Idea to give Barbarians a chance.

[grahambriggs]

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.).

Is a 1 wade formation used for crossing rivers?

[DavidT]

Well in DBM if you were trying to cross a difficult river, you could only do it in a 1 element 'wade' column.
I've also realised that Burgundian Household MAA, even though only a 2 element BG, tend to manoeuvre in a 1 wide column and then try to fight 2 wide and 1 deep as they are knights. However, there are other examples (Nikephorian Cataphracts).

[timmy1]

Like Simon's idea.

Also for support column elimination, (unless the authors have decided to go down the FoG:R route) only allow the number of bases to count for support as could actually fight either via dice or PoA. That way 2 BGs of 8 pike bases could not be supported by 1 BG of 4 Average Lt Spear MF in column as only 2 bases would count for support. However a pair of 6 base Average Auxillia BGs could be supported by 1 8 base BG of Pike in 4 ranks.

[domblas]

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.

That's reasonable. Combined with the skilled swordsmen POA only counting if steady (downgrades to Swordsmen if not) it could make the melee interesting: barbarians on 5s with more dice vs disrupted superior romans on 4s repeating 1s.

Are romans skilled swordmen due to their cohésion or to their training? If the latest, then they should stay skilled whatever happens to them. If not Julian is right.

Ed

[Strategos69]

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.

I have read Quesada's book about Ancient Spanish (I recommend it, bu the way) and effectively it is rather group cohesion that he emphasizes. As you note, he does not focus on a superior ability with the sword, but he raises some interesting points. First, many times Romans were superior in numbers to Spanish tribes. Second, Spanish gave battle in open ground as any other heavy infantry army. Ancient Spanish generals did not choose terrain very well. Spanish heavy infantry did not have the staying power as Romans did.

But again, I would not consider PoA as they claim they are but the effect they produce. If we believe Roman sources, when Barbarians did not manage to break through their ranks with their initial charge, they were chopped into pieces one time after another since 225 BC. Skilled swordsmen PoA seem right to me in that regard.

[Strategos69]

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

Hurrah, a net -- I have been suggesting for a while around here would be good!

Regarding the question I think two points have to be noted. First, Ancient Spanish are undrilled impact foot, but they fought as the Romans, no like the Gauls. Second, the proposals of autosupport for having depth, whereas it seems right to me for all troops (which would explain why some troops did deploy in depth to gain some advantage and the examples were written in this forum previously) I don't think that it addresses the main point of the Barbarians (Gauls, Germans, Samnites). It was a fierce charge that, if succesdul, could get the Romans into trouble. One way to address that is an extra Poa for impact for the forth rank. Note that not that many troops can benefit from it as your BG has to have at least 8 bases.

Therefore, it seems to me that there are two ways to deal with this: separate Romans, Ancient Spanish and other troops fighting alike (throwing volleys of javelins before contact to stop enemy charges) from other impact foot (a new capability) OR put a restriction that only Germans and Gauls and other troops alike can meet. In particular the first one seems to me the most straightforward and accurate as I think the second one cannot be found.

[philqw78]

OR put a restriction that only Germans and Gauls can meet.

Why only Germans and gauls???

[Strategos69]

OR put a restriction that only Germans and Gauls can meet.

Why only Germans and gauls???

I was generally speaking. I meant all Barbarians (impact foot undrilled) that got that capability because of the fierce of the charge rather than a volley of javelins. Just lazy writing...

[philqw78]

I was generally speaking. I meant all Barbarians (impact foot undrilled) that got that capability because of the fierce of the charge rather than a volley of javelins. Just lazy writing...

I would have given an example if I wasn't so laz

[martindneiluk]

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.

I've just run a simulation of this, using a probabilistic modelling package I’m familiar with (well, designed actually). I won’t bore you with the details but will instead take, as an example, this typical simulated scenario with equal points:

Roman BG of 6 superior drilled HF armoured SSw without general
Vs
Barbarian BG of 12 average undrilled HF protected Sw without general.

Running the simulation taking account of all combinations of events ......post impact the probabilities for each outcome are as follows:

Romans fragged 0.982%
Romans disrupted 13.659%
Barbarians fragged 6.708%
Barbarians disrupted 26.823%

Now consider the “-2 if foot losing inpact combat vs undrilled impact foot“ change the results are now:

Romans fragged 2.85% an increase from 0.982%
Romans disrupted 16.658% an increase from 13.659%
Barbarians fragged 6.708%
Barbarians disrupted 26.823%

Clearly the change doesn’t lead to a large uplift in barbarian performance. The superior quality of the Romans means they enjoy an approx. 50% chance of winning the combat and this dominates the result. I suggest the Barbarians need a rule change that improves their chance of winning at impact rather than the magnitude of the consequence in the form of the cohesion test penalty.

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 13.08% a decrease from 26.823%

So the risk to the Romans roughly doubles and the risk to the Barbarians roughly halves under this conjectural rule change.

