Can MF ( impact foot ) throw Javelins in the shooting phase

[zocco]

I would imagine the right questions for legionary use are did they use the darts while in formed line of battle and, if so, did it have a material impact on the battle?

I think we can safely answer yes to both of those

[philqw78]

An even better question would be:
Were those Roman troops that were re-equipped with dart/javelin better aginst the same types of opponents than the earlier ones that did not have them?

If they were it should change the rules. They don't seem to have been though. And since it also seems to me that those troops so euipped used them at close range perhaps that is what makes them impact foot rather than just Lt Sp, and you get the choice of either in the Dominate list.

[grahambriggs]

I would imagine the right questions for legionary use are did they use the darts while in formed line of battle and, if so, did it have a material impact on the battle?

I think we can safely answer yes to both of those

Well, I can't because I have no idea. What primary sources describing which battles?

[kevinj]

Given that FOG is a top-down system, it's the fighting style that counts and posession of a particular weapon does not automatically confer a combat capability. I'm sure that all those eastern cavalry (Mongols, Ghilmen, Turks etc) would have regularly poked their opponents with their long sticks, but that doesn't mean that they justify getting a Lancer capability.

Looking at this specific example, if the Romans' fighting style changed to rely more on longer range missile fire and less on a heavy barrage immediately before combat, then that probably means that they should be classified as Light Spear rather than Impact Foot if they have the Javelin missile capability. If that's the case then it's also reasonable that they shouldn't get both for free, so Battle troops with both Javelin and Light Spear capabilites should pay 1 point more than the current cost.

[zocco]

I would imagine the right questions for legionary use are did they use the darts while in formed line of battle and, if so, did it have a material impact on the battle?

I think we can safely answer yes to both of those

Well, I can't because I have no idea. What primary sources describing which battles?

In terms of 'battle evidence' I can't say off hand that I know of anything definitve at least in Ammianus (although he does mention darts, javelins often in his battle scenes) - but that doesn't mean that there isn't some in other sources that I don't have access too.

Having said that it doesn't really matter. The simple fact is that FOG's standard of evidence is highly variable and it is not necessary to provide 'battle evidence' (nice but not totally necessary). An example here is Merovingian spearmen post 600AD - this is predicated on a theory from archeological evidence (I know of no battle evidence for it or any literary for that matter as Guy Halsall states in his book there is very little evidence around for what happened in battle in that period - but FOG made Merovingians offensive spearmen anyway - there are also other similar examples I can think of). So FOG is permissive in terms of 'evidence'.

Having said that Vegetius is a primary source (and I'm pretty sure backed up by the Strategikon in regards to darts and I think supporting archers - of which more anon). So why should Romans get darts.

As I mentioned previously Vegetius clearly states that plumbatae were a separate class to the common missile weapons (heavy and light spears) and that they 'seem to replace archers (or some such). So they are in addition to their spears. In terms of effect thay must have made an impression on Vegetius as years later he can relate the fame of two legions associated with them (Iovani and Herculani). Also in AEIR it is stated that they spread to other legions and then to the auxilia and certainly for the next few hundred years they were in vogue so they must have been doing something right !

I might also add that giving the Romans some additional shooting capability would not go amiss. For an army that actually had a lot of shooting power Late Romans (including Byzantines) do rather poorly in FOG. Vegetius states that around 1/4 of the foot should be archers and I believe the Strategikon mentions two ranks of support archers to 8 ranks of heavier foot (skutatoi). These statements taken together indicate that in the late roman period around 1/5 of an infantry formation would be of supporting archers. FOG equates this to LF support which while useful gets nothing against Foot in most circumstances and when it does is pretty much ineffective. I would argue therefore that giving Roman HF and MF some javelin capability would go some way to redressing this imbalance. I might add here that to those who have followed some of my previous posts 2 ranks (not bases) of shooters is actually enough in some armies to be given MF support shooters !

