Roman Legion and Warbands

[Skanvak]

What I trying to achieve?

According to my understanding and common knowledge Romans weapon system is more effecient than nearly all other (except Pike) when steady but loose that advantage when loosing cohesion. This does not appear in the game.

Gauls warbands are describe in other system as not rellying on cohesion then they should see there performance improved when both the legion and the warband are disrupted. Again that does not happen in the game.

Roman legion and Gauls warband behave the same in combat. The roman have better rating of experience then end up winning but they are just better trained warbands in this game, whereas historically they derive from the phalanx system and have improved it to kill warbands. Other system does the same.

You agree that there performance again Gauls are not correct. I agree with that. Which should be a basis of understanding to build on.

To say it otherwise :

I try to debate weither or not the Roman and Gauls have the same weapon system and which position should be adopted for the game (my position is that they don't).
and then according to result of first debate to see how to represnt it in the game.

Shall, thank for your insight about how the table game works, as we have bigger table an PC, we can use mass number more easily.

Could I have your opinion on how you consider that Gauls shoudl do better? My point here is that on one to one ratio if they don't break the roman cohesion, then the Roman should have the advantage, but if they break the cohesion, they would be equal. In actual combat the Gauls would then won from their high number. Does it seem coherent with the result you would like to achieve?

[dave_r]

What I trying to achieve?

According to my understanding and common knowledge Romans weapon system is more effecient than nearly all other (except Pike) when steady but loose that advantage when loosing cohesion. This does not appear in the game.

Well, for a start it isn't common knowledge or understanding - why do you think Roman lose advantage with cohesion? Spearwalls and phalanxes needed to keep a tight formation to maintain their advantage. Because Romans fought in a longer, thinner line then they could cope with losing cohesion better than others. I see lot's of words, but no evidence.

Gauls warbands are describe in other system as not rellying on cohesion then they should see there performance improved when both the legion and the warband are disrupted. Again that does not happen in the game.

FoG relies on cohesion to track the status of the unit - other systems don't. You need to compare apples with apples.

Roman legion and Gauls warband behave the same in combat. The roman have better rating of experience then end up winning but they are just better trained warbands in this game, whereas historically they derive from the phalanx system and have improved it to kill warbands. Other system does the same.

Evidence?

You agree that there performance again Gauls are not correct. I agree with that. Which should be a basis of understanding to build on.

I would make the barbarians better rather than make the Romans worse. This is only one interaction of many.

To say it otherwise :

I try to debate weither or not the Roman and Gauls have the same weapon system and which position should be adopted for the game (my position is that they don't).
and then according to result of first debate to see how to represnt it in the game.

Whether or not they have the same weapon system is completely irrelevant to FoG and how it was developed - as many others have said, FoG is a top down system, relying on getting historical interactions correct rather than looking too closely at whether Bob had a bigger sword than Jim.

[lawrenceg]

So the trick to me is to find a solution that 80% improves warband armies and 20% lightens romans.


S

Assuming by "lightening" the Romans you mean "making them less effective", if all else fails:

Reduce the points cost of warbands by a factor of 1.8.
Increase the cost of sk sw legionaries by a factor of 1.2.

Personally, I have my doubts about the second of these. As you say, Roman legions do not dominate competitions, and the skilled sword is a complete waste of points if you are not fighting other infantry with HW or normal sword.

Should a superior legionary really be better than a superior swordsman of any other kind?

[peterrjohnston]

Personally, I have my doubts about the second of these. As you say, Roman legions do not dominate competitions

What, even Dominates?

Arguably not open competitions, but this is the interaction between Romans and Barbarians. If it was a Republican/Early Empire themed tournament, only true romantics would take Gauls as it's so one-sided.

[lawrenceg]

Personally, I have my doubts about the second of these. As you say, Roman legions do not dominate competitions

What, even Dominates?

Arguably not open competitions, but this is the interaction between Romans and Barbarians. If it was a Republican/Early Empire themed tournament, only true romantics would take Gauls as it's so one-sided.

In any tournament, open or themed, only true romantics would take Gauls as it's so one-sided.

If it was a Republican/Early Empire themed tournament, my guess is that Parthians would dominate, not Roman legions.

Dominate Romans dominate with their Auxilia, not with their legions.

Time for a "True Romantics" theme tournament: all armies must take at least 40 bases of undrilled protected or unprotected MF and/or HF.

