Auto break for 2-stand battle groups

[pease1]

There are two places in the rules that state that battle groups with only one stand remaining are removed. Is this true for two-stand superior and elite units? If so that would seem to negate one of their major advantages.

Have I missed some special ruling or errata?

thanks,
AJ

[bbotus]

Have I missed some special ruling or errata?

Nope.

When BGs reach their autobreak point, they rout; and, at the end of the JAP, they are picked up. 2-base superior and elite BGs losing a base don't rout. But they are still picked up at the end of the JAP. The pick up does trigger CT tests. Page 116.

If you don't leave them unsupported, it is more difficult for them to lose a base cause they are only getting 2 dice thrown against them. As long as they don't lose, there is no death roll. Of course, disasters can happen.

[petedalby]

Correct - Page 109 makes the same points.

[pease1]

Wow, this makes the 2-stand triarii units in the MRR list a bitter pill to swallow.

[grahambriggs]

Wow, this makes the 2-stand triarii units in the MRR list a bitter pill to swallow.

Spare a thought for the 2 base poor protected Triarii that the campanians can have!

[ShrubMiK]

Or look at it from the other persepctive...instead of complaining that your own 2 base BG of superiors/elites is disadvantaged by breaking at 50% losses, think how much better you will feel that your opponent's 2 base BG of superiors/elites does not have to incur 100% losses before breaking.

All sizes of BG suffer from rounding errors when applying the auto-break thresholds, this is more or less the same sort of thing.

The difference between where it should break (60%) and where it does break (50%) is less in the rules as they stand than if they were changed to meet your expectation

And throw in the fact that (as was pointed out earlier) it is quite hard to cause cohesion tests and death rolls on properly supported 2 base BGs, I think it is reasonable as it is. I certainly wouldn't avoid using 2 base triarii because of it.

[pyruse]

Wow, this makes the 2-stand triarii units in the MRR list a bitter pill to swallow.

Triari are excellent for supporting your main battle-line. Each unit can support two front line units.
This is a much better use for them than fighting with them, and by an odd coincidence is also how they were used historically.

[ShrubMiK]

True. But they were also expected to fight, historically, and were instrumental in winning a fair number of battles.

This is where it gets a bit sticky in FoG...if they front line (actually repesenting the historical front two lines) has routed, the Triarii are now left to face the victorious enemy and save the day. In their favour, the fact they are small BGs should allow the front line to rout past them without diusrupting them, so they are in with half a chance. But unfortunately they are not going to be fighting supported by negihbours either side. And the overlaps mean they are much more likely to fall foul of the 2-base BG failing a death roll issue. In reality they should be something like a quarter of the number of hastati and principes (which they are), but spread out along the whole line (which they are not, and cannot reasonably be expected to do iwthout getting absolutely mullered).

[grahambriggs]

I have had a game where frontal Immortal and flank cavalry shooting broke a Hastati/Principes BG. The supporting two base triarii charged the Immortals, disrupted them at impact and broke them in the melee!

[pyruse]

Which battles were Triarii instrumental in winning?
In most battles their only function was to act as rearguard or camp guard when the rest of the army had broken (i.e. after a FoG game is over).
And if you've lost the whole front line your army will indeed very likely be broken.

[ShrubMiK]

Triarii being employed alongside Hastati and Principes, so maybe not "instrumental" if you want to quibble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Great_Plains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama

Then there's the battle in which the opponents defeated Hastati and Principes, and then the Accensi (thinking they were the Triarii), and then got the unpleasant surprise of encountering the actual Triarii and being rapidly routed by them - Suessa 340BC according to Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars. Can't find detail of this battle on Wiki, so perhaps it never really happened? Livy is apparently the source for the description of the ruse, so maybe the precises details and deliberate cleverness claimed should be taken with a pinch of salt.

And of course, circmstantial evidence it was proverbial that something "going to the Triarii" meant contesting something to the bitter end, perhaps even to the point of desperation, but not a totally lost situation. The implication being that the Triarii ideally would avoid fighting, but could and did successfully on occasions where it proved necessary.

