Auxilia & Thureophoroi/Thorakitai - advance notice

[philqw78]

Some people might see that as a nice-to-have freebie option for the Romans, not a disadvantage to be complained about!

A bit like dismounting those 20pt Tibetans for some much lost cost effective HF - Or more useful HF?

[Antipater]

I have always been bothered that there is a list called Later Jewish without an Early Jewish. I think if there is a change coming to the All MF/All HF troop types above that the Guerilla Army of the Maccabees be separated out (maybe as a special campaign or separate list) to deal with their limited cavalry, generally undrilled nature, and religious fervor (rewarded in the Jewish rebellion as superior, but the Maccabees were just as pissed at the Seleucids) The Later hasmoneon Kingdom conformed like their Hellenistic neighbors to military convention with a few local variations:

1) As reported in Josephus, Alexander Jannai had a unit called the 100 man Killers, these were metal shielded swordsman who were impetous and got stuck into a battle, whacking their opponents quite succesfully until the enemy forces hit them on their flanks and routed them. This suggests a pre 64 BC Impact sword unit.

2) I would eliminate the Arab cavalry from the Antipater line in the army and replace it as 64-6BC (Antipater throughout Herod's rule) Idumean Cavalry LT Horse (jav/lt spear) or Cav (lt Spear/swordsmen) Protected Undrilled 4-6 unit 0-6 and Idumean Infantry (as early Arab) MF Undrilled Lt Spear/Swordsmen 6-8 0-12. These were loyal to the Herodian family as they were from Idumea and had strong familial ties.

3) After 30BC to suck up to Augustus he created a cohort based on Roman Auxilia, the Sebastean troops as illustrated in the recent Osprey book. They certainly fit into the HF Armored Offensive spear category

For Judah Maccabee I suggest the following to start:

Initially all troops are undrilled. There were some true zealots (the first Hasidim) who should be superior but not amount to more than a 1/4th of the main force. All MF and LF with possibly one mounted scout unit and later one cav unit made up of recruits and ex-ptolemaic jewish soldiers. As the army became more experienced and less zealous, some of the MF would have become drilled, and some would have become HF. I suggest that early on 1/2 the army's MF would be lt spear/swordsmen and others would just be lt spear.

Besides the actual 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Josephus 2nd Jewish Commonwealth, Osprey's Herod's Army, and Firebird's Judas Maccabeus are easy to access resources, Chaim Herzog's Battles of the Bible covers the Judah Maccabee era and has maps. If you can buy it (I can't!), Bar Kochba's Selucid Army and his Army of Judah Maccabee are great resources.

[Jhykronos]

So does this effect anyone else's line troops besides thyreophoroi and Roman Auxilia? Iberian Scutarii? So-called Gallic Hill Tribes, that seem to exist solely so people aren't forced to rebase?

[Bagration]

After taking a look at these changes, why don't you just call a spade a spade and rename V2 DBM version X and be done with it? It appears that all efforts are directed at neutering armies that used mobility and shooting to be successful. We can all just buy blocks of heavy infantry, line them up in the middle of the table, lumber forward and roll dice. Or better yet, just dispense with the formality of miniatures and just roll d6s? The Romans can have a +1 and that will be that.

Sorry to be so snarky about it, but this seems to be DBM all over again, and I, for one, want no part of it. If you don't like horse armies, fine, but don't penalize those of us who do.

Rant over, carry on.

[Urizen]

After taking a look at these changes, why don't you just call a spade a spade and rename V2 DBM version X and be done with it? It appears that all efforts are directed at neutering armies that used mobility and shooting to be successful. We can all just buy blocks of heavy infantry, line them up in the middle of the table, lumber forward and roll dice. Or better yet, just dispense with the formality of miniatures and just roll d6s? The Romans can have a +1 and that will be that.

Sorry to be so snarky about it, but this seems to be DBM all over again, and I, for one, want no part of it. If you don't like horse armies, fine, but don't penalize those of us who do.

Rant over, carry on.

Couldn't have ranted better myself. I agree wholeheartedly!

[nikgaukroger]

After taking a look at these changes, why don't you just call a spade a spade and rename V2 DBM version X and be done with it? It appears that all efforts are directed at neutering armies that used mobility and shooting to be successful. We can all just buy blocks of heavy infantry, line them up in the middle of the table, lumber forward and roll dice. Or better yet, just dispense with the formality of miniatures and just roll d6s? The Romans can have a +1 and that will be that.

Sorry to be so snarky about it, but this seems to be DBM all over again, and I, for one, want no part of it. If you don't like horse armies, fine, but don't penalize those of us who do.

Rant over, carry on.

Out of interest how many games of the various V2 betas have you played?

I've played quite a few now and, as a shooty horsie army fan, I can say that manoeuvre is alive and well and that shooty cavalry are, if anything, on balance a bit better than before.

[Misericordia]

In the interest of full disclosure, I have played no V.2 Beta games. Bagration has though struck a chord with my feelings regarding what I have read here regarding the proposed changes.

I much prefer a mobile, slashing style of play to a straight ahead bash up. To each his own. Please though, don't further weaken the already (IMO) weak shooting capability of light horse armies. Personally, I consider being forced to attack heavy infantry head on to reflect rather poorly on my ability, if not my manhood.

I will reserve judgment until I do see the final product, but as things stand currently, I am not hopeful. FOG had rekindled my interest in ancients which ceased with the advent of DBM. It came as a breath of fresh air. Perhaps here in the colonies we will just have to ignore V.2 and continue to play V.1. Wouldn't be the first time we ignored offerings from the motherland with which we disagree.

I have no interest in a system which tilts in favor of fixed battle lines crashing into one another, rolling the dice, finishing in 2.5 hours and ordering a pint. That way lies DBA!

