Slitherine

Polkovnik wrote:I think the point is obvious - barbarian foot (HF, Ave, Prot, Impact Foot, Swordsmen) underperform (relative to their points), and so armies where they are the main troop type are not competetive in equal points games.
Nobody is saying that they should be better than Romans - just that it should not be so one sided.
A points system cannot be expected to give perfectly balanced games every time because of the rock-paper-scissors nature of the game. However, it does not reflect very well on the system when a classic match-up like Romans vs Gauls cannot be fought at equal points because it is so one sided in favour of the Romans.

I suspect that if you try recreating historical battles rather than equal points ones then you may find it a lot more reasonable.

IMO the issue is entirely a side effect of the points system. Against Romans then unprotected impact foot no sword would be pretty much as effective as protected impact foot swordsmen. This is because of the way armour works (better or not) and the way skilled sword works (negates sword). If you replace the barbarians with unprotected offensive spearmen then they are actually not a bad match for the Romans point for point.

Creating a points system that works for every possible combination of opponents is pretty much impossible. The current system is not perfect but it is hard to argue that for example protected troops should cost more than unprotected ones. Perhaps making armour more expensive would help, the real question is would another point or two per base for the Romans make much difference?

hammy wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:I think the point is obvious - barbarian foot (HF, Ave, Prot, Impact Foot, Swordsmen) underperform (relative to their points), and so armies where they are the main troop type are not competetive in equal points games.
Nobody is saying that they should be better than Romans - just that it should not be so one sided.
A points system cannot be expected to give perfectly balanced games every time because of the rock-paper-scissors nature of the game. However, it does not reflect very well on the system when a classic match-up like Romans vs Gauls cannot be fought at equal points because it is so one sided in favour of the Romans.

I suspect that if you try recreating historical battles rather than equal points ones then you may find it a lot more reasonable.

And I suspect that would depend on how you view the reported numbers of barbarians ...

It is ironic that this debate is the mirror image of the normal DBM concern that barbarians were too strong with respect to legions

I suspect the historical performance would suggest a single POA for the Romans in melee - the accounts seem to be of the "tough fight but we chopped through them in the end" variety, rather than the butchery you might see against weak troops.

For me that would suggest that SSw should negate foot Sw only if all other POAs are equal. So:

Armoured SSw vs protected Sw (currently ++) would be a + for armour, + for SSw vs a + for Sw, net + for Rome

Protected SSw vs Protected Sw (cureently + for Rome) would be + for SSw vs + for Sw. Not net POA so Sw + is removed and Rome gets a +.

This would have the advantage of not changing the SSw vs Dacian falxmen or Spanish sword and buckler men vs heavily armoured MAA with HW interactions at all.

grahambriggs wrote:It is ironic that this debate is the mirror image of the normal DBM concern that barbarians were too strong with respect to legions

I suspect the historical performance would suggest a single POA for the Romans in melee - the accounts seem to be of the "tough fight but we chopped through them in the end" variety, rather than the butchery you might see against weak troops.

For me that would suggest that SSw should negate foot Sw only if all other POAs are equal. So:

Armoured SSw vs protected Sw (currently ++) would be a + for armour, + for SSw vs a + for Sw, net + for Rome

Protected SSw vs Protected Sw (cureently + for Rome) would be + for SSw vs + for Sw. Not net POA so Sw + is removed and Rome gets a +.

This would have the advantage of not changing the SSw vs Dacian falxmen or Spanish sword and buckler men vs heavily armoured MAA with HW interactions at all.

Interesting, but I thought the thread topic was on how to make barbarians better (against almost anyone) rather than romans worse (against barbarians).

There is another thread on reducing SSw effectiveness somewhere.

Martin

grahambriggs wrote: I suspect the historical performance would suggest a single POA for the Romans in melee - the accounts seem to be of the "tough fight but we chopped through them in the end" variety, rather than the butchery you might see against weak troops.

Certainly concurs with my reading of the history.

This would have the advantage of not changing the SSw vs Dacian falxmen or Spanish sword and buckler men vs heavily armoured MAA with HW interactions at all.

I rather think that the interaction with the Dacians may well be flawed now, so keeping it as is may not be a good thing. Spanish chaps with sword and shield against HW MAA isn't, as I recall, exactly a historical matchup (as in I can't recall any examples of it) so a touch irrelevant (unless I've missed some cases where they fought).

martindneiluk wrote:
Interesting, but I thought the thread topic was on how to make barbarians better (against almost anyone) rather than romans worse (against barbarians).

