roman loss of skilled swordsman

[Eques]

I don't agree with this. It makes romans pretty much the same as gauls or britons just with more armour, which is patently ludicrous.

Romans were astonishingly hard to beat historically, especially in the type of set piece pitched battle replicated by fog. After the second punic war any roman defeats that did occur were down to ambush, treachery, cock up or were small scale skirmishes notable only for the fact that anyone at all had beaten them in any circumstances.

Making legions as easy to beat as other troops would make the game ludicrously ahistorical and reduce it to more of a generic, flavourless strategy game like stratego or risk.

A better solution IMO would just be to make them more expensive.

Or leave them with skilled swordsman but take away impact foot and give them javelin capability instead. This would also remove the possibillity (unlikely for romans) of charging without orders.

[pyruse]

What makes you think Romans charging without orders is unlikely?
Read Gallic Wars or the Civil War. Legionaries are forever piling in without orders.
Romans were astonishingly hard to win a war against. They lost plenty of battles, but they had big manpower reserves and were very determined.
Are you saying Carrhae wasn't a Roman defeat in a pitched battle? Or Aquae Sextae? Both big defeats after the Second Punic War.
Romans were not supermen; they usually outnumbered their opponents, had better logistics, and bigger manpower reserves. It's no wonder they always won the war, if not the battle.

[hazelbark]

Also for clarification they do not lose Skilled Swordsmen. I think.

What was playtested in the beta and discussed was approximately as follows. (What the author actually decided I know not)
Romans are always at advantage in period.
1 Impact never down and usually superior/elite versus Average. Result Roman's tend not to lose impact.
2 Armour and skilled sword and superior/elite means usually a double POA and better re-rolls in period.
3 Romans are drilled
4 Romans can be in small size BGs.

So basically you couldn't outmanuver Romans and you can't fight them frontally. It was too extreme both as a game and in history. Only the Pike/Cataphract armies of the east change that equation. But in those interactions skilled sword means little.

History:
Romans did lose.
Did Romans have more people on the day of battle? A lot of people seem to think the heroic small legion versus millions of foes is Roman Rhetoric.

So where the beta was going was trying to de-radicalize the interactions.
1) Give barbarians an almost even chance of winning impact.
2) Reducing the ease Romans get the Double POA.
Things tested including Skiled sword counts as sword if unsteady. That way if Romans got into trouble they didn't easily get out of it.
Not allowing skilled sword to give you a double POA.
Giving some barbarians the option to bring more superior troops.

All that moves superior/elite double POA to more often single POA and partial elan advantage.

This still give Romans a powerful upper hand.

[kevinj]

As Hazelbark says, this went through a number of iterations during the Beta testing. Removal of the Skilled Sword capbility was in the first batch of options that was tried (largely to improve the Roman/Barbarian interaction) but was later reversed.

The option of rebalancing the game via the points system was excluded from the options available, so it isn't going to happen any time soon. Most of us felt that this was the best solution to a number of issues, but not actually to this one. If the Romans mince Barbarians like a woodchipper it really doesn't matter how cheap they are. When you have no system for fatigue in the rules the Romans just regard the extra opponents as more victims.

What I believe was the final outcome (and is in line with what has been released on the changes) is:

1) Skilled sword remains, but has been watered down as it no longer negatesthe POA of Heavy Weapon.
2) A single better class of armour will not give a POA if this results in ++

So either way, Romans will continue to normally have a + (either via skilled sword or armour) and should normally expect to beat them, just not so automatically as before.

[mbsparta]

As Hazelbark says, this went through a number of iterations during the Beta testing. Removal of the Skilled Sword capbility was in the first batch of options that was tried (largely to improve the Roman/Barbarian interaction) but was later reversed.

The option of rebalancing the game via the points system was excluded from the options available, so it isn't going to happen any time soon. Most of us felt that this was the best solution to a number of issues, but not actually to this one. If the Romans mince Barbarians like a woodchipper it really doesn't matter how cheap they are. When you have no system for fatigue in the rules the Romans just regard the extra opponents as more victims.

