Barbarian Effectiveness

[beausant]

I have version 2.0. I had thought that barbarians were going to improve. The only improvement I see is that better armour will not bring the advantage up to ++. Am I missing something? I do not see barbarian army appearances in tournaments increasing.

[ravenflight]

I have version 2.0. I had thought that barbarians were going to improve. The only improvement I see is that better armour will not bring the advantage up to ++. Am I missing something? I do not see barbarian army appearances in tournaments increasing.

I understand that undrilled manoeuvre has improved, and drilled manoeuvre has worsened.

This, on top of the ++ not being as easy to get makes them substantially better.

There is also a general improvement in their quality I understand (more Superior etc).

[stecal]

Still pretty bad. At least it is just -1 now (so 100% improvement ). The real trick is winning the impact combat and forcing a -3 CT on your enemy, then they have a chance.

In my first V2 game today average, armd sword Legions still beat the crap out of the warbands always fighting a +1 in melee. The problem is that there is just the one impact phase then you fight melee in both player turns. Eventually the warbands roll poorly in a CT.

I thought the playtest had some kind of +1 for 3 ranks of WB, but I guess that got cut.

[ravenflight]

Still pretty bad. At least it is just -1 now (so 100% improvement ). The real trick is winning the impact combat and forcing a -3 CT on your enemy, then they have a chance.

In my first V2 game today average, armd sword Legions still beat the crap out of the warbands always fighting a +1 in melee. The problem is that there is just the one impact phase then you fight melee in both player turns. Eventually the warbands roll poorly in a CT.

I haven't played, so I can't comment, but keeping in mind that the Legion IS more expensive than the Warband you would expect them to eventually lose.

The losing in the same turn they are impacted because they lose impact AND melee AND rout... well...

As normal, you have to win elsewhere with the Barbarian armies. How historical is that? I don't know, but the Roman cavalry IS the weak point and the Gallic/German cavalry is generally better (depending on period of course).

Also, one game is NOT really enough to work this calculation out on.

[Vespasian28]

I think the abilty to have Superiors is pretty limited but nonetheless welcome.

Another thing I think will make "barbarians" more resilient is the -1 on the CT "for each 25% lost" as you can have bigger units with the baa-baas.
Lots of subtle changes like that, and armour/manoeuvering, make them more viable so I will be getting my Spanish and Galatians out a bit more often.

[ShrubMiK]

Weren't there also changes to make rear support a bit more viable? (If I ever receive the book I'll be able to find out for myself!) Which is obviously more use if your front line is relatively cheap and you have points to spare.

[marty]

The Barbarians benefit directly or indirectly from:

1) Impact phase been more decisive (-1 for losing Impact)
2) Improvement in larger units (needing 1 per 2 to give -1 on CT)
3) Changes in armour POA's (need 2 levels of armour difference for ++POA)
4) Reduction in manouverability of drilled opponents
5) Increase in own manouverability (in effect can turn if they have a general)
6) They are going to be better at getting more of their army in to the fight (12" deployment, Increased HI move in terrain and ability to advance to 4" of skirmishers)
7) More superior troops in some of their lists.

None of these are huge changes on their own and I'm not saying they are going to become a dominant troop type but as a player who runs Goths/Vandals a fair bit I think the overall effect is a significant (and much needed) improvement.

Martin

[grahambriggs]

The Barbarians benefit directly or indirectly from:

1) Impact phase been more decisive (-1 for losing Impact)
2) Improvement in larger units (needing 1 per 2 to give -1 on CT)
3) Changes in armour POA's (need 2 levels of armour difference for ++POA)
4) Reduction in manouverability of drilled opponents
5) Increase in own manouverability (in effect can turn if they have a general)
6) They are going to be better at getting more of their army in to the fight (12" deployment, Increased HI move in terrain and ability to advance to 4" of skirmishers)
7) More superior troops in some of their lists.

None of these are huge changes on their own and I'm not saying they are going to become a dominant troop type but as a player who runs Goths/Vandals a fair bit I think the overall effect is a significant (and much needed) improvement.

Martin

Heavy weapon no longer cancelle dby SSw I think - so my Dacian falxmen can actually fight!

And, critically, nothing has got worse for the barbarians. So they will be better: we'll see if that's enough to make them viable. Hopefully so.

[hazelbark]

I think there are some other pieces that may matter like terrain and general desirablity of impact foot and more values for protected mounted.

The authors don't think barbarians did well versus Romans when on an equal footing.

But the barbarians now have a chance. They just didn't move to world winners.

[ravenflight]

Heavy weapon no longer cancelle dby SSw I think - so my Dacian falxmen can actually fight!

Actually your Falxmen will probably benefit the most out of barbarian type armies. They don't get armour either, so they will be fighting at evens!

(unless I'm mistaken)

[stecal]

Dacian with a Sarmatian ally seem to be the way to go. Painting more Falxmen right now.

The superior falxmen are down a point at impact, but evens in melee. The trick is to get them into contact with Romans who are already disrupted, perhaps by the javelinmen who are evens at impact. I haven't quite worked out that bit yet.

[grahambriggs]

Dacian with a Sarmatian ally seem to be the way to go. Painting more Falxmen right now.

The superior falxmen are down a point at impact, but evens in melee. The trick is to get them into contact with Romans who are already disrupted, perhaps by the javelinmen who are evens at impact. I haven't quite worked out that bit yet.

I suspect they will still suffer from being MF in the open. Particularly against cavalry. Have been using mine as a Carpi ally to Early Goths; not quite brave enough to put the Dacians out yet.

[stecal]

Yes, MF in the open is a problem -- just don't lose! (yeah, right...). I found an IC & rear support very useful for the inevitable tests for seeing friends rout. At least when they run they usually outdistance HF.

[Scrumpy]

Based on last night's game between Mid Republic Roman & Gauls, a lot more effective!

Losing the + for better armour really hindered the Romans as the Gallic hordes swarmed over them, (although most of the time they were facing superior warriors) the staying power of warband seems ok in v2.

[lionheartrjc]

A lot more effective based on my experience in the 25mm tournament at Plymouth too!
650pts on 6'x'4' tables with 1" MUs.
I was using a Mayan army - 5BGs of 8MF Superior, Protected, Undrilled, Javelins, Impact Foot, Swordsmen and 4BGs of (3x6 1x8)MF, Average, Protected, Bow, Light Spear.
I beat a Wars of the Roses, Seleucid and Ancient British armies. Drew with a Later Crusader by hiding in terrain. Ended up with 84 points out of 100 and 1st place.