Romans vs Barbarian impact foot - how to rebalance?

[Blathergut]

I would leave the Romans as they are. Maybe, like FoG R, give the player more options in the lists (ssw or just sw).

Improve the barbarian troops. Give them an additional +1 POA for depth on impact or +1 in melee for depth. Give them a reason to fight 3 ranks deep. Give them a reason to pack their troops in instead of spreading out. Right now, just having an extra base or two to absorb casualties, isn't enough to offset the ssw.

[rpayne]

Skilled sword combines with a number of factors to stop some armies being used. (AND Because those armies are not used skilled sword Romans are used less because it is a wasted point in a competetive game). Army lists for Roman barbarian enemies at the time of especially MRR and Principate are very dull. The Germans, their main enemy, especially. No iron collar wearers, no superior foot, etc. Dacians, all those heavy weapons that the romans feared being useless. Gauls, toasted croissants for Roman breakfast. Against these enemies skilled sword could be treated like light spear, add a POA if even. But that really is unnecessary added complexity. It just needs to be dropped from Romans as, in my opinion, they can be good enough without it.

If the Romans lose it then it can be treated differently for other troops whose representation could be improved. Samurai, where it removes the bushi heavy weapon advantage, but also sword and buckler men who get no advantage from skilled sword against the troops they were trained to fight, pikes and spears. Oh, and gladiators who need a bit of a boost because they look so nice. (and I don't mean in a blood and sand way)

So after all that drop it from the Romans and then look at it again for samurai and sword and buckler men, and maybe others**.

** Viking Berserks, Dare to Die volunteers, Maybe even Skilled sword for mounted. French Knights come to mind there as they were the best allegedly, but are no better in FoG.

I really agree with this. I don't see much need for Romans having SSW, and I think the fact that they do have it screws up the weapon type for other units that legitimately should have it.

It is worth noting that there is argument that SSW in an open tournament is not incredibly cost effective. Dropping it from the legions will make them cost less, which may actually make the lists more competitive in an open environment.

Dropping SSW from them would allow you to improve upon it (SSW getting a POA vs. steady spear/pike?) to improve things like Sword & Buckler men.

Samurai I think could be improved in other ways though, such as allowing them to keep their bows when they dismount.

[grahambriggs]

I voted 3 myself. If SSW go altogether then how do you deal with HW ?

With difficulty as the Dacian wars may show?

Do I take it that you voted not on history but on how the game plays out in your view/experience?

Steady on, we don't want my falxmen to be able to make legions break and flee disgracefully. Oh, hang on....

[Polkovnik]

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.

Exactly. Ssw has no effect vs pikes, spears or mounted, but the legionaries will be 1 point per base cheaper. If you have 28 bases of legionaries in your army, this points saving could get you an extra BG of Numidian light horse.

[Polkovnik]

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?

Even if your "rough calculations" are correct, you are talking about BGs, not legions. Take (say) 4 BGs of superior vs the same amount of average legionaries. I don't think the average would win 30-40 % of the time then.

[zocco]

I voted 3 myself. If SSW go altogether then how do you deal with HW ?

It seems something of a moot point whether SSW should cancel HW at all.

I hope you're kidding

To paraphrase an answer given in Slingshot many years ago 'If my Legionaries with SSW cost 14 pts each they should be damned effective !'

Seriously - HW are overrated as is ( I seem to recall a Slingshot article showing that armour did help against the Dacian falx) - and now they'll be no antidote

[nikgaukroger]

Seriously - HW are overrated as is ( I seem to recall a Slingshot article showing that armour did help against the Dacian falx) - and now they'll be no antidote

Seriously - HW are far from being a super-troop and ruling the table.

[philqw78]

Seriously - HW are overrated as is ( I seem to recall a Slingshot article showing that armour did help against the Dacian falx) - and now they'll be no antidote

Seriously - HW are far from being a super-troop and ruling the table.

It may however be under priced if skilled swordsmen disappear. In close combat they are only ever down in impact. After that evens or better against everyone.

[petedalby]

Are you comfortable that it is SSw that is the issue with people not using Warband?

In my experience most HF struggle in the game - and even more so if they are undrilled HF. Is that going to be addressed?

One of the big plusses for me of FoG is the superioty of the Romans over barbarian foot - I'm no historian but that sits comfortably with my very limited knowledge - and one of the few rule sets to model this. It would be a shame to see it disappear.

[grahambriggs]

Seriously - HW are overrated as is ( I seem to recall a Slingshot article showing that armour did help against the Dacian falx) - and now they'll be no antidote

Seriously - HW are far from being a super-troop and ruling the table.

It may however be under priced if skilled swordsmen disappear. In close combat they are only ever down in impact. After that evens or better against everyone.

I can't see that the removal would have that much effect on historical match ups. Romans will beat Dacian falxmen at impact, disrupt them and would now be on the same factors with more dice and the Dacians get a -1 if fighting in the open (which they usually will be unless the Roman is thick).

[nikgaukroger]

Are you comfortable that it is SSw that is the issue with people not using Warband?

Not the only one, but a significant one IMO.

One of the big plusses for me of FoG is the superioty of the Romans over barbarian foot - I'm no historian but that sits comfortably with my very limited knowledge - and one of the few rule sets to model this. It would be a shame to see it disappear.

