Better armour PoA

[RichardThompson]

The crew of light and heavy chariots tended to be armoured (according to illustrations in Osprey books).

Should they count as armoured in melee (and get the appropriate POA)?

[nikgaukroger]

The crew of light and heavy chariots tended to be armoured (according to illustrations in Osprey books).

Should they count as armoured in melee (and get the appropriate POA)?

No.

IMO the effect of the rules at present is reasonable. Do you think there is a problem with it as it stands? Remember classification is the way of getting the right result from a top down perspective, not from a bottom up approach.

[madaxeman]

Remember classification is the way of getting the right result from a top down perspective, not from a bottom up approach.

If I think the current capabilities of LH are a__e, is that because I am making a bottom up analysis?

[philqw78]

If I think the current capabilities of LH are a__e, is that because I am making a bottom up analysis?

Depends how long you want to look up their bottom. But otherwise your assumption has some, little, credence

[nikgaukroger]

is that because I am making a bottom up analysis?

You mean you're talking out of your arse?

[zocco]

lawrenceg wrote:
Would simply making armour more expensive address much of the original issue?


RBS wrote:

I think this is what we need to look at, yes.

I can't say I'm in favour of the idea as;
1. it sounds like it will mean new army lists (as in $$$)
2. armoured legionaries vs protected Pk or Offensive spearmen will become even more broken than it is at present (as armoured is what keeps the legionaries in the fight).

zocco[/quote]

[nikgaukroger]

2. armoured legionaries vs protected Pk or Offensive spearmen will become even more broken than it is at present (as armoured is what keeps the legionaries in the fight).

zocco

How does changing the points cost of armour change the interaction between the troop types? All the PoAs, etc. will be the same.

I'd certainly like to hear why you think the legionarii Vs pikemen interaction is currently broken as well, as, IMO, it is at present a very good representation of the historical fights.

[VMadeira]

I must say I agree with the existing armour poa, for reasons already mentioned by other gentlemen, so I will not repeat them.

As for the armoured legionaries vs Pk or spearmen relation, think it's not quite well balanced.

I would think that legionaries would have no trouble dealing with spearmen (even the armoured ones), that's not what happens in the game mechanics, as after impact, the armoured spearmen will be at an advantage if they can withstand the impact phase without losing cohesion (and that's not so hard to do it).

Against Pikes, the same thing, except that in the impact phase they are at equal poa's.

I am no historian, but of the various famous large roman defeats, none was against a pike army. More, in the several clashes romans had against Pike armys always came on top and in a number of occasions they massacred the pike army.

The only pike army that gave the romans some trouble, was the one Pyrrhus brought to Italy, but even in this case:
- They were balanced battles, with the winner taking serious casualties
- What caused more concern to the romans were not the pikemen, but the elephants, they even created special tactics to fight the elephants, but we hear nothing of pikemen causing the legionaries special distress.
- Phyrrhus was an excelent general, which should balance things to the Epirot army.

For the above, I think a straight fight between the roman legionnaries against pikemen / spearmen should favour clearly the roman side.

My proposal would be:
- Skilled swordmen counts a poa against formed spears/pikes, but would no longer count against other swordmen, this would fix the barbarian vs romans problem, without the need for changing units point costs, or army lists.

[hammy]

Remember that most of the encounters between Romans and pikes are superior Romans compared to average pikes. That makes a fair difference to the outcome.

[david53]

Noit sure about this but IMO looking at the following some way of getting people to field Protected Spears with any chance of lasting a round of fighting. I know the army lists cover the choice but maybe somethng in the rules that lets people take them with a chance of success.

[zocco]

Ok – a repy to Nik

Here we go…

re armour costs I’m assuming from responses that armoured is thought too cheap (possibly heavily armoured too) so these will go up in cost – relative to protected and of course unprotected .

re offensive spear – this is I feel the preferred HF troop type (although HW are good too but that’s another story). Partly because they (and defensive spearmen) can ignore lancers in impact and then the swordsmen POA in melee provided they remain steady (which is likely since you have to both beat them and then they have to fail the cohesion test). Armour superiority then is needed against them to have a good chance of success as it gives you at least one POA. So if you’re facing protected spearmen legionaries need to be armoured (which is likely to cost more). If facing armoured spearmen these still win out as although they will cost more so do the legionaries but as I said above the spearmen still have the combat advantage so its not so critical to them in this case.

