Resilient Gauls?

[carll11]

Yes, they are 'hecka' resilient.....the melees imho last 2-3 rd.s to long.

I assume some of us there have done reading, Livy, Polybius, Plutcarch, Caesar, Vegetius et al....

The Gauls 'strength' was in numbers of their individual units/armies, the charge and overwhelming brutality...

The Romans strength of of course is discipline, protection and close order drill etc...

But the drill superiority is not reflected once they engage.

Example- when a Roman unit is set upon by 2 units, ( or not) and gets below say 80% strg. ( or the stacking capacity for their hex allows ) why not allow another cohort to join, that is- march into the roman unit from the back angles, and either 'reinforce' the unit or allow the other tired/depleted unit to withdraw....this is perfectly and almost exactly what occurred when roman units were locked into slugfests with germans, gauls et al as reinforcements etc...

[MaxDamage]

erm arent roman units superior or above average already?

[JaM2013]

yeah, i kinda miss the option to withdraw from melee somehow.. i think this should be allowed to disciplined units as typically battles were not continuous, but multiple luls were happening with both sides trying to reform before another contact.. whole idea of replacing units is based on this hypothesis, which makes sense considering how long these battles were, and how short is the expedience of soldier engaged in melee (mere minutes)

I could imagine it working same way as move backwards, so it would require cohesion test to do it, otherwise unit would rout.. player would have to have other units nearby to fix enemy from pursuing..

(something devs could think about?)

[lapdog666]

yeah, i kinda miss the option to withdraw from melee somehow.. i think this should be allowed to disciplined units as typically battles were not continuous, but multiple luls were happening with both sides trying to reform before another contact.. whole idea of replacing units is based on this hypothesis, which makes sense considering how long these battles were, and how short is the expedience of soldier engaged in melee (mere minutes)

I could imagine it working same way as move backwards, so it would require cohesion test to do it, otherwise unit would rout.. player would have to have other units nearby to fix enemy from pursuing..

(something devs could think about?)

this sounds interesting

[JorgenCAB]

I don't think this would be realistic at all... a round is a rather sketchy time concept to begin with and a melee are not directly reflecting a continuous fight either. There are certainly enough space in two tiles to account for the temporary retirement of two fighting formation. I even thing most pushing around of forces in this game are seriously overestimated in space units are pushed, but it is just a game not a complete simulator.

Once units are locked in melee it would be rather unrealistic for them to break of with any regularity.

The game are simply not that detailed and it is a rather top down kind of abstraction to warfare.

[GiveWarAchance]

I don't think this would be realistic at all... a round is a rather sketchy time concept to begin with and a melee are not directly reflecting a continuous fight either. There are certainly enough space in two tiles to account for the temporary retirement of two fighting formation. I even thing most pushing around of forces in this game are seriously overestimated in space units are pushed, but it is just a game not a complete simulator.

Once units are locked in melee it would be rather unrealistic for them to break of with any regularity.

The game are simply not that detailed and it is a rather top down kind of abstraction to warfare.

Have you played the game? You cannot break out of melee and you cannot move around at will cause of ZOCs.
Most probably it is the most realistic game about that era.

[JaM2013]

im not talking about getting away on short distance, abut about ability to disengage from fight, with another unit taking your place. If you have three units side by side fighting same enemy, then middle one could disengage while other two are still in melee with the enemy. Of course, it should require cohesion check to do so, anyway this is how Romans managed to take some units from direct fight and replace them with cohorts from second or third line - after all, standard fighting formation for Legion was 4 cohorts in first line, 3 in second and another 3 in third - this means whole 60% of force was in reserve supporting those 4 cohorts that are in combat.. it kinda makes no sense to do it only if cohort gets completely routed...

[carll11]

I don't think this would be realistic at all... a round is a rather sketchy time concept to begin with and a melee are not directly reflecting a continuous fight either. There are certainly enough space in two tiles to account for the temporary retirement of two fighting formation. I even thing most pushing around of forces in this game are seriously overestimated in space units are pushed, but it is just a game not a complete simulator.

Once units are locked in melee it would be rather unrealistic for them to break of with any regularity.

The game are simply not that detailed and it is a rather top down kind of abstraction to warfare.

'Realistic' game wise? Who cares? It most certainly can be done.....and it is MOST certainly realistic historically. The games doesnt appear to allow units that have just once meleed to slip out of CC ( close combat) status and march backwards, so your comment re; 2 tiles retirement etc. makes little difference to the argument

[carll11]

im not talking about getting away on short distance, abut about ability to disengage from fight, with another unit taking your place. If you have three units side by side fighting same enemy, then middle one could disengage while other two are still in melee with the enemy. Of course, it should require cohesion check to do so, anyway this is how Romans managed to take some units from direct fight and replace them with cohorts from second or third line - after all, standard fighting formation for Legion was 4 cohorts in first line, 3 in second and another 3 in third - this means whole 60% of force was in reserve supporting those 4 cohorts that are in combat.. it kinda makes no sense to do it only if cohort gets completely routed...

