Slitherine

If you've read Thomas Burns' "Rome and the Barbarians" you'll see that I am heavily influence by it

Well I'm no expert on the rules but my thinking was that if the Galatians and Gaesati are good enough the Nervii (or possibly all Belgae) probably were too. I havn't seen the book though, so I'll have to get a copy. It's the same T Burns that did Barbarians within the Gates presumably, so imagine worth a read. Too many books, not enough time!

2. Gaesati - on reflection I think a general upgrade to Superior, same numbers as the Gaesati, for "fierce on the day" tribes would have been a better option, but as you say the Gaesati PR machine is good

I have grown to hate them and their attention grabing antics. They're all mouth and no trousers.

Fair enough though. I'll have to remember to whinge again in a few years time when the list revisions come around.

3. Soldurii - a number of lists that would be a bit bland have a touch of romance/generosity added and a single BG in an otherwise Average army won't break things IMO. You can't have both Soldurii and Gaesati in the same army as that would be a broken list (at least I hope we left that restriction in ... )

Ah. that's good. I missed that bit.

4. The Spartanophiles are complaining about no elites even without mentioning the Soldurii

Spartans don't bother me, so I'll leave them to their own fight. I trust you've sorted the Imperial Roman auxiliaries though Nik.

all the best,

Trev

trev wrote:
Well I'm no expert on the rules but my thinking was that if the Galatians and Gaesati are good enough the Nervii (or possibly all Belgae) probably were too. I havn't seen the book though, so I'll have to get a copy. It's the same T Burns that did Barbarians within the Gates presumably, so imagine worth a read. Too many books, not enough time!

Spartans don't bother me, so I'll leave them to their own fight. I trust you've sorted the Imperial Roman auxiliaries though Nik.

all the best,

Trev

It is the same Burns - with the same, IMO, difficult to read style so heavy going

Roman auxilia can be all HF or all MF - Richard insisted that the MF option remain

BTW I see that the Swiss have joined the Spartans in being upset at not being Elite, and I expect the crusading Military Orders will join in later

nikgaukroger wrote:BTW I see that the Swiss have joined the Spartans in being upset at not being Elite, and I expect the crusading Military Orders will join in later

I have just had a quick check and there are no elite troops in Storm of Arrows and only fout troop types in Rise of Rome get to be elite (Triarii, Late Republican veteran legionaries, Soldurii and the Companions)

nikgaukroger wrote:It is the same Burns - with the same, IMO, difficult to read style so heavy going

I quite liked the detail he goes into but I'm glad he has those summary sections at the end of the chapters too.

Roman auxilia can be all HF or all MF - Richard insisted that the MF option remain

I suppose if Gauls, Spanish or Thracians can be MF then Auxilia can be too but I'm glad the HF option is there too. Are they Impact Foot and Swordsmen or Offensive Spearmen?

BTW I see that the Swiss have joined the Spartans in being upset at not being Elite, and I expect the crusading Military Orders will join in later

You can't please all the people all the time.

T[/quote]

trev wrote:
I suppose if Gauls, Spanish or Thracians can be MF then Auxilia can be too but I'm glad the HF option is there too. Are they Impact Foot and Swordsmen or Offensive Spearmen?

Light Spear, Swordsmen as that is essentially the same fighting style as Impact Foot, Swordsmen but not as effective. It is also what less effective legionarii become in the late Dominate and Foederate lists.

nikgaukroger wrote: .... It is also what less effective legionarii become in the late Dominate and Foederate lists.

Surely some mistake

We all know from our previous wargaming experience that Romans became more effective as time goes by. All those additional weapons, option to upgrade to superior, and now the discovery of armour for the period as well

nikgaukroger wrote:Light Spear, Swordsmen as that is essentially the same fighting style as Impact Foot, Swordsmen but not as effective. It is also what less effective legionarii become in the late Dominate and Foederate lists.

I'm not sure I understand all the implications properly yet but that sounds about right. Cheers.

T

Ok here is what I have , about halfway through rebasing them.

1 CinC FC
2 Sub Commanders TC
4 Light Chariots LCh
6 Cavalry Cv
8 Warriors MF
8 Warriors MF
10 Warriors HF
10 Warriors HF
10 Warriors HF
6 Javelinmen LF
6 Slingers LF


It's just for my 1st game , all I need to know if it's legal and viable for a 1st game ?

thanks

trev wrote:
I'm not sure I understand all the implications properly yet but that sounds about right. Cheers.

T

They couldn't have been Spearmen as this would have made them much better than the legionarii against mounted, which I'm sure you'd think was wrong

Keith wrote: It's just for my 1st game , all I need to know if it's legal and viable for a 1st game ?

It looks fine for a first game, and reasonably balanced.

Thanks Neil.
Will post some pictures soon

Its legal as long as one of the generals is an ally to command the MF and a Cv BG

Si

A couple of questions

1) I don't understand why I need an allied commander if I'm choosing troops all from the core section ?

2) Is my army legal if I only have 9 Battle groups ?

thanks

In the list you have a lowland or highland cinc and then allies if you have troops from the other type. Highland gauls are MF, lowland HF. So in your desing your MF gauls would need to be under a highland ally general.

Any number of BGs is legit. Smallest army fielded so far 800pts was 8 BGs.

Si

Ok thanks
so an allied TC for the MF is 10 points cheaper according to the list ? 25 rather than 35 ?
So that gives me a few more points to spend

Yep thats right
...... spend wisely
Si