Principate Roman vs. Early German (again)

[Niceas]

Domitian needs his triumph, baby!

About 800 points, the Germans 'invading' (won the initiative) and they picked agricultural as the terrain mix.

The way the terrain fell out, the only pieces that actually had an effect on the battle were 2 open fields, one in the Roman left rear, and one in German left zone.

Romans:
4 TC's
7 BG's of 4 Legionnaires; HF, armored, superior, drilled, impact foot, skilled swordsmen
2 BG's of 4 auxilia, MF, armored, average, drilled, light spear, swordsmen
2 BG's of 4 auxilia bows, MF, protected, average, drilled, bow
1 BG of 4 equites, CV, armored, superior, drilled, light spear, swordsmen
1 BG of 4 equites, CV, armored, average, drilled, light spear, swordsmen

Germans
1 IC
3 TC's (one allied)
5 BG's of 10 warband, HF, protected, average, undrilled, impactfoot, swordsmen
1 BG of 8 warband, MF, protected, average, undrilled, impact foot, swordsmen
2 BG's of 4 cavalry, CV, protected, superior, undrilled, light spear, swordsmen
1 BG of 8 javelineers, LF, unprotected, average, undrilled, javelins, light spear
2 BG's of 8 archers, LF, unprotected, average, undrilled, bow
1 BG of 4 light cavalry, LH, unprotected, average, undrilled, javelins, light spear

The Romans deployed pretty much with their camp in the center, with the Legions in front, 4 up, 3 supporting, with the auxilia evenly distributed on either flank. one group of auxilia bows in the open field on the Roman left flank.

The Germans set up with warband in their center, their left one BG of cavalry, and the rest of the cavalry and MF and lights on their right.

The Germans tried a large turning movement by their right that was countered by the Roman left, The archers seeing off the light cavalry, and the Roman cavalry and auxilia stopping the MF, along with two BG's of legionnaires that were pulled off the center to deal with the German cavalry. And another warband that had wandered into the fight.

The rest of the Roman center took on the German center, dusted off some archer skirmishers and beat the warbands decisively.

The Roman right wing cavalry chased, charged and caught the left wing German cavalry and broke them by casualties after a couple of turns of combat. General Maximus doing a repeat of his "Gladiator" movie charge, and the accompanying auxilia planting themselves in the open field, in the hopes of dissuading the HF Germans from coming in after them. (sort of worked)

Two German generals got spitted on pila or gladii to add insult to injury. I think there was a single base of Roman casualties when we called it. (vs this pile of Germans). I think pretty much the entire front line of the Germans died.

Definitely one of those "248 Romans killed, and about 8,000 Germans killed" sort of fights.

The superior skilled swordsmen legionnaires were dead hard and stompy tonight, and the 4 generals helped out pushing up the quality rerolls in combat. As the Romans, I did not miss my usual light troops.

[stecal]

Do I need to hack the forum again to erase this debacle from my record?

I didn't ever think I would see 2 generals die in a single game...

[Niceas]

Do I need to hack the forum again to erase this debacle from my record?

I didn't ever think I would see 2 generals die in a single game...

Don't lead from the front next time.

[madmike111]

Definitely one of those "248 Romans killed, and about 8,000 Germans killed" sort of fights.

Every game I have ever played of Roman vs foot barbarian (impact foot/swordsman) has ended like this. The roman armour and skilled swordsmen win out everytime. Doesn't matter which side I play.

Romans are like mechanical wood chippers in these games.

[Niceas]

Definitely one of those "248 Romans killed, and about 8,000 Germans killed" sort of fights.

Every game I have ever played of Roman vs foot barbarian (impact foot/swordsman) has ended like this. The roman armour and skilled swordsmen win out everytime. Doesn't matter which side I play.

Romans are like mechanical wood chippers in these games.

Pretty much. I have lost before against these same Germans, But that was actually getting auto-broken through casualties.

[Scrumpy]

I have tried to take on the Romans with Galatian superior foot. Same result, except you pay 9 pts per dead base instead of 7.

The trouble with the Romans is they move so quickly in comparison to a Barbarian opponent, and any attempt to outflank them is quickly negated by a simple turn from a 4 strong legion bg.

Given the Romans got hammered in some battles, there must be a way to take them down a peg or two ?

[hammy]

Do I need to hack the forum again to erase this debacle from my record?

I didn't ever think I would see 2 generals die in a single game...

I believe that Mr Briggs actually managed to lose ALL his comanders in on game

[ars_belli]

Given the Romans got hammered in some battles, there must be a way to take them down a peg or two ?

Do it the historical way... pretend to ally with the Roman general, and then ambush his legions when they are marching through a forest.