[shall]

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, how long it takes.

But otherwise roughly matches my simulation at a first glance.

S

[Strategos69]

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 13.08% a decrease from 26.823%

So the risk to the Romans roughly doubles and the risk to the Barbarians roughly halves under this conjectural rule change.

It is really interesting what you calculated. Can you also include the draws (nothing happens)? Do they change? Because as I see combats between legionaries and Barbarians the frist ones should be trying to get a tie at impact, whereas the barbarians NEED to at least disrupt the Romans to have a chance. If this PoA would be allocated for the 4th rank in impact in this specific case in melee Barbarians would not have that advantage in the overall against the legionaries.

Regarding the additional calculations needed, shall is right, but these additional calculations should be calculated afterwards to check the overall balance. I think that Martins rises an interesting point showing that now Barbarians are not better than Romans in impact, what they were supposed to be.

[martindneiluk]

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, how long it takes.

But otherwise roughly matches my simulation at a first glance.

S

Yes, the simulator can do all that but simply wanted to post a simple response covering the extent of the proposed rule change and no more. I can post impact + x rounds of melee if people are interested. Adding generals etc means the points equivalance of the scenario I posed becomes unbalanced and the opposing forces not like for like. I would recommend testing changes in as atomic a fashion as possible before looking at interactions and any emergent features of those.

[martindneiluk]

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 13.08% a decrease from 26.823%

So the risk to the Romans roughly doubles and the risk to the Barbarians roughly halves under this conjectural rule change.

It is really interesting what you calculated. Can you also include the draws (nothing happens)? Do they change? Because as I see combats between legionaries and Barbarians the frist ones should be trying to get a tie at impact, whereas the barbarians NEED to at least disrupt the Romans to have a chance. If this PoA would be allocated for the 4th rank in impact in this specific case in melee Barbarians would not have that advantage in the overall against the legionaries.

Regarding the additional calculations needed, shall is right, but these additional calculations should be calculated afterwards to check the overall balance. I think that Martins rises an interesting point showing that now Barbarians are not better than Romans in impact, what they were supposed to be.

The draw probability is 21.71% under the change, up from 18.5% before, so roughly similar.

[martindneiluk]

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, how long it takes.

But otherwise roughly matches my simulation at a first glance.

S

Just a quick update to give the full results for the scenario Simon has presented. With the barbarians benefitting from a general and rear support AND calculating results for impact and one round of melee. I’m also assuming the barbarians benefit from an overlap on one side in combat (its difficult to get it on both sides in a battle line). Results post melee are:

Romans routed 1.369%
Romans fragged 8.033%
Romans disrupted 25.124%
Barbarians routed 2.627%
Barbarians fragged 9.548%
Barbarians disrupted 31.981%

Base loses:

10.84% chance romans lose 2
43.167% chance romans lose 1
24.149% chance barbarians lose 2
52.739% chance barbarians lose 1

So it looks like things do look better for the barbarians in this scenario as Simon suggests. Parity finally achieved. But at what cost are these benefits gained? Look at the points needed for barbarian to achieve parity: 84 pts for the BG, 35 pts for TC and 56 pts for supporting BG (assuming 8 base BG x 7 pts) giving a total of 175 pts. The roman BG is 84 pt, has no rear support and no Generals. And bear in mind this scenario is run WITH the “-2 for undrilled at impact” change.

Simon – I’ve used 3 d.p.s just for comparison purposes since any difference might highlight flaws, or at least differences, in our respective simulation algorithms, otherwise the precision is pretty irrelevant.

[ethan]

One possible option if SSw were to be retained would be to allow the barbarians to have greater access to Superior warbands instead of tending to be all average.

[peterrjohnston]

What happens if you removed the effect of armour?

[Jilu]

i still do not see the point of this thread.
Romans were for a long period of time better equiped, trained and led, so why should they not have the upper hand?
When they lost was it because of the individual soldier, unit or due to a commander /general failing?

[philqw78]

i still do not see the point of this thread.
Romans were for a long period of time better equiped, trained and led, so why should they not have the upper hand?
When they lost was it because of the individual soldier, unit or due to a commander /general failing?

And they cost twice as many points

[Polkovnik]

i still do not see the point of this thread.
Romans were for a long period of time better equiped, trained and led, so why should they not have the upper hand?
When they lost was it because of the individual soldier, unit or due to a commander /general failing?

I think the point is obvious - barbarian foot (HF, Ave, Prot, Impact Foot, Swordsmen) underperform (relative to their points), and so armies where they are the main troop type are not competetive in equal points games.
Nobody is saying that they should be better than Romans - just that it should not be so one sided.
A points system cannot be expected to give perfectly balanced games every time because of the rock-paper-scissors nature of the game. However, it does not reflect very well on the system when a classic match-up like Romans vs Gauls cannot be fought at equal points because it is so one sided in favour of the Romans.