Principate Roman vs. Early German (again)

[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.

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.

Oh yes. If the Germans are in any sort of line, they can be wrong footed, and if they lose a warband in line, the resulting hole cannot be reacted to quickly enough. Or so it seems so far. I suspect that BG's of 12, 3 or 4 ranks deep may be the answer, but then the German would have the problem of flanks.

[stecal]

Average BG of 10 & 12 have the same break point of 5. 12 strong is just paying for an extra 14 points that run away before they ever get to fight

fighting 3 or 4 stands deep just feels too napoleonic. German attack columns vs the thin red line of Romans....

[timmy1]

Stephen, I think that if the numbers and frontages of some Celtic/Germanic forces are correct in the Roman sources, they would have had to be in deep formations. I think the trick is to have rear support, so have BGs of 10 in front (2 or 4 deep, yes I do mean that) supported by BGs of 12 (2 ranks deep) across the join of 2 of the front rank BGs (that way if a small gap develops between the front line BGs you can still provide rear support to both). The supporting BG can take 1 more hit before it suffers the -1 for 2HPB at the moment when it is impacted without rear support (and that really matters). If you get the gaps just right and have the TC in the right place, the 2nd line and TC enables the first line to hold out long enough that you hit the non-legion stuff elsewhere before you collapse to the legion. Even if you lose the melee, one or both the front line BG can rally behind the larger 2nd line BG (and the Romans will be going some to get 6 hits against the 2nd line BG). If the legions are in BGs of 4, eventually you can trade enough space / time in the middle to win on the flanks. Having said that I still fancy the Principiate Romans but I can see how thyey can lose on the flanks before winning in the middle, if the Germanic player avoids the stand up fight. (The exact opposite of DBM, as per the earlier comment in this thread.) However, as I am noted for going toe-to-toe in the open with Romans against hairy's (2 or 4 legged) in DBM, I am probably the last person to advise a German player on how to be Punic rather than Gallic.

[Niceas]

Average BG of 10 & 12 have the same break point of 5. 12 strong is just paying for an extra 14 points that run away before they ever get to fight

fighting 3 or 4 stands deep just feels too napoleonic. German attack columns vs the thin red line of Romans....

And yet, the impression I've always had from Tacitus and others was that the Germans fought in fairly deep formations. Deeper than the Romans.

Now, I've thought about more BG's of 8 stands, so that you can support your front line easier, and sure, leave them in a 2x4 column. Sounds a bit like the "boar's head" to me.

[hazelbark]

This is about the only area that i think the point system may be off. It feels right until you have 800 points of foot barbarians.

And as others have said head-to-head the romans seem quite strong.

That said, I am looking forward to trying my hordes of barbarians in club games. I "think" the answer is a flanking move with the barbarian mounted and some foot and waiting for that to force teh romans to deploy a few Legions to deal with them so you can either turn the flank or get more numbers head on.

[philqw78]

Use a barbarian army with large, 8 base, LF BG, ABs or Picts. This will allow you to force the Romans to disrupt their line and then let you fight them with overlaps, but still at -- if AB or - if Picts disrupted . IF and OS in 10's if you can afford them is better than 8's. Unfortunately the people that wrote the lists thought about lots, huge amounts, of 3 deep 6's being too good.

[stenic]

Average BG of 10 & 12 have the same break point of 5. 12 strong is just paying for an extra 14 points that run away before they ever get to fight

fighting 3 or 4 stands deep just feels too napoleonic. German attack columns vs the thin red line of Romans....

And yet, the impression I've always had from Tacitus and others was that the Germans fought in fairly deep formations. Deeper than the Romans.

Now, I've thought about more BG's of 8 stands, so that you can support your front line easier, and sure, leave them in a 2x4 column. Sounds a bit like the "boar's head" to me.

We've had similar discussions regarding Ancient British and also came to the conclusion of having 8base BGs in a 2by4 column to try and dilute the hits/base. Have similar columns behind but half the no of BGs and straddle them across the forward BGs (to get the at least half supporting). This should leave routing room... not that it'll be needed of course

The other advantage of going deep is that it allows more room for the Lt Chariots to roam around the field of play.

Steve P

[Scrumpy]

How good are light chariots v Romans ?

I know they get 2 dice per base, but they are at - poa v most heavy foot.

[stenic]

How good are light chariots v Romans ?

I know they get 2 dice per base, but they are at - poa v most heavy foot.

Face to face yes but you want to be taking on the Roman cavalry and LH with the Lt Chariots, not the infantry unless you can get flanks. Evens on impact but then 8 dice vs 4 in melee. Win that fight before fighting the MF warbands against the Legionaries... what could possibly go wrong...?

Steve P

[daleivan]

Average BG of 10 & 12 have the same break point of 5. 12 strong is just paying for an extra 14 points that run away before they ever get to fight

fighting 3 or 4 stands deep just feels too napoleonic. German attack columns vs the thin red line of Romans....

And yet, the impression I've always had from Tacitus and others was that the Germans fought in fairly deep formations. Deeper than the Romans.

Now, I've thought about more BG's of 8 stands, so that you can support your front line easier, and sure, leave them in a 2x4 column. Sounds a bit like the "boar's head" to me.