Yes, you are right and that is the reason why a while ago the discussion was about making the depth of the formation count more for all troops. There are some troups that are very numerous and they can't make those numbers count. There was a proposition of an extra PoA for the 3rd or 4th (I prefer this one) to make the numbers count in certain situations.

I still think that the interaction Romans Barbarians is good as it is right now in melee. I think the main problem is at impact, where Barbarians were known for their fierce and inconsistent charge (which I translate: good at impact and worse in melee). And the problem here is an oversimplification: Romans are treated as Barbarians considering all of them impact foot when the nature of that is completely different. Romans did not rely on their charge and the volley of pila some authors argue that was a way to counter those charges. Even when Romans defeated the phalanx, it was rather in a long standing battle (thus melee) than at impact and now the rules make that Romans have to win impact to have a better chance against these troops. The overall might be right, but really for the wrong reasons.

Polkovnik wrote:

Jilu wrote:i still do not see the point of this thread.
Romans were for a long period of time better equiped, trained and led, so why should they not have the upper hand?
When they lost was it because of the individual soldier, unit or due to a commander /general failing?

I think the point is obvious - barbarian foot (HF, Ave, Prot, Impact Foot, Swordsmen) underperform (relative to their points), and so armies where they are the main troop type are not competetive in equal points games.
Nobody is saying that they should be better than Romans - just that it should not be so one sided.
A points system cannot be expected to give perfectly balanced games every time because of the rock-paper-scissors nature of the game. However, it does not reflect very well on the system when a classic match-up like Romans vs Gauls cannot be fought at equal points because it is so one sided in favour of the Romans.

THis is a good point, barbarian foot in the round are not seen as good value-for-points (unlike, say, drilled armoured MF, superior armoured cavalry or superior knights).

As Hammy pointed out, barbarians versus romans is a special (bad match-up) case of value-for-points because SSwd is good value versus Swd (but worthless against nearly everything else), whereas Protected is worthless against Armoured (but useful against other protected or unprotected). If you make barbarian foot worth their points in general, they will still be bad value versus Armoured SSwd troops.

hammy wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:I think the point is obvious - barbarian foot (HF, Ave, Prot, Impact Foot, Swordsmen) underperform (relative to their points), and so armies where they are the main troop type are not competetive in equal points games.
Nobody is saying that they should be better than Romans - just that it should not be so one sided.
A points system cannot be expected to give perfectly balanced games every time because of the rock-paper-scissors nature of the game. However, it does not reflect very well on the system when a classic match-up like Romans vs Gauls cannot be fought at equal points because it is so one sided in favour of the Romans.

I suspect that if you try recreating historical battles rather than equal points ones then you may find it a lot more reasonable.

IMO the issue is entirely a side effect of the points system. Against Romans then unprotected impact foot no sword would be pretty much as effective as protected impact foot swordsmen. This is because of the way armour works (better or not) and the way skilled sword works (negates sword). If you replace the barbarians with unprotected offensive spearmen then they are actually not a bad match for the Romans point for point.

Creating a points system that works for every possible combination of opponents is pretty much impossible. The current system is not perfect but it is hard to argue that for example protected troops should cost more than unprotected ones. Perhaps making armour more expensive would help, the real question is would another point or two per base for the Romans make much difference?

I think the problem is that Undrilled, Protected, Average, HF/MF, Impact Foot, Sword is just a not very good troop type. It isn't good against Romans, but it isn't good ever. At 7 points a stand it just isn't a very good value. If we really think it correctly models the historical troop type then it probably just needs to be cheaper.

ethan wrote:I think the problem is that Undrilled, Protected, Average, HF/MF, Impact Foot, Sword is just a not very good troop type. It isn't good against Romans, but it isn't good ever. At 7 points a stand it just isn't a very good value. If we really think it correctly models the historical troop type then it probably just needs to be cheaper.

Perhaps it also has a lot to do with what comes with it. Ancient Brits don't do to bad in open competitions.

I think the German, Gallic, etc, armies did miss a few things they should have had, some Superior HF foot for the Germans for example, but most were poo, except fighting each other. I should think the galatians would do well against Hoplite/Pike types, as Terry proved at Derby, but should do better against Romans. Tho maybe not Roman vets.

