Idea to give Barbarians a chance.

[zocco]

Apologies if this reply is out of kilter - or unintelligable - just returned from Burma.

Rather than remove the SSW skill for Romans completely would it be better to give it to them as an option. If the player wants it then he pays the extra point. If it is removed completely then there could be problems when facing HW. On the topic of HW is this underpriced(?) or even overperforming - as it removes the better armour POA vs almost everything whereas SSW is only worth it against infantry Sw and HW's. I also have doubts about HW being able to completely negate a better armour POA - according to this theory a group of blokes in socks and jocks (but with HW) can fight heavily armoured foot at a neutral POA (surely this is not right). I recall in a slingshot article a while back (can't remember the exact details but written I think by Jim Sye) showed that armour did protect (as indicated by wound size simulations) against the dacian falx.

cheers

zocco

[shall]

No-one will be surprised to hear that we tested it without SkSw at some length for vs1.0, and it lost the roman feel instantly which is why it stayed in ...

• HW a problem as you say
  Dailami Sup Arm Foot are arguably better than Romans as move fast and have terrain capability and are on evens in impact and melee ... dump all my Romans and get out that world beating Dialami army again (back to days when Dailami was better in DBM than Republican Romans)... doesn't feel right.
  Barbarian armies grind romans down quite well if you take away the ++, with galatians and gauls give them a very hard time even in a frontal slog. Too big a swing to remove a full + therefore. At 14pts vs 7pts for a basic barbarian everyone feels it is advantage Romans; but at 13 vs 7 with a only a single plus in melee it ain't pretty unless the barbarian blindly stands there and takes a coordinated head on charge.

So to me the Sk Sw is part of keeping the Roman character vs all armies (of course irrelevant vs. Sp and Pk) and there are lots of better solutions elsewhere that will handle the barbarian issue and other minor challenges (super mobile MF in 4s). 1pt feels a decent price to have an extra + vs HW and Sw as both are pretty common opponents.

Si

[nikgaukroger]

No-one will be surprised to hear that we tested it without SkSw at some length for vs1.0, and it lost the roman feel instantly which is why it stayed in ...

I would be interested to hear what made the Romans feel wrong without the SSw in relation to the historical accounts - which must, after all be the benchmark. I assume there must be some accounts in Polybios, Livy, Tacitus and Caesar (as the sources that cover most of the accounts that are relevant) that indicate that dropping SSw would not get the right results.

Or, looking at it another way, what interactions, and why, would no longer meet the historical accounts if legionarii could not have SSw?

[VMadeira]

Posted: 24 Oct 2010 10:12

No-one will be surprised to hear that we tested it without SkSw at some length for vs1.0, and it lost the roman feel instantly which is why it stayed in ...


HW a problem as you say
Dailami Sup Arm Foot are arguably better than Romans as move fast and have terrain capability and are on evens in impact and melee ... dump all my Romans and get out that world beating Dialami army again (back to days when Dailami was better in DBM than Republican Romans)... doesn't feel right.
Barbarian armies grind romans down quite well if you take away the ++, with galatians and gauls give them a very hard time even in a frontal slog. Too big a swing to remove a full + therefore. At 14pts vs 7pts for a basic barbarian everyone feels it is advantage Romans; but at 13 vs 7 with a only a single plus in melee it ain't pretty unless the barbarian blindly stands there and takes a coordinated head on charge.


So to me the Sk Sw is part of keeping the Roman character vs all armies (of course irrelevant vs. Sp and Pk) and there are lots of better solutions elsewhere that will handle the barbarian issue and other minor challenges (super mobile MF in 4s). 1pt feels a decent price to have an extra + vs HW and Sw as both are pretty common opponents.

What you say makes some sense to me.

[shadowdragon]

One possibly interesting question on the capability would be to see if there are any contemporary statements that the Romans were better swordsmen then equivalent troops. I have just been reading some of Fernando Quesada Sanz's papers on the fighting style of Spanish, Roman and (possibly) Carthaginian troops and relative skill in swordsmanship is not something he mentions.