If SSw was dropped the effect would be that in the Melee phase those legionarii who currently have it would drop from an effective 2.5 PoA advantage to a 1.5 PoA advantage. Still a pretty dominant advantage I would suggest.

[philqw78]

which they usually will be unless the Roman is thick.

Sillio Sodduss

[lawrenceg]

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?

Even if your "rough calculations" are correct, you are talking about BGs, not legions. Take (say) 4 BGs of superior vs the same amount of average legionaries. I don't think the average would win 30-40 % of the time then.

IF you take 4 dice vs 4 dice for one round of combat the average will win by 1 hit 18% and by more than 1 hit 10%.

The superiors, assuming any -ve modifiers on cohesion are balanced by rear support or a general will pass the CT 73% of the time (58% for average).

If the superiors disrupt or lose a base so it is 3 dice vs 4 dice, then the superiors have a 29% chance of winning the next round, which is better than the chance the average BG had of winning the first combat.

I would put the chances of the average breaking the superiors before the being broken themselves at definitely less than 30%.

[TheGrayMouser]

Well i like the Romans as they are and if a change in the interaction is needed i would vote for "fixing the barbarians"

It appears some players feel the barbaraians should do better in impact ?

What if UNDrilled impact heavy or medium foot were allowed Quality rerolls one step above their normal quality rating for impact only? ie average roll(re) as superior?

If it is too much a boost maybe onnly if they are in command range of a leader?

The only question is should they get any aditional boost for having a leader w the BG ....

orry if this has been suggested before, looked thru the relaveant posts and didnt see anything similar

[grahambriggs]

IF you take 4 dice vs 4 dice for one round of combat the average will win by 1 hit 18% and by more than 1 hit 10%.

The superiors, assuming any -ve modifiers on cohesion are balanced by rear support or a general will pass the CT 73% of the time (58% for average).

If the superiors disrupt or lose a base so it is 3 dice vs 4 dice, then the superiors have a 29% chance of winning the next round, which is better than the chance the average BG had of winning the first combat.

I would put the chances of the average breaking the superiors before the being broken themselves at definitely less than 30%.

It also very much depends whether the line hit so they are BG to BG or whther they are offset. Offset lines tends to be worse for the average chaps.

[stecal]

SSW has nothing to do with impact. The problem for most warriors is being down 2 in melee, always 3 vs 5 in the Roman favor. I dont understand why Barbarian warriors trained to fight and equiped with effective weapons & shields to do so have the same -2 combat factors as unarmored mobs or bowmen equiped with daggers, clubs and the odd rock.

If we make the barbarians better as some suggest, then you have to rejigger the combat interactions with every other type in the game. Removing SSW is the easy path.

[hazelbark]

Seriously - HW are overrated as is ( I seem to recall a Slingshot article showing that armour did help against the Dacian falx) - and now they'll be no antidote

Seriously - HW are far from being a super-troop and ruling the table.

Especially when protected or Falxmen unprotected they will never be able to get a ++ unless they have their opponent fighting in two directions. Mostly they will be on 0 POA

[zocco]

Seriously - HW are overrated as is ( I seem to recall a Slingshot article showing that armour did help against the Dacian falx) - and now they'll be no antidote

Seriously - HW are far from being a super-troop and ruling the table.

And equally seriously - Roman legionaries with SSW are ??

At the moment I see V2 being - lets neuter SSW Legionaries as they're too tough for warband types which only cost around half the points. So lets remove their SSW or downgrade it, oh and was SSW really any good against HW ?

It seems to me a one way process. If many warband cost about half the points it seems somewhat odd to be comparing them to veteran legionaries in fighting power.

Interestingly I don't see any similar argument about armoured hoplites being too nasty for Warband or HW not really having the penetrative power vs armour of a thermal lance.

[pcelella]

I'm really on the side that the problem is with the warbands, and not with the Romans. The mistake, IMO, is to consider the Roman vs. warband interaction in isolation. The Romans seem to function as intended against most other troop types in the game, and I wouldn't recommend any changes to how they are now designed. Warbands however are worthless. Unless I was playing a list where they are mandatory, I would never take them, and if I did, I would only use the minimum. If you look at armies played in tournaments, they are almost never used - so I must not be the only one who feels this way.

Now, I agree, that warbands and barbarians shouldn't necessarily field the most powerful armies, but the way they presently function, one is NEVER going to see them on the tabletop in anything but a Wolves from the Sea theme event. Something needs to be done to make the hairy barbarians more desirable to play in relationship to all the other troop types in the game (after all, other than bow armed medium foot, what can they beat?), and I would leave the Romans alone.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[zocco]

Yes, I understand the problem - and you're right warband types should be made a bit better. It just seems to me that they've taken a rather negative (and not very helpful - lets downgrade romans - approach). The strange thing is if romans are downgraded it probably won't help warband that much anyway as in most tourney's there are plenty of other opponents which they will have to face and so they still won't appear often on the tabletop.

I suggested a Fulcum rule - its in the 'warband and legionaries' thread. Which would help them out - and no doubt there are other ways too such as improving them in impact - which has been mooted.