Slitherine

Yes but 1 point for an use so small isn't a bit expensive?
Would be nice if Romans may have choice between swordsmen or SSW ( to simulate extensive experience from Caesarian legions in civil war against Pompeians)

stecal wrote:I still think the best fix for SSW in melee is to make it a +1 POA only if all other POAs are even - just like mounted Lt Spear in impact. That allows SSW to beat other SW if all other factors (armor) are even.

I think that this idea has merit and would be a good fix.

olivier wrote:Yes but 1 point for an use so small isn't a bit expensive?
Would be nice if Romans may have choice between swordsmen or SSW ( to simulate extensive experience from Caesarian legions in civil war against Pompeians)

Um, they already do - buy them as average. The Roman lists get more choices than nearly any other army in FOG already!

The armour change is also probably more desirable as I think a lot of people do see Romans as being better swordsmen than most and so having them as SSw works on a visceral level (in more than one way Twisted Evil ).

--------------------------------------------------
Unique Gifts
Valentine Gifts

I'd like to support the 'plus if even' as mounted light spear argument. The extra cost of a SSW is not great. It is very favourable compared with other points paid that have no effect in some situations like heavy weapon.

I'm inclined to think that one of the problems with the Romans versus barbarians interaction is 4 base units of Romans who are largely invulnerable to losses whilst fighting the barbarians, so can keep on fighting successive opponents

They tend to win, usually with only one or two hits against them, and hence can't lose any bases. This makes the barbarians numerical advantage almost useless, since they can't win by attrition, and can't bring their numbers to bear, because only the first two ranks fight, and there are limited opportunities for overlaps.

Perhaps change the casualty mechanism: roll 3+ to avoid a base loss if you won, 4+ if you drew, and 5+ if you lost. This way, the Romans are always at risk of losing a base, but the barbarians will lose them much more often, since they tend to lose the combats.

Even though the Romans will still tend to hammer the first wave of barbarians, they may not be in such good shape to take on the second wave, and certainly not the third!

We have played many Roman v. Barbarian games. The best solution we have found is Nik's suggested (no SSW and a -1 points-cost). Don't mess with armor or the POA chart. As for the Roman Civil War, there are many options in the army lists to give you different quality troops.

FoG has captured a very delicate balance with Romans who are a disgrace under DBM/M. Stick to Nik's suggestions ... please.

Mike B

While I agree with the general concept of "+ if equal" for SSw, I think it need some work. If you had this as proposed then armoured legionary swordsmen would outfight armoured legionary superior swordmen in civil wars! "I get a POA of Sword. You only get one for SSw if we are equal, which we aren't." So I am a POA up!"

Perhaps it is better to phrase it "+ unless you have one or two net POAs already"?

Nobody has spoken to the issue with Dacian falxmen - the poor relations who are down at impact and in melee to proper Romans. Surely the simplest thing to do here is to stop the SSw negating the HW POA? I'm not sure though what interaction that POA is trying to model? If it's the legionary/falxmen one then it doesn't do a good job. But is there another interaction that would be messed up by this?

grahambriggs wrote: But is there another interaction that would be messed up by this?

Japanese SSw, sword and buckler men. I don't think Sw and buckler works that well though

grahambriggs wrote:While I agree with the general concept of "+ if equal" for SSw, I think it need some work. If you had this as proposed then armoured legionary swordsmen would outfight armoured legionary superior swordmen in civil wars! "I get a POA of Sword. You only get one for SSw if we are equal, which we aren't." So I am a POA up!"

Perhaps it is better to phrase it "+ unless you have one or two net POAs already"?

Nobody has spoken to the issue with Dacian falxmen - the poor relations who are down at impact and in melee to proper Romans. Surely the simplest thing to do here is to stop the SSw negating the HW POA? I'm not sure though what interaction that POA is trying to model? If it's the legionary/falxmen one then it doesn't do a good job. But is there another interaction that would be messed up by this?

Sw don't get their + POA vs Sw or SSW. There is no issue.


Dacian falxmen are probably where they need to be - not like they conquered the world or anything.

stecal wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:While I agree with the general concept of "+ if equal" for SSw, I think it need some work. If you had this as proposed then armoured legionary swordsmen would outfight armoured legionary superior swordmen in civil wars! "I get a POA of Sword. You only get one for SSw if we are equal, which we aren't." So I am a POA up!"

Perhaps it is better to phrase it "+ unless you have one or two net POAs already"?

Nobody has spoken to the issue with Dacian falxmen - the poor relations who are down at impact and in melee to proper Romans. Surely the simplest thing to do here is to stop the SSw negating the HW POA? I'm not sure though what interaction that POA is trying to model? If it's the legionary/falxmen one then it doesn't do a good job. But is there another interaction that would be messed up by this?

Sw don't get their + POA vs Sw or SSW. There is no issue.


Dacian falxmen are probably where they need to be - not like they conquered the world or anything.

Oh yes, good point re the Sw POA, I forgot.

The falxmen didn't conquer the world, but the Romans did change their armour specifically to deal with them, which was unusual. I'm not sure what the authors thoughts were when they made the SSw negate the heavy weapon. Not sure why it would when normal swords don't. Or perhaps it was an attempt to say that the SSw troops were the guys with anti-falxmen armour.

grahambriggs wrote: The falxmen didn't conquer the world, but the Romans did change their armour specifically to deal with them, which was unusual. I'm not sure what the authors thoughts were when they made the SSw negate the heavy weapon. Not sure why it would when normal swords don't. Or perhaps it was an attempt to say that the SSw troops were the guys with anti-falxmen armour.

You could do -1 for death roll when taking hits from enemy with Heavy weapons. So don't take POA changes, but increase death results. It would add color and be superficial impact.