What I believe was the final outcome (and is in line with what has been released on the changes) is:

1) Skilled sword remains, but has been watered down as it no longer negatesthe POA of Heavy Weapon.
2) A single better class of armour will not give a POA if this results in ++

So either way, Romans will continue to normally have a + (either via skilled sword or armour) and should normally expect to beat them, just not so automatically as before.

............ I think all things considered FoG models Roman Legionaries better than any other rule sets. The problem was they were (in game terms) a little too strong for barbarian types. I like the proposed fix with the "no ++ for better armor." A very elegant solution IMHO.

Mike B

[Eques]

What makes you think Romans charging without orders is unlikely?
Read Gallic Wars or the Civil War. Legionaries are forever piling in without orders.
Romans were astonishingly hard to win a war against. They lost plenty of battles, but they had big manpower reserves and were very determined.
Are you saying Carrhae wasn't a Roman defeat in a pitched battle? Or Aquae Sextae? Both big defeats after the Second Punic War.
Romans were not supermen; they usually outnumbered their opponents, had better logistics, and bigger manpower reserves. It's no wonder they always won the war, if not the battle.

Sorry yes I will concede Carrhae, just about, although if I remember correctly there was some treachery involved and also the fact that the legions were led far out into the desert where environmental factors came into play.

The defeat at Aquae Sextae was more down to disunity within the Roman command than tactical issues.

Even if you did count those two, though, that's 2 losses between 202 BC and 250 AD - a pretty spectacular record and one that I feel should be reflected in the army lists.

I disagree with you that they usually outnumbered their opponents, at least in individual battles, although its true that long-term they had formidable reserves of manpower.

[Eques]

As Hazelbark says, this went through a number of iterations during the Beta testing. Removal of the Skilled Sword capbility was in the first batch of options that was tried (largely to improve the Roman/Barbarian interaction) but was later reversed.

The option of rebalancing the game via the points system was excluded from the options available, so it isn't going to happen any time soon. Most of us felt that this was the best solution to a number of issues, but not actually to this one. If the Romans mince Barbarians like a woodchipper it really doesn't matter how cheap they are. When you have no system for fatigue in the rules the Romans just regard the extra opponents as more victims.

What I believe was the final outcome (and is in line with what has been released on the changes) is:

1) Skilled sword remains, but has been watered down as it no longer negatesthe POA of Heavy Weapon.
2) A single better class of armour will not give a POA if this results in ++

So either way, Romans will continue to normally have a + (either via skilled sword or armour) and should normally expect to beat them, just not so automatically as before.

............ I think all things considered FoG models Roman Legionaries better than any other rule sets. The problem was they were (in game terms) a little too strong for barbarian types. I like the proposed fix with the "no ++ for better armor." A very elegant solution IMHO.

Mike B

Personally if I was playing a barbarian army I would want my Roman opponents to be "a little too strong" as that is the type of opposition I would have faced for real and recreating the past is one of the attractions of tabletop wargaming.

But yes the most recent solutions recorded above do seem better (got my information from a year old post called "Summary of Proposed Changes").

[hazelbark]

Even if you did count those two, though, that's 2 losses between 202 BC and 250 AD - a pretty spectacular record and one that I feel should be reflected in the army lists.

I disagree with you that they usually outnumbered their opponents, at least in individual battles, although its true that long-term they had formidable reserves of manpower.

There are far more loses as well. As for the outnumbering I am agnostic on that, but I know at least one of the slitherine list folks has opined that the barbarian numbers were greatly exagerated for propaganda purposes.

[Lycanthropic]

I think they have this interaction correct. My concern is that armoured heavy weapon is now evens or better against everything in melee. Scandanavian Warring States Samurai anyone?

[philqw78]

I think they have this interaction correct. My concern is that armoured heavy weapon is now evens or better against everything in melee. Scandanavian Warring States Samurai anyone?

