Slitherine

hammy wrote:
If you move out of open terrain then pike lose their 4th rank POA (it only counts in open terrain) and the pike re no longer steady so the pike are down a POA and the legions are up a POA as swordsman now counts.

ops, I thought that STEADY was referred only for coesion state, I didn't realize that bases in rough terrain loose STEADY state!!!!

If you feel that poor quality pikes are really too good for their points cost then try using them on a regular basis. May I suggest Later Ptolomaic or Phyyric, both of which can have 32 bases of poor pike.

I played several 800pt fights between Phyrric and Mid-Republican Roman and there's no chance for Romans: romans have too few cavalry to outflank pikes and expensive legionarii that will loose in front of the pike or elephants. With many BG of poor pike, the attrition points of Phyrric is higher than Roman's. In other hands, very good velites to contrast Elephant, but all LF are very good for this job

If you are even in Manchester I will gladly take on either of these armies with Republicn Roman.

Thanks Hammy, but I live in Italy and Manchester isn't behind the corner of my house

Diego

I've used Romans many times and I've never given the pikes a fair fight. Sometimes I've deployed the legions in uneven or rough terrain, sometimes I've deployed the legions far to the back and attacked violently on the flank winning the game there and sometimes I've fought the pike in the open, while using small BGs of MF to charge the flanks of the pike so they don't have as many PoAs. So many options.

carlos wrote:I've used Romans many times and I've never given the pikes a fair fight. Sometimes I've deployed the legions in uneven or rough terrain, sometimes I've deployed the legions far to the back and attacked violently on the flank winning the game there and sometimes I've fought the pike in the open, while using small BGs of MF to charge the flanks of the pike so they don't have as many PoAs. So many options.

Against average pike things are a lot closer and the legionaries are definitely best off not giving the pike a fair fight. Against poor pike which is where this thread started there really is no need for the legionaries to be clever, superior legions will cut poor pike to pieces.

diego66ro wrote:

flameberge wrote:Also the legions are DRAMATICALLY better in terrain. They can be disordered in rough terrain and still fight respectably while a pike block disordered would get butchered by the legions.

Sorry flameberge I disagree .
Pikes don't loose their POA until FRG or SEV DISORDER, so if rough terrain only DISORDER the bases, pikes and legionaries loose 1 dice per 3.
Me too appreciate Terry's percentage, but a BG of 8 poor Pike cost only 32 pt, against 56 pt of legionary, so I can combat with 2 BG of Pk (64 pt) against 1BG of legionary:

P1P1P2P2
P1P1P2P2
P1P1P2P2
P1P1P2P2
....L1L1...
....L1L1...


In IMPACT phase, they will have same dice and same POA, but in melee, +POA for pikes and double dices for them.

I think that pikes are too strong for their cost.

Diego

Hammy pretty much replied for me on this one.

hammy wrote:Against average pike things are a lot closer and the legionaries are definitely best off not giving the pike a fair fight. Against poor pike which is where this thread started there really is no need for the legionaries to be clever, superior legions will cut poor pike to pieces.

Having tryed it a few times I cannot agree at 100%.

Things are not so simple, first of all we are talking about percentage of victory that are true only in statistic, but statistic only works on large number of dice, in an impact or melee we could use only 2 or 4 dice per side and there's no sense in calling in statistic percentage on such few dice.

In such case luck work better than statistic so every result could arise like the superior legionaires being badly beated by poor pikemans.

And this isn't so bad because more or less it's a way to take in account the umpredictability of the war.

But there is another point that should be noted, imho point cost are not so well calculated because some poas are more or less always effective in practical situation and other poas are not.

Let's examine another case, 8 average pike (protected, undrilled) in 4 ranks vs 4 average legionair (armoured, drilled) in 2 ranks, they cost exactly the same.
In impact they fight at 0 poa but in melee the pikes get a + (if the impact was inconclusive), but pikes have other advantage: they are 8 stand so they have to get 3 hits to get morale malus and losing 1 stand has less impact on efficiency, romans only have 4 stand so 2 hits counts for morale and if they lost 1 stand are more or less toasted.

