Warband vs Mediocre Legionaire

[Blastom1016]

I'm trying to figure out how to win with a warband army against roma.
Currently either a warband or a Mediocre Legionaire bg costs 54 points. But the warband is inferior in every aspect against a legionaire unit - they're unmaneuverable, which as said in the manual, can cause sigificant inconvenience; and their lower armor gives the legionaire +50 PoA in melee.
Plus, they may also be easier to bend. Not sure if they don't receive the +1 cohesion test from being heavy (Close Ordered) or suffer extra for being warband. They got a lot of double cohesion drop in my experience.

The only advantage for the warband over legionaires, I think, is the larger unit size, which helps in soaking arrow fire and preserve fighting capability on model lose. But as they broken so fast, the preserving feature doesn't seem useful in melee. Lots of the warband got routed in nearly full size on frontal combats.

So I think, the only true advantage of them may be they're better against some massive archer or horse archer base army, that has trouble to cause cohesion test on shooting.

Do anything I'm missing something with the warbands?

[mgardner]

Both types of Warband are 4 points more expensive than Mediocre Legionary. Also the armor POA difference between Armoured and Protected is +25, not +50.

Loose order is type Warrior, which means they are the ones that suffer a cohesion penalty vs. Heavy Foot - close order does not. Loose order is NOT disordered by rough terrain, and also the cohesion penalty only applies in open terrain. So the performance of loose order Warband is highly dependent on terrain - if they can attack a Legionaire in rough terrain or goad a Legionaire to attack them while the Warband is in rough terrain, they come out on top.

For close order, I agree their only advantage is manpower. Warbands have +50% more men than Legionaires (three ranks vs. two) but this gives more bonuses than you have listed. They get +10 POA on impact (Deep Impact Foot), and since armoured does not apply to impact phase this puts them at a slight advantage vs. Legionaire. Once melee starts, the Legionaires get their +25 armour POA, and since only the first two ranks are fighting, the manpower advantage of the Warband does not provide any immediate benefit. But as melee continues, IF the warband is not routed, their losses from the front two ranks will be replaced by the third rank which is an advantage the Legionaires do not have. So eventually the additional manpower will show up as a combat strength modifier in favor of the Warband. As you have observed, the hard part is to keep them from routing until their manpower advantage kicks in. To this end, anything you can do to soften up the Legionaire before impact will help - do you have a skirmisher advantage? If the enemy has normal / superior Legionaires, you may have more units and can try to set up 2-vs-1 or flanking situations.

[Blastom1016]

Both types of Warband are 4 points more expensive than Mediocre Legionary. Also the armor POA difference between Armoured and Protected is +25, not +50.

Loose order is type Warrior, which means they are the ones that suffer a cohesion penalty vs. Heavy Foot - close order does not. Loose order is NOT disordered by rough terrain, and also the cohesion penalty only applies in open terrain. So the performance of loose order Warband is highly dependent on terrain - if they can attack a Legionaire in rough terrain or goad a Legionaire to attack them while the Warband is in rough terrain, they come out on top.

For close order, I agree their only advantage is manpower. Warbands have +50% more men than Legionaires (three ranks vs. two) but this gives more bonuses than you have listed. They get +10 POA on impact (Deep Impact Foot), and since armoured does not apply to impact phase this puts them at a slight advantage vs. Legionaire. Once melee starts, the Legionaires get their +25 armour POA, and since only the first two ranks are fighting, the manpower advantage of the Warband does not provide any immediate benefit. But as melee continues, IF the warband is not routed, their losses from the front two ranks will be replaced by the third rank which is an advantage the Legionaires do not have. So eventually the additional manpower will show up as a combat strength modifier in favor of the Warband. As you have observed, the hard part is to keep them from routing until their manpower advantage kicks in. To this end, anything you can do to soften up the Legionaire before impact will help - do you have a skirmisher advantage? If the enemy has normal / superior Legionaires, you may have more units and can try to set up 2-vs-1 or flanking situations.

But the warband are much more likely to get disrupted before the manpower shredded enough to it favor.
Unmaneuverable is quite huge as well.