[Skanvak]

Dave "weapon system" is the term used in the game and I use it with the same meaning... I do start with interection and see if the system is correct. You are wrong and impertinent when you say I don't.

I have provided evidence in the link given, take time to read them. Up to now it the other side that don't provide evidence and just go with affirmations. Last, the scutum/gladius fighting rely on a coherent shield wall otherwise it will not be as efficient than longsword fighting, this is told in the last sources I provided link (and the guy provide sources). dsellers have given sources that tend to prove that Roman lose to Barbarians when there cohesion crumble too.

The discution can end up with making Romans less strong against Barbarian under certain condition (like once they lose cohesion).

1.Warband automatically destroying high quality troops in good order. Historically the best warbands managed to do was surround and disorder regular troops which fell apart only after a hard slog. A thin line of Galatians will always beat Spartans in one turn. Romans will die to warband.

Just a quote from a guy in the PC forum. At one time the designer will have to give why they consider Warband that strong (they might be right, but it just feel wrong to a lot of people).

One last thing, in my country and player community it is common knowledge.

To get back to the rule debate :

I think the difficulty is to make cohesion impact on legion worse than cohesion loss of Barbarian but less than cohesion loss of
Spear/Pike. with a 2 POA max system it is complicated. The solution seem to have conditionnal POA.

[dave_r]

Dave "weapon system" is the term used in the game and I use it with the same meaning... I do start with interection and see if the system is correct. You are wrong and impertinent when you say I don't.

Grow up.

I have provided evidence in the link given, take time to read them. Up to now it the other side that don't provide evidence and just go with affirmations. Last, the scutum/gladius fighting rely on a coherent shield wall otherwise it will not be as efficient than longsword fighting, this is told in the last sources I provided link (and the guy provide sources). dsellers have given sources that tend to prove that Roman lose to Barbarians when there cohesion crumble too.

I looked at the link you provided and it was just a wild mix of assertion, hastily formed conclusions and utter nonsense in places. Quite how you guage the speed of a charge based upon the olympics is a case in point.

The discution can end up with making Romans less strong against Barbarian under certain condition (like once they lose cohesion).

1.Warband automatically destroying high quality troops in good order. Historically the best warbands managed to do was surround and disorder regular troops which fell apart only after a hard slog. A thin line of Galatians will always beat Spartans in one turn. Romans will die to warband.

Just a quote from a guy in the PC forum. At one time the designer will have to give why they consider Warband that strong (they might be right, but it just feel wrong to a lot of people).

Which is exactly why this thread should have stayed in the PC forum. In the PC game things are represented very differently than they are on the tabletop.

One last thing, in my country and player community it is common knowledge.

Rather a grand statement - do you know everybody in your country? Perhaps people in your country need to watch Hollywood films less and read books more.

To get back to the rule debate :

I think the difficulty is to make cohesion impact on legion worse than cohesion loss of Barbarian but less than cohesion loss of
Spear/Pike. with a 2 POA max system it is complicated. The solution seem to have conditionnal POA.

Or perhaps no change is needed.

[Strategos69]

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

Sometimes this issue is about names. In DBM legions, Gallic warband and Spanish scutarii were different troop types. Now they are the same in capabilities and different in movement, armour and HF/MF classification. At first sight that seems odd because the PoA system makes their interactions to be equal (except for armour when it comes to play). In my opinion, based on the description of the sources, there was a style of fighting relying on powerful charges (Gauls, Germans, Celtiberians, Samnites). Against that system, Romans and Ancient Spanish developped the volley of pila/phalarica-soliferra to stop that charge. The impact foot PoA comprises two ways of fighting completely different and that produces a sensation of oversimplification. In the other hand we know that some generals (Pompeius at Pharsalus, Epaminondas at Leuctra, Varrus at Cannae, Regulus at Bagradas) deployed with more depth to provide more staying power or an extra punch in one point of the line. Instead of trying to increase the front to overlap, they prefered deeper formations. And I am not only referring to the advantages of an extra 3rd rank to replace the loss of bases in FoG but also to a combat advantage through brute force.