Unprotected superior HW is evens or better and far cheaper

[Eques]

[/quote]

There are far more loses as well. As for the outnumbering I am agnostic on that, but I know at least one of the slitherine list folks has opined that the barbarian numbers were greatly exagerated for propaganda purposes.[/quote]

There weren't far more losses I am afraid to say. There were campaigns that didn't result in a battle but nevertheless gave the Roman general a red face because of his poor planning. There were small and/or irregular Roman forces commanded by junior officers caught off guard by a major uprising. But of big, set piece pitched battles there are none. Teutoberger Wald was an ambush facilitated by treachery. Gergovia would have been counted as a very minor reverse were it not for the fact it was suffered by Caesar and by the Romans.

As for the "propaganda" argument I feel that is too often thrown in as a catch all to conveniently back up one's opinion. I have heard the same argument used in the opposite direction, ie the Persian army was actually quite good, it was just Greek propaganda that it was rubbish.

Roman historians were not some sinister arm of the official state propaganda machine. They were generally quite eccentric and individualistic characters. They don't hesitate to tell us of all the atrocities committed during the civil wars or the perversities and cruelties of the early Emperors. Nor do they claim, for example, exaggerated number for Hannibal's army or hide the fact that the Romans significantly outnumbered it at Cannae.

[Eques]

I think they have this interaction correct. My concern is that armoured heavy weapon is now evens or better against everything in melee. Scandanavian Warring States Samurai anyone?

Unprotected superior HW is evens or better and far cheaper

Well that's not great, although I suppose in period it only leaves them facing the Thracians. Will be interesting to see if the Thracians suddenly become the supreme ancient army in game terms.

[philqw78]

Dacians, 7 points for superior unprotected HW

[Eques]

Ah yes it was the Dacians I was thinking of - the ones with the falx. They should be put down to average then, like most other tribal troop types.

Or be given a lower maximum. I believe the falx was quite a specialist skill anyway - maybe could allow the Dacians to make up the numbers with swordsmen.

[hazelbark]

As for the "propaganda" argument I feel that is too often thrown in as a catch all to conveniently back up one's opinion. I have heard the same argument used in the opposite direction, ie the Persian army was actually quite good, it was just Greek propaganda that it was rubbish.

I am not defending just relaying what i think i heard them say.

[hazelbark]

Dacians, 7 points for superior unprotected HW

Yes the ones that are double POA'd by lancer cavalry and single POA'd by the light spear roman types.
They are down a POA to Roman legion at impact.
They will take the -1 for losing to HF in melee.
There are 24 of them.
They also will get shot up by archers and other LF/LH

I agree they become a good buy and we can now see Dacians on the board. They aren't going to be the world conquerors I suspect.

[marty]

Ah yes it was the Dacians I was thinking of - the ones with the falx. They should be put down to average then, like most other tribal troop types.

Or we could just price superiority so it actually reflects how useful it is.

Martin

[Lycanthropic]

Yeah bring unprotected heavy weapon to a pike fight and see what happens

[Lycanthropic]

You say they are average, he says they are superior. A great case for the army list re-write to reflect this by allowing players to choose. If you have a Dacian army, field them as average, you've paid the points. I believe the points are excellent, if you want to field heavily armoured heavy foot elite drilled impact foot skilled swordsmen - go for it.

[Eques]

You say they are average, he says they are superior. A great case for the army list re-write to reflect this by allowing players to choose. If you have a Dacian army, field them as average, you've paid the points. I believe the points are excellent, if you want to field heavily armoured heavy foot elite drilled impact foot skilled swordsmen - go for it.

If you are saying that every single unit in the game should be whatever players want it to be within the points available that is an interesting variation but one that would, if officially adopted, totally destroy the historical recreation element of the game (which is what a lot of players who complain about units that are too good or too bad are effectively doing anyway).

There is a section in the appendices that explain how the points are determined so I suppose if you wanted to try that out at home or in special tournaments it would be feasible.