Slitherine

TheGrayMouser wrote:Not to throw gas into this hot mess but can someone point out the actual sources that discuss "warbands" abilities in close combat? I assume people must be referring to Ceasars Commentaires.

Caesar, Polybios, Livy, Tacitus and Ammianus would all be good one to go to for reading about Romans vs Warbands. Not all in period for the current FoG II range of armies,however, the game will (I assume) cover the periods they cover so will be relevant - and the "warband" covered by them is consistent being either Gallic or Germanic.

I assume the notion goes something like this: tribal warrior types begin the fight aggressively but if they made no headway, they rapidly lost heart.

Or Roman training and better defensive kit allow the Romans to gain the ascendancy in an extended fight.

We know Romans appear to have been able to get fresh troops to the battle line, we just don't know how they exactly did it. As has been mention, it was proboably internal to the cohort ( so a century which has a small frontage would pull out and be replaced by a rearward century). They certainly did not swap out cohort size elements. It is also plausible that a second line cohort would swap out its own centuries with a cohort on the front line(not represented in the game even at the abstract level)

Pre-cohorte Polybios talks about maniples of principes replacing those of hastati - so smaller bodies than a cohorte. Mind you IIRC Livy has some battles where he talks about whole legiones replacing other legiones, so ...

Some modern historians (Goldsworthy for one) have suggested that the 2nd line feeds in troops as needed pretty much as you suggest.

Similarly, could not a warband have done something similar in effect, just not the same in execution or even reasoning?
So a "rank" or two of a warband unit attack the roman cohort, they hack away until their energy/courage flags, those warriors fall back, but that does not stop a fresh wave of warriors rushing thru them to take a whack. A large "band" might be able to do this for some time.

I have no doubt that there would be some sort of replacement of fighting men in a prolonged combat, but possibly unlikely that it was anything other than an ad hoc system rather than a planned system as the Romans appear to have.

TheGrayMouser wrote: Similarly, could not a warband have done something similar in effect, just not the same in execution or even reasoning?
So a "rank" or two of a warband unit attack the roman cohort, they hack away until their energy/courage flags, those warriors fall back, but that does not stop a fresh wave of warriors rushing thru them to take a whack. A large "band" might be able to do this for some time.

Actually the Gauls kind of do this in the game--after an unsuccessful melee a warband will often fall back two squares, with the Romans remaining in place. The warband's place can then be taken by a new warband (assuming one is available of course). Of course if the Romans were the attacker, they might follow the warband as it falls back, pulling them out of the line with the attendant risks.

TheGrayMouser wrote: If I personally wanted to tweak warbands ( which I don't) I would consider increasing their auto break level.(if they are a separate class of unit it should be theoretically possible) They will still fight hard but in a war of attrition will quit(ie rout) quicker ( and wont come back with a rally)

This is one alternative, but it seems like it would end up in more men in warbands being unusable (ie, all of the men below the increased auto-break threshold). Therefore I would guess that it might be better to reduce the size of the warbands somewhat (with a cost reduction).

I've now conducted another couple battles against warbands. This is against AI level 3, Germanic Foot Tribes, so their army is practically entirely warbands. There were no fancy tactics, the warbands came as a straight line, and they outnumber the Romans, so the Romans can't get any particular flanking advantages. Generally many of the Roman cohorts had to take on more than one warband at a time.

Six battles is a small sample size, but Warbands are consistently resilient. One of my Roman units (elite) pushed back a warband no less than 11 squares, and they didn't break. Another melee resulted in a warband being pushed back 9 squares. In both cases the legionaries, now way into the back-lines and far from their fellow units who were all locked in melee "back at the front line", had the remaining free warbands dogpile onto them from the flank and rear, you can guess the outcome. If I were the AI I would have done exactly the same. Once they disposed of the hapless Romans they continue on to the main line, to outnumber in existing melees. This happened in more than one battle.

Now, ideally you wouldn't want your units continuing to shove back the enemy into isolation, and remain engaged, to the point that you're inviting your own doom. But that's a different argument. The main point I took from all my engagements with the Germanic Foot Tribes is that "quantity is its own quality".

On the other hand I've defeated Gallic armies with Romans, but they don't consist of 90% warbands. I'm not particularly a fan of playing Romans, BTW. This is just out of interest due to this thread, Romans seem a good, steady opponent to test Warbands against. And, due to the monotonous meat-grinder style battles against the Germans, it's not the kind of battle I usually would choose.

