Roman Legion and Warbands

[philqw78]

As far as I know only Romans, (Mid Republic Roman, Late Rep, Principate and Dominate), except for "imitation" troops in other armies, can have Drilled Heavy Impact Foot.

[Skanvak]

So may be we can say that Drill heavy foot Impact swordmen are equal to legion warfare. From which we will device modifier to simulate historcial result.

I have another question? How does Gauls warband behave against Pike? Because when comparing two weapon systems we have to compar how they relate to the other.
I read too (that in one of the link) that Roman have very efficient spear like anti-cavalery technique. I wonder if my source are correct, if so, shouldn't the Roman be stronger against cavalery than Gauls Warbands?

[dave_r]

So may be we can say that Drill heavy foot Impact swordmen are equal to legion warfare. From which we will device modifier to simulate historcial result.

Here's a thought - perhaps that's what the authors did?

I have another question? How does Gauls warband behave against Pike? Because when comparing two weapon systems we have to compar how they relate to the other.
I read too (that in one of the link) that Roman have very efficient spear like anti-cavalery technique. I wonder if my source are correct, if so, shouldn't the Roman be stronger against cavalery than Gauls Warbands?

They are - because they are Armoured and also HF rather than MF.

[Skanvak]

Gauls can be HF (early lowlands tribe lists). The only difference between Gauls warbands and Roman Legion is the Drill/undrill (as there are average legion and protected legion (hastati).
Which mean that legion are not more effecient against cavalery than Gauls.

[dave_r]

Gauls can be HF (early lowlands tribe lists). The only difference between Gauls warbands and Roman Legion is the Drill/undrill (as there are average legion and protected legion (hastati).
Which mean that legion are not more effecient against cavalery than Gauls.

Historically, the rubbish Romans - i.e. the average protected ones weren't good against Cavalry.

[Strategos69]

Historically, the rubbish Romans - i.e. the average protected ones weren't good against Cavalry.

Many historians would love to see how you prove that!

[Skanvak]

Strategos,

Do you think (back on historical evidence of course) that Legion are more efficient against cavalry than Gauls warbands?

The formation I have seen looks like they use their pilum like spear and form a kind of very heavy phalanx (with two rank of shield a bit like turtles but different).

[dave_r]

Historically, the rubbish Romans - i.e. the average protected ones weren't good against Cavalry.

Many historians would love to see how you prove that!

Easy, their performance when they got ridden down by cavalry

When they didn't, it was clearly the armoured, superior, IF, SS types.

[Strategos69]

Strategos,

Do you think (back on historical evidence of course) that Legion are more efficient against cavalry than Gauls warbands?

The formation I have seen looks like they use their pilum like spear and form a kind of very heavy phalanx (with two rank of shield a bit like turtles but different).

We don't have much evidence to support any of those. First we should state to which period we are referring to and then look at what we know about that period. For example, we know that in Pharsalus (Caesar veteran legionaries) retained their pila to attack the Pompeian cavalry on their faces. Nearly 2.000 infantry men charged and caught 6.700 cavalry men and routed them. The testudo formation was not a battle formation (more for sieges) except for desperate situations when surrounded by archers. The power of legionaries against cavalry is a mass of men shouting and closing any espace in front of them.

[Skanvak]

I was not refering to testudo per se but to a formation to repel cavalry : http://www.roman-empire.net/army/repel-cavalry.html
I don't know its validity or if the Gauls could use it.

If the roman can attack with their pila then may be Legion should rate as either swordmen or spear (light spear)? I don't know if it will make sense game-wise

[dave_r]

I was not refering to testudo per se but to a formation to repel cavalry : http://www.roman-empire.net/army/repel-cavalry.html
I don't know its validity or if the Gauls could use it.

If the roman can attack with their pila then may be Legion should rate as either swordmen or spear (light spear)? I don't know if it will make sense game-wise

The bottom line is that as Nik has pointed out above, there is little or no evidence to suggest how the Romans faught, anything added is conjecture and could go on for quite some time.

This is the reason why there are so many options for Roman troops, they can be

Average or Superior
Armoured or Protected
Imact Foot or Light Spear
Swordsmen or Skilled Swordsmen

You can take pretty much any combination of the above four - take your own view of history and pick the troops accordingly.

Alternatively, you could take a competition view and go for that which you think is most effective.

Neither approach should be discouraged.

[Skanvak]

Well, from what I read we have some conjecture. Especially about the shield wall and short stabing from behind the Shield.