Finally why should only armies in B&G have all the fun

[grahambriggs]

I'd agree that the rule system may not have got all the troop types right. And I think that is maybe the problem here. Arrian's Order of Battle Against the Alans has:

"And the front four ranks of the formation must be of spearmen, whose spearpoints end in thin iron shanks. And the foremost of them should hold them at the ready, in order that when the enemies near them, they can thrust the ironpoints of the spears at the breast of the horses in particular. Those standing in second, third an fourth rank of the formation must hold their spears ready for thrusting if possible, wounding the horses and killing the horsemen and put the rider out of action with the spear stuck in their heavy body armour and the iron point bent because of the softness. The following ranks should be of the javelineers. The ninth rank behind them should be the foot archers"

So: first four ranks: thrust with spears. Next four ranks: throw javelins (or perhaps Plumbatae?). Ninth rank, shoot arrows. The problem is, how do you reflect that in FOG capabilities? Especially since this is the anti-cavalry drill and not anti-infantry. Sounds like heavy foot (references elsewhere in the text to locking shields).

The front four ranks are clearly some sort of spear - the original text says pilum. Only three ranks are mentioned at impact and they are locking shield rather than planting spears, so light pear is probably best. The four ranks with javelins - lanceae and the final rank of archers are clearly contributing at impact. But it's unclear whether they are the same 'javelineers' that are mentioned as skirmishing elsewhere.

Ideally, you'd want a rules mechanism that would allow the ranks 4 to 8 to contribute. Perhaps as support shooting. So 2 dice per base light spear plus 1 dice (the 'javelin' base and the LF bow base) support shooting might work. The problem is, the rules don't allow that.

In terms of standards of evidence for lists, no doubt they do vary as authors don't have perfect knowledge. For many of the B+G lists we did have good primary sources (e.g. Diaz' Conquest of new Spain, the Codex Mendoza, etc) as well as some good secondary analysis (Hassig, for example, plus modern data on the atlatl). That suggested a major feature of warfare was a missile bomardment before hand to hand was joined, and that the atlatl dart was the missile weapon used by the troops who would then fight in melee.

[philqw78]

and this is all at impact, not being used as distance weapons.

[bbotus]

Sounds like they want to go back to more complicated rule systems like WRG7. WRG7 tried to model most of the weapons and even the wedge formation. And, you could hit the unshielded side for a bonus, too. The problem is: The more complicated the system, the longer to play. Let's keep it simple and fun to play.

[philqw78]

Let's keep it simple and fun to play.

My god. Is there a blue moon? I find my self agreeing with the Alaskan.

I'll console myself that it can't last for long.

[kevinj]

Sounds like they want to go back to more complicated rule systems like WRG7

I certainly don't want that

[zocco]

Sounds like they want to go back to more complicated rule systems like WRG7.

Actually what I really wanted was EQUALITY. (and no offence to bbotus intended )

I didn't really expect to get any traction with this idea . The real reason people don't support the idea is simply - they don't want it. It has little to do with facts. So we have a situation where its good enough for B&G armies (even to make them a bit nicer because they have no mounted troops) but not good enough for Roman armies. Interesting......

I wrote a while back that FOG was an anti-Roman set of rules (or lists at least) I also wrote on this thread that in terms of historical evidence FOG is permissive (what I should of added is unless its Romans we are discussing...........then you've got no chance...and I'm not just talking about the current debate).

Regarding LF support and Arrian perhaps I can add a bit more ;

a) it was some time before the period I mentioned (ie around 100AD vs 250-650AD). As I mentioned in the later period the ratio of LF support shooters is probably double that of Arrians formation (ie 2 in 10 vs 1 in 9).

b) Although Arrian only lists 1 rank of LF what is often missed out is the support of rear ranks of mounted bowman (often translated as a rank of mounted archers behind the LF) and supporting artillery fire (overhead it seems). So we end up with 1 rank of LF and 1 rank of mounted shooters in support of 8 ranks of HF.

c) Titus included a rank of LF in his formation (3HF,1LF and 3 ranks of mounted javelimen I think) at the seige of Jerusalem - as these were fighting sallying Jewish troops these are likely to be foot.

d) The Strategikon (I believe?) mentions 1 rank of LF shooters to 4 of HF and 2 LF to 8 HF. The clue here is 8HF as this is likely to be a formation to resist mounted (similar to Arrian's) whilst the shallower formation (4HF+1LF) would be for resisting foot (so LF are useful against foot it seems).