Cheers,
Scott

[stecal]

I keep beating my head against the Romans thinking that there must be some way to win with German warbands, but after so many defeats I am coming to the conclusion that the points for superior troops are undercosted/overused. 2 Av Impact HF @ 7 are just not equal to a single 14 pt Superior Legionary

[Niceas]

I have tried to take on the Romans with Galatian superior foot. Same result, except you pay 9 pts per dead base instead of 7.

The trouble with the Romans is they move so quickly in comparison to a Barbarian opponent, and any attempt to outflank them is quickly negated by a simple turn from a 4 strong legion bg.

Given the Romans got hammered in some battles, there must be a way to take them down a peg or two ?

The maneuverability of the 4 stand Roman units is definitly something, I'll admit. The references I've seen elsewhere to the Dominate Roman army with the 19 BG's of armored medium foot now begins to make sense.

As I said, I have lost against the these same Germans, but that was where the Germans killed enough legionnaires. I seem to recall failing a lot of death rolls that game.

I'm inclined to think that as time went on, and the quality of the legionnaires went down (or the quality of the Germans went up)--The Germans have an easier time of it.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many fights where the Romans didn't wipe the floor with the Barbarians before the 240's. From Augustus forward--you got the Varian disaster, but that wasn't a stand up fight. The subsequent expeditions beat the Germans whenever they fought. There's the IX getting mauled in Britian during Boudicca's revolt--but again that seems to be another ambush. And Paullinus certainly won his battle in a big way ending that. Agricola beat the Picts. One of Domitian's governors got beat by the Dacians, but we don't know happened, other than Cornelius Fuscus got himself killed in the process. But then Trajan went and conquered them. I can't remember any disasters in the 2nd century, and it isn't until the 240's that things seem to really start going wrong.

[grahambriggs]

Do I need to hack the forum again to erase this debacle from my record?

I didn't ever think I would see 2 generals die in a single game...

I believe that Mr Briggs actually managed to lose ALL his comanders in on game

Indeed I did, all four went down by about two hours in (11, 11, 12, 12). You'd think armoured hoplites and Immortals would be a good place to put them

Strangely, the army kept fightin, and even killed a couple of BGs. Mind you, with all the hoplites running it was just cussedness keeping the army together

[hammy]

I have tried to take on the Romans with Galatian superior foot. Same result, except you pay 9 pts per dead base instead of 7.

The trouble with the Romans is they move so quickly in comparison to a Barbarian opponent, and any attempt to outflank them is quickly negated by a simple turn from a 4 strong legion bg.

Given the Romans got hammered in some battles, there must be a way to take them down a peg or two ?

During the development phase there were similar concerns so Simon and Terry had a grudge match game with Terry fielding Roman legions of doom and Simon fielding the AB hordes. There is a write up somewhere on the forum (it will be about two years ago if not more) but the long and short of it is that the plucky Britons won the game without losing a single AP.

[stecal]

Anc. Britons, or even Gauls, are not a fair comparison to any of the German lists in Legions Triumphant since they can get superior and even elite HF. The German lists all get squat, and since the drilled Romans pay the same 35 pts per TC he can match me General for General in combat.

I think the real problem is the -2 DRM on death checks for the melee victor. The warbands will do 2-3 hits vs the Roman 4-5 on average. this means the Germans are losing a base per turn and eventually evaporate due to casualties while the Romans usually survive combat intact. There is no way to cause the fatigue and attrition on the Legions that should be happening. When the 2nd line of warband units hits they have the same fate vs the fresh Legions.

[Niceas]

I have tried to take on the Romans with Galatian superior foot. Same result, except you pay 9 pts per dead base instead of 7.

The trouble with the Romans is they move so quickly in comparison to a Barbarian opponent, and any attempt to outflank them is quickly negated by a simple turn from a 4 strong legion bg.

Given the Romans got hammered in some battles, there must be a way to take them down a peg or two ?

During the development phase there were similar concerns so Simon and Terry had a grudge match game with Terry fielding Roman legions of doom and Simon fielding the AB hordes. There is a write up somewhere on the forum (it will be about two years ago if not more) but the long and short of it is that the plucky Britons won the game without losing a single AP.

I'm sure my opponent Steve will pointedly point out that the AB's get superior (and I think elite?) infantry choices, where as the Early Germans are a bunch averagey average guys who are as average as anybody who was ever average. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Still, I'm thinking that the Germans need to figure out how to hold the Roman center while munching a Roman flank(s). Because its increasingly clear to me that the strength of the Romans here is their legionnaires, whcih the Germans don't really want to have a stand up fight with.