I'm no expert in the subject matter of replacement of troops but it is reasonable to think this was done at Century level at all times, even between Cohorts.

hjc wrote: In both cases the legionaries, now way into the back-lines and far from their fellow units who were all locked in melee "back at the front line", had the remaining free warbands dogpile onto them from the flank and rear, you can guess the outcome.

It sounds like you had the Romans attack the warbands? Generally I don't do that, for reasons that you describe, so my legions don't follow the retreating warbands but instead stay in the line and instead usually eventually get ground down to dust.

This is why I suggested testing units one-on-one, to avoid mixing up results of tactics/deployment with the more or less mechanical question of the extent to which warbands grind down legions due to their larger size. To me the individual melee results are unobjectionable--the problem is that because of the larger number of men in warbands vs legions (I guess other formations as well) in my experience legions usually up end auto-breaking before the warbands.

hjc wrote:One of my Roman units (elite) pushed back a warband no less than 11 squares, and they didn't break. Another melee resulted in a warband being pushed back 9 squares.

Blimey

Don't think I've seen a series of pushbacks more than 3 or so in the games I've played to date.

76mm wrote:It sounds like you had the Romans attack the warbands? Generally I don't do that, for reasons that you describe, so my legions don't follow the retreating warbands but instead stay in the line and instead usually eventually get ground down to dust.

Yes, in those cases the Romans initiated contact after the Warbands had advanced close enough. I just thought it was extraordinary how much punishment individual units could take! I've been trying various approaches, but on level 3 or higher AI you're considerably outnumbered in units, so there's not much to do except try to take any terrain advantage and gird your loins.

I have also taken the approach of "hold your line and take their charge" and as you say, get ground to dust (auto-break).

JorgenCAB wrote:I'm no expert in the subject matter of replacement of troops but it is reasonable to think this was done at Century level at all times, even between Cohorts.

I'm not sure what this guys credentials are but he uses computer models to try and graphically answer these mechanics. He doesn't claim any one o them is how it worked, just does the models and comments on the plausibility of each

http://romanarmy.info/line3_pilum/pilum_volley.html

nikgaukroger wrote:

hjc wrote:One of my Roman units (elite) pushed back a warband no less than 11 squares, and they didn't break. Another melee resulted in a warband being pushed back 9 squares.

Blimey

Don't think I've seen a series of pushbacks more than 3 or so in the games I've played to date.

I had a Veteran Phalanx push back a warband at least four squares, then he charged another group and pushed them back two more. Guy was off in his own battle practically.

76mm wrote:To me the individual melee results are unobjectionable--the problem is that because of the larger number of men in warbands vs legions (I guess other formations as well) in my experience legions usually up end auto-breaking before the warbands.

Completely agree with you. The engagements themselves feel like they do justice to history - Germania was a very tough nut to crack. But, point for point, a block of warbands is damn good value.

76mm wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote: Similarly, could not a warband have done something similar in effect, just not the same in execution or even reasoning?
So a "rank" or two of a warband unit attack the roman cohort, they hack away until their energy/courage flags, those warriors fall back, but that does not stop a fresh wave of warriors rushing thru them to take a whack. A large "band" might be able to do this for some time.

Actually the Gauls kind of do this in the game--after an unsuccessful melee a warband will often fall back two squares, with the Romans remaining in place. The warband's place can then be taken by a new warband (assuming one is available of course). Of course if the Romans were the attacker, they might follow the warband as it falls back, pulling them out of the line with the attendant risks.

TheGrayMouser wrote: If I personally wanted to tweak warbands ( which I don't) I would consider increasing their auto break level.(if they are a separate class of unit it should be theoretically possible) They will still fight hard but in a war of attrition will quit(ie rout) quicker ( and wont come back with a rally)

This is one alternative, but it seems like it would end up in more men in warbands being unusable (ie, all of the men below the increased auto-break threshold). Therefore I would guess that it might be better to reduce the size of the warbands somewhat (with a cost reduction).