Whilst on the subject of support shooting I also mentioned in another post that Sung foot get MF support shooting for 2 real ranks of shooters (so logically 1 rank of LF should be able to give support shooting vs enemy foot at impact as you only get one shot for 2 bases of LF).

Going back a moment to darts personally I would rather have darts give Romans support shooting in impact (so 2x2 bases of HF/MF would get 2 shots using javelin POA's) but I don't think the rules currently allow this (?). It would at least give the Romans a much needed and I might add justified boost in firepower (note the Sung seem to have fired using a type of rotational system - exactly how they are supposed to be able to do this whilst being charged is more than a little dubious - but they get support shooting at impact all the same. Roman foot on the other hand could quite easily deploy darts (especially ranks 4-8, the first 3 are bracing for impact etc) - remember how Vegetius states they 'seem to replace archers' - but they do not get support shooting .....................not very historical

[kevinj]

I wrote a while back that FOG was an anti-Roman set of rules (or lists at least)

Against which of their historical opponents do you feel that Romans get a bad deal?

Roman armies regularly feature in tournaments and are often succcessful (e.g. 3 out of the top 4 in the apprpriate Britcon period this year).

If you are not considering tournament play, there is nothing to stop you making your own scenario specific changes to incorporate your views into the game.

[pyruse]

I've no idea where this idea that FoG is anti-Roman comes from.
We find that Roman armies usually beat their historical opponents. So the rules model them well.
If you are complaining that Roman armies are not competitive out of period, I have zero sympathy, because that has no connection with history.

[grahambriggs]

Sounds like they want to go back to more complicated rule systems like WRG7.

Actually what I really wanted was EQUALITY. (and no offence to bbotus intended )

I didn't really expect to get any traction with this idea . The real reason people don't support the idea is simply - they don't want it. It has little to do with facts. So we have a situation where its good enough for B&G armies (even to make them a bit nicer because they have no mounted troops) but not good enough for Roman armies. Interesting......

I think you may be in a minority wanting you Romans to have equality with B+G foot. Still, if you want your legions to be protected MF with no mounted...

You must be telepathic to know the "real reason" people don't support the idea. The list writers needed to make compromises to fit troops into the capabilities available without creating supertroops. But even if it is that for no good reason people don't want to make the changes you want, you need to persuade them. And I suspect that will required solid evidence from primary sources demonstrating that there was a material effect on the course of a battle that isn't modelled by their current classification. Otherwise, authors will come back at you with the line "yes perhaps they did shoot at a distance but it wasn't material"

A case in point when writing the B+G lists. A suggestion was made, arguing from mostly secondary and archaelogical evidence, that one list should have a troop type of heavy foot, protected, superior, impact foot, heavy weapon. And they did charge fiercely, use heavy clubs or similar and there was no eveidence that they didn't fight in close order. They'd be an excellent troop type on the table but would be more than the equal of comtemporary Spanish or Amercian foot. So a decision needed to be made as to whether they seemed more IF or HW and whether there was any real evidence for close order. In the end they became MF, IF, Sw.

[zocco]

I wrote a while back that FOG was an anti-Roman set of rules (or lists at least)

Against which of their historical opponents do you feel that Romans get a bad deal?

Good question.

Leaving rules issues aside my comment has to do with interpretation of evidence which tends to be very restrictive for Romans compared to many other armies. If you want a contemporary of Romans look at the Sassanian list - they certainly do okay for themselves - bucket loads of Superior horse (not sure that can be all justified) and levy that can be (dubiously) Defensive Spearmen, no restrictions on number of superior that can be fielded either (and their elephants are getting upgraded in v2). And then we had the comment by RBS that the army just doesn't seem to gel........dear me is he kidding they get a fantastic run from the list !!! Doesn't he play them ?

Ok after saying that perhaps we can quickly look at Legions Triumphant (LT) lists and see what could be done for the Romans to beef them up a bit.

1. For Principate Romans

How about allowing some Auxilary foot to be Superior to represent the Batavians (and Tungrians if Tactius is anything to go by). Also it seems that at least one cohort (so perhaps others exist??) were millaria. I'm actually surprised that this has been omitted from the V1 lists.