FoG is based on units with capabilities. SSw does not have to imply superior individual skills but could refer to superior tactical management of the unit in melee (i.e., if Romans are able to sustain their part of a melee with fresh swordsmen that can be seen as justifying SSw). I don't think superior morale grade alone would account for Roman tactical management as other nations have superior troops but lack Roman tactical flexibility.

Just a thought.

[Blathergut]

Could do. Another one is to allow non-fighting 3rd ranks to count towards rear support. So a 12 3 deep has rear support +1 on its own.

Si

Yes...non-fighting 3rd rank...that would work and would encourage those larger BGs with depth. Also, without having to keep something behind as previous rear support, you will have more bodies out in the front line/flanks...woohoo!!!

[grahambriggs]

Some thoughts on this topic:

- As for the extra -1 on cohesion test when losing to undrilled impact foot or on death rolls, I would ask, what is the basis to makes the impact foot charge more deadly, than an Elephant charge ? or a Schythed chariot charge ? or Knights charge? Also i don't really see why the undrilled impact foot charge, should be more effective than the drilled one. Would this special bonus to undrilled impact foot, increase their cost? Or should we reduce the cost of drilled impact foot?

- Remember that these kind of changes affect interaction with other type of troops (that are correct at the moment), not just with the romans.

- In DBM the same debate appeared and from one moment to the other, thanks to a badly thinked revision of rules concerning .... barbarians, suddenly tornament tables were filled with hordes of almost unstoppable "warbands O". Don't make the same mistake again.

To avoid the above I would clearly go for removing the ssw POA.

The game problem is that capabilities that count at impact are 'one shot' per fight whereas those that count in melee will be used repeatedly as the fight drags on. That's particularly so with impact foot. Knightly armour often makes the melee rounds good for them and they'll stay in a winning fight, break off a losing one. The barbarian foot though will often get themselves into losing melees and get chopped up.

I think Simon said that ththe inreaction with other troops is also something they want to address. After all, Galatians should do well against successors who don't have elepanht shouldn't they?

I remember the massed Wb(O) armies from DBM3.1. They were rubbish if you knew how to fight them. i.e. not frontally.

[shall]

The game problem is that capabilities that count at impact are 'one shot' per fight whereas those that count in melee will be used repeatedly as the fight drags on. That's particularly so with impact foot. Knightly armour often makes the melee rounds good for them and they'll stay in a winning fight, break off a losing one. The barbarian foot though will often get themselves into losing melees and get chopped up.

Indeed. Hence idea of making barbarian charges a bit more scary than drilled ones ... so they have a chance of getting a winning position more often and boosting their CTs so they stick around longer giving more chance of a tunraround bound. All needs balancing of course but having tried the combination a couple of times it feel good so far.

S

[MatthewP]

Could do. Another one is to allow non-fighting 3rd ranks to count towards rear support. So a 12 3 deep has rear support +1 on its own.

Would that have to be full back rank in which case what happens to your rear support when you fail a death roll and a base is removed.
Even if you allow rear support from only half a back rank it doesnt necessarily make more sense than having a full bg behind. After all a 6 strong bg can support two 12 base bgs if it is positioned correctly.

[philqw78]

Even if you allow rear support from only half a back rank it doesnt necessarily make more sense than having a full bg behind. After all a 6 strong bg can support two 12 base bgs if it is positioned correctly.

Using a different BG for support means your front line could be shallower if you wanted to use a BG to do it instead of having a third rank. Allowing thrid rank to support would sort of improve the way spears are used. Have a third rank which gives you 2 ranks for longer and rear support, but you will eventually lose the plus for rear support as casualties are removed. And it would make pike more powerful as they would have rear support as long as they were steady by providing it for themselves.

[shall]

The idea would be for 3rd ranks and beyond so

12 bases 4 wide have rear support as long as they don't lose a base so risky
12 bases 3 wide would keep rear support until they have lost 3 bases - a good slog it out formation therefore.

