Romans vs Barbarian impact foot - how to rebalance?

[philqw78]

Does the Carlisle excavation material and the "mounting body of evidence" date from before or after the Dacian wars?

Once they had the special armour, they would probably have kept it in case they needed it again. That is what happened with the up-armouring kits for AFVs originally developed as a special for the 1991 Kuwait/Iraq war.

Being soldiers though they would have thrown it away instead of carrying it around for years with no use for it. Thats what I used to do.

[shadowdragon]

Looking at the FoG army rankings:

1) Barbarian armies are really not competitive / popular;
2) Roman (pre-Dominate) armies might be competitive, but only in the hands of really good players, which might indicate that they are slightly less competitive overall; and
3) Roman's really beat up Barbarians since their expensive kit is designed to do that, which means paying a lot for what's not really needed.

So, in a complete illogical fit, I voted for option 3 since we need to fix the barbarians first before seeing if it makes sense to take SSw away from the Romans. The only proposal I know of for the barbarians is a -2 CT which might not be enough to elevate those armies. Given no real change in the Barbarian and Roman armies I'd take SSw away, but let's fix issue (1) first - barbarians versus everyone and not just Romans.

[Polkovnik]

but let's fix issue (1) first - barbarians versus everyone and not just Romans.

But it's not just barbarians that are under used at present. Wouldn't it be correct to say that protected HF (with the exception of pike maybe) are generally under represented on the table when in fact they should be the majority troop type for a lot of the period covered ?
So if there was going to be a fix to improve barbarian foot, it should be applied to all protected HF (and probably unprotected to keep these the same relative to protected).
Here's some possible fixes :
1) increase the cost of all armoured and heavily armoured troops by 1 point
2) allow BGs to rear support themselves if they have a full third rank of troops
3) give melee bonus for depth
4) base foot move rates on armour rather than HF / MF, so all protected / unprotected would move 4MU, armoured 3MU

[Polkovnik]

The only proposal I know of for the barbarians is a -2 CT which might not be enough to elevate those armies.

Whilst this will have some effect I agree that it won't make a huge difference. At present, even if the Romans are disrupted at impact they should still win overall.

Given no real change in the Barbarian and Roman armies I'd take SSw away, but let's fix issue (1) first - barbarians versus everyone and not just Romans.

Even if barbarians are boosted slightly in general, SSw Romans are so much better at present that I think this needs to be taken away as well.

[Polkovnik]

Veteran Legions against Average Legions (Civil Wars).

You don't think that is adequately covered by the Quality grading?

I do. Compare it to Spartans vs normal hoplites. If the extra quality rating is enough to account for the superiority of Spartans over other Greek hoplites, surely the same goes for veteran legions vs average.

[shadowdragon]

Veteran Legions against Average Legions (Civil Wars).

You don't think that is adequately covered by the Quality grading?

I do. Compare it to Spartans vs normal hoplites. If the extra quality rating is enough to account for the superiority of Spartans over other Greek hoplites, surely the same goes for veteran legions vs average.

What? "Skilled Offensive Spear" for the Spartans isn't one of the options being considered for v2?

[shadowdragon]

but let's fix issue (1) first - barbarians versus everyone and not just Romans.

But it's not just barbarians that are under used at present. Wouldn't it be correct to say that protected HF (with the exception of pike maybe) are generally under represented on the table when in fact they should be the majority troop type for a lot of the period covered ?
So if there was going to be a fix to improve barbarian foot, it should be applied to all protected HF (and probably unprotected to keep these the same relative to protected).
Here's some possible fixes :
1) increase the cost of all armoured and heavily armoured troops by 1 point
2) allow BGs to rear support themselves if they have a full third rank of troops
3) give melee bonus for depth
4) base foot move rates on armour rather than HF / MF, so all protected / unprotected would move 4MU, armoured 3MU

I can't speak for tournment play, but I play "scenario games" which means for the most part historical opposing armies, lots of terrain and played to "completion". So, is under-representation, in your view, because HF are not combat effective (which I don't see in my "scenario" games) or a problem something occurs due to the characteristics of tournament play. If it's the latter then it's a separate issue that would appear to me to be a "time and space" problem.

