Slitherine

In the long run there will be a whole new set of lists. But not with V2

philqw78 wrote:In the long run there will be a whole new set of lists. But not with V2

The penny drops.

grahambriggs wrote:

ianiow wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:
I think it's a different argument. For the steppe armies it was "feels like cavalry who can skirmish and charge proper enemy, but might be LH so we'll give the option". For the Numidians there are quite a lot of sources, and (though I'm not personally familiar) the sense seems to be "really good lightly armed skirmishers who could slaughter velites and mob roman cavalry when supported by other mounted". So I can't see them being anything other than LH.

Thanks for the reply Graham. Well I cant really argue against a tonne of research and primary sources. But I still dont feel that FOG caters very well for the Numidian Cavalry. In the current rules 'mobbing' Cavalry can only mean shooting them for many turns or waiting for the Gallic cavalry to put the Romans down to fragmented so that a rear charge can finally go in.

Maybe I am getting this wrong because I am coming from the PC FOG angle where LH are the worst troop type in the game. Maybe tabletop LH are more effective at shooting the enemy to bits. For me it would be nice if perhaps Jav armed LH could be allowed to charge steady enemy. The 'mobbing' of an enemy cavalry unit would certainly be more viable then!

Yes but that's exactly how the Numidians operated. for example, at Cannae, they kept one wing of Roman cavlary occupied while the Spanish/Celt horse smashed the other, rode round the back and tonked the roman cavalry.

In TT FoG LH (in v1) are very good value, and they can charge flanks and rears, though shooting is better.

My opinion is it may only work on the micro-level, but on the Battle Group level I think it fails. I've see a very similar interaction with the Persian javelin horse. The practical game effect I've found is that the Numidians are not very likely to do enough shooting damage to armoured CV or hold them in one place, as they are often claimed to have done. The way the FoG mechanics work, I see the Numidian types evade too far, too quickly. I've never seen a game where there was (even a hint of) a possibility that Numidians could "hold" the Romans long enough on their own flank for the friendly cavalry on the other flank to come all the way around and attack the Roman rear. To do this, they'd need to consistently cause disruption on all the opposing Roman CV, who must be non-shock and consistently fail their CMT to charge! Beleive me, as a history-buff I've tried it.
I get that the Numidians were agile and could run, and that they wouldn't kill many Romans with skirmish fire. But I think the top-down feel is wrong. Would you hold your army' flank with only Numidians? I wouldn't. But Hannibal did. There is some element here the game is missing: the general confusion caused by skirmishers? the tiring effect of charging and fleeing? I'm not sure.

I won a competition last year with Taifa Andalusians using javelin light horse to hold my flank. Rush forward in move one, than fall back slowly. I agree that in the TT game there's not much chance of shooting people down. Do the Roman Cv have to be armoured or can they be protected? Might work with the latter.

pezhetairoi wrote: My opinion is it may only work on the micro-level, but on the Battle Group level I think it fails. I've see a very similar interaction with the Persian javelin horse. The practical game effect I've found is that the Numidians are not very likely to do enough shooting damage to armoured CV or hold them in one place, as they are often claimed to have done. The way the FoG mechanics work, I see the Numidian types evade too far, too quickly. I've never seen a game where there was (even a hint of) a possibility that Numidians could "hold" the Romans long enough on their own flank for the friendly cavalry on the other flank to come all the way around and attack the Roman rear. To do this, they'd need to consistently cause disruption on all the opposing Roman CV, who must be non-shock and consistently fail their CMT to charge! Beleive me, as a history-buff I've tried it.
I get that the Numidians were agile and could run, and that they wouldn't kill many Romans with skirmish fire. But I think the top-down feel is wrong. Would you hold your army' flank with only Numidians? I wouldn't. But Hannibal did. There is some element here the game is missing: the general confusion caused by skirmishers? the tiring effect of charging and fleeing? I'm not sure.

I totally agree. I have tried the same too at it simply does not work as it did happen historically .

In my opinion, historically speaking, the key is double. Firstly, if Romans engaged in a total pursuite, Numidians would scatter and. Romans would break the cohesion of their units and then they might get into trouble, besides the fact that they would exponse the Roman flank, which they were supposed to cover. Indeed, secondly, in my opinion Romans are overrated and Numidians underrated. It is known from Polybius that Roman armour was quite weak (a cloak, mostly) and a veru bad shield bad before the times he writes (which would mean around the times of the 2nd Punic War). Was that really a better armour than the Numidian one? Or was it just as effective in both cases? Numidians were also not only expert riders but veterans. However they are classed as ordinary and unprotected, even for Hannibal. My guess is that in hand to hand combat they would be a good match. Even if your equipment and armour is better (which I doubt for the Romans) you are not very effective if your foes can overrun you or make you fall from your horse.

If the battlefield is set up such that the Romans are within 6" of the table edge with threatened flank, this numidians become a much bigger threat. And, do the Roman cav at cannae rate having a commander with them? Romans with threatened flank, no commander...are now in a world of trouble. Probably numidians don't need help to finish them.

I've always said that javelin LH are short-changed in FoG in many cases. It seems to me that they should have a better armour rating than, say, Parthian bow LH, if they have a shield. So maybe many of them should be "protected" instead of unprotected?

But having said that...looking at the matchup of Numidians against Romans...let's try to stay away from the flawed bottom-up approach of "well I'm going to choose to assume they both have similar equipement, so...", shall we?

What were the fighting styles? What tactics did they use? Primarily skirmishers, or not? (which may be more about a state of mind than what equipment they carry)

In particular, did Numidians historically beat steady Roman cav in *close combat*?

