC Average Joe tournament is an example if a little extreme (no poor, superior or elite troops allowed).

[rbodleyscott]

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 undrilled impact foot

On the grounds that the "barbarian" charge is fiercer and more likely to crack the enemy morale if they win the impact. If they fail, of course, then their lack of armour etc. kicks in and they get a good walloping.