+1


When the Marian reforms were enacted the manipular legion amalgamated into the Cohort legion, the 3 line quincux remained, for exactly the reason you referred, fill/plug gaps reinforce the front line etc.....

[JorgenCAB]

I don't think this would be realistic at all... a round is a rather sketchy time concept to begin with and a melee are not directly reflecting a continuous fight either. There are certainly enough space in two tiles to account for the temporary retirement of two fighting formation. I even thing most pushing around of forces in this game are seriously overestimated in space units are pushed, but it is just a game not a complete simulator.

Once units are locked in melee it would be rather unrealistic for them to break of with any regularity.

The game are simply not that detailed and it is a rather top down kind of abstraction to warfare.

'Realistic' game wise? Who cares? It most certainly can be done.....and it is MOST certainly realistic historically. The games doesnt appear to allow units that have just once meleed to slip out of CC ( close combat) status and march backwards, so your comment re; 2 tiles retirement etc. makes little difference to the argument

Nope... it is not very historically accurate for two engaged infantry units to disengage on orders from a general. Something like that would be so rare it would be very unrealistic to represent in a game of this scale. Just because it have happened in rare cases does not mean you can add it to a game like this. Units are pretty huge and these units cant just go in and out of combat on a whim, discipline or not, especially not on player command. Disengagement need to be more of a random thing which happens from time to time like it currently do in the game.

The kind of control you are after would be an extremely gamey tactic a general of the time would envy you for.

The Roman way of rotating troops would be intrinsic to the units represented in game and are part of the quality trait.

[rbodleyscott]

The Roman way of rotating troops would be intrinsic to the units represented in game and are part of the quality trait.

This.

[olin0111]

I didn't want to start a new topic so I thought I ask here, as it is Resilient Gauls related. How on earth can I stop them if I have only medium infantry (Thracians, tureophoroi) and not much of a rough ground to fight on? I know, flanking. But my units are breaking before I can even get a proper flank attack :/

[76mm]

I didn't want to start a new topic so I thought I ask here, as it is Resilient Gauls related. How on earth can I stop them if I have only medium infantry (Thracians, tureophoroi) and not much of a rough ground to fight on? I know, flanking. But my units are breaking before I can even get a proper flank attack :/

Yeah, good luck with that. It is hard enough to stop them with legions.

[Jagger2002]

I suspect some of these armies, you have to play in their native terrain. Instead of playing agriculture, try hills or forest or mountain terrain. Suddenly, that wimpy army can put up quite a fight against the Romans. Just starting playing the Spanish army and they have a real tough time vs the romans in open terrain but put them in some hilly terrain and suddenly the Romans have a real fight on their hands.

[JaM2013]

Personally, i think Gauls are way too much armored, considering they usually only carried a shield, and only few of them even had helmets.. only nobles had mail, and those would usually be with cavalry... While Greeks at the other side - Hoplites had strong and wide shield and helmets, and some form of body armor (Linen or metalic), they should have armor advantage at least..

i think whats missing here is a bit more granular armor rating.. size of shield, helmet, body armor.. it all could be just a bit more detailed and representative.. unit with just shield, should have lower rating than unit with shield and helmet.. maybe instead of 0/50/100/200/300 values, it would be better to accommodate 0/25/50/75/100/125/150/200/300 scale.. where only units without any sort of protection would have armor 0, those with light shield would get 25, medium shield would give 50, shield and helmet 75. body armor +shield + helmet 100 etc etc... so in this model, Hoplites would have armor 100, vs Gallic infantry with armor 50.. it would not change the charge outcome, but would give Hoplites a bit better chances later on...

[JorgenCAB]

Personally, i think Gauls are way too much armored, considering they usually only carried a shield, and only few of them even had helmets.. only nobles had mail, and those would usually be with cavalry... While Greeks at the other side - Hoplites had strong and wide shield and helmets, and some form of body armor (Linen or metalic), they should have armor advantage at least..

i think whats missing here is a bit more granular armor rating.. size of shield, helmet, body armor.. it all could be just a bit more detailed and representative.. unit with just shield, should have lower rating than unit with shield and helmet.. maybe instead of 0/50/100/200/300 values, it would be better to accommodate 0/25/50/75/100/125/150/200/300 scale.. where only units without any sort of protection would have armor 0, those with light shield would get 25, medium shield would give 50, shield and helmet 75. body armor +shield + helmet 100 etc etc... so in this model, Hoplites would have armor 100, vs Gallic infantry with armor 50.. it would not change the charge outcome, but would give Hoplites a bit better chances later on...