And again you are refering to non pertinent difference : poor/average/superior/elite and swordmen/swordmen plus refer strictly to the experience of the legion, it is very clear when you look at the late republican roman (ie post marianic) therefore it refer about how the legion perform between them with the same wepaon system.

Armour is trickier. It can represent the durability of the roman way of fighting, but then they should be one class higher to better represent how they work.

If there was no evidence then we can challenge the choice as some pointed out that the loss of initial fighting again a Warband did not harm the Roman whereas report implie that losing cohesion was very bad. Here we has a serious basis to challenge Roman being equal to Gauls in there POA distribution.

Well I guess it would be nice to have an answer by the designer about their choice.

[dave_r]

Well, from what I read we have some conjecture. Especially about the shield wall and short stabing from behind the Shield.

And again you are refering to non pertinent difference : poor/average/superior/elite and swordmen/swordmen plus refer strictly to the experience of the legion, it is very clear when you look at the late republican roman (ie post marianic) therefore it refer about how the legion perform between them with the same wepaon system.

Armour is trickier. It can represent the durability of the roman way of fighting, but then they should be one class higher to better represent how they work.

If there was no evidence then we can challenge the choice as some pointed out that the loss of initial fighting again a Warband did not harm the Roman whereas report implie that losing cohesion was very bad. Here we has a serious basis to challenge Roman being equal to Gauls in there POA distribution.

Well I guess it would be nice to have an answer by the designer about their choice.

You haven't bothered to put forward any evidence at all apart from "I saw it on the telly". Even then you haven't said what the programme was, who the historical expert was or what they based their programme on.

Perhaps if you put more forward then you might get more back?

[zocco]

I admit I haven't been following this thread in detail so this might be out of sorts but may I suggest the following proposal for V2


Shieldwall rule
In the melee phase: Foot deemed to be in a 'Shieldwall' may add a + POA if after applying all other POA's the enemy has a higher net POA.

For foot to be deemed in a 'Shieldwall' they must be either:

STEADY drilled Heavy or Medium Foot that are also either impact foot/swordsmen (in >= 2 ranks) or Light spear/swordsmen foot (in >= 2 ranks).

or

STEADY undrilled Heavy or Medium Foot that are also either impact foot/swordsmen (in >= 3 ranks) or Light spear/swordsmen foot (in >= 3 ranks).

This would have a number of consequences namely;

1) help Warband against skilled swordsmen in melee phase - provided they didnt disrupt at impact (ie are steady)

2) impove the above troop types vs spearmen in melee (at present if they don't disrupt spearmen in impact they are often at a disadvantage in the subsequent melee phase(s).

3) would enable steady foot a better chance in melee vs some mtd troops (eg those with heavier armour etc).

I think allof these problems have been discussed in various V2 threads and this rule would help ameliorate many of those issues.

Z.

[Blathergut]

One thing nice about FoG is the lack of need to remember (mentally or with buttons of some sort) if some unit is this or that or whatever. The relatively simple composition of troops and BGs made it very easy to play and enjoy.

I hope V2 doesn't bring more complexity and button needs. How to get a few extra features like your shield wall idea in without the button need or such, that will be the trick.

[zocco]

One thing nice about FoG is the lack of need to remember (mentally or with buttons of some sort) if some unit is this or that or whatever. The relatively simple composition of troops and BGs made it very easy to play and enjoy.

I hope V2 doesn't bring more complexity and button needs. How to get a few extra features like your shield wall idea in without the button need or such, that will be the trick.

I'd hope they could just put 'shieldwall' into the quick reference sheet under Melee as an aid memoir with a reference to STEADY impact or light spear foot and then a reference - eg see pg 48 (or some such)

eg something like 'if "shieldwall" applies + STEADY impact or light spear foot, refer pg X'

Personally I don't think it istoo hard to remember - and of course gamers who get an advantage by this rule certainly won't forget

Z

[dave_r]

One thing nice about FoG is the lack of need to remember (mentally or with buttons of some sort) if some unit is this or that or whatever. The relatively simple composition of troops and BGs made it very easy to play and enjoy.

I hope V2 doesn't bring more complexity and button needs. How to get a few extra features like your shield wall idea in without the button need or such, that will be the trick.

