Roman Legion and Warbands

[ValentinianVictor]

"I'd heartily recommend Guy Halsall's "Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568"."

That's already in the ever increasing number to read, along with the others in a huge heap in my spare room now that I no long have shelf space in my home library!!!

[nikgaukroger]

"I'd heartily recommend Guy Halsall's "Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568"."

That's already in the ever increasing number to read, along with the others in a huge heap in my spare room now that I no long have shelf space in my home library!!!

Read it sooner rather than later IMO - his view is well put and he asks a number of good questions about just what we know and what has become "fact" through assumption. Takes a very different line to Heather about the Goths in the empire, and I find his view very persuasive at times.

[zocco]

Therefore I share Zocco analysis (though Zocco some reference for Legion vs Cat behaviour would help us). We need to discuss the "shieldwall" rule and name

No you and Zocco need to discussit. And then to come up with some evidence and a playable, simple way to put it into practice. Otherwise you are adding complication for no real value other than your own gratification.

Okay, a few issues to answer.

1. Regarding Romans being vulnerable to Cats

What I'm getting at here is (of course) the fact that Cats get a +POA in melee due to heavier armour vs legionaries/auxilia etc. That and the fact that they will breakoff if the foot remain steady gives the Cats an advantage in combat.

Historically I don't think there is any evidence to show that cats were better than steady legionaries - for those who have access to the SoA mag Slingshot there was an article a few years back 'When Cats look at Kings' I think it was called which gives an overview of roman infantry vs cats. There wasn't a lot there to suggest a superiority by the cats.

One oft cited battle is Carrhae as an example of Cat superiority. Actually the Cats baulked when the Roman infantry remained steady in the face of their charge. Of course later in the battle when the LH had shot the foot to bits (ie they were no longer steady) the cats gained a decisive advantage.
Ergo while the foot remain steady cats should not have an advantage (ie a net +POA) over the foot. The shieldwall proposal means that as long as the foot remain STEADY after impact they are more likely to be at evens POA in the subsequent melee than at present.

2. In terms of complexity I'm surprised to here this the rule is not particularly hard to administer of for that fact remember. It's certainly no more complex than the rear support rule (on p135).


3. As for the rule itself I've renamed it to Fulcum (a Roman term) and as a first attempt propose the following version;


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


In addition the definition below could go into the Glossary section under Fulcum.


Fulcum
The Fulcum is a type of shieldwall used by troops who may lack the ability or inclination to form a classical shieldwall bristling with spears. Foot such as Roman legionaries or densely packed barbarian's behind a wall of closely spaced shields supported by shafted weapons can still form a formidable obstacle in melee to opposing foot or mounted.


For a base to be classed as being in a Fulcum they must satisfy all of the following conditions;

• be STEADY

• be either drilled MF or HF in at least two ranks or undrilled MF or HF in at least three ranks

• be classified as either impact foot/swordsmen, impact foot/skilled swordsmen or light spear/swordsmen





So there you have it. As I have stated previously I think the rule would help with a number of situations. eg

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).

Also a couple of clarifications here;

1) I should mention that I gave MF the ability to form Fulcum so as to remain consistent with the principle that MF can form a shieldwall in FOG (as evidenced by MF Spearmen).

2) The Fulcum rule does not apply to Spearmen as their capacity to form a shieldwall is already subsmed into their basic POA’s.

[philqw78]

Thanks zocco. I don't like the idea, but the argument for it is now easier to follow.

[grahambriggs]

Yes, captures it quite clearly. And also this solution might be a resolution to another thread: "are ancient cavalry too powerful"

I can see the attraction of a "if you end up a POA or more down, add a POA" type rule to make certain troops more resilient. Of course the issue is which troops should get it in which circumstances.

There are timing pros and cons: slower melees mean working flanks is more possible but they struggle of the main battle lines could take longer.

There's an issue with how does it relate to the mounted light spear, which is another conditional POA. You'd need to apply one then the other I feel.