[MatthewP]

I havent played any version 2 either but from what Ive heard and read cavalry armies will be even better than before. Light horse may be slightly weaker but I think the ability of bow armoured cavalry to retire before the enemy will more than compensate. My next two armies will probably be cavalry based.

[david53]

In the interest of full disclosure, I have played no V.2 Beta games. Bagration has though struck a chord with my feelings regarding what I have read here regarding the proposed changes.

I much prefer a mobile, slashing style of play to a straight ahead bash up. To each his own. Please though, don't further weaken the already (IMO) weak shooting capability of light horse armies. Personally, I consider being forced to attack heavy infantry head on to reflect rather poorly on my ability, if not my manhood.

I will reserve judgment until I do see the final product, but as things stand currently, I am not hopeful. FOG had rekindled my interest in ancients which ceased with the advent of DBM. It came as a breath of fresh air. Perhaps here in the colonies we will just have to ignore V.2 and continue to play V.1. Wouldn't be the first time we ignored offerings from the motherland with which we disagree.

I have no interest in a system which tilts in favor of fixed battle lines crashing into one another, rolling the dice, finishing in 2.5 hours and ordering a pint. That way lies DBA!

Not sure were your getting this impression of FOG from I have the complete oppisite view.

I have for the last few years played quite happilily with my Mongol Hordes, in fact up till a few months ago I have not owned a HF army.

Even one who learned FOG by using hordes of LH I knew that something was wrong, I have played many people who had no chance of catching my LH at that time I thought sadly nothing of it.

I have won tournements using LH mounted armies so i have some experience with that troop type and the Cavalry shooty bow type.

I have had a think after playing said new HF army after the first game I found that Lancers can quite happilily charge into impact foot and not worry what happens, why if you disrupte and the foot don't you break off 5mu the HF move 3mu in their go and still 2mu between. or you disrupte the foot who then die.
I have played a lot of games using said HF against different forms of Lancers mostly with the same result, even on the good luck of fragmenting a unit they break off outside charge range and get a chance to raly up, and even if they don't they arn't now shock so still don't have to charge getting another chance to rally up.

Now with the move back you can never get close enough to cavalry at least in V1 you could get close and force a charge.

I like FOG play it a few times a week but I can see how its not slanted towards Mounted not less as you think.

regards

dave

[nikgaukroger]

I have no interest in a system which tilts in favor of fixed battle lines crashing into one another, rolling the dice, finishing in 2.5 hours and ordering a pint. That way lies DBA!

If you're taking 2.5 hours to play a DBA game you'd be the worlds slowest players Also, in OT defense of DBA, it is far from being a agme where you line up and slam into each other - well, unless both sides decide to play that way

[Strategos69]

David said quite clear: the balance of the game has always been on the side of the mobility. Too much in fact. Being drilled has been always an extra, sometimes too much. In some circumstances you close up with your HF and then the opponent MF started turning and moving. Then your undrilled struggle to get in range again, too late though and then they are gone. In FoG you can be catching shadows for a whole game. And that happens even against foot armies (the only ones I have played against) so I can't imagine how it would be against shooty cavalry.

In the other hand FoG should be a game about simulating somehow Ancient battles. Armies did not go to a battle on parade. Certainly the changes in V2 are on the right direction.

[Delbruck]

As it is highly likely that the v2 list revisions will remove the MF option from these troops we want to give players plenty of advance notice - it will also allow the beta test players to adopt this change now and use it in their play test games.

This change is not being made lightly, however, it is based on the authors' belief that a HF classification best represents the historical behaviour of these troops and, that as we are now at the v2 stage of FoG, there is no longer any need for backward compatibility with previous rule sets. For those concerned about the basing of their existing figures we would remind players that the rules contain provision for the use of "non-standard" basing (p127 of the published rules) and so their figures will not need to be rebased.


In addition to this change we would allow thureophoroi to be optionally deployed at the start of the battle as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear euzonoi - much as the Alexandrian Macedonian pikemen have a MF deployment option - and a proportion of Principate Roman Auxilia to likewise deploy as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear levis armatura.

Any update on the status of auxilia in 2.0? I have some Late Romans that I would like to work on in the near future, and their classification in FoG 2.0 would be nice to know.

[Delbruck]

Any update on the status of auxilia in 2.0? I have some Late Romans that I would like to work on in the near future, and their classification in FoG 2.0 would be nice to know.

Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?

[hazelbark]

Any update on the status of auxilia in 2.0? I have some Late Romans that I would like to work on in the near future, and their classification in FoG 2.0 would be nice to know.

Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?

There have been a number of swings a round abouts in 2.0. As a total ill-informed observer. I would say the following:
1) Author-types appear to have taken the view that historically Auxilia behaved a lot more like legions ergo HF not MF.
2) Debate over degrees of required changes in 2.0 creates the slows on some final determiniations.

[phlewis]

To make auxilia in the Principate period HF requires ignoring battles like Mons Graupius and some of the battles in Germany. If auxilia were heavy foot why would they have been the troops of choice for fighting on the side of a mountain or assaulting the Germans in a woods.

If auxilia were HF like legionaries I would think the superior quality of the legions would have made them the logical choice for fighting in rough terrain as that would partially offset the terrain disadvantage at least on the table.

Trajan's column also seems to indicate that auxilia were the troops of choice for fighting Dacians in terrain. Again if they are just poor imitations of the legions why use them where they are going to be at a greater disadvantage.

If the goal is to have the rules encourage us to use our armies in a historical manner I don't see this change supporting that goal. If the legions are the best choice for both clear and rough terrain I think we will see the use of auxilia on the tabletop drop to where the minimum required becomes the norm.

Pat Lewis