Slitherine

Delbruck wrote:In V1 I never liked fighting elephants with Romans. Clearly, V2 will be even more diffcult.

With all the negative changes I do not expect that I will use Romans much in V2. A 48 point pike block is much cheaper AND effective.

Yes - the V2 changes to elephants have completely skewed the impact foot/lt spear interactions. And the changes to skilled swordsmen are also illogical. They should have left them as is but removed skilled sword from Romans. That would at least allowed skilled swordsmen in the Japanese list to have some use (vs heavy weapon) and the Romans would not have to pay for something that will rarely be of any use. Now Romans have the worst of both worlds pay for skilled sword but rarely get any benefit from it.

z

>Yes - the V2 changes to elephants have completely skewed the impact foot/lt spear interactions.

How?

>Now Romans have the worst of both worlds pay for skilled sword but rarely get any benefit from it.

Hmmm...I thought that Romans were losing skilled swordsman capability...maybe I misunderstood that...I thought there was a long list of detailed change information published but I can't find it now to check!

ShrubMiK wrote:>Yes - the V2 changes to elephants have completely skewed the impact foot/lt spear interactions.

How?

>Now Romans have the worst of both worlds pay for skilled sword but rarely get any benefit from it.

Hmmm...I thought that Romans were losing skilled swordsman capability...maybe I misunderstood that...I thought there was a long list of detailed change information published but I can't find it now to check!

See phil's post here:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=35719&start=20

The only change I see for skilled swords is that HW is not cancelled by Skilled Swords.

Don't forget skilled swordsman status is also effected by BG cohesion like spears.

shadowdragon wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:>Yes - the V2 changes to elephants have completely skewed the impact foot/lt spear interactions.

How?

>Now Romans have the worst of both worlds pay for skilled sword but rarely get any benefit from it.

Hmmm...I thought that Romans were losing skilled swordsman capability...maybe I misunderstood that...I thought there was a long list of detailed change information published but I can't find it now to check!

See phil's post here:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=35719&start=20

The only change I see for skilled swords is that HW is not cancelled by Skilled Swords.

a couple of points
1. Re elephants impact foot light /lt spear were down in v1 vs elephants now they'll be down more. I wrote more on this previously at viewtopic.php?f=114&t=22749

2. Skilled sword - yes only losing HW cancellation ability. But you need to consider it with the following V2 change;

A single level of armour advantage does not give a + POA if this would result in an overall ++ POA.

Put together sup armd ssword legionaries in melee vs barbarian protected sword is + POA.
now replace the ssword with sword and you get the same + POA.
So the skilled sword in this setting (which is archtypical) gets no advantage over sword. Better to make skilled sword optional for Romans or remove it and not pay the points.

z.

Better to make skilled sword optional for Romans

Skilled Sword is already optional for Romans. Mid Republican, Late Republican, Principate and Dominate Roman can all choose Impact Foot Sword or Skilled Sword.

zocco wrote: 2. Skilled sword - yes only losing HW cancellation ability. But you need to consider it with the following V2 change;

A single level of armour advantage does not give a + POA if this would result in an overall ++ POA.

Put together sup armd ssword legionaries in melee vs barbarian protected sword is + POA.
now replace the ssword with sword and you get the same + POA.
So the skilled sword in this setting (which is archtypical) gets no advantage over sword. Better to make skilled sword optional for Romans or remove it and not pay the points.

z.

On the other hand, few roman lists force you to take armoured, skilled sword legions. You can take armoured, Sword. Or in some you can take protected, Skilled sword. Those might be viable options. They'll all grind through warbands in melee. And a decent line of them won't take that much longer than a ++ POA would

Hi Kev

I agree with you that it is optional but you then have the decision, do you take impact foot sword which has to be average at best or do you want superior troops regardless of whether you feel you are paying extra for skilled sword which you may have no use for.

Graham's option of protected is an idea but then be a -- against steady pike in melee.....................

Rob

hazelbark wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:However, it doesn't cover the other roles elephants had, for example forming a screen against mounted, very well. You could try to do that in FOG, but the elephant BG isn't really wide enough to screen proerly, and risks being shot down itself.