In my opinion a way to deal with that is rethink about that mix of troops and the importance of numbers. There are ways of coping with this:
- Give some specific troops a capability (fierce charge) to make them a PoA up at impact against other impact foot.
- The sources describe a battle formation called "cuneus", wedge. We know Celtiberians, Germans, Macedonians and Thebans used it. They had a very deep formation and a narrow front and they relied to break into the enemy formation through a single point. It can work as a new capability for some troops providing a PoA at melee when in 4 or more ranks deep. It can be conditional to be steady or something alike if the tests provide it to be too good.
- Make numbers count more. For example, any extra file after the 2nd (or 3rd) rank can provide a +1 to CT. They might lose but if they do not lose that much cohesion they are more likely to inflict loss bases in the 4 pack Romans. Or simply a +1 if you have more ranks than the enemy, but I would prefer infantry combats to last more.
- Make MF (especifically the one that was used as line infantry: a few armies only involve those) more resistant against mounted.

[shall]

Used Gauls in 900 pt doubles and 650 pts singles and did pretty well with them.

The key is the rear support, Sup Gaesatae, and some patience to break up roman lines to get overlaps. Use of skirmishers and a few cavalry or chariots quite critical to success. Relying on a simple warband attack will usually fail .... but then always did historically according to Cesars records on his campaign in Gaul.

Even under current rules - where we all agree the ++ is too heavy as it applies to often - came 4th and 2nd with them IIRC. Not easy at present though ... as people say, taking a barbarian army to an open comp probably smacks of romanticism or masochism.

Interesting thoughts and ideas thanks.

S

[Polkovnik]

1.Warband automatically destroying high quality troops in good order. Historically the best warbands managed to do was surround and disorder regular troops which fell apart only after a hard slog. A thin line of Galatians will always beat Spartans in one turn. Romans will die to warband.

Just a quote from a guy in the PC forum. At one time the designer will have to give why they consider Warband that strong (they might be right, but it just feel wrong to a lot of people).

What game was this person talking about ? It's certainly not FOG. The general consensus is that barbarian / warband type armies are underpowered in FOG and have very little chance against Romans at equal points. There have been lots of posts on various threads on this section of the forum discussing this problem.

[dave_r]

1.Warband automatically destroying high quality troops in good order. Historically the best warbands managed to do was surround and disorder regular troops which fell apart only after a hard slog. A thin line of Galatians will always beat Spartans in one turn. Romans will die to warband.

Just a quote from a guy in the PC forum. At one time the designer will have to give why they consider Warband that strong (they might be right, but it just feel wrong to a lot of people).

What game was this person talking about ? It's certainly not FOG. The general consensus is that barbarian / warband type armies are underpowered in FOG and have very little chance against Romans at equal points. There have been lots of posts on various threads on this section of the forum discussing this problem.

This person was talking about the PC game. Not the TT game. Hence why the discussion should have been left in there.

[Polkovnik]

I have provided evidence in the link given, take time to read them. Up to now it the other side that don't provide evidence and just go with affirmations. Last, the scutum/gladius fighting rely on a coherent shield wall otherwise it will not be as efficient than longsword fighting, this is told in the last sources I provided link (and the guy provide sources). dsellers have given sources that tend to prove that Roman lose to Barbarians when there cohesion crumble too.

I can't see anything in the link you provided to support your assertion that Roman legionaries fought in a shieldwall formation, or that they suffered more than other troops when they lost cohesion.
There are two diagrams representing what the author sees as typical legionary combat - neither shows adjacent men with touching or overlapping shields.
A shieldwall formation really requires spears rather than swords, as these are used over the interlocking shields. And as I stated in an earlier post, and I quote from your link "the scutum itself should be considered an offensive as well as a defensive weapon. It could be used to bang at the enemy, possibly unbalance him, even knock him down." This could not happen in a shieldwall, as such offensive action would break the coherence of the wall.

And it would help if you would state what period you are referring to. It may be that later Roman legions did fight in more of a shieldwall formation, but that was then they were armed with thrusting spears rather than pilum and gladius.

[waldo]

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.

It is hard to dominate with HF in an open comp - they are just too slow, or the board is too big.

For barbarians it is even worse; can't run, can't fight, can't manoeuvre. It is a bit of a shame when even themed tournaments boil down to Roman Civil wars + Palmyrans and Parthians, or else for those with Barbarian themes it's a race to try and find the most cavalry-heavy army and hope some other suckers are hopeless romantics e.g. Wolves from the Sea theme in Derby last year.

