roman loss of skilled swordsman

[peterrjohnston]

But I have seen lots of comments on these forums along the lines of:

"That might have been the case under V1 but not under V2.." or "That army becomes a lot more viable under V2" or "When V2 arrives I think we will suddenly start to see a lot more of...|"

Any major revision of a rules set is likely to change what armies are "viable".

But as no one has actually played v2 yet, it's all idle speculation.

So I'm not sure what your point is, really.

[shadowdragon]

Fair enough, good use of numbers.

One small error which was that I left the impact set up for v2, for which a BG gets a -1 for losing the impact combat by just 1 hit (versus 2 hits in v1). It's only a slight change but brings the v1 and v2 results for the Romans vs Men-at-Arms a little closer.

But I have seen lots of comments on these forums along the lines of:

"That might have been the case under V1 but not under V2.." or "That army becomes a lot more viable under V2" or "When V2 arrives I think we will suddenly start to see a lot more of...|"

All of which suggested to me that V2 was quite a big paradigm change (not just on Romans).

It's useful to keep in mind a cartoon I once saw. A guy's at a computer typing a way. A voice, off panel, says, "Come to bed. It's late." The guy responds, "Just a minute, honey. Someone's wrong in internet."

There would be some truth to seeing v2 as v1.1. There are changes, but I would not call it a "paradigm change". In fact the authors set out to make incremental changes to correct what they saw as undesirable or unintended results that had shown up through substantial game play. They were quite resistant to calls for a "paradigm change".

Just out of interest what are the numbers for average and poor legions?

Against what? For what phase? Versus average Gauls the only change is that the impact phase is slightly more decisive (see the change above). Average/poor legions don't have skilled swords, so if their advantage over Gauls in v2 will be HF vs MF (if the Gauls are MF) and armour over protected (if they have armour), which is the same as v1.

For a 4 base LRR average / poor BG (both armoured) vs MF average, protected Gauls, who cannot bring their numbers to bear (i.e., that means they have to be in 4 ranks if an 8 base BG or they are a 6 base BG in 3 ranks)

Cohesion loss percentages:

Average Roman = 12% versus 40% for Gauls
Poor Roman = 21% versus 31% for Gauls.

Of course, a 4 base average or poor Roman BG is susceptible to being destroyed through base losses - true for both v1 and v2.

[shadowdragon]

But I have seen lots of comments on these forums along the lines of:

"That might have been the case under V1 but not under V2.." or "That army becomes a lot more viable under V2" or "When V2 arrives I think we will suddenly start to see a lot more of...|"

Any major revision of a rules set is likely to change what armies are "viable".

But as no one has actually played v2 yet, it's all idle speculation.

So I'm not sure what your point is, really.

My perception that the point is "I'm worried due to other poster's idle speculation".

People need to keep in mind that the final results was not beta tested but developed by the authors based on the feedback they got from beta testing - and their own testing. The summary of the changes has been posted and some look like changes that were beta-tested but I do need to see the actual, final wording of v2 for some of those changes - otherwise it is indeed speculation.

[grahambriggs]

In any interpretation of what the impact of v2 might be I think it's worth bearing in mind:

- people on this forum have a wide range of experience levels with v1. Inexperienced people tend to get things wrong.
- none of us have actually played V2, so we don't know the overall impact of the changes - so we're all inexperienced, so we'll all get things wrong.
- some changes looked at in isolation may suggest things will change in one direction but take them all together and the effect might be different.
- Romans vs. warband had a lot of beta trialling
- it's difficult to see whether changes will be material or not. It's clear that the Roman vs. Barbarian interaction will be less one sidedly Roman, but it looks like the smart money will still be on the Roman.
- the authors finished the rules production months ago. So v2 is set in stone, we just don't know what it looks like yet. There's not much point at this stage saying "I think they should do X" - it won't change anything.
- new rules versions take a bit of play to settle down. Some troop types improve, so people try them and find out they are still not great. Some armies look to be winners through the change but turn out not to be.
- the authors are used to people saying "the sky is falling" and tend not to react too much to it until they see it for themselves.

[hazelbark]

Add to Graham's excellent post. Who knew he could be so insightful. Even thogh his shirts are inciteful.

Note JD's post the new version is set for release in October it appears.
Also a hint in there that after v 2 settles. Point changes will become conceivable. Not soon but someday.

[peterrjohnston]

- the authors are used to people saying "the sky is falling" and tend not to react too much to it until they see it for themselves.

Ah, now we know why Gauls do so badly in v1!

"He [Alexander] then asked the Celts what thing in the world caused them special alarm, ... they said they were afraid that the sky would some time or other fall down upon them."

(Anabasis of Alexander, Arrian.)

[philqw78]

- the authors are used to people saying "the sky is falling" and tend not to react too much to it until they see it for themselves.

At which point it will be too late and we'll all be buried under sky

[shadowdragon]

- the authors are used to people saying "the sky is falling" and tend not to react too much to it until they see it for themselves.

At which point it will be too late and we'll all be buried under sky

As long as it's a warm day, Phil, we'll be okay as there is no shortage of hot air blowers.

[Eques]

But I have seen lots of comments on these forums along the lines of:

"That might have been the case under V1 but not under V2.." or "That army becomes a lot more viable under V2" or "When V2 arrives I think we will suddenly start to see a lot more of...|"

Any major revision of a rules set is likely to change what armies are "viable".

But as no one has actually played v2 yet, it's all idle speculation.

So I'm not sure what your point is, really.

My point was that a lot of people had responded to this thread saying essentially "the V2 changes are just tweaks here and there, nothing too major"

I was just saying that on other threads I had been led to expect more fundamental changes from people saying things like the above examples (which I was just giving as examples not commenting on individually).

