Can MF ( impact foot ) throw Javelins in the shooting phase

[ShrubMiK]

Early "Peltasts" who skirmished do have a shooting capability - IIRC they are in several lists as "Euzonoi" ?

You have to be careful in drawing too many inferences from troops being identified as "Peltasts" - given that the name refers to a type of shield rather than a type of weapon or fighting style.

[KiwiWarlord]

The Thureophoroi and Thorakites who gradually replaced the Peltasts, carried javelins in addition to a long thrusting spear and a short sword.
These would have used the 'Throwing Strap' that was in common usage by the Greeks one would have to assume ?

[ShrubMiK]

Sorry, as soon as I see the word "assume" I become sceptical

Later Roman Legionaries carried a variety of spears suitable for throwing, some of which were of the sort of weight/range characteristics that would typically lead to being classed as "javelins". Yet they don't get shooting capability either. So what? You may assume (and many rulesets both past and present do) that they are primarily intended to be close-fighting troops and they throw their limited supply of missile weapons during the impact phase.

[zoltan]

Ahh, the old Phil Barker tripple-armed legionary with martiobarbuli!

Assume makes an ass out of u and me.

[KiwiWarlord]

The big difference with PB's super troops and FoG's super troops is that the Romans were costed as super troops where as the American Indians get the power assisted javelins for 0, that's ZERO, points.

[philqw78]

They're not super though. I would rather pay 2 points and get them some armour than get the Jav for free.

[grahambriggs]

It's the first time I've heard of armies consisting of protected (at best) MF and LF - i.e. no armoured, no LH and no contact mounted described as 'super troops'. One of our considerations when writing the B+G lists was that we wanted the American armies to give historical battles against contemporaries, be at least useable against non-contemporaries but not super armies. To some degree we achieved that, though I think many are not really useable in open competition.

Yes, the point can be made that an undrilled,MF American with Impact Foot, Sword and javelins costs the same as, say a Gallic warrior base who is exactly the same but lacks javelins. However, the latter comes in an army that gets decent cavalry and the former does not. And so the Gallic army is a lot better off in general.

[ShrubMiK]

>The big difference with PB's super troops and FoG's super troops is that the Romans were costed as super troops

Now that's debatable

Paying a mere 2 points to become "super" always seemed a bit of a no-brainer to me. I don't think the cost quite reflected the benefits.

Getting back to the present...I too dislike these free capabilities that some troops get, and the arguments for doing so. Light spear causes a few more issues than javelins. If an army without decent cavalry and lacking armoured troops cannot compete effectively at equal points, it suggests that the rules/points are a bit biased towards armour and mounted, and maybe the problem should be tackled in that direction rather than handing out freebies in compensation. But that'a a whole different argument! And I understand that a few freebies in the lists was possible, whereas rewriting ruls and points values at that time was not.

[KiwiWarlord]

It's the first time I've heard of armies consisting of protected (at best) MF and LF - i.e. no armoured, no LH and no contact mounted described as 'super troops'. One of our considerations when writing the B+G lists was that we wanted the American armies to give historical battles against contemporaries, be at least useable against non-contemporaries but not super armies. To some degree we achieved that, though I think many are not really useable in open competition.

Yes, the point can be made that an undrilled,MF American with Impact Foot, Sword and javelins costs the same as, say a Gallic warrior base who is exactly the same but lacks javelins. However, the latter comes in an army that gets decent cavalry and the former does not. And so the Gallic army is a lot better off in general.

The problem is the 'troop type' not the 'army' gets a 'freebie' where as other MF with javelins/light spear are not allowed to throw theirs.
The play balance that you discuss is not across all the armies listed in FoG AM, impossible to achieve I would say, so MF who can throw javelins (and any other troop types eligible) should pay for the privilege.
Just because the Gallic Army has cavalry should not stop the Gallic warriors throwing javelins ( if they had them ), you get my drift ?

[richnz]

Surely the purpose of the points system is to ensure that armies are balanced. And there is nothing unbalanced about the B+G armies, despite the "free" shooting.

If there's a cheesy freebie out there then surely it's armies such as Early Medieval German that get free dismounting...

[zoltan]

If there's a cheesy freebie out there then surely it's armies such as Early Medieval German that get free dismounting...

Ouch, I resemble that remark!