I think it boils down to the whole army composition in even point games

philqw78 wrote:

ethan wrote:I think the problem is that Undrilled, Protected, Average, HF/MF, Impact Foot, Sword is just a not very good troop type. It isn't good against Romans, but it isn't good ever. At 7 points a stand it just isn't a very good value. If we really think it correctly models the historical troop type then it probably just needs to be cheaper.

Perhaps it also has a lot to do with what comes with it. Ancient Brits don't do to bad in open competitions.

I think the German, Gallic, etc, armies did miss a few things they should have had, some Superior HF foot for the Germans for example, but most were poo, except fighting each other. I should think the galatians would do well against Hoplite/Pike types, as Terry proved at Derby, but should do better against Romans. Tho maybe not Roman vets.

I think it boils down to the whole army composition in even point games

Er, Undrilled, Protected, Average, HF/MF, Impact Foot, Sword is a good value troop type because armies with a lot of them are ineffective but armies that can have lots of other troops instead are effective ?

lawrenceg wrote:Er, Undrilled, Protected, Average, HF/MF, Impact Foot, Sword is a good value troop type because armies with a lot of them are ineffective but armies that can have lots of other troops instead are effective ?

Decent value, yes. Armies that can have a good mix of troops are better. But, then, you can't experiment with your argument so why bother with your armies.

After all the droning on this thread Picts are a good army against Romans, but shit against most other stuff, Romans is all they can fight. perhaps unprotected MF undrilled Offensive spear need a boost more than other troops?

philqw78 wrote:After all the droning on this thread Picts are a good army against Romans, but shit against most other stuff, Romans is all they can fight. perhaps unprotected MF undrilled Offensive spear need a boost more than other troops?

Picts aren't impact foot, they are spearmen. If spearmen can survive impact in good order they fight the Romans on even PoAs.

ethan wrote:

philqw78 wrote:After all the droning on this thread Picts are a good army against Romans, but shit against most other stuff, Romans is all they can fight. perhaps unprotected MF undrilled Offensive spear need a boost more than other troops?

Picts aren't impact foot, they are spearmen. If spearmen can survive impact in good order they fight the Romans on even PoAs.

That was Phil's point. They are good against Romans, not good against anything else. Therefore they need a boost against everying else, or a points reduction. (On paper, they ought to be as good against knights as against Romans, but I suppose knights usually come with accompanying shooty stuff that will rip unprotected MF to shreds )

philqw78 wrote: Perhaps it also has a lot to do with what comes with it. Ancient Brits don't do to bad in open competitions.

I think the German, Gallic, etc, armies did miss a few things they should have had, some Superior HF foot for the Germans for example, but most were poo, except fighting each other. I should think the galatians would do well against Hoplite/Pike types, as Terry proved at Derby, but should do better against Romans. Tho maybe not Roman vets.

I think it boils down to the whole army composition in even point games

I think we might have identified a common strand here -

Ancient Brits are good - they have superior Chariots and Elite MF
Romans are good, they have lots of Superior stuff
Gallic and Picts - superior chariots again
Germans, who somehow have no elite and few superior are useless...

Have the list writers fallen for Roman propaganda? I mean, based on this teutoburger wald would have been a roman triumph.

martindneiluk wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:It is ironic that this debate is the mirror image of the normal DBM concern that barbarians were too strong with respect to legions

I suspect the historical performance would suggest a single POA for the Romans in melee - the accounts seem to be of the "tough fight but we chopped through them in the end" variety, rather than the butchery you might see against weak troops.

For me that would suggest that SSw should negate foot Sw only if all other POAs are equal. So:

Armoured SSw vs protected Sw (currently ++) would be a + for armour, + for SSw vs a + for Sw, net + for Rome

Protected SSw vs Protected Sw (cureently + for Rome) would be + for SSw vs + for Sw. Not net POA so Sw + is removed and Rome gets a +.

This would have the advantage of not changing the SSw vs Dacian falxmen or Spanish sword and buckler men vs heavily armoured MAA with HW interactions at all.

Interesting, but I thought the thread topic was on how to make barbarians better (against almost anyone) rather than romans worse (against barbarians).

There is another thread on reducing SSw effectiveness somewhere.

