Mid-Rep Roman: Gallic foot HF and MF are indentical ?!

[fosforo]

In the Mid-Rep Roman Army list, I can select 0-4 Gallic Foot, choosing between Medium Foot and/or Heavy Foot version.
The first oddity that I notice at firs glance is that they are totally identical: same cost, some quality, protection level, weapons.
But if I examine the rules, the MF one is clearly better than the HF one, after assuming that they are identical for other aspects, as said in my example.
Reading teh rules, I find only those differences:

Differences:
-MF can move one hex more then HF one
-MF has less disadvantages from terrain compared to HF one
-MF has only a little handicap (-1POA) if she losses an impact/melee with the HF one

For the remaining part of the rules, they are perfectly identical, so the question is:
-why do I choose HF? The bettere choice seems to get 4 MF and 0 HF Gallic Foot
-in a hystorical prospective, how is possible that a HF unit is worse that the MF one ???

maybe a army list bug?
Thanks for your response,
Fosforo

[TheGrayMouser]

Well, you missed a few disadvantages of mediums

yep, they get a -1 penalty for checking cohesion vs heavy foot AND any mounted. thats pretty big considering you need to roll > 7 to pass on a 2 dice roll (almost 60% chance to fail! (fail 7 out of 11 times) )

also, mounted get an auto + POA if impacting mediums in the open...

In the end its all about what you intend to use them for in relation to your opponents army, terrain etc.... Cheers!

[fosforo]

Well, you missed a few disadvantages of mediums

yep, they get a -1 penalty for checking cohesion vs heavy foot AND any mounted. thats pretty big considering you need to roll > 7 to pass on a 2 dice roll (almost 60% chance to fail! (fail 7 out of 11 times) )

also, mounted get an auto + POA if impacting mediums in the open...

In the end its all about what you intend to use them for in relation to your opponents army, terrain etc.... Cheers!

Thanks for your response, I've forgotten the disadvantages against Mounted, but from a game design prospective, I think that is uncorrect there is not intrinsec difference between HF and MF about their cost, if they are equal on all other parameters.
A HF usually is a more trained/well equipped version of the MF, so in my opinion a HF would have a clear predominance over its "little brother" MF, in terms of cost and, consequently, in terms of game advantages (ie: more resistance against missile fire, in the impact phase and so on).

Fosforo

[keyth]

Thanks for your response, I've forgotten the disadvantages against Mounted, but from a game design prospective, I think that is uncorrect there is not intrinsec difference between HF and MF about their cost, if they are equal on all other parameters.
A HF usually is a more trained/well equipped version of the MF, so in my opinion a HF would have a clear predominance over its "little brother" MF, in terms of cost and, consequently, in terms of game advantages (ie: more resistance against missile fire, in the impact phase and so on).

Fosforo

I think the design has more to do with formation than equipment. HF is close-order foot while MF is less so, hence its superior manoeuvre in less than good going. The downside being that open order does not resist charges well.