I should also say that I have doubts about the basis of spearmen being able to ignore foot swordsmen in melee which I assume is either to do with shieldwall tactics and/or the ability to hold swordsmen out of range with their spears. I think this is based on a stereotype which is perhaps not overly accurate. Having said that I don’t mind the way the system works currently for spearmen except that I feel that some balance is required for impact foot and light spear swordsmen types. The current system favours spearmen and to some extent HW as they have some nice advantages in melee. If one used the proposed shieldwall mitigating POA idea which I put up a while back this would allow drilled impact foot and light spear swordsmen a bit more of a chance without overegging the pudding as it were. I should say also that it could also be adapted for undrilled impact foot and light spear swordsmen by allowing it for them if they are in 2 or perhaps 3 ranks – this would help fix up the current perception of imbalance of warband foot vs skilled swordsmen by allowing barbarian foot in deep formations to have a mitigating POA - thereby making them a bit more effective. I hope that all makes sense ! If not I’m happy to explain it a bit more.

Re pikes recalculating the numbers I’m not so sure that it is broken however I’d have to say that from an empirical viewpoint battles between phalanx and legion usually indicated that although the legions were pushed back they were not routed by the phalanx (even at Kynoskephalai ? where the phalanx is pushing downhill so would get a bonus POA). Also although some defeats are put down to ‘rough ground’ I suspect that it was really due to the hubris of combat with a resilient opponent – small gaps will eventually open in the phalanx just because the pressure it exerts and is exerted on it is not even across the entire phalanx frontage and the Romans are trained and led well enough to exploit these). Also dare I say again (apologies) that the mitigating POA rule would help reflect the legionaries sheer stubbornness and determination in these circumstances.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some evidence I put forward here is Byronth’s (?) saga – this indicates close and bloody combat (– no staying at arms reach here). Also if impact foot did so poorly against spearmen why did Romans stick with pila against Celts etc. I think Duncan Head makes the point about the Romans giving the front rank triari spears in 223 BC but as he says ‘the experiment was not repeated’ and of course the Triari eventually lost their spears…

Interestingly the Romans are not overly effected by this ‘rough’ terrain – something which is not possible in FOG as both legionaries and pikes count as HF so will suffer.

[zocco]

oops !

please ignore the last few lines of my post above - they were meant to be removed from it as superfulous.

mini excusi

zocco

[timmy1]

zocco

In the top right hand corner of your post there will be an edit button (next to quote and delete IIRC). You may ned to scroll right (depending upon your browser and screen resolution) to see it. That way you can edit out any 'oops' or otherwise no longer required comments on your own posts.

Hope that helps...

[david53]

Just back form the Northern Doubles

Just as an experiment I took an army only with Protected Lancers.

Okey at impact always at a minus in melee.

Till something is changed you'll never see troops like this.

Ask yourself how many protected lancers have you seen on the table

BTW lost one game one one game with the worst army I have ever taken to an event

[madaxeman]

Ok – a repy to Nik
<snip>
re offensive spear – this is I feel the preferred HF troop type (although HW are good too but that’s another story). Partly because they (and defensive spearmen) can ignore lancers in impact and then the swordsmen POA in melee provided they remain steady (which is likely since you have to both beat them and then they have to fail the cohesion test). Armour superiority then is needed against them to have a good chance of success as it gives you at least one POA. So if you’re facing protected spearmen legionaries need to be armoured (which is likely to cost more). If facing armoured spearmen these still win out as although they will cost more so do the legionaries but as I said above the spearmen still have the combat advantage so its not so critical to them in this case.
....

I suspect most peoples issues with this interaction is that in reality it is usually an opponents cunning (ahem) selection of "armour" which ends up cancelling out the "spear"/"shieldwall"/"coherent line of spearpoints keeping swordsmen at bay" (as you wish to interpret it), leading to a combat which is an evens lottery... a lottery which once the spearmen lose just the once, they immediately lose dice, POAs and also gift POAs to the enemy so fast they never recover.

This seems to grate on two levels - that the spearmen suffer a triple whammy for losing cohesion/bases and so are as good as gone, whereas other troops can possible recover - AND that something as bland as "armour" (irrespective of weaponry) is enough to net out the "spear"/"shieldwall"/"coherent line of spearpoints keeping swordsmen at bay" set of complex factors (even more so as this is linked to cohesion) that make spearmen one of the most distinctive troop types with some of the most unique capabilities and performance in the game

[nikgaukroger]

Re pikes recalculating the numbers I’m not so sure that it is broken however I’d have to say that from an empirical viewpoint battles between phalanx and legion usually indicated that although the legions were pushed back they were not routed by the phalanx (even at Kynoskephalai ? where the phalanx is pushing downhill so would get a bonus POA). Also although some defeats are put down to ‘rough ground’ I suspect that it was really due to the hubris of combat with a resilient opponent – small gaps will eventually open in the phalanx just because the pressure it exerts and is exerted on it is not even across the entire phalanx frontage and the Romans are trained and led well enough to exploit these). Also dare I say again (apologies) that the mitigating POA rule would help reflect the legionaries sheer stubbornness and determination in these circumstances.