[grahambriggs]

It's the first time I've heard of armies consisting of protected (at best) MF and LF - i.e. no armoured, no LH and no contact mounted described as 'super troops'. One of our considerations when writing the B+G lists was that we wanted the American armies to give historical battles against contemporaries, be at least useable against non-contemporaries but not super armies. To some degree we achieved that, though I think many are not really useable in open competition.

Yes, the point can be made that an undrilled,MF American with Impact Foot, Sword and javelins costs the same as, say a Gallic warrior base who is exactly the same but lacks javelins. However, the latter comes in an army that gets decent cavalry and the former does not. And so the Gallic army is a lot better off in general.

The problem is the 'troop type' not the 'army' gets a 'freebie' where as other MF with javelins/light spear are not allowed to throw theirs.
The play balance that you discuss is not across all the armies listed in FoG AM, impossible to achieve I would say, so MF who can throw javelins (and any other troop types eligible) should pay for the privilege.
Just because the Gallic Army has cavalry should not stop the Gallic warriors throwing javelins ( if they had them ), you get my drift ?

The others with javelins do not have the atlatl with which to throw them. Troop costs are merely a mechanism to ensure ahistorical army opponents are evenly matched. What these armies desperately need is a BG of LH of a couple of BGs that fight better than protected MF. It's the lack of that that makes them weak armies, and the javelin capability doesn't make up the difference.

Yes, there are armies in B+G that have light spear but not javelins for their MF. They are at a disadvantage. Not a great one, as they tend to get enough big units not to care. But often their 'light spears' are manifestly unsuited to be missile weapons. Not may of the materials available made a good point, so often these spears are more slashing weapons than thrusters.

I agree that having a number of foot capabilities as zero points is distorting. However, FOG is a top down system and unless games become dominated by MF using javelins it's unlikely we have a game breaking problem.

Certainly my Aztecs suffered badly against han Chinese. LH slowed one wing, while armoured haevy weapon foot cut through my military orders. The javelins were about the right value for the points I spent on them!

[ShrubMiK]

Warlord, you were initially arguing for "peltast" to be able to throw javelins. I assume that's still your main ask.

Then you argue that it is bad that some troops of similar type in some American armies are allowed this, as an exception. But it is bad because it is free and that is unfair. Fine...but is the basis of your argument really that A is bad so B should be changed to also be bad, but at least consistent? Doesn't seem like a reasonable line of argument to me.

And then comes Gallic MF...are you really arguing that all troops who historically were armed with throwable spears should get "javelins" capability under the rules? If so, good luck with that one

[zocco]

Regarding Plumbatae have a look at

http://bg.academia.edu/MiroslavVujovic/ ... ROM_SERBIA

Interesting reading. I'm looking forward to having my Dominate Roman legionaries (V2) armed with darts (javelins) . Certainly a very good case for it . Imagine a V2 battle along the lines of......Roman legionaries advance towards hairies halting within range and then showering them with darts. The hairies not liking the situation then decide to bog in pronto and charge. Seems a pretty convincing picture of battle for the later Roman - early Byzantine period to me.

cheers

Z.

[zoltan]

Regarding Plumbatae have a look at

http://bg.academia.edu/MiroslavVujovic/ ... ROM_SERBIA

Interesting reading. I'm looking forward to having my Dominate Roman legionaries (V2) armed with darts (javelins) . Certainly a very good case for it . Imagine a V2 battle along the lines of......Roman legionaries advance towards hairies halting within range and then showering them with darts. The hairies not liking the situation then decide to bog in pronto and charge. Seems a pretty convincing picture of battle for the later Roman - early Byzantine period to me.

cheers

Z.

Sounds like the old WRG triple armed legionaries may make a come back!

[ShrubMiK]

I must be missing something...

Later Roman legionaries (and auxilia too) are already capable of being armed with a variety of intermediate range throwing weapons, often loosely categorised and colloquially referred to as "javelins", but in this case classified in-game as "light spear". If you want to get down to the low level detail, these could be verutae, martiobarbuli, or perhaps spiculae (depending on how "heavy" you assume the latter weapon to be).

But that doesn't give them "javelin" capability in game, because that's a design decision made by the authors.