I'd hope they could just put 'shieldwall' into the quick reference sheet under Melee as an aid memoir with a reference to STEADY impact or light spear foot and then a reference - eg see pg 48 (or some such)

eg something like 'if "shieldwall" applies + STEADY impact or light spear foot, refer pg X'

Personally I don't think it istoo hard to remember - and of course gamers who get an advantage by this rule certainly won't forget

Z

This rule is usually referred to as steady spearmen or pikemen, who prevent the use of sword.

[Skanvak]

Dave : I already told that my first question on PC forum was a "why". I expected people to start historical debate but this failed so I backed on was I have found. Otherwise I read a similar description on a site with reference to an author(Sabin) : http://garyb.0catch.com/fighting1/fighting1.html
Plz don't jump to the second part of the debate assuming the answer to the first part is obvious. If you think my understanding is wrong provide hostorical evidence of the opposite.

So now about Blathergut remark : Apart from a proposal to link the first melee result to the impact result, all proposal including Zocco's don't need "counter" to remind situation of the troops.

To Zocco : I believe that MF are too spaced to make a shieldwall, this should only be for Heavy foot as I understand this issue.
Your solution imply that Gauls and Roman fight the same? I doubt that Gauls make shieldwall, but I might be wrong, as early frank seem to do shieldwall.
The other issue with my shieldwall weapon is that it will apply to Greek Spear.

[dave_r]

Dave : I already told that my first question on PC forum was a "why". I expected people to start historical debate but this failed so I backed on was I have found.

And you have been told time and time again that there is no real evidence of how the Romans fought!

Otherwise I read a similar description on a site with reference to an author(Sabin) : http://garyb.0catch.com/fighting1/fighting1.html
Plz don't jump to the second part of the debate assuming the answer to the first part is obvious. If you think my understanding is wrong provide hostorical evidence of the opposite.

You are allowed to say what you want, but if you don't provide the following:

- what is broken
- why it is broken

then it is going to be difficult to provide a solution. As far as I can see, basically you are saying:

- I don't like the way Romans work
- Do something about it

If you can't provide the details of what is wrong then it is going to be exceptionally difficult to fix. I think most people don't have a problem with how Romans act on the table (apart from the fourpaks of Armoured, MF and their performance against Gauls) so I guess we are all desperately trying to work out what you are trying to achieve?

So now about Blathergut remark : Apart from a proposal to link the first melee result to the impact result, all proposal including Zocco's don't need "counter" to remind situation of the troops.

To Zocco : I believe that MF are too spaced to make a shieldwall, this should only be for Heavy foot as I understand this issue.

Why do you think that? Some MF are classed as Offensive Spearmen who definitely use a shieldwall

Your solution imply that Gauls and Roman fight the same? I doubt that Gauls make shieldwall, but I might be wrong, as early frank seem to do shieldwall.
The other issue with my shieldwall weapon is that it will apply to Greek Spear.

Greeks being one of the defining blocks of shieldwall and spear, then yes it would...

[shall]

I think most people don't have a problem with how Romans act on the table (apart from the fourpaks of Armoured, MF and their performance against Gauls) so I guess we are all desperately trying to work out what you are trying to achieve?

The key issue is to get underneath apparent symptoms and to route causes ... there qre usually several of these.

Having followed the debate my interpretation of feedback is as follows:

1. Romans feel like Romans in FOG - something I haven't had in 38 years of wargaming - and would be nice to keep it this way.
2. Romans vs Barbarians too strong for Romans if the Roman has CHOSEN all Sup IF SkSw - definitely true due to the ++ being too pervasive in the mix; and mobility of the MF 4s.
3. But Romans don't dominate comps, it is rather that barbarians do not do well enough - so problem is actually mainly with barbarians and partly with Romans.
4. Powerful troops do of course dominate when the table shrinks and movement speeds drop vs base widths - so 650pt 25mm will favour pikes, sup sp, knights, sup arm if .... but this is because there isn't room to bring numbers to bear effectively.... when we played rampage on a 9 x 4 it opened up possibilities for palmyran loight troops and chariots and cavalry.
5. Barbarians do little better vs hoplites or pikes or knights or good cavalry ......

So the trick to me is to find a solution that 80% improves warband armies and 20% lightens romans. Then the roman-gaul balance will be right AND we will encourage more warband armies to come out to play. I guess this is where this request for a "shieldwall" is coming from - something to stengthen the gauls? Have lots of other ideas from some playing around.

It has taken me some time to get underneath the symptoms that are obvious , and think about it more widely ... comments/thoughts on this wider diagnosis would be much appreciated?


S