I realize there are fallback etc and a rear unit could charge into a gap. I meant the abstraction of what is going on in the individual warband, not the game mechanics

True to your second point but to some degree they are already inefficient as , apart from the "deep" ranks bonus only the first 480 men actually fight, the rest are replacements ( this is a game mechanic) 480 size unit begin losing combat value on casualty #1

nikgaukroger wrote: Pre-cohorte Polybios talks about maniples of principes replacing those of hastati - so smaller bodies than a cohorte. Mind you IIRC Livy has some battles where he talks about whole legiones replacing other legiones, so ...

Some modern historians (Goldsworthy for one) have suggested that the 2nd line feeds in troops as needed pretty much as you suggest.

One is not inconsistent with the other. It is unlikely battles which took an entire day had both armies in arms length contact for hours on end. During an engagement, it is entirely reasonable for some method of rotating men in and out of the point of contact to keep waves of fresh troopers engaged while casualties or tired men filtered to the back.

I can also easily envision entire commands at a cohort level or even higher being pulled out during lulls in any fighting and have a second unit that is waiting swiftly plugged in before any advantage could be gained.

76mm wrote:MikeC, I don't understand or appreciate your apparent need to use insulting, disreptectful language in this discussion..."absurd", ""shred of merit"... OK... Do you know how to conduct a civil, respectful conversation? Is this how you behave all the time? Let's examine your points one by one:

I don't see how calling a spade, a spade is disrespectful. You demonstrated on multiple occasions that you don't understand fundamental game balance concepts.

76mm wrote: Your argument is not correct. My point is not whether army lists are balanced, or whether games against the AI are balanced, etc. Game balance can be achieved via several different independent mean, including points, number and type of overall troops, etc. For example, let's assume for a moment that warbands were found to be all-powerful, and could smash every other unit in the game with ease, but that a player could only have one warband in a battle, so in aggregate, opposing players could defeat an army with a warband about half the time, achieving "game balance". Would you consider this state of affairs to be satisfactory?

No, the game (or the armies in the game) are either balanced or unbalanced. The only question is whether the game would then be treating the subject matter with a degree justice.

Would Terminator Warbands that are restricted to one per army be doing service to the subject matter? I think not. You seem to be unable to differentiate between scope and the details of what we are talking about. Case in point, you tried to equate this Warbands might be too powerful argument with a LH beating Cataphracts on the charge. That is an entirely different scale of issue. One is a blatant abuse of the subject material that can be identified immediately (tanks losing to spearmen in Civ ex). The other is a fine tuning issue which can only be realistically discussed in an intelligent manner once the game has produced sufficient results.

So far, no Romans I have seen are being ground into dust by Warbands. I am in the middle of the Dacian/Roman leg of the first tournament and I have an opponent with Legions in rough terrain holding firm vs loose order Warbands. I am going to win that shoving match eventually but it just shows the resilience of Legions especially in the late period lists. I have also played real multiplayer games where I ran Warbands heads up vs Legions in the open and watched my Warbands melt away.

So no, there is no glaring issue where Warbands are just clearly overpowered. They may be vis a vis other heavy foot, but there is no census. You can check the thread yourself as many others have reported that it seems ok. Certainly even if they are overpowered, they are not at the point where it is clearly abusing the subject material at hand.

76mm wrote: My argument is no more absurd than your insistence on running extensive tests, and then not specifying what kind of test, and the complaining about the proposed use of a very common and appropriate form of testing. So what specific type of testing are you proposing? As addressed above, simple battle win/losses don't really address the issue.

Another reason why I treat your arguments with disdain, I plainly speak of what is needed but you just ignore it. I have plainly said or implied that games with Warband armies in a competitive multiplayer setting vs other major foot armies is required.

76mm wrote: These and other points issues address the issue of whether army lists are balanced, as described above. I don't know the specific answers to your questions, but do you think that they don't exist? How do you think the unit points were determined?

Probably from the same top down game design that the developers have said they used. They don't get bogged down in minutiae of whether every point cost on every unit or every unit modifier is balanced. And quite frankly it works quite well.

76mm wrote: Where to start with this one? First, you repeat the assertion that the performance of Gauls vs Romans is a "trope", not sure why...do you have any source that backs up your argument that Gauls were the equal of Romans in prolonged melee combat? Second, you don't seem to understand the issue with warbands: the issue is not whether the Romans have a POA advantage over Gauls, or whether legions are more likely to rally, because neither of those issues matter given a bigger issue: that the warbands can keep taking the losses inflicted by the Romans while dishing out enough damage to the Romans that they will eventually auto-break. Most of my legions do not disrupt before auto-breaking, so any rally advantage is not helpful. And as indicated in another post, once auto-broken, units do not rally.

