Resilient Gauls?

[76mm]

Whew, I've just played two Very Large Battles at the Governor level as Romans vs Gauls. Lost both of them.

I played these nations quite a bit in FoG 1, and the Gauls seem much more resilient in FoG 2 than in FoG 1...have there been any changes to the Gauls? I used to slaughter Gauls hand over fist in FoG 1, but both of these battles were real slog fests.

Veteran legions just slug it out with average warbands, generally resulting in draws and taking about 8 turns to break the warband. When warbands finally break, they rarely cause others to lose cohesion.

I had three legions stationed on top of a difficult slope, where they were attacked by 3-4 poorly armed mobs. After about 4 turns, none of the poorly armed mobs had even disrupted, and generally the combats were a draw and the mobs suffered casualties about 50% higher than the legions. I had 200+ POA in all of these attacks.

Do other players think that the Gauls vs Romans plays the same as in FoG 1? Are you having better luck than me?

[TheGrayMouser]

Whew, I've just played two Very Large Battles at the Governor level as Romans vs Gauls. Lost both of them.

I played these nations quite a bit in FoG 1, and the Gauls seem much more resilient in FoG 2 than in FoG 1...have there been any changes to the Gauls? I used to slaughter Gauls hand over fist in FoG 1, but both of these battles were real slog fests.

Veteran legions just slug it out with average warbands, generally resulting in draws and taking about 8 turns to break the warband. When warbands finally break, they rarely cause others to lose cohesion.

I had three legions stationed on top of a difficult slope, where they were attacked by 3-4 poorly armed mobs. After about 4 turns, none of the poorly armed mobs had even disrupted, and generally the combats were a draw and the mobs suffered casualties about 50% higher than the legions. I had 200+ POA in all of these attacks.

Do other players think that the Gauls vs Romans plays the same as in FoG 1? Are you having better luck than me?

A couple of things I can think of:
*armor was much more important FOG1 Romans would get a full 100 POA over them by better armor
*superior romans had "Skilled swords" which gave them an additional 100 POA in melee Thus the poor gauls ( any barbarian warband really) would be down 200 POA in melee! This weapons system was removed in FOG2
*In Fog 2 warbands are larger than the roman units so more resilient to attrition effects
*they also get a (small) bonus POA for "deep rank", offhand I think its 10 POA (which had been toned down in testing)
* oh ya, no more anarchy charges so you can have your barbarians in a good position without worry about the buggers running off to impale themselves on.

[76mm]

Interesting, thanks for pointing out these issues. The bottom line for me is that it was very difficult to break Gauls, even with veteran legions. The Gauls often also withdrew during melee without losing cohesion, sucking the legions out from their line. In the second game I hardly had any of my legions charge the warbands to minimize their following up withdrawing enemies.

But it was the poorly armed mobs which really surprised me; I thought that them attacking legions uphill on a difficult slope would result in a bloodbath (for the mobs), but all of them duked it out with the legions on top of the hill for several turns without even disrupting. Would the legions have had some kind of penalty meleeing from the top of a difficult slope? (IIRC I had most of the legions charge the mobs from the top of the hill). But even with penalties, the legions had 200+ POA so I was really surprised that they didn't do much better.

[TheGrayMouser]

Interesting, thanks for pointing out these issues. The bottom line for me is that it was very difficult to break Gauls, even with veteran legions. The Gauls often also withdrew during melee without losing cohesion, sucking the legions out from their line. In the second game I hardly had any of my legions charge the warbands to minimize their following up withdrawing enemies.

But it was the poorly armed mobs which really surprised me; I thought that them attacking legions uphill on a difficult slope would result in a bloodbath (for the mobs), but all of them duked it out with the legions on top of the hill for several turns without even disrupting. Would the legions have had some kind of penalty meleeing from the top of a difficult slope? (IIRC I had most of the legions charge the mobs from the top of the hill). But even with penalties, the legions had 200+ POA so I was really surprised that they didn't do much better.

Your heavy foot legions would have been "severely disordered" on a difficult slope, with combat penalties and a -1 mal cohesion test. I think mobs would only be moderately disordered.

Slopes are not all or nothing like FOG1, you need to look at the delta. Between 25 and 75 elevation differential causes minimal combat advantage, its when its 100 or over that would get more significant POA bonus'.

[76mm]

hmm, I thought that I "difficult slope" would be, by definition, steep enough to cause difficulties for an attacker, even with a difference of only 25? Surely a very steep hill would could significant problems, even if not very tall?

Also, I don't understand how to measure the height difference: in this instance, indeed in most instances, there is level zero, a slope, and the hilltop. Does the 100 elevation differential have to be between the top of the hill and the slope, or the top of the hill and the bottom? Presumably the latter, but if so I don't really understand how a hill's steepness is reflected.