Seems reasonable. I would be against it on a tabletop game because it become too much to track but in a computer game it really does not matter much.

You could be like Protected with a + or minus sign...

So..

0 - Unprotected
25 - Protected- (Roman Velites)
50 - Protected (Gallic warbands)
75 - Protected+ (Gallic superior warbands)
100 - Armoured- (Greek Hoplites)
150 - Armoured (Roman Infantry)
175- Armoured+
200- Heavily Armoured- (Medieval knights)
250- Heavily Armoured (Cataphracts)
300 - Heavily Armoured+ (Fully plated knights on protected horses)

Or some such...

[Cumandante]

i think whats missing here is a bit more granular armor rating..

This is already in the game. So far I've seen:

Unprotected
Lightly Protected (Scots-Irish Foot)
Protected
Some Armour (Imitation Legionaries)
Armoured
Fully Armoured

The problem, as I see it, is that 'Lightly Protected' and 'Some Armour' are not used as often as they could. For example, Veteran Hoplites and Veteran Pike Phalanx could get 'Some Armour'.

[JaM2013]

actually, both Hoplites, phalangites, thureophoroi and all kinds of gallic warbands have armor value 50. yet while Hoplites used large 90cm aspis, metal helmet and some sort of linen armor, gallic warbands typically had just shields, with some of also having helmets. Romans describe their shields to be smaller than Roman, they specifically mention that Parma shield used by Velites gave better protection than gallic shields used by Gaesatae.. so over protection level of Hoplites should be higher than that of ordinary gallic warband. armor wise, they should be on the same level as Roman legionaries (who also didnt always wear mail, but plethora of various metalic and linen armors)...

[carll11]

The Roman way of rotating troops would be intrinsic to the units represented in game and are part of the quality trait.

This.

I want to be clear on what that signifies; is it that you have already built it into the game as part of the 'quality trait'? There fore you see this as superfluous? ( withdrawing the unit)

If so, may I ask that you consider allowing the movement of maniples/cohorts into depleted roman units from the rear vectors? Since there are no singular Unit designations, there wont be a unit ids etc. to consider,but level is a consideration, perhaps; if the unit is a higher level it drops to the level of the unit its reinforces and/or amalgamating with...

[carll11]

I don't think this would be realistic at all... a round is a rather sketchy time concept to begin with and a melee are not directly reflecting a continuous fight either. There are certainly enough space in two tiles to account for the temporary retirement of two fighting formation. I even thing most pushing around of forces in this game are seriously overestimated in space units are pushed, but it is just a game not a complete simulator.

Once units are locked in melee it would be rather unrealistic for them to break of with any regularity.

The game are simply not that detailed and it is a rather top down kind of abstraction to warfare.

'Realistic' game wise? Who cares? It most certainly can be done.....and it is MOST certainly realistic historically. The games doesnt appear to allow units that have just once meleed to slip out of CC ( close combat) status and march backwards, so your comment re; 2 tiles retirement etc. makes little difference to the argument

Nope... it is not very historically accurate for two engaged infantry units to disengage on orders from a general. Something like that would be so rare it would be very unrealistic to represent in a game of this scale. Just because it have happened in rare cases does not mean you can add it to a game like this. Units are pretty huge and these units cant just go in and out of combat on a whim, discipline or not, especially not on player command. Disengagement need to be more of a random thing which happens from time to time like it currently do in the game.

The kind of control you are after would be an extremely gamey tactic a general of the time would envy you for.

The Roman way of rotating troops would be intrinsic to the units represented in game and are part of the quality trait.

" it is not very historically accurate for two engaged infantry units to disengage on orders from a general. Something like that would be so rare it would be very unrealistic to represent in a game of this scale."

Thats not the way it works anyway and yes they were fully capable of performing this function, I dont see it as gamey at all Jorgen and we are using a unit scale of maniples and cohorts...which where their basic battle tactical units....*shrugs* .
And the General wouldn't do it, Caesar does though speak directly to his leading a cohort into the front to reinforce a buckling line .....anyway,he sends the order to a legatus or trib. whomever, who carries it to the second line or reserve unit down the chain of command, the centurions would march them into the unit they are to relieve/reinforce just as they call the order for ranks to move up or back to relieve front line legionnaires engaged in close order combat, ( and of course its not always and shouldn't be automatic that they would replenish/replace without issues)

I never in my life thought I'd use that silly HBO Rome show as an example, but in the very first episode, were they introduce the 2 characters that we follow thorough out the series , Pullio(sp?) and Vorenus(sp?) a Veteran legionnaire and Primus Pilus engaged in close order, is actually pretty darn accurate. Watch the rotation of the troops front to rear...