How can you logically separate one from the other? How can Warbands keep inflicting losses on the Romans if they have a big PoA disadvantage, lose and then get fragmented and rout? How likely is it that a Warband on equal footing can cause enough casualties for this to happen given that they are underdogs in open combat 1 on 1 against another Legion?

You keep asking why I think your arguments are absurd. It is because you keep isolating exceedingly small things (usually Warband advantages) and then toss out all context for when those things could be relevant and say 'see guys! there is an issue!'

MikeC_81 wrote: I don't see how calling a spade, a spade is disrespectful. You demonstrated on multiple occasions that you don't understand fundamental game balance concepts.

Actually, what I've demonstrated is that "game balance concepts" should be accompanied by the greatest historical fidelity possible.

MikeC_81 wrote: Would Terminator Warbands that are restricted to one per army be doing service to the subject matter? I think not...One is a blatant abuse of the subject material that can be identified immediately (tanks losing to spearmen in Civ ex). The other is a fine tuning issue which can only be realistically discussed in an intelligent manner once the game has produced sufficient results.

Uh huh. I am trying to discuss this issue "realistically" and "in an intelligent manner", and I've never said this was anything but fine-tuning, so I'm not sure what your point is...as far as I can tell you think that game balance should be the main determinant of whether the game should be tweaked. I disagree. Sorry if you find that position "absurd".

MikeC_81 wrote: So far, no Romans I have seen are being ground into dust by Warbands. I am in the middle of the Dacian/Roman leg of the first tournament and I have an opponent with Legions in rough terrain holding firm vs loose order Warbands.

But of course loose order warbands are not even heavy infantry and are not being discussed in this thread.

MikeC_81 wrote: So no, there is no glaring issue where Warbands are just clearly overpowered. They may be vis a vis other heavy foot, but there is no census. You can check the thread yourself as many others have reported that it seems ok. Certainly even if they are overpowered, they are not at the point where it is clearly abusing the subject material at hand.

Can you point me to where I've claimed that there is a "glaring issue," that there is a "census" [sic] to that effect, or that it is "clearly abusing the subject material"? Actually what I've said pretty consistently is that in my personal view there is an issue which should be looked into, have asked for others' views on the topic, and have agreed that further tests are necessary...

MikeC_81 wrote: How can Warbands keep inflicting losses on the Romans if they have a big PoA disadvantage, lose and then get fragmented and rout? How likely is it that a Warband on equal footing can cause enough casualties for this to happen given that they are underdogs in open combat 1 on 1 against another Legion?

Once again, I don't understand your point. The whole point of this thread is that warbands keep inflicting losses on the Romans because they don't fragment and rout, and that they are not underdogs in a prolonged melee because of their ability to absorb massive losses. This is what I think should be tested, and what you have called "absurd". And I would still be interested in seeing any sources you have for your assertion that the Gauls were the equal of the Romans in prolonged melee combat.

MikeC_81 wrote: You keep asking why I think your arguments are absurd. It is because you keep isolating exceedingly small things (usually Warband advantages) and then toss out all context for when those things could be relevant and say 'see guys! there is an issue!'

And you assert that as long as the game is balanced nothing else matters. I don't agree--what you consider an "exceedingly small thing" is something that I believe should be looked at.

The point with warbands for me is reduced to:

1-they have to much soldiers??? something that made them capable to stand a lot more than other heavy foot taking high casualties.
2-they resist to much before lose a cohesion test??? part because more soldiers means they pass less cohesion test, part because looks like even with heavy casualties and behind pushed all the time they mantein firm cohesion.
3-relation cost-performance is even better than the one from troops with better quality, armor and abilities???

In 1 VS 1 is clear that they can smash non pike heavy foot units and can engage romans until they arrive to autbreak point, in army situations you can counter a little this but in the end if warbands form a solid line and attack with a front of 4-5 units they can open a big hole in your line and you cant use flank attacks if player mantein warbands in rear support to counter flank units.

76mm wrote: Actually, what I've demonstrated is that "game balance concepts" should be accompanied by the greatest historical fidelity possible.

