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

[zocco]

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.

I think your mantra should be ....roll on V2. That should help out a bit if the pre published stuff is anything to go by. Elephants will get better at impact, support shooters (so your second rank of Indian bow) no longer suffer the minus POA, and I think undrilled may be a bit more manoeuvrable too

As for Romans my concern is selective the use of evidence to justify what is already a predetermined outcome - eg Arrians formation is used to show that LF support archers were only for use against mounted, but what about Titus using a 4th rank of supporting LF against foot at the seige of Jerusalem (and similarly I believe in the Strategikon ?) - unless you believe the salliers are mounted - not a very likely outcome to be sure. And what happened to the overhead shooting of artillery in Arrians formation - that doesn't get a look in (or likely Roman cart mounted artillery on Trajans column). It seems to me that when the rules authors wanted something - eg Sassanian levy being defensive spearmen they looked for 'any' evidence to support it but when evidence is put out for something the authors don't want (and to be quite honest I'm not sure any of the rules authors are Roman fans) it doesn't make the grade.

[grahambriggs]

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 ?

The Sassanid list is an OK list but you haven't shown that the contemporary Romans get a bad deal against them. Instead you randomly moan that the Sassanids get superior cavalry (so? lots of lists allow for superior legions) and that the levy have the option of defensive spear. Neither of which are particularly good against armoured heavy foot with supporting archers. I'm not sure that you are going to get anywhere arguing that the Dominate Romans desperately need improvement. In competition play (not the be all and end all but a good view of what armies are favoured by the rules) the Dominates are common and frequently win the competition. Sassanids are rare and don't.

I don't think anyone will be swayed by statements that the roman LF practised with gladius or that they should have more LF because you have 8 bases of them. You'd need to have a battle account or two showingthat the swords make a difference in real battles or showing more specialist LF than 4 bases.

[zocco]

I don't think anyone will be swayed by statements that the roman LF practised with gladius or that they should have more LF because you have 8 bases of them. You'd need to have a battle account or two showingthat the swords make a difference in real battles or showing more specialist LF than 4 bases.

Graham, I understand and appreciate your point of view and without wishing to be argumentative would like to make the following comments.

1. Not being familiar with the competition scene in the UK (I live in Australia) are the seemingly victorious Dominate armies of the 'swarm' variety ?

2. In regards to fielding Roman MF archers alternatively as LF apart from the Strategikon (which is ahead of time for the Dominate and Foderate lists but I think has been used to justify fielding Early Byzantine archers as either MF or LF and does hark back in some instances to earlier Roman practices) I doubt whether there would be specific evidence available in period.

Having said that however as I mentioned previously there are a large number of (non-Roman) armies in Legion Triumphant that allow archers to be deployed as MF or LF (eg Dacians, Sassanid, Alamanni, Early Ostrogothic/Sciri/Taifali amongst others). Given the paucity of sources for the period what evidence has been used to justify this in these cases ?
I suspect - but it would be interesting to know - that in many cases the list authors didn't know how they deployed so give them the benefit of the doubt. Similarly for Romans of this period our sources on battles are not definitive enough to know how auxiliary archers deployed so should they not also be given the same benefit of the doubt ?

[peterrjohnston]

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.

You're being mis-advised. Take them as 2 Bgs of 4, superior. Some of the best troops in the army.

[kevinj]

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

You're being mis-advised. Take them as 2 Bgs of 4, superior. Some of the best troops in the army

Yes, this advice is frequently given when it applies to Undrilled MF Archers who are liable to end up in the front line or are just out of place e.g. in an otherwise all cavalry/light horse army. In the Dominate Roman army they have plenty of uses such as providing rear support for the legions/auxilia or sniping at 4 base cavalry BGs.

[grahambriggs]

I don't think anyone will be swayed by statements that the roman LF practised with gladius or that they should have more LF because you have 8 bases of them. You'd need to have a battle account or two showingthat the swords make a difference in real battles or showing more specialist LF than 4 bases.

Graham, I understand and appreciate your point of view and without wishing to be argumentative would like to make the following comments.

1. Not being familiar with the competition scene in the UK (I live in Australia) are the seemingly victorious Dominate armies of the 'swarm' variety ?

2. In regards to fielding Roman MF archers alternatively as LF apart from the Strategikon (which is ahead of time for the Dominate and Foderate lists but I think has been used to justify fielding Early Byzantine archers as either MF or LF and does hark back in some instances to earlier Roman practices) I doubt whether there would be specific evidence available in period.

Having said that however as I mentioned previously there are a large number of (non-Roman) armies in Legion Triumphant that allow archers to be deployed as MF or LF (eg Dacians, Sassanid, Alamanni, Early Ostrogothic/Sciri/Taifali amongst others). Given the paucity of sources for the period what evidence has been used to justify this in these cases ?
I suspect - but it would be interesting to know - that in many cases the list authors didn't know how they deployed so give them the benefit of the doubt. Similarly for Romans of this period our sources on battles are not definitive enough to know how auxiliary archers deployed so should they not also be given the same benefit of the doubt ?

The victorious Dominates are usually the massed 4s of armoured auxilia plus superior shooters variety (including 2x4 MF Bow). However, others have used a more legion based Dominate and done well. I don't know anyone who uses Sassanid regularly with success - though to be fair it may be that other armies are similar but better - perhaps making the cavalry drilled.

It does seem to be the case that less well documented armies can get more leeway as to how to deploy their foot archers. A general issue for the better known armies perhaps. And in undrilled armied that makes a difference as the MF archers are targets while LF archers are not, on the whole. But I think the answer is not to give the Romans options that there is no good evidence for but to make the less well known lists less permissive. That said, most of the lists you mention are weak already so I doubt making them worse would be the most pressing thing on the author's minds.