ShrubMiK wrote:I
But having said that...looking at the matchup of Numidians against Romans...let's try to stay away from the flawed bottom-up approach of "well I'm going to choose to assume they both have similar equipement, so...", shall we?

I agree that we should look for the best historical feel according to the results, but right now:
a) Numidians fleeing a lot at every charge
b) fighting with half the dice and -- at melee does not feel like a kind of match for the Romans.

Numidians need a big table and the first turn to be effective to recreate the tactics used by Hannibal. And that is not what the Numidians had at Cannae, for example.Indeed, the Polibyan Romans get all the options of armour, whereas many of the armoured should be only allowed for armies in the second half of II a.D. I think that we get to a bottom up approach given that the top-bottom one is not satisfactory as explained by pezhetairoi.

pezhetairoi wrote: I get that the Numidians were agile and could run, and that they wouldn't kill many Romans with skirmish fire. But I think the top-down feel is wrong. Would you hold your army' flank with only Numidians? I wouldn't. But Hannibal did. There is some element here the game is missing: the general confusion caused by skirmishers? the tiring effect of charging and fleeing? I'm not sure.

ShrubMiK wrote:I
What were the fighting styles? What tactics did they use? Primarily skirmishers, or not? (which may be more about a state of mind than what equipment they carry)
In particular, did Numidians historically beat steady Roman cav in *close combat*?

There are two questions there. Do we assume that when close combat is engaged troops with javelins are phisically in contact? Skirmishing is only done when you throw javelins and you are charged and evade? I am more and more persuaded that from a top bottom approach maybe representing every evade is not too accurate because some troops evade way too much and it looks like more like a flight.

From the point of view of the lists if Numidians in Italy were protected and superior it would be much more reasonable that you left them in charge of the flank alone. What is ridiculous is that velites can be protected and you end up fighting with - PoA against some lists allowed for II Punic War.

Strategos69 wrote: There are two questions there. Do we assume that when close combat is engaged troops with javelins are phisically in contact? Skirmishing is only done when you throw javelins and you are charged and evade? I am more and more persuaded that from a top bottom approach maybe representing every evade is not too accurate because some troops evade way too much and it looks like more like a flight.

I do not believe automatically in contact means physical.

From the point of view of the lists if Numidians in Italy were protected and superior it would be much more reasonable that you left them in charge of the flank alone. What is ridiculous is that velites can be protected and you end up fighting with - PoA against some lists allowed for II Punic War.

So a plus at impact with twice as many dice and a minus in melee but still twice as many dice. Not bad for the Numidians IMO. Also if the velites are lucky the numidians break off.

Also perhaps instead of using the Roman cav as the best available in the list perhaps the should be used as they were. Average and protected. Making the Numidians protected LH does little to help them against superior armoured Cav, which is what everyone takes since they have the choice. Unlike the Romans.

philqw78 wrote:

From the point of view of the lists if Numidians in Italy were protected and superior it would be much more reasonable that you left them in charge of the flank alone. What is ridiculous is that velites can be protected and you end up fighting with - PoA against some lists allowed for II Punic War.

So a plus at impact with twice as many dice and a minus in melee but still twice as many dice. Not bad for the Numidians IMO. Also if the velites are lucky the numidians break off.

In my games usually I only get one base in contact at impact, thus 2 dice on 1, which usually means that nothing happens and then I have 3 vs 4 dice at melee. I am not saying this is a game breaker but I would imagine that the Numidians should be able to sweep them off quite easily. That was what cavalry was used for.

philqw78 wrote: Also perhaps instead of using the Roman cav as the best available in the list perhaps the should be used as they were. Average and protected. Making the Numidians protected LH does little to help them against superior armoured Cav, which is what everyone takes since they have the choice. Unlike the Romans.

You are totally right and that is partly a problem of the list, allowing some combinations that are thought for the pikes vs legions interactions into periods where they did not belong to.Certainly it is also more a problem of players than the list itself, but it wouldn't have been that difficult to tune them right or provide guidelines for players. In fact many players assume in this forum that Romans have been modeled as if they have to be only superior and armoured. It is curious that Romans can have their elite units no matter which front or general, but that some armies have them restricted to certain generals. There was a time when a campaign book with guidelines for players was mentioned, but who knows...

>That was what cavalry was used for.

Fair point. But surely the whole point of troops rated as LH is that they behave and have capabilities different to those rated as Cv. At least LH can catch the velites whereas Cv typically cannot!

I still don't see the problem. Twice as many dice in melee is still going to win most of the time, even with a -POA due to lesser armour (and how often do you see protected LF anyway? Not common in my experience. And protected LF are thus precisely because they are *supposed* to be more reslient in melee than your typical LF). (And as I have already said, IMO Numidian LH should be rated as protected anyway).

As for the rest...I assume physical base contact means "hand-to-hand" combat - albeit including some chucking of javelins on the way in, and perhaps rear ranks continuing to chuck javelins overhead or through gaps as the opportunity presents itself. (Maybe I should call it "close quarters" combat instead?). Maybe that's an incorrect assumption, but its based on the contrast between DBx and FoG. (If base contact can possibly represent LH chucking javs and staying out of hand-to-hand reach, how come pikemen get twice as many dice and better POAs?)

They are very different rulesets. In FoG, skirmishers holding up and occasionally defeating battle troops comes about through an actual representation of skirnishing on the table. In DBx it is hidden and the results (but not the exact events) can be deduced after the dice have been rolled. Wishing that FoG was more like DBx seems like a dangerous road to go down