azrael86 wrote:
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.
My point was that superior troops are much less brittle than average ones - and Germans, in particular seem to have been hard done by (former Irr A chatti are now deemed average).
You are only 1 poa down, so superior chariots+Gen fighting average warband (sans Gen) will be effectively level in both phases, and if the warband lose impact they are significantly more likely to disrupt, with a -1 test.
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.
As Phil says, they can't shoot. They do have the other advantages over MF , but they cost 15 points a base compared to 7 for a British warrior base and 6 for Pictish spearmen, so in value-for-points there is not much difference.
Modelling the interaction between the Romans and their barbarian counterparts is always going to be fraught with difficulties.
For a start the Roman army was transformed numerous times during its existance and developed new weapons and tactics to deal with different foes it encountered. No one in their right mind would suggest the Roman Army under Caesar was identical to that commanded by Valentinian I. THeir fighting style, arms and armour were different in many respects.
Similarly, barbarian groupings themselves had differing fighting styles and tactics. The Gauls who fought Caesar were in many respects not similar to the Allemanni who fought Valentinian, and different again from the Franks who fought Julian and the Goths who fought Valens.
On one had we hear of the barbarians initiating 'wild charges', and on the other they attack in 'dense columns'.
Taking my own particular Roman period of interest into account, that between 310AD and 410AD, battles between the Romans and their barbarian counterparts had several distinct phases. The first was the manuevering into position, the second was moving towards the enemy with skirmishers out in front harrassing. The third was the withdrawing of the skirmishers when at missile range, the forth was both sides trying to psych each other out by singing war songs, raising the 'barritus' and showering each other with missiles. The fifth was when one's side initiated combat, the sixth was the general combat with 'pulses' of action interspersed with lulls to regain breath etc, and the seventh was when one side broke and was pursued.
Very few casualties appeared to have happened during the forth to six phases, most appeared to have happened during phase seven.
ValentinianVictor wrote:Modelling the interaction between the Romans and their barbarian counterparts is always going to be fraught with difficulties.
For a start the Roman army was transformed numerous times during its existance and developed new weapons and tactics to deal with different foes it encountered. No one in their right mind would suggest the Roman Army under Caesar was identical to that commanded by Valentinian I. THeir fighting style, arms and armour were different in many respects.
Indeed, although historians (and wargamers) have usually not applied sufficient salt in consuming Caesar's propaganda.
What appears to be missing is the list that destroyed three veteran roman legions!
ValentinianVictor wrote:Modelling the interaction between the Romans and their barbarian counterparts is always going to be fraught with difficulties.
For a start the Roman army was transformed numerous times during its existance and developed new weapons and tactics to deal with different foes it encountered. No one in their right mind would suggest the Roman Army under Caesar was identical to that commanded by Valentinian I. THeir fighting style, arms and armour were different in many respects.
Indeed, although historians (and wargamers) have usually not applied sufficient salt in consuming Caesar's propaganda.
What appears to be missing is the list that destroyed three veteran roman legions!
The current German list will do that if you recreat Teutoburg Wald:
The whole board is forest, apart from a road. The romans have their whole army in a single file column on the road, with gaps in between the BGs. The Germans deploy as they wish on either side of the Romans, just out of visibility range, and can set up fortifications to block the Roman retreat. The Germans have the first move.
grahambriggs wrote:
The current German list will do that if you recreat Teutoburg Wald:
The whole board is forest, apart from a road.
two questions
1. how do you get this terrain
2. who built the road?
1. By doing a re-enactment. On the other side, just because the Germans beat the Romans in forest ambushes, doesn't mean they should win in a stylised competition game.
2. the Germans, I assume - so more of a track. It wasn't a roman road at least.
It is not certain that even MF in difficult terrain will comprehensively defeat legions as the rules current stand. The MF will have a reasonably advantage in impact (3 dice vs. 2 at evens, although down a superior potentially) but will still be at a disadvantage in melee down two PoAs, even up a die.
ethan wrote:It is not certain that even MF in difficult terrain will comprehensively defeat legions as the rules current stand. The MF will have a reasonably advantage in impact (3 dice vs. 2 at evens, although down a superior potentially) but will still be at a disadvantage in melee down two PoAs, even up a die.
MF charging legions from both flanks in difficult terrain? You're kidding right?
ethan wrote:It is not certain that even MF in difficult terrain will comprehensively defeat legions as the rules current stand. The MF will have a reasonably advantage in impact (3 dice vs. 2 at evens, although down a superior potentially) but will still be at a disadvantage in melee down two PoAs, even up a die.
MF charging legions from both flanks in difficult terrain? You're kidding right?
Depends on how we think the battle went down, I am no expert.
From a game perspective though frontal attacks by Average MF, Impact Ft/Sw against Superior HF/IF/SSw is not a sure winner was my point.
ethan wrote:It is not certain that even MF in difficult terrain will comprehensively defeat legions as the rules current stand. The MF will have a reasonably advantage in impact (3 dice vs. 2 at evens, although down a superior potentially) but will still be at a disadvantage in melee down two PoAs, even up a die.
MF charging legions from both flanks in difficult terrain? You're kidding right?
Depends on how we think the battle went down, I am no expert.
From a game perspective though frontal attacks by Average MF, Impact Ft/Sw against Superior HF/IF/SSw is not a sure winner was my point.