Finally, I don't yet understand how all of the combat factors interact; for instance, I figured that my legionaries would be disordered on the steep hill, but since they still had 200+ POA I figured that they had enough of an advantage to wipe out the mob. Wouldn't being disordered figure into the POA?

[Cumandante]

hmm, I thought that I "difficult slope" would be, by definition, steep enough to cause difficulties for an attacker, even with a difference of only 25? Surely a very steep hill would could significant problems, even if not very tall?

If they are attacking straight up, yes. But they may be attacking along the slope, thus the difference in height between the two units may be minimal or even 0.

Also, I don't understand how to measure the height difference: in this instance, indeed in most instances, there is level zero, a slope, and the hilltop. Does the 100 elevation differential have to be between the top of the hill and the slope, or the top of the hill and the bottom? Presumably the latter, but if so I don't really understand how a hill's steepness is reflected.

Mousing over a square will tell you its elevation (if it says nothing the elevation is 0). The 100 elevation differential is measured as the elevation difference between the squares of the units involved in the fight.

Finally, I don't yet understand how all of the combat factors interact; for instance, I figured that my legionaries would be disordered on the steep hill, but since they still had 200+ POA I figured that they had enough of an advantage to wipe out the mob. Wouldn't being disordered figure into the POA?

PoA are calculated first. But disorder/disruption penalties also apply, as well as any strength difference between the units.

[TheGrayMouser]

hmm, I thought that I "difficult slope" would be, by definition, steep enough to cause difficulties for an attacker, even with a difference of only 25? Surely a very steep hill would could significant problems, even if not very tall?

Also, I don't understand how to measure the height difference: in this instance, indeed in most instances, there is level zero, a slope, and the hilltop. Does the 100 elevation differential have to be between the top of the hill and the slope, or the top of the hill and the bottom? Presumably the latter, but if so I don't really understand how a hill's steepness is reflected.

Finally, I don't yet understand how all of the combat factors interact; for instance, I figured that my legionaries would be disordered on the steep hill, but since they still had 200+ POA I figured that they had enough of an advantage to wipe out the mob. Wouldn't being disordered figure into the POA?

In the screenshot, you can see the effects and height on a mouse over of a slope. If defending, you'd be better off on the top of those hills and let the attacker get on the cliffs(the difficult slopes). However, if you attack them on the difficult slope you will be fighting on it as well so stay put and let them come up to you.

Just like if FOG1, some weapon POA's are not effected by not being in "non clear" where as other are.

[rbodleyscott]

Also, I don't understand how to measure the height difference: in this instance, indeed in most instances, there is level zero, a slope, and the hilltop. Does the 100 elevation differential have to be between the top of the hill and the slope, or the top of the hill and the bottom? Presumably the latter, but if so I don't really understand how a hill's steepness is reflected.

Between the squares the two units are on.

[GiveWarAchance]

The Gauls are tough. I tried to start an Irish & Scots invasion of Gaul campaign but got crushed in the first battle. You can see my AAR about it. The real reason I lost was cause the enemy AI kept surrounding my units to get brutal flank and combined arms bonus attacks plus most of my infantry were smaller weak peasant units not proper troops.

[MaxDamage]

Keep in mind that any advantage or disadvantage that your unit has in combat is diminished based upon the sort of disordering that you and your opponent gets.

In other words, when your troops are superior, then the advantage becomes much less noticeable in disordering terrain which leads to prolonged fighting even if your opponent has a weak unit. Even when both of you are disordered.

[nikgaukroger]

Whew, I've just played two Very Large Battles at the Governor level as Romans vs Gauls. Lost both of them.

I played these nations quite a bit in FoG 1, and the Gauls seem much more resilient in FoG 2 than in FoG 1...have there been any changes to the Gauls? I used to slaughter Gauls hand over fist in FoG 1, but both of these battles were real slog fests.

Which means, IMO, that the results are a lot more historical

[hjc]

Yep. The Gauls were no easy push-over.

[76mm]

Which means, IMO, that the results are a lot more historical

I haven't read about the Roman campaigns in Gaul in several years so can't say at this point what I consider to be more historical, but I've always had the impression that Gaulic armies were tough but rather brittle and tended to break at a certain point. I've only played two (very large) battles so far but from what I've seen the Gauls are anything but brittle in FoG 2. Reserving judgment so far, but it was helpful to understand that certain changes in the rules have boosted them in FoG 2.

