Hammy (Spartan Army List)

[hazelbark]

Instead for "comptetition" purposes I would like to see a significant REDUCTION in the number of elite legionaries you are allowed to take. The list allow you to take virtually an entire army listed as ELITE which is ludicrous, and anything that isn't elite will certainly be superior. I could live with the OPTION to have all superior and maybe up to 8 elite, but the current 18 elite is way way too much. Fine for a specific historical game rather than a typical points game.

The problem we have now is that against armoured, elite, drilled, skilled swordsmen, your typical gallic or germanic warband has absoloutely no chance on earth of achieving anything. IMHO

The last thing the romans need in a competition is elite. They are too expensive. Have the time the legion is only losing because its getting hit in front and rear.

Protected Impact foot sword gauls will get cut to ribbons by the legion that is superior skilled sw armor. The legion doesn't need elite.

I am kind of worried that MF gauls are too expensive but I need to work up an army before i am certain.

But the short answer is elite is unnecessary for the legion versus nearly any foot foes.

[nikgaukroger]

Same thing with pike they are very good as they are but if you allowed armoured as an option they would be unbeatable. Part of the way through his campaign Alexander replaced all his phalangites armour with top notch metal suits,

Whilst he replaced worn out equipment I don't believe that the historical sources say he replaced non-metallic armour with metallic.

[nikgaukroger]

Instead for "comptetition" purposes I would like to see a significant REDUCTION in the number of elite legionaries you are allowed to take. The list allow you to take virtually an entire army listed as ELITE which is ludicrous, and anything that isn't elite will certainly be superior. I could live with the OPTION to have all superior and maybe up to 8 elite, but the current 18 elite is way way too much. Fine for a specific historical game rather than a typical points game.

If it is so silly - by which I am assuming you mean over powerful - why aren't we seeing masses of such armies on the table top?

Historically speaking I would rate Caesar's army at the end of the Gallic wars as mainly Elite - if that is the case why shouldn't it be allowed in competitions? If the points system works it shouldn't be an issue should it?

[nikgaukroger]

I am currently researching into the battle of Leuktra, a very interesting engagement. Which looks like being quite a close run thing, given that the Hippeis were disordered and the king killed early. Being pro Spartan I think the Thebans would of really struggled if this two events hadn't happened.

Dave,

As a lot of these hoplite battles are modelled in Lost Battles I will again recommend it to you.

BTW I agree with your assessment FWIW

[ars_belli]

What would the definition of Roman conscripts be>

I think Nik is referring to the fact that Roman legions of the Mid-Republic were comprised of citizen levies.

In FoG, Mid-Republican legionaries are typically rated as Average for hastati/principes/velites, Superior for triarii. Veteran legions are rated one grade higher, while unenthusiastic allies and raw/slave/penal legions are one grade lower. According to the list, at maximum 4 bases of legionaries (triarii) may be rated as Elite.

For the Late Republican Roman list:

Raw legionaries = Poor
Slack legionaries = Average
Battle-tested legionaries = Superior
Veteran legionaries = Elite

A maximum of 18 bases of legionaries may be rated as Elite.

According to the nominal troop scale from the FoG rules, 18 bases would equate to a single legion of the Late Republic, so that seems about right to me!

Cheers,
Scott

[ars_belli]

Instead for "comptetition" purposes I would like to see a significant REDUCTION in the number of elite legionaries you are allowed to take. The list allow you to take virtually an entire army listed as ELITE which is ludicrous, and anything that isn't elite will certainly be superior. I could live with the OPTION to have all superior and maybe up to 8 elite, but the current 18 elite is way way too much. Fine for a specific historical game rather than a typical points game.

The problem we have now is that against armoured, elite, drilled, skilled swordsmen, your typical gallic or germanic warband has absoloutely no chance on earth of achieving anything.

I play Late Republican Roman vs. Gallic match ups almost exclusively. To follow up on what others have said, the list in Rise of Rome works perfectly fine as it is.

The reason you don't see 18 bases of elite Late Republican Roman legionaries in competition armies is the expense: 306 points all by themselves, nearly half the cost of an 800-point army. If you are going to have at least two commanders and a couple of BGs each of Cv and LF, that would leave enough points for 18 additional bases of legionaries, rated at 'superior.' Now, if you want to field a competition army that small, then go for it. Personally, I wouldn't advise doing so.