I'm not sure that making this a whole POA is necessarily required. A watered down version could be to treat 'fulcum' troops as one morale class higher for 'to hit' rolls and any CT while in close combat.

[Skanvak]

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

I would add "unless fighting against HW or Elephant" that will boost elephant and help to represent the problem roman have with those two kind of troops (and I don't see a shield wall be really useful against a charging elephant but I might be wrong).

In addition the definition below could go into the Glossary section under Fulcum.


Fulcum
The Fulcum is a type of shieldwall used by troops who may lack the ability or inclination to form a classical shieldwall bristling with spears. Foot such as Roman legionaries or densely packed barbarian's behind a wall of closely spaced shields supported by shafted weapons can still form a formidable obstacle in melee to opposing foot or mounted.

You want to give it to barbarian too?

For a base to be classed as being in a Fulcum they must satisfy all of the following conditions;

• be STEADY

• be either drilled MF or HF in at least two ranks or undrilled MF or HF in at least three ranks

• be classified as either impact foot/swordsmen, impact foot/skilled swordsmen or light spear/swordsmen

Be STEADY (and not disordered either) I certainly support this point.

I rather put be either drilled MF or HF, though making it a weapon type can ease the problem. ie Swordmen, Skilled Swordmen and Shielded Swordmen/light spear?

Though I can thank you to have put the debate on track.

[ethan]

The problem I see with this idea is that it pretty much makes spearmen (and pike) pretty weak...

[shadowdragon]

The problem I see with this idea is that it pretty much makes spearmen (and pike) pretty weak...

Yup.

Checkers, anyone?

[zocco]

The problem I see with this idea is that it pretty much makes spearmen (and pike) pretty weak...

Yup.

Checkers, anyone?

I'm not sure that it would be quite as you seem to imply - the end of the world for spearmen or pike. The rule can only ever give a defensive POA, this may sometimes even things up against spearmen and pike but only in specific circumstances and only if the impact foot et al are STEADY. Spearmen and PIKE only really lose their bonus when FRAGGED. Sure the swordsmen get to count when the Spearmen and Pike are DISRUPTED but then the Fulcum rule is unlikely to kick in as the POA's are even or the impact foot are up a POA.

Anyway what I'd like to see is the rule be playtested - then we would see what actually occurs.

[Skanvak]

How can one import a table in this forum?

Roman Legion drilled, armoured, impact foot, Sswordmen, superior, Heavy Foot
Gauls Soldurii armoured, impact foot, swordmen, elite, Heavy foot
catapharact heavy armoured, Lance, Swordmen, Superior, Cataphract

Roman Legion Gauls soldurii

impact IF +2 IF +2
net 0 0
melee
net 1 -1
disrupted or


Roman Legion cataphract

impact IF (not chargint) +1 La +1
net 0
melee Armour +1
net -1 1

if I understand correctly, it looks like this.

This mean two things for Gauls : that this is the SSw that does the difference and cohesion as not much effect, whereas it should impact the Roman more that the Gauls.

Against the cataphracts, the Roman are good to receive the charge but weak to actually fight in melee? Shouldn't it be the opposite.

I think that the net result shoudl be as follow :

Roman Legion Gauls soldurii

impact
net 0 if steady, -1 if not 0 or +1 if roman are not steady
melee
net +1 if steady or -1 if not -1 if roman steady or +1 if not



Roman Legion cataphract

impact
net -1 +1
melee
net 0 if roman are steady
-1 +1 other wise

I wonder if saying that Roamn are light spear with javelin for impact wouldn't better define what they do?

It looks like that the result I want to achieve is a conditionnal boost of Roman armour by one level if they are steady in melee. I would give up SSw for that as I fell it would be sloser to reality.

[rbodleyscott]

How can one import a table in this forum?

There is no straightforward way to do it, you have to make an image file.

This can be done simply as follows:

1) Cut and paste the table into Windows Paint (Start > programs > accessories > Paint)
2) Crop if necessary
3) Save as .jpg
4) Upload the .jpg to Photobucket (free image hosting)
5) Put a link to the graphic in a post on the board, using the URL button.