The worse problem is that 40pts of pike could stand frontally more or less against a lot more of enemy points (every kind of legionaires, heavy cavalry, elephants and so on), being so combact-effective and cheaper left the player with a lot of points to spend in other elite units that could match or outclass their enemy counterparts.

In other words armies that could use large number of pikes (seleucid or tolemaic for example) have an advantage over other armies because essentially they have a strong and cheaper way to hold the centre of the board while the rest of their elite units dismantle the enemies flanks.

I don't mean that they are unbeatable (a smart opponent could use some trick), but certainly they are easy to use and difficult to deal with (for an average opponent).

While I agree that Pikes are very good, especially if the opposing player isn't to experienced your example is still lacking. Yes in the direct comparison Average Legionaries are disadvantaged against pikes (note however that while theoretically you could construct undrilled pikes like in your example I've not yet seen any in the army books). The legionaries do have other advantages. For example they can easily fill in as rough terrain troops if needed and being armoured makes them more resistant to shooting.

Also holding the centre with the pikes while dismantling the flanks will only work if the opponent obliges by being transfixed in front of a wall of pike. If said opponent however tries to move to the flanks you will notice that being regular or not their depth often hinders the pikes in following just as easily, at least that's what we found in our games so far.

All in all, do I think pike armies are advantaged over Romans? In a direct confrontation maybe slightly (or more clearly with beginning players), vs. a broader range of opponents, no.

Duke68 wrote:

hammy wrote:Against average pike things are a lot closer and the legionaries are definitely best off not giving the pike a fair fight. Against poor pike which is where this thread started there really is no need for the legionaries to be clever, superior legions will cut poor pike to pieces.

Having tryed it a few times I cannot agree at 100%.

Things are not so simple, first of all we are talking about percentage of victory that are true only in statistic, but statistic only works on large number of dice, in an impact or melee we could use only 2 or 4 dice per side and there's no sense in calling in statistic percentage on such few dice.

Remind me to play a few games of poker with you sometime

You can never be certain with statistics but you can accurately calculate the probablility that one side or the other will win. The problem with poor pike vs superior legionaries is that the reroll even on 2 dice does significantly swing the chances. The legions really want to hit with 2 bases and get 4 dice as that makes things more likely to go with the better quality. Once the pikes lose the impact there is a very high chance they will be disrupted and once they are disrupted they are no longer at a + in melee, have less dice to roll and are still dissadvantaged on rerolls or in other words they are toast.

In such case luck work better than statistic so every result could arise like the superior legionaires being badly beated by poor pikemans.

I didn't say it was a certaintly but if you try the fight in question say 20 times then at most the poor pike will win 2 or 3 times.

Let's examine another case, 8 average pike (protected, undrilled) in 4 ranks vs 4 average legionair (armoured, drilled) in 2 ranks, they cost exactly the same.
In impact they fight at 0 poa but in melee the pikes get a + (if the impact was inconclusive), but pikes have other advantage: they are 8 stand so they have to get 3 hits to get morale malus and losing 1 stand has less impact on efficiency, romans only have 4 stand so 2 hits counts for morale and if they lost 1 stand are more or less toasted.

I agree that at impact the pike and legions are on the same POA and have the same chances of hitting so it is a totally even fight in terms of hits.
You have however missed a significant part of the rules on the 1HP3B rule in that the fourth rank of any formation does not count towards bases needed for 1HP3B so 2 hits will put a -1 on the pike in exactly the same way it does on the legionaries.

Also while the fight is even the CT after the fight is not. If the legions win which will happen 35% or so of the time then the pike will be testing at an extra -1 for facing impact foot and an extra -1 is not to be sniffed at.

Pike are good against legionaries but then historically they were. Where is the problem? Poor pike are much cheaper per frontage than legionaries but are much worse, average pike cost the same as average legionaries and their combat power is similar.

The worse problem is that 40pts of pike could stand frontally more or less against a lot more of enemy points (every kind of legionaires, heavy cavalry, elephants and so on), being so combact-effective and cheaper left the player with a lot of points to spend in other elite units that could match or outclass their enemy counterparts.

I am sorry, poor quality pike are really not that good. They are very vulnerable to missiles (assuming you play the HP3B rule correctly), being poor is almost the same as minus half a POA and when they die they are just as dead as any other BG.