Martin

And there was I trying to get the historical interaction right

Yes they're not brilliant as a troop type. However, many of the downsides will be mitigated by some of the changes the authors seem to be considering, even if that is just a matter of hamstringing troops seen as too good.

As Phil says, they can be decent value when mixed with other troops (I like them combined with Merovingian massed armoured Light spear/Sword cavalry). But an army full of them is weak.

That's the problem with a lot of Protected average infantry I find. They're not going to break through the enemy as they don't have the POAs usually. So without other troops to break the enemy line it's going to be tough.

lawrenceg wrote:That was Phil's point. They are good against Romans, not good against anything else.

I am not sure Picts are useless against everything else. Now, I don't think Picts are a great army, but they are not terrible either.

azrael86 wrote:

philqw78 wrote: Perhaps it also has a lot to do with what comes with it. Ancient Brits don't do to bad in open competitions.

I think the German, Gallic, etc, armies did miss a few things they should have had, some Superior HF foot for the Germans for example, but most were poo, except fighting each other. I should think the galatians would do well against Hoplite/Pike types, as Terry proved at Derby, but should do better against Romans. Tho maybe not Roman vets.

I think it boils down to the whole army composition in even point games

I think we might have identified a common strand here -

Ancient Brits are good - they have superior Chariots and Elite MF
Romans are good, they have lots of Superior stuff
Gallic and Picts - superior chariots again
Germans, who somehow have no elite and few superior are useless...

Have the list writers fallen for Roman propaganda? I mean, based on this teutoburger wald would have been a roman triumph.

On the rankings page there are only two tournaments where Early Germans were used. Their results were:
2nd out of 10 and 10th out of 18, which is not a bad performance. Possibly people don't use them because they are percieved as bad, rather than they really are bad in practice. However, they are really bad in practice against skilled sword Romans.

Ancient Brits were used in 25 tournaments, sometimes by more than one player at the same tournament. Spliting the finishing positions into quartiles gives (bottom) 5, 7, 9, 5 (top) which indicates they are overall pretty average performers.

In my experience the superior chariots are not that good - you are a POA down in almost every combat, the same as the warbands. The one thing both armies do have is the possibility of filling the table with enough battle troops to sweep light horse off the field, which I suspect is why they can do well in open comps. It's just a question of how many battlegroups you lose to the opponent's other troops.

ethan wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:That was Phil's point. They are good against Romans, not good against anything else.

I am not sure Picts are useless against everything else. Now, I don't think Picts are a great army, but they are not terrible either.

But they are very poor against the troops this thread is trying to improve. Against average, protected, impact foot, Sw they are down at impact and if they are then disrupted they are down in melee or even if not disrupted.

lawrenceg wrote:
On the rankings page there are only two tournaments where Early Germans were used. Their results were:
2nd out of 10 and 10th out of 18, which is not a bad performance. Possibly people don't use them because they are percieved as bad, rather than they really are bad in practice. However, they are really bad in practice against skilled sword Romans.

Ancient Brits were used in 25 tournaments, sometimes by more than one player at the same tournament. Spliting the finishing positions into quartiles gives (bottom) 5, 7, 9, 5 (top) which indicates they are overall pretty average performers.

In my experience the superior chariots are not that good - you are a POA down in almost every combat, the same as the warbands. The one thing both armies do have is the possibility of filling the table with enough battle troops to sweep light horse off the field, which I suspect is why they can do well in open comps. It's just a question of how many battlegroups you lose to the opponent's other troops.

2 tournaments makes it pretty difficult to draw a conclusion - and a tournament of 10 is also on the small side. If Ancient brits are average overall then that seems generous.

Well, the chariots are hugely better - they shoot, they can evade, and they are superior. None of which applies to MF IF. Being a POA down when superior is actually half a POA, add a general and it's even.

azrael86 wrote:Well, the chariots are hugely better - they shoot, they can evade, and they are superior. None of which applies to MF IF. Being a POA down when superior is actually half a POA, add a general and it's even.

They don't shoot Lt Sp. They do however get lots of melee dice which helps against single enemy BG. But they tend to go down quickly if ganged up on. IMO LH are more useful for the Picts than the chariots. They can charge at the same time as the spear from gaps between them and have a chance of catching others' LH. Chariots take up a lot of space so tend to charge by themselves.

And against IF the LCh are down in impact and melee. If you want to add a general to a losing combat its up to you.