And whilst most (I assume) prefers to play historical opponents that is just not possible in a lot of countries where the hobby is smaller than in the UK. I have seen the argument posted "well it is designed for historical match-ups so tough if your game isn't one" but that is a bit harsh when some don't have that opportunity.

I don't think changing auxiliaries to HF will improve Roman competitiveness either, unless you shrink the board.

Walter

[Skanvak]

Quoted from the site I refered earlier( thanks to Strategos).

The Romans placed great emphasis on maintaining the ranks. They preserved their lines and formations and fought within that framework. They used their large scuta for protection, many probably hiding behind them. Their form of attack would be more like a cautious jabbing just beyond the edge of the shield than a wild overhead swing. Horsemen hardly ever rode through a group of fighting men; they might pursue and overtake infantry that was running away but would never have ridden into the middle of fighting between infantry groups. Battles were likely either over at the first rush or lasted hours. And the killing happened slowly. If as few as 1% casualties occurred at the initial charge then there were about 4% casualties spread out over a couple of hours. For a cohort of 480 men that would translate into 20 men killed over a couple of hours, about one man killed and one man wounded every six minutes.

The illustration [of a soldier fighting] is seriously flawed. Any soldier opening himself up to thrust as illustrated would be open to attack from four angles (oblique left, front, oblique right and from the right) plus three weapon forms (missiles, thrusting spear and sword). By opening himself up like that he would be dead very quickly. Roman soldiers did not fence. The action is completely unnecessary. Any thrust that puts the arm beyond the edge of the scutum would risk the sword arm unnecessarily. If an opponent is just out of reach it is far better to step forward and remain protected by one's scutum. By keeping his scutum in front he optimizes his protection. Soldiers can fight with scuta touching even slightly over lapping. In the push and shove of battle all it takes is a thin opening to thrust at the exposed thigh, groin or lower abdomen of an an opponent pressing hard against the scutum of the soldier to your right. An additional thrust at an upward angle would contact an opponent's throat or face. Also, a thrust does not have to be hard or even fast if an enemy's legs and lower abdomen are un-armored. Very rarely would you attack the man in front of you. He has a shield too. You would more often attack the man obliquely to your right. He is most likely right handed and open on his left! Soldiers fought from a balanced legs bent position. Left leg forward. Right leg back. Sometimes the left knee is pressing against the scutum, the scutum often planted against the ground especially if the enemy is pressing hard. If he stands straight he is very likely to be bowled over. This is not good.

This two part show :

1/ Rank is important, without shieldwall, maintaining rank is pointless.
2/ Scutum fighting in rank is not fencing it is just stabing from under one scutum and it is only possible if all soldiers does the same, otherwise the soldier behind his Scutum will offer too much opening to side ennemy and will have to rely on fencing (The Roman can do, it is how then beat Pike in rough terrain, but they are not more efficient than Barbarian, one can argue that they are less when you see the number of crushing defeat the Roman suffer when they cannot use their tactics : Totenburg Forst is one)

After that, several people here have quoted that once the rank are broken the Roman generally lose to Barbarian

Conclusion : The roman should suffer more than the barbarian from loss of cohesion. (may be their armour rating should drop when losing cohesion?)

Second point that may make a difference is the tactics to repel cavalry (link posted above) that show Roman using their pilla to actually form a (light?) spear shieldwall.

One thing that I guess you don't realise is that the use of shield in individual fight and in rank file greatly improve large shield efficiency, this is true for hoplite and Roman legion.

Another thought, should the pilla represented by impact foot or make roman missile and melee troops (but less strong on impact's POA)?

Do we have much information about how the barbarian fight (that is beside Caesar account of the Gallic war)? Links to are welcome.

[grahambriggs]

To pick up a number of Skanvak's posts:

If Galatians can be relied upon to destroy Romans/Spartans in the PC game that seems different to the tabletop game (though a big BG of galatians led by a general is strong).

An anti cavalry drill with pila is probably going to leave the legionary wishing for a longer spear!

Fair point that some of the Roman swords were more stabbing swords than for big swings, but that's surely quite widely known. A bit worrying that the narrator has to point out that the cavalry does not mix in with the infantry to fight. Even the most basic book on the Roman army makes that obvious (Except in the early days where perhaps there was closer cooperation with the 300 men in the cavalry ala.

While the early Romans did seem to fight as a traditional hoplite spear phalanx, that was long go by, say, Caesar's gallic wars. The Romans seemed very good at copying and refining the weapons and tactics of their opponents, hence there is continual change going on.