At the same time, for 308 points one could have 44 bases of HF Gallic warriors, with plenty of room for roughly 26 more, while also outnumbering the Romans in Cv, LF and commanders - thereby enjoying an advantage in pre-battle initiative. Under those circumstances, I would definitely take the Gauls!

Cheers,
Scott

[Dford666]

I will pick up lost battles when I am in the US about £ 11.00, at the moment I am looking at putting togather my Spartan army. Not sure if it will be 15mm or 25mm. Leaning towards 25mm

[Dford666]

Hammy, did you get a chance to put togather the Spartan army list?

[hammy]

Hammy, did you get a chance to put togather the Spartan army list?

How many points are you looking at?

The really big question is if you want armoured hoplites or not.

[Dford666]

How many points are played in 28mm competition? Armoured would be fine to start with.

[hammy]

How many points are played in 28mm competition? Armoured would be fine to start with.

OK, at the moment 25mm comps are being played at 650 points. If you want a bit of flex I would look to slightly more.

How about:

FC,TC,TC
3 * 6 Spartiates Superior, Armoured, Drilled, Heavy foot, Offensive spear
3 * 6 Perioikoi Average, Armoured, Drilled, Heavy foot, Offensive spear
1 * 8 Thracians Average, Protected, Undrilled, Medium foot, Offensive spear
1 * 8 Slingers Average, Unprotected, Undrilled, light foot, Sling
2 * 6 Javelinmen Poor, Unprotected, Undrilled, light foot, Javelin, Light spear

I make that 646 points

To give you extra options I would get the full 18 bases of Javelinmen and perhaps 8 archers. If you are willing to only have protected spearmen then the Spartan army with Syracusan mercenaries is interesting. You can have 8 Heavy foot Gauls and 8 Medium foot Spaniards.

You may also want to consider a few less Spartans and having an allied command of undrilled hoplites to bulk out your army.

[Dford666]

Looks good to me, do I have to purchase Generals?

[hammy]

Yup, generals are the FC,TC,TC bit of the list and would be best represented by a few command type figures. You can also have officer and standard bearers in each BG if you want.

[Agesilaus]

I was interested in this thread because I have a Spartan Army myself, and I found its performance under DBM 1.4 infuriatingly bad (Superior Spear 7 points still each, yet effect of superior reduced; they couldn't even beat Immortals!), to the point where I concluded none of the DBM developers or playtesters actually owned or tested such an army.

My concern is the inconsistency in some of the arguments above. If numbers are the isue for no Elite Hippeis, then why small elite groups in other armies? Similarly, arguments about value in competitions are bad too. We should first grade troops on their historical performance as per the game mechanics, then adjust their cost or availability for game balance. After all, we want the game to reflect history.

Anyway, my basic concern is, if this group was noted historically as being better than their Superior peers, and their opponents, why not make them Elite? If satisfying those criteria is not good enough, then who do we make Elite and why?

[Draka]

From what sources I can find, the Hippeis were a) exactly 300 in number and b) the C-in-C's Bodyguard. In other rulesets, a commander can have an element attached to him as a bodyguard - FoG has no such mechanism. Thus they have to be a separate BG - for which the smallest size is 2 elements, or double the strength of the Hippeis AND not firmly attached to the general. In other lists, the Elite units are a percentage of the entire army and in distinct units and thus deployable under FoG.

So as stated by the designers, look for on average superior armies (a rare breed) and within them a small percentage of perceived elite troops - a la the veteran Legio after a prolonged period of constant usage with a percentage of extremely battle-hardened veterans deployed as a separate unit.

[Phaze_of_the_Moon]

What would the definition of Roman conscripts be. In most other periods of history professionals are generally better than conscripts.

Average drilled. Throughout the early republic the Romans had mandatory regular training and drill for all their citizens. Pyrrhus stated that their generals were poor and their allies weak but the Roman levies themselves were equal to the best of his Greek mercenaries.