[dvorkin]

Sorry to take part in this discussion in late.

In my opinion whatever the situation roman have +2 against warband, even when they are Frag due to the fact they are skilled swordmen.
Can we imagine that if romans are not steady they loose their skilled swormen and give a better chance to warband to survive, because we know that numbers in a BG as nearly no influence on the battle.

It can be a chance to see again gaellic units in tournament.

[GHGAustin]

And even in disordering terrain, the Romans are very tough. They still get the +2 for armor and SSW and are only one step more disordered than MF. In our recent 275BC campaign, we Romans were happy to wade into disordering and sev. dis terrain to take on the Gauls and Spaniards in the Cartho army. After all, we are +2 with re-rolls of 1s. So what if we lose 1/3 or 1/2 our dice. It was plenty to do the job. It also protected us from any Cartho cavalry wandering around!

[Strategos69]

In our recent 275BC campaign, we Romans were happy to wade into disordering and sev. dis terrain to take on the Gauls and Spaniards in the Cartho army. After all, we are +2 with re-rolls of 1s. So what if we lose 1/3 or 1/2 our dice. It was plenty to do the job. It also protected us from any Cartho cavalry wandering around!

If you are playing a campaign, for those early years I would advice to use protected average or armoured average and big BG's (8 instead of 4) to be more historically accurate. If you pick the best options for those times, then it is hard to see the Gauls being the threat they really were for the Romans. Maybe you can have one veteran legion, or two, but they were not that common (for most of the time, there was a levy risen every year).

[RichardUnderwood]

My first post! I'm quite new to FoG (I previously played WRG6/7 and DBM) but have studied and reenacted late Roman / early Saxon for many years. I am very pleased with the overall feel of the combat between Roman and barbarian armies and don't think it needs too much changed. I'm very happy that my Roman and barbarian armies can now have a reasonably fair fight without my blades being brittle and my warband uncontrollable - don't spoil it in V2.0!

The original post queried the fact that Romans and barbarians were classed as having the same weapon. I think this is quite right. I don't believe the relatively small differences between fighting with 'gladius and scutum' and 'spatha/broadsword and large oval/large round shield' need to be represented in a game at this scale. They are far smaller than the differences between primarily sword/shield armed troops and spear/shield armed or pike armed.

I would support getting rid of SSw because:

a. reducing complexity is always good;
b. it seems a bit like a 'I play Romans and Romans are great' rule. Romans will still have the option to have more superior troops and will usually get a + in melee from having better armour; ++ seem a bit too much. In the later Roman lists when they get less armoured troops the Roman army was much more like the barbarians - in fact many of them were barbarians.
c. the barbarian warrior elite probably practiced swordplay just as much as the Romans. I base this on my knowledge of the Anglo-Saxons where the kings and other nobles all maintained a group of young warriors (their hearthtroop) who lived with them - developing loyalty, espirit de corps and, it seems reasonable to assume, training.

I disagree with the Fulcum concept as:
a. it adds complexity;
b. I don't think being drilled is significant (the original term proposed 'shieldwall' highlights how this concept can be applied to barbarians as much a Romans);
c. all troops with 'at least moderate sized shields' fighting in close formation would adopt a formation that could be described as a shieldwall/fulcum. It should not be necessary to have additional rules for this;
d. It would unbalance combat between spearmen/pike and impact foot. Impact foot should lose if they fight spear/pike who are not disrupted either before close combat or during the impact phase.

I also disagree with the wedge/cuneus concept as:
a. it adds complexity;
b. Everyone did it - I take it to be implicitly represented in the impact phase already.


--------
PS: Nik - I come from Yorkshire!

[zocco]

I disagree with the Fulcum concept as:
a. it adds complexity;
b. I don't think being drilled is significant (the original term proposed 'shieldwall' highlights how this concept can be applied to barbarians as much a Romans);
c. all troops with 'at least moderate sized shields' fighting in close formation would adopt a formation that could be described as a shieldwall/fulcum. It should not be necessary to have additional rules for this;
d. It would unbalance combat between spearmen/pike and impact foot. Impact foot should lose if they fight spear/pike who are not disrupted either before close combat or during the impact phase.