[Eques]

I know you say this is not how it works but I do detect such influences in some of the V2 revisions.

Erm, would you mind sharing with us all which armies do you actually own and play with/against ?

First army was EAP, which I have always been fascinated by. It doesn't have any Medizing Hoplites in it. If I wanted to play with Hoplites I would have chosen Classical Greek.

I have fragments of Pontic, Early Plantagenet, WOTR and Arthurian but am currently on a big push to finish my second complete army, which will be Ancient British.

Then I may finish up one of the above or do Marian Roman to give my Britons someone to play with. But if so it will have raw legions in it to reflect the history.

I have played against Syracusans, Thracians and Early Carthaginians.

[madaxeman]

Erm, would you mind sharing with us all which armies do you actually own and play with/against ?

First army was EAP, ... fragments of Pontic, Early Plantagenet, WOTR and Arthurian ...currently on a big push to finish my second complete army, which will be Ancient British....I have played against Syracusans, Thracians and Early Carthaginians.

OK, so on the basis of this you've so far played full games with EAP, and against Syracusans, Thracians and Early Carthaginians. You've never fought with, or against Romans, or with or against Barbarian armies. And you've almost made 200 posts about V2.0.

Aaah young padawan, you have much to learn in the ways of FoG... !

[philqw78]

Tim, you are a
A. A***
B. B******
C. C***
D. D***
E. Telling it the way it is

[Eques]

Aaah young padawan, you have much to learn in the ways of FoG... !

Undoubtedly.

But I still think its valid to provide a corrective to the many posts I have seen complaining that a certain troop type "is worthless" or not good at x, essentially complaining about the fact that different troops have different strengths and weaknesses. These posts may or may not have influenced V2 but this is the forum to make one's views known in case they have/are.

Having been aware of FoG for a long time but only just finished my army this year its was a little disappointing to find, when finally ready to play, that it is being changed in ways that, at first glance, are unhistorical and increase homogeneity whereas the great thing about Ancient warfare was how diverse it was.

Happy to have had some of my concerns answered by veteran players and am not really criticising the designers (although I can see why it would come across like that). I am just providing counter arguments to what appears to me to be the dominant attitude on the forum.

What I have observed from the games I have played are:

Skirmishers are not too powerful. They do exactly what they say on the tin and if you have your own skirmishers to neutralise them they're not a problem. If you don't have your own skirmishers to neutralise them then they should be able to cause you problems. That's why ancient armies went to such trouble to have them.

Heavily armed foot do make mincemeat out of lighter foot but that's historical. Just don't base your strategy on a slugging match. You just have to keep put of their way and shoot at them and attack them from behind with cavalry.

I have not found undrilled foot restrictions to be especially onerous to date. Sure have failed a few CMTs but that's all part of the game.

[grahambriggs]

Erm, would you mind sharing with us all which armies do you actually own and play with/against ?

First army was EAP, ... fragments of Pontic, Early Plantagenet, WOTR and Arthurian ...currently on a big push to finish my second complete army, which will be Ancient British....I have played against Syracusans, Thracians and Early Carthaginians.

OK, so on the basis of this you've so far played full games with EAP, and against Syracusans, Thracians and Early Carthaginians. You've never fought with, or against Romans, or with or against Barbarian armies. And you've almost made 200 posts about V2.0.

Well, at least it's not special pleading for an army that you own which there is plenty of on here. Ancient Brits. Woad, fancy shields, lots and lots of figures. That'll take a while. They aren't great in v1 (a chap at our club used them a lot) but they were fun. If they got just a bit better in v2 so you could use them historically, it would help.

[Eques]

. Ancient Brits. Woad, fancy shields, lots and lots of figures. That'll take a while. They aren't great in v1 (a chap at our club used them a lot) but they were fun.

Indeed. EAP was a baptism of fire for a novice painter as well.

Fun is mainly what I hope to get out of the game (ie as opposed to winning). I would enjoy a game better if I thought I was up against Romans worthy of the name (and if you tell me that includes the V2 Romans I'll just have to believe you )

[hazelbark]

But I still think its valid to provide a corrective to the many posts I have seen complaining that a certain troop type "is worthless" or not good at x, essentially complaining about the fact that different troops have different strengths and weaknesses.

Having been aware of FoG for a long time but only just finished my army this year its was a little disappointing to find, when finally ready to play, that it is being changed in ways that, at first glance, are unhistorical and increase homogeneity whereas the great thing about Ancient warfare was how diverse it was.

I take your point in a well intentioned way. There is certainly some raised eyebrows on reasoning for changes over the history rules in the many decades.

But take the following well intentioned. A lot of the people here have played 100s of competition games many playing not only against other clubs, but in other nations and continents. On top of that they have likely over 1000 non competition games. Then you have these very experienced people with very strong and often disagreeing views. Then for something like 18 months we (over 20 that fit that expereience and another gaggle with less, from at least 3 continents) bashed and playtested god know how many iterations of changes. The authors said no a LOT and tweaked and modified. There was some special pleading and the authors saw that off. What they appeared to be trying to do was a balance of improve the game and improve the history as they see it. You can't do one with without the other especially in a rule set that covers 3000 years of technology and cultures from 5 continents. And honestly there is nothing you've said that wasn't debated 400 times with 25 times the intensity in the beta forum. We get it. I had a list as long as my arm of other thngs that could be done. But the authors made their call. And truth be told, they made a lot of right calls. So when you go whinging off about ulterior motives. Understand you are ascribing a common motive to an incredible diverse population with diverse views. Its not a conspiracy. Its not special pleading.