[pyruse]

Skavnak, what you quoted is not evidence, it is just somebody's speculation.
Look at the language used:
..., many probably hiding behind them.
Their form of attack would....
-------------
'Probably', 'would' - even the author isn't really sure about this.
This is just what someone thinks; that's not the same as evidence at all.

be more like a cautious jabbing just beyond the edge of the shield than a wild overhead swing. Horsemen hardly ever rode through a group of fighting men; they might pursue and overtake infantry that was running away but would never have ridden into the middle of fighting between infantry groups.
------------
This is just an assertion with no evidence. In fact there is evidence from primary sources that horsemen could and did ride into the middle of groups and fighting men. Have a look in Livy and Polybios.

Let's see some quotes from primary sources if you want to change the rules - not speculation from web sites.

[Polkovnik]

The Romans placed great emphasis on maintaining the ranks. They preserved their lines and formations and fought within that framework.

Conclusion : The roman should suffer more than the barbarian from loss of cohesion. (may be their armour rating should drop when losing cohesion?)

They knew the value of maintaining ranks, and trained and practiced filling in and preserving lines when men are lost as casualties. I cannot see how you draw the conclusion from that that they should suffer worse from loss of cohesion than other troops. In fact you could easily draw the opposite conclusion. Any body of men will benefit from fighting as a coherent, organised unit, any any will suffer when this coherence is lost. But Roman legionaries train for such events and are practised at dealing with it. Thus when they suffer casualties and lose cohesion they are better prepared than many other troops, and thus the fighting ability of the unit is not degraded as much.

It generally accepted that one of the main strengths of the Roman Legion was it's flexibility (try googling "flexibility of roman legions"). This was partly because they fought in a looser formation than a phalanx or shieldwall, and could suffer loss of cohesion (due to casualties, terrain, etc) and still maintain their fighting performance.

[shadowdragon]

The Romans placed great emphasis on maintaining the ranks. They preserved their lines and formations and fought within that framework.

Conclusion : The roman should suffer more than the barbarian from loss of cohesion. (may be their armour rating should drop when losing cohesion?)

They knew the value of maintaining ranks, and trained and practiced filling in and preserving lines when men are lost as casualties. I cannot see how you draw the conclusion from that that they should suffer worse from loss of cohesion than other troops. In fact you could easily draw the opposite conclusion. Any body of men will benefit from fighting as a coherent, organised unit, any any will suffer when this coherence is lost. But Roman legionaries train for such events and are practised at dealing with it. Thus when they suffer casualties and lose cohesion they are better prepared than many other troops, and thus the fighting ability of the unit is not degraded as much.

It generally accepted that one of the main strengths of the Roman Legion was it's flexibility (try googling "flexibility of roman legions"). This was partly because they fought in a looser formation than a phalanx or shieldwall, and could suffer loss of cohesion (due to casualties, terrain, etc) and still maintain their fighting performance.

Indeed, well said. There are numerous examples throughout history of well trained and disciplined troops being better able to regroup following a loss of cohesion. For example, I would doubt that a less well trained and disciplined army would hold out as long as the Romans at the battle of Teutoburg Forest. Surely the initial ambush would have resulted in a loss of cohesion and yet the legions still managed to hold out for quite a long time.

Agree with the general sentiment that it's not the Romans that need to be degraded but the "barbarians" that need improving.

[nikgaukroger]

Agree with the general sentiment that it's not the Romans that need to be degraded but the "barbarians" that need improving.

If you are just looking with the interaction between Romans and Barbarians then taking something away from the Romans will also be an improvement for the barbarians.

Of course in FoG, as it doesn't just cover those two types, the wider picture needs looking at. So to take an example of one suggestion that has been floated - no SSw for Romans, thus barbarians are better in the melee phase against Superior legionarii - you have to assess what other effects it would have within the game and whether they are OK or not. Similarly the suggested -2 CT modifier for losing to Undrilled Impact Foot has an effect on the interaction of Impact foot barbarians with hoplites and pikemen - whether that effect is reasonable needs to be assessed.

[philqw78]

I think SSw needs a complete rethink. Take it off the Romans for a start. It then needs to do something for sword and buckler men v pike and spear; and Samurai v's spear and Hvy Wpn. The HW bit is already solved. But what about Pk and Sp.