[mgardner]

I am not arguing that Warband is better than Legionary, just pointing out that the matchup may not be as lopsided as you originally thought. On a pure 1v1 battle, I would put my money on Legionary but you have to work with what your chosen list gives you and maximize your strengths / minimize your weaknesses.

For fun I did some tests of Warband (Close order) vs Mediocre Legionary, to see when the Warband manpower advantage surpasses the Legionary armor advantage in melee. If the Warband can survive three melee rounds without getting disrupted, around the fourth round they will be fighting on equal terms vs the Legionary (their combat strength modifier will be roughly equal to the +25 POA armor bonus). From round 5 onwards, the combat odds will shift in favor of the Warband as their combat strength modifier continues to grow larger than the armor bonus. There’s about a 60% chance the Warband will make it to round four without losing a single battle - and of the battles they lose, not every one will result in a failed cohesion test.

To better your chances of victory, you’ve got to look to the rest of your army. Let’s pretend you are also evenly matched with skirmishers, and before the impact phase both units are depleted 10% (48 losses to Legionaries, 72 losses [edit - not 96 as originally posted] to Warband). The Warband can still field two full ranks, so will start getting a combat strength modifier right away. Now they only have to survive 1-2 rounds without getting disrupted before the melee odds shift in their favor. NOW I would put my money on Warband.

[MVP7]

Directly comparing the cost efficiency of warbands and mediocre legionaries isn't really relevant to winning Romans with warbands as both army types require very different way of thinking. For Romans and some other armies with top tier units of their time it is enough and even effective to get into "fair" linear 1-vs-1 fight in the open as long as your flanks are secure. With army made of mediocre units like warbands you really need to avoid such fair fight as much as you can:

Force the enemy to maneuver around obstacles to disrupt the formation; put your units in positions where it's unfavorable for the enemy to attack them and keep them there; never offer or start a fight that you aren't likely to win unless it is a calculated part of a greater tactic; use your best troops and generals to achieve local superiority in small area of the front while the rest of your army stares the enemy from hills, forest and rough terrain.

If you have loose order warbands those are some of the most powerful units in rough terrain or forests which can be very convenient against the Romans. That being said, Romans lists are pretty good counter to warband heavy infantry armies so it's not going to be easy fight in any case.

[Blastom1016]

I am not arguing that Warband is better than Legionary, just pointing out that the matchup may not be as lopsided as you originally thought. On a pure 1v1 battle, I would put my money on Legionary but you have to work with what your chosen list gives you and maximize your strengths / minimize your weaknesses.

For fun I did some tests of Warband (Close order) vs Mediocre Legionary, to see when the Warband manpower advantage surpasses the Legionary armor advantage in melee. If the Warband can survive three melee rounds without getting disrupted, around the fourth round they will be fighting on equal terms vs the Legionary (their combat strength modifier will be roughly equal to the +25 POA armor bonus). From round 5 onwards, the combat odds will shift in favor of the Warband as their combat strength modifier continues to grow larger than the armor bonus. There’s about a 60% chance the Warband will make it to round four without losing a single battle - and of the battles they lose, not every one will result in a failed cohesion test.

To better your chances of victory, you’ve got to look to the rest of your army. Let’s pretend you are also evenly matched with skirmishers, and before the impact phase both units are depleted 10% (48 losses to Legionaries, 72 losses [edit - not 96 as originally posted] to Warband). The Warband can still field two full ranks, so will start getting a combat strength modifier right away. Now they only have to survive 1-2 rounds without getting disrupted before the melee odds shift in their favor. NOW I would put my money on Warband.

From the experience, they just worked like spearmen? Pretty interesting.
So warbands will be used like impact foots against spear army, while like spears against impact foot army.

[Blastom1016]

I see the advantage on warbands. They’re quite strong against grinding troops, like spearmen or irregular.

[slithpile]

I'm only a single player gamer, and I've only been playing for a few weeks. So my opinions won't be as informed as the experienced multiplayer competitors.

But my experience so far is that Warband type armies feel too expensive for what they do. I've been able to play out my fantasies of Rome v Carthage v Macedonia and all the associated neighboring nations with roughly similar army styles. And all those battle have lived up to my hopes. But every time I play a battle involving Gallic/Germanic/British forces (either as them or against them) I feel like those guys should have more units given their limitations.

