HF or MF for Principate Roman auxilary infantry

[daleivan]

The Legions Triumphant list acknowledges that there is some debate over how the Principate Roman auxilary infantry should be classified. From a historical perspective what seems more likely? Goldsworthy in Roman Warfare feels that they were deployed basically in the same fashion as the legions, even to the extent of being in the front line with the legions backing them up, which would argue for HF status. OTOH, they've typically been depicted as able to move more effectively in rough ground. How does the design team feel about this? What do other posters think?

Certainly from a game standpoint both classifications have their merits. One could certainly argue that MF for auxiliary infantry would be optimal since the Principate army already has plenty of superb heavy foot. OTOH, HF would allow them to stand better against cavalry in the open as well as not suffer the -1 for losing to MF. Any thoughts on this second issue?

BTW, I just joined the forum. I've been playing FoG with my best buddy Mark Sieber since April-- he and I met way back in '82 playing WRG. Kudos to the FOG design team and support crew for a terrific game. It's re-kindled my passion for ancients. Richard, Terry, Nik, Hammy et al, thank you!

[hammy]

From following the various discussions on Auxilliaries it would seem to me that HF is probably more correct than MF. From a game PoV HF aren't that bad in rough ground as long as the HF in question aren't spearmen. I have seen several Roman players not bother with medium foot and if there is a bit of terrain that needs taking just send the legionaries in.

I think the biggest loss in game terms for going from MF to HF is that as MF you move 4 MU while HF only move 3.

You could of course always give yourself the option to use your figures for either by basing them as HF and making magnetic sabot bases that make them up to MF basing.

All my Roman auxilia are MF at present but as my Romans are a DBM army that was going to be the case anyway. I suspect that I may do a bit of rebasing at some point in the future. I really can't see me needing all 40 or so bases as MF

[flameberge]

From following the various discussions on Auxilliaries it would seem to me that HF is probably more correct than MF. From a game PoV HF aren't that bad in rough ground as long as the HF in question aren't spearmen. I have seen several Roman players not bother with medium foot and if there is a bit of terrain that needs taking just send the legionaries in.

I think the biggest loss in game terms for going from MF to HF is that as MF you move 4 MU while HF only move 3.

You could of course always give yourself the option to use your figures for either by basing them as HF and making magnetic sabot bases that make them up to MF basing.

All my Roman auxilia are MF at present but as my Romans are a DBM army that was going to be the case anyway. I suspect that I may do a bit of rebasing at some point in the future. I really can't see me needing all 40 or so bases as MF

I personally believe the Auxillia were most likely HF.

Side Note: Since the rules state that base depth isn't important you don't even need the magnetic bases to use them as MF, just tell your opponent.

[nikgaukroger]

HF is the most historical IMO.

[daleivan]

Thank you. I was thinking that HF seemed more likely historically than MF, and agree that from a gaming perspective HF --aside from being 1 MU slower--is a good fit for the Roman army.

Dale