I suspect we are lacking detailed accounts of most battles and therefore cannot form a real opinionon who was actually called on to fight on that day, so shouldn't be considered evidence either way. But it would seem more natural that something that formed a significant (and the most experienced) part of the army should be called on to fight sometimes, rather than they were effectively jsut there for show. The Romans did lose quite a few battles over this era...

>And if you've lost the whole front line your army will indeed very likely be broken.

Well...that would be the FoG gamer's view - "oo 'eck mateys, half our AP have gone, time to give up"
In DBMM it would be much the same - although the triarii are worth double the hastati and principes for morale purposes, when the latter two have evaporated again you are going to find yourself over the army break point.
Ironically is the one of the rules issues that people have to overcome (usually be introducing some sort of special scenario-specifc rule) if they want to have a re-enactment of a battle like Zama go something like actual history. Read the Slingshot issue covering the Zama Battle Day for several discussions of this by several people within the context of several different rulesets.

[bbotus]

One thing I notice is that we yearn to re-create the historical situations exactly as our reading of history tells us it happened. We seem to forget that we are using a simulation of history and not a very precise one either (but it does a pretty good job to my way of thinking). So we put the Triarii behind to bolster the Hastati and Principes cause that seems most historical.

In reality, the Triarii were probably sent in well before the entire line broke. They probably boosted weak spots in the line to win the day. Since this is not a unit level game, another way to simulate that is to alternate the Triarii with the Hastati/Principes in the line so you have a little extra punch to break the enemy first. So the Triarii bolster the CT tests or they bolster the melee rolls, either way gives them a positive impact on the battle.

We just have to be a little creative in interpreting the use of the rules to simulate what we know of the ancients.

[grahambriggs]

I seem to remember when the relevant DBMM army lists were be written there was a strong and well reasoned argument with good sources that the Triarii were often not the best troops. Usefully, I can't find the detail. The gist seemed to be that there were examples where these veteran troops were indeed the cream, and others where they were close to the end of their service and not particularly keen.

[philqw78]

The gist seemed to be that there were examples where these veteran troops were indeed the cream, and others where they were close to the end of their service and not particularly keen.

IIRC they were the artisans of the legion. They made and reparied the kit, weapons, tools, etc.

Sort of the REME of the Roman army. Thats why they were put at the back, because they were more valuable than the PBI. Obviously to get such skills in the Roman army they'd have been in a while and veterans.

[peterrjohnston]

Then there's the battle in which the opponents defeated Hastati and Principes, and then the Accensi (thinking they were the Triarii), and then got the unpleasant surprise of encountering the actual Triarii and being rapidly routed by them - Suessa 340BC according to Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars. Can't find detail of this battle on Wiki, so perhaps it never really happened? Livy is apparently the source for the description of the ruse, so maybe the precises details and deliberate cleverness claimed should be taken with a pinch of salt.

AMPW has the name as Suessa for some reason, whereas it's commonly referred to as the Battle of Vesuvius - the description is right though. See the reference to Livy. (Location is given end of VIII.8 ).

Of course, it is Livy, so just the usual vile roman propaganda...

[ShrubMiK]

Possibly, although outright propaganda would presumably have the hastati alone dealing nonchalantly with the outclassed enemy, whilst the principes merely shouted encouragement and the triarii remained back in camp polishing their spears ready to display the enemy heads on afterwards!

Triarii are interesting(?) in that they remain equipped in the old fashion after it seems the tide of equipement and tactics has moved on. I don't know why that should be, but it might suggest they were not really expected to fight routinely and therefore money was saved by giving them the left over old kit.

It might logically suggest they were intended to fulfil a different tactical function (but there is no evidence of this).

Or it might suggest they are the old dogs who can't learn new tricks, and even if they wanted to are now not sufficiently bendy around the middle to chuck pila effectively.

A bit like most of us wargamers perhaps?

[Sarmaticus]

It might be because thrusting with a spear took less youthful athleticism than hurling the pilum or fencing with the sword. (Edit: Which is what the last poster said - I should read posts to the end before replying . Given the duration of the system, is it likely that hanging o to old techniques played much part in the triarii's choice of weapon?)