[JorgenCAB]

In order to get a better feeling for how strong two armies are in comparison try to play some Hotseat games playing both sides. Gauls are brutally strong as long as they can keep momentum up... but I often have my warbands pushing in through Roman lines only to have them flanked by reserve forces. The Romans usually having the advantage in light troops can generally force the Gauls to charge first which the Romans can use to draw them in and surround them in detail. But if the Gauls can frontally charge a large part of the Roman line and punch in with several units it is usually over for the Romans as Gauls overrun Roman reserve forces.

I can't stress how important it is to keep reserves for any army stationed slightly back behind the main line, for any army in any situation.

[shawkhan2]

The Gauls typically used a long slashing sword, often with blunted ends which required a great deal of room to use effectively, especially compared to the short stabbing sword employed by the Legionarys. Three Legionarys should be facing about two Gauls in the front lines. Gauls could not have as many effective fighters on the front lines.
From what I have read the Gauls would make a great impact at contact, but rapidly tire if their initial attack was unsuccessful. The shoving and pushing from the undisciplined masses behind them would often crowd and hamper them as well.

[76mm]

From what I have read the Gauls would make a great impact at contact, but rapidly tire if their initial attack was unsuccessful.

This is how I recall the Gauls playing in FoG 1, but it has been several years so maybe I'm mistaken at this point. In FoG 2 from what I've seen they can often keep grinding away at the legions until the Romans auto-break. And playing the Governor level against the AI, they have plenty of units to throw into the fight. Brutal...

[JorgenCAB]

The Gauls typically used a long slashing sword, often with blunted ends which required a great deal of room to use effectively, especially compared to the short stabbing sword employed by the Legionarys. Three Legionarys should be facing about two Gauls in the front lines. Gauls could not have as many effective fighters on the front lines.
From what I have read the Gauls would make a great impact at contact, but rapidly tire if their initial attack was unsuccessful. The shoving and pushing from the undisciplined masses behind them would often crowd and hamper them as well.

Well... that usually just meant they would retire and then charge again and again and again.

It was common for actual fighting to go on for a little while then forces would retire a short distance to rest and then charge in again. This was the sort of tactic the Gauls typically used. The Romans likely wanted to keep pressure on and try and have them engaged for as long as possible to tire them faster. Battles could go on for hours or even days and there is no chance that two engaged units would constantly fight each other.

[76mm]

The Romans usually having the advantage in light troops can generally force the Gauls to charge first which the Romans can use to draw them in and surround them in detail.

I've tried this tactic but didn't have much success, because when I tried to "surround" the Gauls it just violated the integrity of the Roman line and exposed the legions to flank attacks by the Gaullic hordes as the melees lasted longer than I antcipated. And the AI is devilishly good at launching flank attacks.

[JorgenCAB]

The Romans usually having the advantage in light troops can generally force the Gauls to charge first which the Romans can use to draw them in and surround them in detail.

I've tried this tactic but didn't have much success, because when I tried to "surround" the Gauls it just violated the integrity of the Roman line and exposed the legions to flank attacks by the Gaullic hordes as the melees lasted longer than I antcipated. And the AI is devilishly good at launching flank attacks.

Well, the Gallic warband pushes Roman units throw the lines, that is when they are flanked. This seem to happen rather frequently for me. After this I usually leave my disordered or fragmented legionaries to rally behind the line while I plug the hole with my fresh reserves. I usually leave my least experienced legionary as reserves, such as Raw or Slack legionaries depending on what period you play in.
I had a Roman general killed in this way as well recently while attached to a veteran legion unit. He pushed right into the Gallic line and where destroyed by peasant mobs charging his flanks... fitting end for him. Never attack unless you are prepared to deal with pushing into the enemy line. Look at what reserves are behind their lines first. Perhaps just me playing Hotseat and having a competent general on both sides... ME!!

[JaM2013]

I just finished few campaigns against Gauls and Germanic tribes and in my experience, Gallic AI always tries to overwhelm you on one flank, yet center is usually weaker. Best thing you can do is to refuse the flank they try to overwhelm, keep some reserves there, and most importantly - NEVER CHARGE on that flank. your goal there is to hold them off, so they cannot move to the center and other flank, where your line will try to destroy their line in the direct charge. I usually also deployed my skirmishers (velites) in front of that line, to weaken up gallic units a bit. Gauls usually have strong cavalry, anyway if you can have at least two heavy cavalry units, and few light cavalry, its possible to hold them off for duration of battle, especially if you accompany your cavalry with some slingers or archers.

and once their center and other flank is beaten and running, i tried to move my cohorts in support of my defending flank. At that point, i just need to get just few more units routed, which usually happens shortly afterwards..

Reading terrain is very important btw. AI tends to place open order warbands facing hard terrain, so its important to not fight them in it.. Hard terrain is good way how to limit the enemy approach routes and shortening their battle line.