I think there are some units that should have elephants like attachments in FOG N. You use one base to signifiy they are present with a BG and spread out thinly through the BG.
The would offer No positive POAs maybe none at all but do 2 things. Disorder nearby Cav and add the extra -1 to losing to Elephants. That would more accurately model "some" of the armies use of elephants.

That is a nice addition, although would involve changing the lists, which I don't know if that is now on schedule once there will be only digital version for the lists. Indeed I would say that for battles involving armies in the western (classical) world, FoG does not capture at all the roles they played. Except for Magnesia (which was a disaster, by the way) elephants never deployed side by side with infantry. They are always deployed in front of the battle line. Thus they should not be allowed to move as battleline other than light foot if we want to attach to what happened historically. Mixed BG's of light foot and elephants could make it work better.

I think that, as they are designed right now, we will still see them (if any time) forming in column filling a gap of the infantry to provide the -1 and help a little bit at impact.

grahambriggs wrote:

zocco wrote: 2. Skilled sword - yes only losing HW cancellation ability. But you need to consider it with the following V2 change;

A single level of armour advantage does not give a + POA if this would result in an overall ++ POA.

Put together sup armd ssword legionaries in melee vs barbarian protected sword is + POA.
now replace the ssword with sword and you get the same + POA.
So the skilled sword in this setting (which is archtypical) gets no advantage over sword. Better to make skilled sword optional for Romans or remove it and not pay the points.

z.

On the other hand, few roman lists force you to take armoured, skilled sword legions. You can take armoured, Sword. Or in some you can take protected, Skilled sword. Those might be viable options. They'll all grind through warbands in melee. And a decent line of them won't take that much longer than a ++ POA would

This true but it would be better (and simpler) if they just accepted that in V2 (on this at least) they've made a stuff-up. What they should have done is;

1. Left skilled sword as is (ie negates HW).
2. Removed skilled sword from Romans (so at least Romans won't pay the extra points etc)

This would have removed the Romans skilled sword advantage and left Japanese skilled sword users as viable against HW users. Problem solved !

zocco wrote: This true but it would be better (and simpler) if they just accepted that in V2 (on this at least) they've made a stuff-up. What they should have done is;

1. Left skilled sword as is (ie negates HW).
2. Removed skilled sword from Romans (so at least Romans won't pay the extra points etc)

This would have removed the Romans skilled sword advantage and left Japanese skilled sword users as viable against HW users. Problem solved !

If they made the changes you suggest they would perhaps have gone further and removed skilled sword entirely. Japanese and Spanish would be the only users so the temptation would be to just remove it.

Also, I don't believe the changes are bad. They stop full fat legions chopping through warband in an eye blink, which I think is good. What they also do is make full fat legions good in a civil war as it's more likely that their Roman opponents will be a POA down (Swordsmen and/or worse armour).

It might be that the Japanese problem would be better solved by sorting the list out. It seems odd that in the later Heian the option is either offensive spear or skilled sword. Matbe if they have spears and swords they'd be better as Light Spear, Skilled Swords?

The full fat Roman legiosn have always been paying extra points for stuff that is not useful in certain interactions. Fighting cataphracts? Well the 3 wasted points for armour makes the 1 point wasted on the skilled sword look a little less significant.

On the flip side, in the interactions where the ssw does help, it's only 1 point in 14 for a large benefit.

And the difference between v1 and v2 comes down to the interaction against HW? Which is wielded by how many contemporary opponents of Roman ssw-men?

I'm beginning to think tihs is a bit of a storm in a tea cup. The change to armour is surely going to make more a difference overall.

They weren't worth it historically so that's OK. They had one or two spectacular successes but otherwise they were either a damp squid or an actual liability.

They were used to great efficiency as a wall against cavalry . Something which you cannot do in FOG . And if they were that hopeless why use them massively ? they were expensive...

So one must admitt they had their use otherwise nobody would have used them .

There is also a euro-centric view of elephants which is very different from the asian experience.

Another thread hijacked by Romans!

Lycanthropic wrote:Another thread hijacked by Romans!

What have the Romans ever done for us (elephants)?

zoltan wrote:

Lycanthropic wrote:Another thread hijacked by Romans!

What have the Romans ever done for us (elephants)?

A short tour of Britain

Aquaducs...seems familliar from ...years ago

A Roman also wrote that elephants were scared of mice, the first known reference to elephant musophobia.

That didn't do much for them though