In other words armies that could use large number of pikes (seleucid or tolemaic for example) have an advantage over other armies because essentially they have a strong and cheaper way to hold the centre of the board while the rest of their elite units dismantle the enemies flanks.

I dissagree, average pikes cost almost as much per frontage as the best legionaries, 24 points per base frontage is a lot and can still be beaten by both legionaries and armoured spearmen.

I don't mean that they are unbeatable (a smart opponent could use some trick), but certainly they are easy to use and difficult to deal with (for an average opponent).

You really don't need tricks to beat pikes. Either ignore them if they clump together or use overlaps against them if they don't.
So far there have been very few tournaments that have been won by pike armies, infact in open tournaments pikes may be a touch underpowered.

I agree with all the statistic which have been given to me so far, and yes superior legions have a better chance to defeat poor Pike. However no one can argue with me even after all the statistics have been done that rolling a dice is to play a game of chance as it is not a certainty. IMO to say that the quality of the troops should be measured by chance wether the statistics are better or not to me personally it is not correct, as again I will state troops quality was never or has never or will ever be measured by chance in real life, and that is the point I was trying to make in the beginning.

Duke, Hammy is right. In any single combat in FoG odd things can occur but the number of dice rolls in FoG are large enough that even if you have a run of 6 or 7 bad rolls in a row, over the game it will even out. You can't lose a game of Fog with only 1 combat roll (which can happen in another well known Ancient Wargames set that uses elements, sorry bases). I also agree with Hammy, I would love to have you as an opponent in a Bridge 4 sometime if you are going to run odds like that.

What I have seen is a trend towards armies with more costly troops doing well. I have not seen any army with Poor Pike being used and I have not read any report of any competition where they have been taken. With the Principiate Roman list I would love to take on a Poor Pike army at the current points costs. I have never won a game of FoG but would be quietly confident of winning that one.

At the end of the day the game is great because it gives us that uncertainty to war of it, but lets not confuse uncertainty with certainty.

No one is uggesting that troop quality is subject to chance.
But the outcome of combats (both in the game, and in reality) certainly is subject to chance.
The best troops didn't always win historically, nor should they in the game.

pyruse wrote:The best troops didn't always win historically, nor should they in the game.

But in the example of superior legionaries against poor pike the superior legionaries should win the overall fight about 8 times in 10.

timmy1 wrote:In any single combat in FoG odd things can occur but the number of dice rolls in FoG are large enough that even if you have a run of 6 or 7 bad rolls in a row, over the game it will even out.

If it's not a run of bad dice but pinpoint targeting of cohesion test rolls the word crumble comes up. 2s for Superiors are funny over time.

timmy1 wrote: What I have seen is a trend towards armies with more costly troops doing well. I have not seen any army with Poor Pike being used and I have not read any report of any competition where they have been taken. With the Principiate Roman list I would love to take on a Poor Pike army at the current points costs. I have never won a game of FoG but would be quietly confident of winning that one.

Is anyone else seeing this trend? If so, is it just a matter of the experience curve of players, where there is a large demographic that is skilled with good troops but fewer are up to the level to make Poor ones dance in step, and those who are there are not inclined to play such armies?

Thanks,

Mike

What I have seen is a trend towards armies with more costly troops doing well. I have not seen any army with Poor Pike being used and I have not read any report of any competition where they have been taken

Well, Jim Gibson won the 25mm comp at the Challenge and he was using at least one BG of Poor Pikemen

I am sorely tempted towards Medieval Cypriot just 'cos it has 16 bases of poor LH bow. Brilliant, except against LH armies . But if they can stand in front of something that won't shoot them they can really slow the enemy down for minimum points whilst you use those points elsewhere.

Bladerunner wrote:I agree with all the statistic which have been given to me so far, and yes superior legions have a better chance to defeat poor Pike. However no one can argue with me even after all the statistics have been done that rolling a dice is to play a game of chance as it is not a certainty. IMO to say that the quality of the troops should be measured by chance wether the statistics are better or not to me personally it is not correct, as again I will state troops quality was never or has never or will ever be measured by chance in real life, and that is the point I was trying to make in the beginning.