I'm getting familiar with the limitations of the AI, so I can still win with them, but Warbands still feel expensive for what they do.

[desicat]

Is the information here still current? I was just trying to figure out the differences between the various types of Warbands myself.

[Schweetness101]

I had a had a thread about a similar topic a little while ago:

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=94433&p=808787&hi ... ds#p808787

At the time I wasn't really seeing the use of warbands so much. Some of the answers here talking about using more indirect tactics, skirmishing, etc...are useful (for example warband armies tend to come with chariots and excellent light spear/swordsmen heavy cav), but don't really answer the question of what warbands specifically are good at. Also, I think you are talking about close order average quality warband. The superior quality warbands don't have near the same issues with morale (but are very expensive), and the loose order ones can of course gain advantage vs mediocre legionaries on rough terrain.

In using them with a Carthaginian army where I get 4 close order warbands, and up to 8 scutarii, and 2 elephants, I have found that they are good as part of a large block of charging impact foot (sending the more maneuverable scutarii around the side or in reserve for follow up charges). Their lack of the +1 to cohesion in open terrain that other heavy foot get can be significantly offset by putting a general in the warband unit, giving them an extremely powerful initial charge of +200 impact foot, +10 deep impact foot, and +50 general. Paired with elephants and scutarii, or whatever other impact foot, all charging in on the same few enemy units on one enemy flank, you are very likely to disrupt somewhere. Then, if a warband unit breaks an enemy it will follow up with it's uncontrollable pursuit and potentially hit and flank more enemies. You want to try and line it up to turn that uncontrolled pursuit mechanic into an advantage. If you do, you can get really extraordinary chain routing where one warband breaking through hits an enemy flank while pursuing, freeing up another warband that pursues and hits another enemy etc...

Because impact foot is kind of a numbers game where you are betting on getting a disruption on the initial charge, throwing a bunch of them in all at one point can be pretty useful, near guaranteeing that you will disrupt and break through somewhere, opening up enemy flanks. However, vs other impact foot like legions you don't get that same kind of advantage. Try to neutralize the importance of their maneuverability by placing close order warbands in the middle of the line where they can more or less charge forward, rather than on the flanks or in reserve where they would be expected to turn more.

They can also be useful in a scenario where you can expect them to be pushed back, opening up an enemy flank for one of your reserve units, ie against pikes.

[SimonLancaster]

Schweetness has a good example but actually this ‘chain reaction routing’ is more common with Warband units rather than when fighting against the enemies of the Warbands! I remember playing a game recently and my opponent was upset when he charged in with 2:1 favorable odds with a Warband unit and it fragmented in that turn. When the unit routed it caused disruption amongst several other units and effectively it was game over. The Warbands were outmanoeuvred on the flank which was a big part of the reason why the right flank of the enemy crumbled it should be said. As Schweetness mentions, you have to try to place your Warband units wisely!

But still, overall I do think that Warbands should be slightly cheaper!

[Geffalrus]

Couple extra things.

The extra manpower of warbands means that they are harder to autobreak than a generic 480 man unit. Most units of similar cost have armor, so against ranged attacks, they're probably equally durable (less so when talking about catapults). But if they're taking indecisive melee damage at the same rate as a mediocre legion, the legion will autobreak before the warband does. This adds to the idea that warbands are decent at grinding down normal 480 size units provided they can avoid cohesion checks.

Warbands are also more impulsive than normal heavy infantry when an enemy unit breaks. Normal infantry don't pursue - warbands do. Obviously that can be awkward sometimes. But, if you have a warband coming in to flank an engaged infantry line, they can behave similar to elephants and cavalry and potentially get multiple units in one round if the pursuit goes well. Warbands can be quite scary if they start flanking you, because the massive impact POA combined with the cohesion check penalty can ruin your day. Which is something I worry about when doing the math on lining up 72 point pikes vs. 54 point warbands.

[z1812z]

Warbands, like other units, are quite useful if they are used properly; mgardner and others explain the ins and outs of this very well.

All of the game units have their place, according to their ability in reference to initial formation, line formation, and terrain.

During my first experience with FOG, the game mechanics and unit abilities initially seemed straight forward. However I soon learned that one ignores the wonderful nuance in this game at their own risk.