Bases from other BGs would still contribute so as 12 with 4 chariots behind would keep rear support for some time. This can help lots of other 8's and 10s that can find 4s to act as partial support.

Another options would be to allow rear support for a 3rd of 4th rank that is at least 1/2 size of ranks 1 and 2 - obviously even more of a +.

All needs balancing and checking.

etc.

Si

[philqw78]

This could encourage more use of crap LH and unprotected cavalry etc. If they can support themselves by having a complete third rank - when at least 2 bases wide. (otherwise you would have column abuse)

[grahambriggs]

This could encourage more use of crap LH and unprotected cavalry etc. If they can support themselves by having a complete third rank - when at least 2 bases wide. (otherwise you would have column abuse)

Not LH - skirmishers don't give rear support.

However, it would give a problem in that many troops tend to go into a column at present to stop impact damage

[philqw78]

Not LH - skirmishers don't give rear support.

depends how you write the rule Graham.
CT modifiers
"Rear Support -
Any one of
+1 if the BG is at leaxst three complete ranks deep and is not in column
+1 whatever it says currently"

or words to that effect

[grahambriggs]

There is a downside to allowing troops to "self support" with a third complete rank. It works efficiently for BGs of 12, 9, and 6. It's not bad for 10s, who'll have a spare base. It's bad for 4s, but they are a bit too good.

Most 8s are going to be in trouble. It's too expensive to have them two wide. Apart from Pike, of course, who'll get tougher, perhaps changing the pike vs legion dynamic. Superior pike would be a good buy!

On the other hand, there's a bit more risk than having a unit of cheap stuff as rear support: if a self supporting unit becomes disrupted it would, presumably, no longer have rear support

[ethan]

Trouble is that the average barbarians are already up against superior Romans in the problematic fight, so their chance of winning the impact is pretty low (about 25%) to start with. So even with a big negative modifier on the CT it isn't likely to matter much.

Superior Armoured vs. Average Protected is already a huge advantage. Even if the barbarians disrupt the Romans on impact down double PoA and average vs. Superior the melee advantage will still be with the Romans (double PoA is roughly as good as double dice and the Romans are only down 1 die per 3).

[shall]

However, it would give a problem in that many troops tend to go into a column at present to stop impact damage

But not if there is a universal POA - for columns in combat - oops secret potentially out of the bag there ...

S

[ethan]

The idea would be for 3rd ranks and beyond so

12 bases 4 wide have rear support as long as they don't lose a base so risky
12 bases 3 wide would keep rear support until they have lost 3 bases - a good slog it out formation therefore.

I am not sure 12 bases of barbarians deployed 4 deep is actually a good slog it out formation. At that point they are paying the same AP per frontage as the Romans so are much less likely to have a width advantage and are less maneuverable so unlikely to be able to take advantage of any width they do have...They are very likely to lose every round of combat (-- PoAs average vs. superior on the quality front) and each time the lose they are still testing at probably a net -1 (net 0 if the they committ a general) (-1 for losing by 2 and -1 for hits per base, +1 for rear support).

The barbarians are taking something like 6.2 hits per melee round (assuming no general for the Romans) and inflicting 2.6 onto the Romans (3.1 with a general). If the Romans are in 2 BGs of 4 it is unlikely that either will even have a death roll most melee rounds and if the Romans are in an 8 they lose a BG 1 time in 6 on average.

[DavidT]

But not if there is a universal POA - for columns in combat - oops secret potentially out of the bag there ...

S

Just make sure that there is an exception for 2 base BGs which fight in a 1 wade formation normally (e.g. Roman Triarii, Burgundian Household MAA etc.).

[nikgaukroger]

This could encourage more use of crap LH and unprotected cavalry etc. If they can support themselves by having a complete third rank - when at least 2 bases wide. (otherwise you would have column abuse)

Could make the game look rather odd though - lots of troops in napoleonic-esque columns all over the place. Not the right look and feel IMO.