(oh, and all of this is in 25mm, which we are thinking is almost a different game from 15mm)

[Niceas]

Anc. Britons, or even Gauls, are not a fair comparison to any of the German lists in Legions Triumphant since they can get superior and even elite HF. The German lists all get squat, and since the drilled Romans pay the same 35 pts per TC he can match me General for General in combat.

Ah, I see he did already.

[stecal]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many fights where the Romans didn't wipe the floor with the Barbarians before the 240's. From Augustus forward--you got the Varian disaster, but that wasn't a stand up fight. The subsequent expeditions beat the Germans whenever they fought. There's the IX getting mauled in Britian during Boudicca's revolt--but again that seems to be another ambush. And Paullinus certainly won his battle in a big way ending that. Agricola beat the Picts. One of Domitian's governors got beat by the Dacians, but we don't know happened, other than Cornelius Fuscus got himself killed in the process. But then Trajan went and conquered them. I can't remember any disasters in the 2nd century, and it isn't until the 240's that things seem to really start going wrong.

Thats a nice history lesson, but what does that have to do with a points based tournament game? Depending on player skill (and I make no claims here) wins/losses should be 50-50% in a balanced system.

[grahambriggs]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many fights where the Romans didn't wipe the floor with the Barbarians before the 240's. From Augustus forward--you got the Varian disaster, but that wasn't a stand up fight. The subsequent expeditions beat the Germans whenever they fought. There's the IX getting mauled in Britian during Boudicca's revolt--but again that seems to be another ambush. And Paullinus certainly won his battle in a big way ending that. Agricola beat the Picts. One of Domitian's governors got beat by the Dacians, but we don't know happened, other than Cornelius Fuscus got himself killed in the process. But then Trajan went and conquered them. I can't remember any disasters in the 2nd century, and it isn't until the 240's that things seem to really start going wrong.

Thats a nice history lesson, but what does that have to do with a points based tournament game? Depending on player skill (and I make no claims here) wins/losses should be 50-50% in a balanced system.

Surely 50-50 against a range of opponents. The German army described would I suspect do better than the Roman against a medieval knightly army? Similar POAs but much bigger.

[stenic]

Thats a nice history lesson, but what does that have to do with a points based tournament game? Depending on player skill (and I make no claims here) wins/losses should be 50-50% in a balanced system.

So your complaint is that the rules reflect history too well and that's not fair in a tournament?

Steve P

[hammy]

Anc. Britons, or even Gauls, are not a fair comparison to any of the German lists in Legions Triumphant since they can get superior and even elite HF. The German lists all get squat, and since the drilled Romans pay the same 35 pts per TC he can match me General for General in combat.

I think the real problem is the -2 DRM on death checks for the melee victor. The warbands will do 2-3 hits vs the Roman 4-5 on average. this means the Germans are losing a base per turn and eventually evaporate due to casualties while the Romans usually survive combat intact. There is no way to cause the fatigue and attrition on the Legions that should be happening. When the 2nd line of warband units hits they have the same fate vs the fresh Legions.

I am fairly sure that Si didn't use the HF, just big BGs of MF with generals to keep the Romans attention while he pushed hard at the flanks. If the Romans ignore the AB centre it can still fight fairly well, if they go all out to kill it then they commit a lot of rescources to do so.

[grahambriggs]

Anc. Britons, or even Gauls, are not a fair comparison to any of the German lists in Legions Triumphant since they can get superior and even elite HF. The German lists all get squat, and since the drilled Romans pay the same 35 pts per TC he can match me General for General in combat.

I think the real problem is the -2 DRM on death checks for the melee victor. The warbands will do 2-3 hits vs the Roman 4-5 on average. this means the Germans are losing a base per turn and eventually evaporate due to casualties while the Romans usually survive combat intact. There is no way to cause the fatigue and attrition on the Legions that should be happening. When the 2nd line of warband units hits they have the same fate vs the fresh Legions.

I am fairly sure that Si didn't use the HF, just big BGs of MF with generals to keep the Romans attention while he pushed hard at the flanks. If the Romans ignore the AB centre it can still fight fairly well, if they go all out to kill it then they commit a lot of rescources to do so.

As I recall his explanation it was BGs of 12 (I think), generals and rear support for each to survive the cohesion tests. I suspect also a bit of 'hold back the centre and work the flanks' went on, since the hairies would have numbers on their side.

It strikes me that this is an interesting reversal of DBM - where the complaint was that the legions were overpriced. In that system what happened was that in games between newish players the Romans tended to lose but with experts they tended to win (but it was still chancy). I would imagine that the Germans are a lot less forgiving than the Romans being undrilled.