2. Dom Roms

How about;
a) Allowing Auxiliary archers to deploy as Light Foot (unprotected, bow) as being 'light armed'.

The current allocation of1 BG of 4 skirmishing LF for the entire army is ridiculously small.

First, because LF are useful against elephants so how exactly are the Doms supposed to defeat up to 3BG's of Sassanid elephants (especially given v2 is going to make them better in impact) with such a measly allocation of LF. As far as I know the Romans actually defeated Sassanian elephants when they fought them (indeed the impact foot/lt/spear foot vs El interaction has been completely ignored in the v2 upgrade of the nellies). I'm pretty sure Vegetius also mentions archers as deploying with the light infantry (or at least those archers not armoured).

A similar case can be made for Foederates. Note that pretty much every other (Non-Roman) list in LT that includes MF archers gives the option for them to be deployed as LF (eg Dacians, Sassanid, Alamanni etc).

The interpretation of Roman skirmishing LF and auxiliary archers is about the most restrictive in LT.

b) Still on auxiliary archers - how about giving them sword capability (or at least 1/2 of them). This would actually give an incentive to deploy them on the tabletop -(I've got 8 bases of them and it would be NICE to use them ! most lists that are put up for consideration on this forum which include them get the "I'd ditch those MF archers if I were you....'. I believe giving troops a bit of break so they get used has been a rationale in other lists.

Ok I'm on a bit of thin ice with this one but Vegetius does imply that archers trained in sword skills and the bow is in addition. Also other lists do ok from somewhat contradictory evidence - here's a hypothetical conversation to illustrate the point.

MLW = Mr list writer
Z = zocco (aka muggins)

Z- please MLW can you update the army lists to give my Romans auxiliary archers sword capability ? They were trained to use the gladius after all.
MLW - No! They don't like close combat.
Z - Do we really know that ? but what about Indian archers ? They have sword.
MLW - they have big choppers ! Read the troop notes.
Z - Oh! But it says in the Indian troop notes that their archers didn't like going into close combat.
MLW - so what's that got to do with anything !
Z -
you get the drift.........

[awesum4]

Not to get personal zocco, but if anyone is hard done by.....its Indian archers, definitely not Romans. I have a 25mmm Indian army that I've used off and on for 35 years, but no more. The elephants are interesting, the 4 horse chariots are very interesting, but the archers who make up the bulk of the army are dog tucker. They who used to be Bw (S) who blew apart anyone and everyone, now get outshot by skirmishers and chopped to pieces by pretty much everyone else.

[bbotus]

now get outshot by skirmishers and chopped to pieces by pretty much everyone else.

Well, not skirmishers, but my Indians don't do as well as they used to, that is for sure. Especially since my dice rolls aren't very good and they need good rolls to do well.

[Vespasian28]

Well, not skirmishers, but my Indians don't do as well as they used to, that is for sure.

All too true for me too especially as I am known at the club for persisting with them and persistently losing too! That said we did recently beat some Maccabean Jewish although one of their units of light foot did hold up my Superior Heavy Chariots for three combat rounds despite being hit in the rear to start with when they failed to evade!
Oh, and despite losing to some Alexandrian Macedonians we did catch a phalanx in a wood with the aforementioned Indian archers and won, barely. How Porus ever gave Alexander such a hard time is beyond me other than he must have been a good die roller

[awesum4]

a 6 element BG of light foot bow cause the same casualties as a 6 element BG of unprotected archers. But the light foot can pull out and bring forward fresh troops if they are getting hurt. But the Indians just stand there and take it...or charge out and get isolated. Either way the light foot have the advantage.

[bbotus]

a 6 element BG of light foot bow cause the same casualties as a 6 element BG of unprotected archers.

True on average rolls as long as they are both in 3x2 blocks. Just move the MF to 4 in the front rank for the 5th die.

But the Indians just stand there and take it...or charge out and get isolated.

On the other hand, skirmishers can't charge or intercept the MF even in flank/rear in open terrain. Once you chase the skirmishers off, you could be isolated or you could be turning the enemy flank.

Maybe that is why I like this game a lot. Initial deployment for situational match-ups is important. But my Indians still don't fight like in DBM.

Now you've got me wanting to pull them out and give it another go.