I think we are looking at this issue in two different ways:

I think the point Bladerunner is making here is:

The first way wrote:If superior troops roll a 1 they reroll and if they reroll 2-6 then they are better than average.
If they roll 2-6 they do not reroll, and in that case they are the same as average.

Therefore the result "superior troops are better than average" is a matter of chance.

In his opinion, superior should always be better than average, regardless of the dice, for example, they should always have +1 on the dice.

THis is one way of looking at it.

The way most of us are looking at it:

the second way wrote:For example, needing a 4 to hit:
superior troops with a possible reroll have a probability of getting a hit of 58%
average troops have a probability of getting a hit of 50%

Therefore superior troops are always better than average.

If we take the suggested method of making superior always better (i.e. always +1) , and look at it in the second way we get:

superior troops hit probability = 66%
average troops hit probability 50%

i.e. the same as the "not always better" case (but with one of the numbers slightly changed).

Whatever you try do to make superior troops "always better", it can always be looked at in the second way and in the end will come down to an increased probability of hitting or passing a test. So being better will always be subject to chance if you look at it the first way, never subject to chance if you look at it the second way.


Whichever way you look at it, superior troops are more likely to win, but whether they really do win or not always depends on the dice.

hammy wrote:

Fulgrim wrote:I think I saw an earlier post (at playtesting?) there the skilled swordsmen workd vs mounted. Was that so during playtesting and, if so, why was it changed?
I have got the impression that the roman legions (aswell as other well trained "hand weapon" foot) were successful vs mounted if they just could hold during the impact of the charge.
There is a line somewhere that sarmatian cavalry where relatively easy to overcome for the legions if they could stand the inital assault, that isnt the case now - its armoured vs armoured, SSw vs mtd Sw = net POA 0 and possibly Superior vs Superior.

In the early playtests impact foot didn't get a + at impact vs shock mounted but skilled swordsman gave a POA against mounted swordsmen.

After a lot of testing this was changed to the current set of POAs, mainly because legionaries were felt to be too good against lancers, cataphracts especially.

Thanks Hammy, see what you meen.

philqw78 wrote:I am sorely tempted towards Medieval Cypriot just 'cos it has 16 bases of poor LH bow. Brilliant, except against LH armies . But if they can stand in front of something that won't shoot them they can really slow the enemy down for minimum points whilst you use those points elsewhere.

Also not so hot against Armoured or better foot or Heavily Armoured mounted other than getting in the way.

BTW Med Cypriot is a good army IMO, quite a few nice choices and combinations. Good in period and good in open IMO

Bladerunner wrote:I agree with all the statistic which have been given to me so far, and yes superior legions have a better chance to defeat poor Pike. However no one can argue with me even after all the statistics have been done that rolling a dice is to play a game of chance as it is not a certainty. IMO to say that the quality of the troops should be measured by chance wether the statistics are better or not to me personally it is not correct, as again I will state troops quality was never or has never or will ever be measured by chance in real life, and that is the point I was trying to make in the beginning.

I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse here but I don't understand your point. If you give superior troops a +1 POA you often give them a better chance of winning (though if you already have a ++ POA you actually give them no advantage at all) but you also give them a better chance of winning by giving them re-rolls of 1's, always. I entirely agree that rolling dice is a game of chance but how does giving superior troops a +1 eliminate judging their quality by chance? No matter what, your rolling dice and no matter how you get there all you are doing to try and simulate better troops is to increase their probability of success. You might not roll any 1's to reroll but you also might not roll any dice high enough to get a hit even with a +1.

As has been pointed out, both POAs and re-rolls modify the chance of a hit. Thus they both operate through the medium of chance.

Re-rolling 1s or 6s modifies the chance to hit by approximately half a POA. Thus the difference between Superior and Poor amounts to approximately one POA.

We made a design decision (not without some discussion) that a single quality difference should not have as much effect as a major advantage in fighting style/weapon system (POA).

We felt that allowing a single quality difference to negate a POA would significantly dumb down the game, and would not be historically realistic.

(Why worry about what your troops are armed with or how effective their fighting/weapon system was historically against the opposing fighting/weapon system, when all you need to do is have an army of all Superior troops with trusty fruit knives?).