An interesting idea--sort of like a phalanx without the pikes

At 800 points the Early Germans could field ten or even a dozen such 8 base BGs, giving a line of "boars head" BGs a frontage of 20 - 24 bases.

Dale

[jcmedhurst]

I was also looking at the Early German list and comparing it with memories of long ago 6th/7th when the Germans were nasty because of all their Irr A types. Seem to remember Irr A cavalry and the front ranks being all Irr A being usual. And a LTS option as well. All of that seems to have disappeared - doubtless due to eminent historical research, but it does seem to hit the effectiveness a bit. Particularly when the Germans are what really frightened the Romans, not too bright mind you, but lots of them and all 6' plus (1.8m these days I suppose) on a diet of raw meat and beer. And lets not forget that this was the bit the Romans never managed to conquer.

[Draka]

I think the key here is "lots of them" - historically the Romans would have LOVED getting an even break in the vast majority of their battles - it always seems that it is a small, disciplined army versus hordes of barbarians. In a even points wargame, I would EXPECT the Romans to be very tough - if you want to really try out the rules give the Romans 1000 pts and the opposing Germans 2000 or more - then see if the points base is really off or not.

[ars_belli]

Even in an 'equal points' scenario, the Early Germans should get roughly twice as many HF bases as the Romans.

Cheers,
Scott

[daleivan]

Even in an 'equal points' scenario, the Early Germans should get roughly twice as many HF bases as the Romans.

Cheers,
Scott

Scott is spot on. The Germans will have twice as many bases to the Principate Roman.

Unless of course the Roman legionaries are downgraded to average, but that means giving up both superior with all that conveys and being skilled sword. If I were a German, I'd take that match up in a heartbeat. As it stands, the EG will have numbers on their side, and the ability to field MF impact as allies along with HF (or vice versa).

Dale

[LambertSimnel]

It seems to me that if for some perverse reasonyou wanted to design an army to have difficulties coping with Roman legionaries at equal APs then the first thing you would do would be to ensure that it had as many Protected Swordsmen as possible as it means that you are paying 2AP per base for capabilities that are of zero use against legionaries. It would hardlybe surprising if LRR & Principate armies are a bad match up for Early German armies.

[daleivan]

It seems to me that if for some perverse reasonyou wanted to design an army to have difficulties coping with Roman legionaries at equal APs then the first thing you would do would be to ensure that it had as many Protected Swordsmen as possible as it means that you are paying 2AP per base for capabilities that are of zero use against legionaries. It would hardlybe surprising if LRR & Principate armies are a bad match up for Early German armies.

It may not be a big deal against certain Principate (or LRR) armies but one advantage that the Early German foot being protected does is not give enemy bow, sling or javelin troops a POA in shooting. Being unprotected HF or MF against bow, sling or javelin is not fun

And against any LRR cavalry which are protected the EG foot don't give a POA like they would if unprotected.

A small thing in some cases, but maybe not so small in others

Dale

[LambertSimnel]

It seems to me that if for some perverse reasonyou wanted to design an army to have difficulties coping with Roman legionaries at equal APs then the first thing you would do would be to ensure that it had as many Protected Swordsmen as possible as it means that you are paying 2AP per base for capabilities that are of zero use against legionaries. It would hardlybe surprising if LRR & Principate armies are a bad match up for Early German armies.

It may not be a big deal against certain Principate (or LRR) armies but one advantage that the Early German foot being protected does is not give enemy bow, sling or javelin troops a POA in shooting. Being unprotected HF or MF against bow, sling or javelin is not fun

And against any LRR cavalry which are protected the EG foot don't give a POA like they would if unprotected.

A small thing in some cases, but maybe not so small in others

Dale

True, but still being Protected Swordsmen is only a marginal advantage against LRR. Whereas, there are other opponents against which being Protected Swordsmen is much more useful.

[rbodleyscott]

No troops are going to be points-cost-effective against their worst match-up. The points system is primarily intended for tournament games not historical refights. For tournament purposes the overall balance against a variety of opponents is what matters - though probably weighted somewhat towards "in-theme" opponents.

If playing a historical matchup between Romans and Early Germans, in which you wish to give the Germans an (unhistorically) equal chance of winning, it may be necessary to allow them a few extra points. (Of course, the trick will be judging how many to give them so as not to tip the balance the other way).

[Niceas]

No troops are going to be points-cost-effective against their worst match-up. The points system is primarily intended for tournament games not historical refights. For tournament purposes the overall balance against a variety of opponents is what matters - though probably weighted somewhat towards "in-theme" opponents.

If playing a historical matchup between Romans and Early Germans, in which you wish to give the Germans an (unhistorically) equal chance of winning, it may be necessary to allow them a few extra points. (Of course, the trick will be judging how many to give them so as not to tip the balance the other way).

Or just throw better dice.

[daleivan]

No troops are going to be points-cost-effective against their worst match-up. The points system is primarily intended for tournament games not historical refights. For tournament purposes the overall balance against a variety of opponents is what matters - though probably weighted somewhat towards "in-theme" opponents.

If playing a historical matchup between Romans and Early Germans, in which you wish to give the Germans an (unhistorically) equal chance of winning, it may be necessary to allow them a few extra points. (Of course, the trick will be judging how many to give them so as not to tip the balance the other way).

Or just throw better dice.

One should never discount the impact of luck on the game

Dale