We have been over this before. The "fidelity" is so fuzzy that such a fine tuning is next to impossible. What you are basically asking is not a balance fix, since there is no balance fix to be had, but rather Warbands behave to your specific belief of how it they fought.

76mm wrote: But of course loose order warbands are not even heavy infantry and are not being discussed in this thread.

This just shows your lack of game knowledge. Loose order and Close order Warbands are actually the same unit stat wise except that the game differentiates Loose order Warbands as Warriors meaning they get to operate on rough terrain without suffering disruption effects.

The comparison was shown to you how out of touch you are with the situation w.r.t. Legions vs Warbands, especially when it pertains to Warbands somehow consistently autobreaking Legions. If Legions can be on disadvantaged terrain and still hold Warbands that don't suffer the terrain penalties at bay for multiple turns.

So I don't see how in open terrain, Warbands are just running amok vs Legions. It certainly hasn't happened in my numerous MP games, nor any of my Roman single player games. Indeed all the PoA math has it stacked against the Warbands outside the opening impact round where Warbands have a slight edge thanks to deep ranks.

76mm wrote: Can you point me to where I've claimed that there is a "glaring issue," that there is a "census" [sic] to that effect, or that it is "clearly abusing the subject material"? Actually what I've said pretty consistently is that in my personal view there is an issue which should be looked into, have asked for others' views on the topic, and have agreed that further tests are necessary...

You have straight up agreed for Warbands to have their numbers lopped off. You also don't state that the issue needed to be looked at, you presented it as a done deal conclusion and that a fix needs to be looked at. Read your posts on the first page. You straight up agreed to lopping off Warband numbers as a fix that might work and you flat out stated as a conclusion that they are too resilient vs heavy foot and overpowered. Your words not mine.

MikeC_81 wrote:I don't see how in open terrain, Warbands are just running amok vs Legions. It certainly hasn't happened in my numerous MP games, nor any of my Roman single player games. Indeed all the PoA math has it stacked against the Warbands outside the opening impact round where Warbands have a slight edge thanks to deep ranks.

It's not that Warbands generally run amok. Out of curiousity have you tried: Custom Battle, AI level 3 or higher, medium sized, open terrain, Roman vs Germanic Foot Tribes? You will face something like 17 or more of them.
When an army isn't 90% warbands, they can be handled. I agree that the POA advantage is for the Romans, generally. I see that every time I get a red kill count on the warbands. Which is very often. So, yes, in that way, warbands are losing. The thing I've seen - many times - is that they can afford to lose for many, many turns. Occasionally warbands will break, but those that don't end up autobreaking the Romans, whose cohorts start with a smaller number of men.

Myself, I don't think their stats need adjusting, or their unit sized changed. I just think warbands represent extremely good points value especially when they are the predominant unit in an army, where they are probably a little under-priced.. But, maybe when there's only a few of them, when the army isn't wall-to-wall warbands, that's not the case. I haven't tested enough.

MikeC_81 wrote: We have been over this before. The "fidelity" is so fuzzy that such a fine tuning is next to impossible. What you are basically asking is not a balance fix, since there is no balance fix to be had, but rather Warbands behave to your specific belief of how it they fought.

There is of course some truth to this, but the fact is that from what we know of Gallic vs Roman warfare (which is much more than we know about most other types of ancient warfare), Gauls should not be expected to stand up to legions in prolonged melee combat. Still no sources from you with evidence to the contrary... I consider this to be relevant to my gaming experience, you don't, I get it.

MikeC_81 wrote: This just shows your lack of game knowledge. Loose order and Close order Warbands are actually the same unit stat wise except that the game differentiates Loose order Warbands as Warriors meaning they get to operate on rough terrain without suffering disruption effects.

The comparison was shown to you how out of touch you are with the situation w.r.t. Legions vs Warbands, especially when it pertains to Warbands somehow consistently autobreaking Legions. If Legions can be on disadvantaged terrain and still hold Warbands that don't suffer the terrain penalties at bay for multiple turns.

Uh, yeah, they are the "same unit stat wise" other than that loose order warbands don't get the +1 heavy foot modifier during cohesion tests, which is of course a key factor in this discusssion. So if you have been assuming that loose order and close order warbands are exactly the same, your conclusions are "out of touch with the situation."