As the auther of the above mentioned 'Fulcum' rule I feel I must make an albeit brief statement to defend it.

Firstly given the proposed changes for V2 for removing skilled swordsmen for Romans and for (if I vaguely recall) a possible impact phase bonus (of some description) I would now limit the Fulcum fule to DRILLED impact foot/light spear + swordsmen foot only.The Fulcum rules adds little to complexity but what it does attempt to do is to even up the imbalance for those troop types vs some others in particular shock cavalry (esp cataphracts), elephants and spearmen/pike.


From an historical point FOG simply does not give the right balance - the impact phase for impact foot/light spear + swordsmen is pretty much an all or nothing. The balance between these types and spearmen for example is heavily biased (and people can interprete that as they wish) against impact foot/light spear + swordsmen. As a rule of thumb if the spearmen are not disrupted in the impact phase then they are highly likely to win the combat - in order to stop that the impact foot/light spear + swordsmen generally need to be heavier armoured (ie more costly). in addition spearmen also negate lance in impact (a very useful advantage). So overall impact foot/light spear + swordsmen are at a large disadvantage compared to spearmen. Also we should onsider that spearmen s portrayed in FOG is probably a myth anyway - swordsmen were frequently used in the fornt rank of blocks of spear (eg Picts and Spanish come to mind) so swordsmen should not be negated by spearmen in melee anyway. I shold also add that impact foot/light spear + swordsmen used sshieldwall tactics themselves so certainly derserve a much better run from th erules than they are getting at the moment - (see Rance etc).

[Strategos69]

I also disagree with the wedge/cuneus concept as:
a. it adds complexity;
b. Everyone did it - I take it to be implicitly represented in the impact phase already.

Hehehe, as zoco I will do the same.
Basically the wedge concept is the same as the 4th rank PoA for pikemen, but everywhere (not just open ground). It is using an existing mechanism for something already in place. In my simulations it works pretty well.

Why should it be a capability? Because it was not used by all impact foot, neither all undrilled impact foot. Iberians, although undrilled impact foot, fought pretty much as the Romans, whereas the Celtiberians are recorded more as fighting as the Gauls. In fact, isn't that such a nice coincidence that two people separated by a sea developed a system of first throwing javelins and then coming into contact when facing both the Celtic threat?

In my opinion the best way to target a few troops is giving them what they need, instead of vague all undrilled impact foot swordsmen.

[RichardUnderwood]

As a rule of thumb if the spearmen are not disrupted in the impact phase then they are highly likely to win the combat ...

This is where we differ - you think this is a problem, I see it as exactly how it should be. If troops armed with short weapons (eg swords) cannot close to within striking distance of spear (or pike) they will lose; by far their best chance to do this is at impact. I therefore think the representation at present is very realistic. If the overall balance between impact foot and spear is thought to be wrong then I would go with the ideas for beefing up the effect of the impact phase discussed in another thread, such as an across the board -1 on the CT for losing an impact combat, with a -2 for losing against impact foot. Or maybe just make the -1 for losing against impact foot a -2 if the problem is only with them and not with other shock troops.

Why should it be a capability? Because it was not used by all impact foot, neither all undrilled impact foot.

I would argue that evidence for wedge formations both foot and mounted is sufficiently widespread across the period covered, given the limitations of ancient sources, to make it reasonable to assume that some variation on it was in the tactical repertoire of most if not all shock troops. Despite the elaborate detail of some ancient author's descriptions (eg Saxo Grammaticus) it is actually quite a simple formation requiring little more than the best troops of the unit being concentrated at one point in the line to make the breakthrough at impact. Would it be any better than alternatives such as having the best troops at the front and sides of the unit and the worse troops in the middle (as Maurice recommends)? Who can tell! I'm just not convinced the game needs the added complexity of trying to explicitly represent such tactics.