So how does an academic paper change that - does it actually tell us something we didn't already know? and if so, is it something sufficiently earth-shattering that it would force a change of design decision by the authors (who as far as I can see haven't said anything on the subject)? We already know martiobarbuli existed, and we already I assume generally assume them to have been longer-ranged and potentially carried in greater numbers than the alternative throwing spears.

Don't get me wrong, I was disappointed to see when I first encountered FoG that martiobarbuli were not treated differently, as much for additinal tropp type flavour as anything...but I haven't heard or seen anything that suggests this is going to change, beyond a bit of possibly wishful thinking.

Incidentally, nobody would choose the triple-armed legionary in FoG I suspect, because if you adhere strictly to the WRG prototype they would be required to be lacking a very important feature - armour

[zocco]

Why should martiobarbuli (darts) be included separately to light spear ?
Not much time so a brief (and perhaps not too well structured) reply....

Well for starters Vegetius counts them as being separate from 'the common missile weapons' (eg javelins and heavier throwing weapons). Secondly he states they ' seem to take the place of archers'. In other words they are a different class of weapon and are carried in addition to those weapons that make up the light spear class in FOG (eg spears javelins etc). The paper makes it quite clear that they were produced and used in large numbers. Note also the ranges quoted in the paper are similar to such things as the repeating crossbow (so they are shooting weapons). Now if I recall AEIR makes a comment about Late Roman army being more efficent against the opponents it had to fight - and darts would be a part of this. If say darts were allowed as Javelin* or alternately given to 1/2 HF or MF in a BG then these could be used against oncoming barb foot but also against many types of mounted troops - which were precisely the types of enemies the Romans faced in the 3rd-6th centuries (note Byzantine foot were probably armed with them too). This isn't some type of wheez I'm asking for (and certainly FOG has been rather generous to some armies) merely what the historical record shows to be reasonable interpretation of the data. The alternative interpretation (ie darts are subsumed into the light spear category already) is that the Romans produced bucket loads of darts for ornementation only (as regardless if you carry them or not and carry a javelin/lt spear you still count as light spear) is simply untenable. Finally as they were carried by legionaries they would be armoured/protected.

cheers

Z.

[grahambriggs]

Regarding Plumbatae have a look at

http://bg.academia.edu/MiroslavVujovic/ ... ROM_SERBIA

Interesting reading. I'm looking forward to having my Dominate Roman legionaries (V2) armed with darts (javelins) . Certainly a very good case for it . Imagine a V2 battle along the lines of......Roman legionaries advance towards hairies halting within range and then showering them with darts. The hairies not liking the situation then decide to bog in pronto and charge. Seems a pretty convincing picture of battle for the later Roman - early Byzantine period to me.

cheers

Z.

I suspect if the article is used to add things into the lists you'll get light foot with whatever the Plumbatae are worked out to be (sling or javelins). Since the author says "On the battleeld, they were in the fourth line that comprised light-armed soldiers such as archers and spearmen (Vegetius III, xiv)."

[zocco]

Regarding Plumbatae have a look at

http://bg.academia.edu/MiroslavVujovic/ ... ROM_SERBIA

Interesting reading. I'm looking forward to having my Dominate Roman legionaries (V2) armed with darts (javelins) . Certainly a very good case for it . Imagine a V2 battle along the lines of......Roman legionaries advance towards hairies halting within range and then showering them with darts. The hairies not liking the situation then decide to bog in pronto and charge. Seems a pretty convincing picture of battle for the later Roman - early Byzantine period to me.

cheers

Z.

I suspect if the article is used to add things into the lists you'll get light foot with whatever the Plumbatae are worked out to be (sling or javelins). Since the author says "On the battleeld, they were in the fourth line that comprised light-armed soldiers such as archers and spearmen (Vegetius III, xiv)."

True, however Vegetius also states they were used by legionaries. He states that recruits should not omit the exercise of the martiobarbuli or loaded javelins and goes on to say that every soldier carries 5 of them in his shield and that the Dominate legions Jovian and Herculean each 6000 strong were famed for their use. I'm also pretty sure that a Byzantine treaty (Strategikon ?) mentions their use as well. So it is pretty clear that heavy and probably medium foot used them throught the Dominate- Byzantine period. There's even a picutre of one being used by a legionary on pg 14 of Legions Triumphant

cheers

Z.

[grahambriggs]

I would imagine the right questions for legionary use are did they use the darts while in formed line of battle and, if so, did it have a material impact on the battle?