MikeC_81 wrote: You have straight up agreed for Warbands to have their numbers lopped off. You also don't state that the issue needed to be looked at, you presented it as a done deal conclusion and that a fix needs to be looked at. Read your posts on the first page. You straight up agreed to lopping off Warband numbers as a fix that might work and you flat out stated as a conclusion that they are too resilient vs heavy foot and overpowered. Your words not mine.

You seem to be referring to my post on the first page where I say "From what ive seen warbands seem a bit overpowered. I hadnt thought of justbreducing their size, that might work." Emphasis added to show that I have never considered this issue to be a "done deal." You must be referring to that quote, because you certainly can't be referring to my other posts in just the first three pages of this thread, where I say:
-- "...no one is demanding changes right away, but I do think that it's appropriate for players to raise perceived issues for discussion..."
--"I'm not demanding a change. I'm not even saying that I'm sure a change is necessary. I'm saying that Gauls seem to play out differently than in FoG 1 and that to me, at this point, they seem awfully resilient and can absorb more damage over a more sustained period than I would have expected."
--"Clearly [conducting more tests] would be a next step, when/if a consensus has been formed about this is an issue worth reviewing more closely."
--"Yeah, [that warbands should be at a disadvantage in prolonged melee] was my thinking as well, but not really what I'm seeing with my limited data points so far. Hence the interest in discussing the topic on the forum, to see what other players think."

There are many other similar posts on later pages, but hopefully I've made my point.

Honestly I don't get the reason for your hostility, but carry on as you wish...

Warbands definitely need toning down a bit, I am no legendary general but I have tried the Caesar campaign a number of times and no matter what defensive terrain I place my Legions on, they eventually get worn down and are auto broken due to casualties....

Cheers

Ill admit I havent read the whole thread, but heres my opinion on the warbands as they are now:

They used to be friggin hell to fight against in the beta with the full impact and melee bonusses from bigger unit size. They were still beatable, but they easily felt like the strongest unit in the game for a while to me, and there was a strong consensus on this, which is why they were nerfed down to their current state.

Hoplites have been brought up a lot in the beginning of this thread, those situations are not about warbands at all, they are about hoplites being super terrible. they key to playng a hoplite army seems to be to concentrate as many veteran ones as you can with as many generals as you can generate all on the same flank, then pray. they dont just loose to warbands, they loose to carthago, rome, heck they loose a lot to spanish scutarii. I remember scott mentioning that the greek military model was outdated by the period of the game, and I see his point.
Other then the heavy overloading of a flank playing greeks seems to come down to using numbers advantages, having luck with the terrain and either fielding a ridiculously long line or a very deep formation, but even then you are outskirmished and smashed by cav.
Hoplite armys are just not good in the base game in my opinion and there seems to be a solid historical argument for that.


Now to warbands themselves, they have an insane resilience, and against almost everything else the player of the warband army can consider every draw result a win, cause they have the numbers. Most of my experience against warbands comes from playing a ton of gauls and germans vs romans machtes in the beta at various stages of nerfs, and I think the key to defeating the warbands are the following steps:

1 if your pre reformation romans, get velites. so many velites. they can contest rough terrain easily, destroy skirmishers and peel away at the so important enemy numbers
2 decide on a strategy against the supplmenetory cavalry that is not your own cav
3. when fighting germans, bring as much cav as you can
4 do not overspend on "veteran legions" while they are tempting and cool, they will get overwhelmed. you need the slacks and raws desperately
5. do not charge first. of course there are aexceptions, but you want to field a deep checkerboard and take the charge in most places, a lot of the impacts you will win, a few will push through, some fall backs will happen, those are fine, stay patient and use your reserves wherever your loosing, raw legions/italian foot/scutarii and the like in the back rows are essential to crush the warbands that push through your front. Do not go on the offensive as it will drawn your formation apart, cause pushbacks and gets you overwhelmed.

it still comes down to luck at some points and can go to hell if things to go wrong, but with this approach I have the experience that against germans, its a slogfest anyways, and against gauls I loose to not correctly/successfully dealing with their cav and chariots and not the warbands themselves.

tldr: I honestly think their fine and just need specific tactics and strategys to counter

edit: I play the same in sp on emeperor and deity, and I did easily win the gaulic battles of the caesar campaign like this on emperor progressive