Well my experience to date is that Average legionarii will generally lose to pikemen but the fight can be rather buttock clenching at Impact as if the pikes lose they will tend to keep losing. This balance seems reasonable given Pyrhos' campaigns. With Superior legionarii even if they do not win the Impact their superiority tends to keep them in the fight until the tide turns. Again this seems reasonable as the legiones that beat the Hellenistic kingdoms are more suitably classified as Superior. So all in all I really don't think the legionarii need anything else.

Some evidence I put forward here is Byronth’s (?) saga – this indicates close and bloody combat (– no staying at arms reach here). Also if impact foot did so poorly against spearmen why did Romans stick with pila against Celts etc.

I'm not even sure of the relevance of that question as the Celts were not Spearmen types.

Interestingly the Romans are not overly effected by this ‘rough’ terrain – something which is not possible in FOG as both legionaries and pikes count as HF so will suffer.

Legionarii are much less affected by rough terrain than pikemen due to the effect on the relevant PoAs - legionarii are pretty effective rough going troops.

[timmy1]

As somone who plays Principate Roman against far too many Seleukid monstrosities, I have to say that my experience matches Nik's. For once I agree with everything Nik writes above. Many things need changing to give Roman's a chance :) but the Pike vs. Legion interaction seems right to me. Take the legion as Superior and it comes down to who manouvres best and uses support / flanking attacks best, which is how it should be. As for terrain, the ONE thing that gives the Legion an advantage is if the Pike come off the billiard table. Then even Average Legion have the advantage.

[VMadeira]

Well my experience to date is that Average legionarii will generally lose to pikemen but the fight can be rather buttock clenching at Impact as if the pikes lose they will tend to keep losing. This balance seems reasonable given Pyrhos' campaigns. With Superior legionarii even if they do not win the Impact their superiority tends to keep them in the fight until the tide turns. Again this seems reasonable as the legiones that beat the Hellenistic kingdoms are more suitably classified as Superior.

It has been a long time since I played romans, but I frequently face seleucid / macedonian opponents. In almost all games these armies come with some Pike Superior, so a fight between romans and this pike armies, should not be reduced to Sup Legionaries versus Average Pike.

Some Examples: Later Macedonian: 24 bases of Pike Superior / Later Seleucid: 16 bases of Pike Superior / Oddly Alexandrian Macedonian can only have 12 bases of Pike Superior...

[rogerg]

To re-state where we are with this: the PoA for armour is considered to be too great to the extent that many protected troop types are a dying breed. (Similarly armoured knights are rarely used.) However, suggested changes looked at so far are not popular because key major interactions are seen as 'not broken'. By these I mean the pike, legionary, spear and the knight versus longbow melees.

Changing the points will not work; a slightly cheap loser is still a loser. Worse, a much cheaper loser becomes a non-combatant filler and we have the DBM super men supported by the massed rear ranks of Ax(I). Please, let's not go back there again.

There have been good arguments that the impact round needs to be more significant.

To make the weaker armour types have a use, the extra numbers they get (for being cheaper) need to be made to tell. As a melee wears on, the weight of armour must decline as an advantage. Good design, spreading the load over the body, in the end must get beaten by the basic law of physics. It takes more energy to move more weight around.

Getting to the point then, insert an initial melee round in the impact phase. Only the files fighting at impact take part. (Probably the death roll and general risk could be removed from the impact combat to simplify proceedings). For this initial melee round:
* The armour PoA counts only in this round.
* Each step in armour level counts a PoA. Heavy weapon reduces the level by one.
* The fourth rank of pike bonus counts in this round only.

The net results should be:
* Troops v lesser armoured pike remains unchanged.
* Armoured sword troops versus protected spear are not at a disadvantage until the third round of combat dice rolling. Arguably, if they have not disrupted the spear by then, the spear deserve the advantage. If the spear are disrupted, then they are handicapped by the dice loss anyway and have usually lost a base so one file will probably be a factor down.
* Lesser armoured troops who can hold up in the initial fight are no longer disadvantaged. Armour v fatigue is balanced and numbers and quality become the dominant factors. This gives the big BG's of protected barbarians something to hope for in a protracted melee.
* The swarms of four base BG's of armoured troops are more vulnerable. This should encourage more use of larger BG's and fewer swarms. 6 bases of protected v 4 of armoured becomes a more realistic prospect.

There would be side effects:
Melees resolved more quickly; there is an extra combat round.
Mounted charging at foot becomes less predictable. Three rounds of combat before any break off. Overlaps don't come into play until the third round of dicing, usually to the advantage of the charging mounted. However, if the mounted don't succeed on impact, the foot get two melee rounds to wear down the mounted.

The game would not be significantly more complicated. After any cohesion test following impact, the players would simply pick up the dice again. Any routs and resulting tests would not be done until the end of the impact phase, after the initial melee rounds. There are two combat dice rounds during impact rather than one.

[nikgaukroger]

Melees resolved more quickly; there is an extra combat round.

Not a good thing IMO. FoG combat is already accelerated.