[ValentinianVictor]

"I can't speak for tournment play, but I play "scenario games" which means for the most part historical opposing armies, lots of terrain and played to "completion". So, is under-representation, in your view, because HF are not combat effective (which I don't see in my "scenario" games) or a problem something occurs due to the characteristics of tournament play. If it's the latter then it's a separate issue that would appear to me to be a "time and space" problem"

I think this is the real nub of the problem, is this an issue only with competition games? If so, then are the qualms of competition gamers going to overly influence decisions and make changes that are perhaps unnecessary?

I dont know what size the player base is for FOG, but if my experience with other games, particularly on-line ones, is anything to go by, then no more than 10%, probably far less, of the player base actually bothers looking at 'official' websites, let alone contributing to any debates etc. This has been noted in various forums and the angst is that do the 10% of those who regularly post opinions count more than the 90% 'silent majority'?

[rbodleyscott]

So, is under-representation, in your view, because HF are not combat effective (which I don't see in my "scenario" games) or a problem something occurs due to the characteristics of tournament play. If it's the latter then it's a separate issue that would appear to me to be a "time and space" problem.

A bit of both probably. Certainly the time and space issues do distort the balance of tournament play - but then not everyone has unlimited time and space even for non-tournament games.

There is also the issue that historically the armies that struggle did indeed struggle if they came up against the type of armies that are their nemesis in tournament play - but didn't usually fight them very often, if at all. (If they did, they usually eventually adapted to be more suitable for fighting them).

So for the game's sake, we might have to move the balance a bit beyond what is historically accurate so that everyone can get a reasonable game most of the time with every type of army, even if historically they did not do very well against certain types of opponent.

[Horseman]

I voted yes as for most histoical interactions I think NO Ssw works fine

1) Against barabrians and thier Ilk the Romans will still have the POA for armour against all but the few "elite" units these lists posses and I feel the Double POA for also having Ssw is OTT

2) Against spear and pike armies the interaction does not change Ssw is the same as Sw

3) In civil wars I think the superior quality (and Elite in some cases) is enough to differentiate between raw, normal and veteren Legions. As far as I can tell from accounts most civil war battles were a slug fest with the Veterens slowly grinding away the less experienced Legions - this IMHO is better represented as quality difference rather than an extra POA

4) Against HW type troops, well they're not overly common in most armies and the ones they are comon in the Romans historically did have some problems with (i.e Dacians....can't think of any more right now)

Just my 2 pennies worth, not that it counts for much!

[Polkovnik]

Wouldn't it be correct to say that protected HF (with the exception of pike maybe) are generally under represented on the table when in fact they should be the majority troop type for a lot of the period covered ?

So, is under-representation, in your view, because HF are not combat effective .

I think it's because they are not combat effective enough compared to their points cost. So it's an issue of balance.
HF armies are used in tournaments (7 out of the top ten armies ranked by popularity are based around a decent amount of HF), so I don't think it's an issue of not being able to get a win in time due to the move rate or lack of manouevrability of HF. Pike and armoured HF are decent core troops, and you can base a good army around them.

[mbsparta]

We have been using Romans without SSW against barbarians for many months now. Reducing the Roman ++ POA by one gives just the right balance for these historical games. My two regular barbarian opponents using both Gallic and German armies are in agreement that this gives them (1) a better chance in melee with Romans but (2) still requires them to find a flank or soft spot in the Roman line to exploit. It is easier to command a Roman Army than a Gallic army. But the challange faced by the Gallic player is in itself a fun exercise.

I also agree with the author (to a point) that FoG needs to find a balance between the historical and the game. Vercingetorix needs to have a chance against Caesar. But it needn't be a 50-50 chance.