[miffedofreading]

Same thing with pike they are very good as they are but if you allowed armoured as an option they would be unbeatable. Part of the way through his campaign Alexander replaced all his phalangites armour with top notch metal suits,

Whilst he replaced worn out equipment I don't believe that the historical sources say he replaced non-metallic armour with metallic.

I am a bit rusty, I remember there was a quote that Alexander replaced his phalangites current armour which he "burnt" which was used as evidence the old armour was linen. I thought the other part of the quote involved the new armour being metal, but I could easily be misremembering that bit, I am only fairly sure about the burnt bit.

My late republican opponent DOES always take the maximum 18 elite units. Which is why I was assuming it was a problem. If everyone else is saying it doesn't work well because of the points then that is great, anything that discourages their useage is fine by me.

Whilst I personally have a bit of a problem with romans won a couple of battles so therefore they are elite. Spartiates who did NOTHING but train to fight and fight since the age of 7? are nothing sapecial so we will not rate them as elite. I don't honestly really care. I don't actually own a spartan army anyway If I did I would field armoured superior hoplites in the largest groups allowed and put a TC commander fighting in the front rank with them, this would make them plenty tough enough to fulfill their historical effectiveness for me.

As I mentioned i am quite happy that certain values are "fudged" to make the game work. It works for me. I like the game just as it is and have no intention of changing anything.

I do wish I could field my 24 bases of gallic warbands in my carthaginian army, but as my opponents insist on using upgraded armoured skilled swordsmen legionaries, there is no point, they stand no chance at all being at -- POA in the melee phase. Which forces me to field maximum elephants instead as skilled armoured swordsmen have no effect on elephants.

I think I am going to insist on a "historical" battle soon, where the romans are armoured swordsmen giving them merely one + POA in melee. I am happy to fight in those circumstances

Andy

[miffedofreading]

Instead for "comptetition" purposes I would like to see a significant REDUCTION in the number of elite legionaries you are allowed to take. The list allow you to take virtually an entire army listed as ELITE which is ludicrous, and anything that isn't elite will certainly be superior. I could live with the OPTION to have all superior and maybe up to 8 elite, but the current 18 elite is way way too much. Fine for a specific historical game rather than a typical points game.

The problem we have now is that against armoured, elite, drilled, skilled swordsmen, your typical gallic or germanic warband has absoloutely no chance on earth of achieving anything.

I play Late Republican Roman vs. Gallic match ups almost exclusively. To follow up on what others have said, the list in Rise of Rome works perfectly fine as it is.

The reason you don't see 18 bases of elite Late Republican Roman legionaries in competition armies is the expense: 306 points all by themselves, nearly half the cost of an 800-point army. If you are going to have at least two commanders and a couple of BGs each of Cv and LF, that would leave enough points for 18 additional bases of legionaries, rated at 'superior.' Now, if you want to field a competition army that small, then go for it. Personally, I wouldn't advise doing so.

At the same time, for 308 points one could have 44 bases of HF Gallic warriors, with plenty of room for roughly 26 more, while also outnumbering the Romans in Cv, LF and commanders - thereby enjoying an advantage in pre-battle initiative. Under those circumstances, I would definitely take the Gauls!

Cheers,
Scott

Scott with the gauls in my carthaginian army being average, HF, protected Swordsmen, how do you fight late republican romans??? I can't see any way they stand a chance so have to use my african spear uprated or elephants. I have 24 bases of beautiful Gauls and they have never yet played a battle. I am very interested in hearing of a viable tactic for them

Ta

Andy

[Quintus]

Pyrrhus stated that their generals were poor and their allies weak but the Roman levies themselves were equal to the best of his Greek mercenaries.

Do you happen to have a source to back up this statement? I am particularly interested in Pyrrhus.

[Phaze_of_the_Moon]

Pyrrhus stated that their generals were poor and their allies weak but the Roman levies themselves were equal to the best of his Greek mercenaries.

Do you happen to have a source to back up this statement? I am particularly interested in Pyrrhus.

Roughly paraphrasing Dodge (Hannibal : a history of the art of war among the Carthaginians and Romans down to the battle of Pydna, 168 B.C., with a detailed account of the Second Punic War) who is paraphrasing Polybus, Livy, et al.