Actually this whole line of thought suggests another possible way to deal with the SSw issue. How about if the skilled part of skilled swordsmen only counts if you are steady.
So if the barbarians disrupt the Romans in the charge then the romans don't count as skilled. If the Germans are fighting the Romans in the woods the Romans don't count as skilled.
grahambriggs wrote:
The current German list will do that if you recreat Teutoburg Wald:
The whole board is forest, apart from a road. The romans have their whole army in a single file column on the road, with gaps in between the BGs. The Germans deploy as they wish on either side of the Romans, just out of visibility range, and can set up fortifications to block the Roman retreat. The Germans have the first move.
That's the Hollywood version surely. I thought modern archaeological evidence combined with the ancient sources points to a battle in effect lasting 4 days, with the Romans trying to break out, constructing camps, marching around. But in the end being slowly worn down.
So perhaps FoG has it right after all. If you take an infinite supply of Germanic BGs and throw them against a line of legionary BGs, after about 4 days of dice throwing you should have inflicted enough base loses to win...
ethan wrote:
Actually this whole line of thought suggests another possible way to deal with the SSw issue. How about if the skilled part of skilled swordsmen only counts if you are steady.
So if the barbarians disrupt the Romans in the charge then the romans don't count as skilled. If the Germans are fighting the Romans in the woods the Romans don't count as skilled.
Well, skilled swordsman is a highly questionable category overall. It doesn't apply to the most highly trained warriors such as Knights or Samurai. It seems to be fixing a problem that largely doesn't exist -of making Romans tougher. Roman foot, if superior are usually tough enough agianst more or less anything except cataphracts, pike or spearmen. Given that SS doesn't count against pike and spear unless they are unsteady (i.e. the Romans are already winning), whether it is worth keeping seems to come down to being and extra POA against Parthians and Sassanids. The record of legions against these was patchy at best (notwithstanding Crassus). Later Roman armies facing the Persians emphasised the mounted arm.
DBM probably is responsible for the feeling that legions needed help. But clearly Legions are fine - although they may be allowed too many superiors - SSwd is unnecessary.
azrael86 wrote:
Well, skilled swordsman is a highly questionable category overall. It doesn't apply to the most highly trained warriors such as Knights or Samurai. It seems to be fixing a problem that largely doesn't exist -of making Romans tougher. Roman foot, if superior are usually tough enough agianst more or less anything except cataphracts, pike or spearmen. Given that SS doesn't count against pike and spear unless they are unsteady (i.e. the Romans are already winning), whether it is worth keeping seems to come down to being and extra POA against Parthians and Sassanids. The record of legions against these was patchy at best (notwithstanding Crassus). Later Roman armies facing the Persians emphasised the mounted arm.
SSwd is the same as normal sword versus mounted sword, so it doesn't help you against PArthians and Sassanids.
It only helps against other foot swordsmen and heavy weapon.
azrael86 wrote:
Well, skilled swordsman is a highly questionable category overall. It doesn't apply to the most highly trained warriors such as Knights or Samurai. It seems to be fixing a problem that largely doesn't exist -of making Romans tougher. Roman foot, if superior are usually tough enough agianst more or less anything except cataphracts, pike or spearmen. Given that SS doesn't count against pike and spear unless they are unsteady (i.e. the Romans are already winning), whether it is worth keeping seems to come down to being and extra POA against Parthians and Sassanids. The record of legions against these was patchy at best (notwithstanding Crassus). Later Roman armies facing the Persians emphasised the mounted arm.
SSwd is the same as normal sword versus mounted sword, so it doesn't help you against PArthians and Sassanids.
It only helps against other foot swordsmen and heavy weapon.
peterrjohnston wrote:That's the Hollywood version surely. I thought modern archaeological evidence combined with the ancient sources points to a battle in effect lasting 4 days, with the Romans trying to break out, constructing camps, marching around. But in the end being slowly worn down.
Forgetting an after battle pursuit then Peter? If that pursuit is included in other battle reports they all last a number of days.
So perhaps FoG has it right after all. If you take an infinite supply of Germanic BGs and throw them against a line of legionary BGs, after about 4 days of dice throwing you should have inflicted enough base loses to win...
Is it a larger or smaller infinity of Germans? Rhetorical anyway as fractal effect will mean that some (part of) Romans will always survive
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
azrael86 wrote:Well, skilled swordsman is a highly questionable category overall. It doesn't apply to the most highly trained warriors such as Knights or Samurai. .
It does apply to Samurai, it doesn't matter to knights, or any other mounted
It seems to be fixing a problem that largely doesn't exist -of making Romans tougher. Roman foot, if superior are usually tough enough agianst more or less anything except ........
Skilled sword was only included in the rules to make Romans tougher against their historical opponents from what I am lead to believe. But after a full 2 years of competition, and more importantly club play it seems skilled sword is too powerful.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
philqw78 wrote:Forgetting an after battle pursuit then Peter? If that pursuit is included in other battle reports they all last a number of days.
Dio has the Romans forming a camp for the night on the spot of the first attack. That's an odd pursuit...
Sounds more like the initial attack took the Romans by surprise and inflicted a lot casualties, but they regrouped and tried to fight their way out*, only to be worn down by increasing numbers (infinity again ) of Germans buoyed by the initial success. Weather probably played a part too.
* Didn't Tiberius almost have the same problem - minus the initial surprise attack.