It is imperative to keep the armor POA. It affects so many interactions in so many lists.

As for Roman Civil Wars and SSW ... You have superior troops, average troops and even poor. There are plenty of options in the LRR list to be able to model Pharsalus wihtout SSW.

Giving un-drilled impact foot an extra bonus when victorious in impact is a nice small tweek that can help the barbarian-Roman interaction.

Mike B

[jonphilp]

I have used a Principate Roman army for many years and really for the first time with FOG this army is achieving some success acting in the way I believe they were trained to on the battlefield.. It held its own in an Ancients campaign at the club against pike heavy armies and had difficulty against Parthians etc. The resulting battles felt right in the game play and outcomes, so I would say its not the interaction of the Romans but more to do with Barbarian Warband armies if they constantly fail. Mind you in our latest campaign a Galatian army beat several Pike and Hoplite heavy armies at first so may be the change should be to enable the Gauls, Germans etc to increase the number of Superior units that they can field. I am pleased to report that my Syracusan's won the campaign , the previous campaign was won by a Successor army.

IF Ssw is the issue, make it evens at the first round of melee then + POA afterwards for the superior Romans when in theory the "warband" types are flagging and the Roman training comes into effect. Perhaps this can be taken to show the interaction between drilled and Undrilled impact foot/ swordsmen.

Try not to increase the cost of the legions, I must admit I tend to agree with the idea that Ceaser etc over reported the numbers of enemy forces faced in the field so the idea of small Roman infantry heavy forces taking on massed barbarian hordes feels wrong. I would love to be able to field a Roman army in a "Triplex acies" formation or just have a reserve on the table (one of the many joys of FOGR) but even now the points cost of the Principate army list stops this at a normal club game.

[GHGAustin]

Another bad part of the interaction between Romans and Barbarians is that their impact is the same. From my understanding, if the Romans could stand up to the initial onslaught, then they would likely win. But there is no initial onslaught. Yeah, IF the barbarians win, the Romans suffer a -1 CT, but the chance to win is no better than even.

Maybe Undrilled Impact Foot should have an additional bonus in Impact.

I also think the usual armor bonus in melee is enough for the Romans. Just leave them as Swd.

[stecal]

I voted to drop SSW from the Romans. I think being superior & better armored is enough for the Legionaries. Besides it makes those SSW Gladiators in the Roman lists actually something special now.

[timmy1]

I actually play Principate Romans and they always have a hard time. I vote for no change but that is special pleading, so:

Pete Dalby's idea is best and there is precident (sp?). I would also recommend a change to the impact. As Rob has stated and is backed by the accounts we have - the barbarian charge was ferocious (sp?), especially in broken terrain but not in FoG:AM. How about regular impact foot only get a plus if steady?

[Polkovnik]

I actually play Principate Romans and they always have a hard time.

Against what opponents ? You do know that removing Ssw from Romans will improve them against many opponents such as pike, spears, any mounted ?

[TheGrayMouser]

I actually play Principate Romans and they always have a hard time.

Against what opponents ? You do know that removing Ssw from Romans will improve them against many opponents such as pike, spears, any mounted ?

How will removing Ssw "improve them" vs pikes spears and mounted?

[Strategos69]

I actually play Principate Romans and they always have a hard time.

Against what opponents ? You do know that removing Ssw from Romans will improve them against many opponents such as pike, spears, any mounted ?

How will removing Ssw "improve them" vs pikes spears and mounted?

It will reduce the cost in points. That would be positive for Romans in many match ups.

[Strategos69]

Veteran Legions against Average Legions (Civil Wars).

You don't think that is adequately covered by the Quality grading?

It is a matter of statistics. Better quality improves a unit efficiency by around 20%. Rough calculations, that would mean that an average legion should expect to win around 30-40% of the time. The question then is how many times did an average legion rout a veteran one. Were them that many?

In the other hand, civil war combats are already very equal. Would it be good for the game to make them more equal (aka, boring)?