Slitherine

kevinj wrote: there are now more choices than 4 TCs or IC + 3 TCs when choosing generals. 2 FCs certainly looks worth considering...

Some people, well at least one, have won a number of competitions with just 2 FC's. They were a good buy already. And in 25mm an FC + TC has won a comp. IC/FC/TC another at 800 15mm. People (wargamers?) lack imagination

Delbruck wrote:The Romans are dead. Clearly, they were just a bunch of imperial wantabee's

PIkes and longbows rule

And you base this one what?

v1 roman skilled sword made no difference versus pike.
v1 roman armor mattered
v2 is exatly the same for these interactions as best as we can tell.

v1 romans beat the stuffing out of barbarian foot to the point that people wondered why play any historical matchups with barbarians.
v2 now there is the possiblity of game worth playing for the barbarians ergo more may play.

v1 For those who like romans but feel the suffered in out of period match ups, most of the suffering was due to being able to be out manuvered.
v2 HF is out manuvered less now.

So what's your point?

Some people, well at least one

I accept that opinion was divided as to the options for generals. There were those who took 4 TCs or IC + 3 TCs. And there was Phil.

[quote="Delbruck"]
The Romans are dead. Clearly, they were just a bunch of imperial wantabee's [quote]

Actually ..... they are dead, since a long time

On the face of it Romans are pretty big losers. The +1AP for SSw is really not worth it in V2.

Most Armoured or better swords are mounted, which hasn't changed.

Most other swords are protected and Romans get a PoA for being armoured.

Many other armoured foot are either spears or HW.

So basically Roman armoured foot get a PoA against a very rare bird, other armoured IF/Sw (are there any armoured lt spear sw?)

Now one thing that changes is that the protected Hastati (Superior, protected, IF/SSw) are now a reasonable option being less expensive.

There may be other changes the overall mitigate this, but generally Romans are losers in this version.

Sorry I must have missed something. Roman (HF arm, sup) skilled swords were better in melee than several foot opponents in v1. In v2 they still seem better, but not to such a degree. In equal numers they should still beat Dacian falxmen in the open due to the -1 for MF on the cohesion test. But to balance against that, most (but not all) such romans are impact foot. They just got a whole lot better against foot as losing the impact is now a big problem. Say the Romans chanrge the Dacian falxmen and win the impact 6-4. That's a cohesion test on a -4!!!.

I think the issue is that they would perform almost exactly the same way with or without the skilled sword. It is in most ways now a 1 point tariff for been a superior Roman.

I dont for a moment think that Romans are "dead" but I'm not sure we need a seperate, costed weapons category that only really applies in Roman civil wars (as numerous and exciting as they were).

Martin

I think the test is only a -3 actually.

-1 for hits per base
-1 for losing impact
-1 for losting to impact foot (which I believe is the same minus as losing to HF in the open)

ethan wrote:I think the test is only a -3 actually.

-1 for hits per base
-1 for losing impact
-1 for losting to impact foot (which I believe is the same minus as losing to HF in the open)

-1 for losing by 2 hits or more?

grahambriggs wrote:-1 for losing by 2 hits or more?

Only applies in melee phase

Just a few comments, in no particular order, on some of what I particularly like or dislike about the changes:

I think the changes for SSw are not too unreasonable. They will still have a combat advantage against most other foot Sw. In all honesty I couldn't really see where SSw came from as far as combat is concerned - from experience I know that, no matter how long you train guys for with a particular weapon the overwhelming majority will still only be of an average ability. However, more practical experience with a particular weapons system has great benefits and the changes still reflect this. There will still be an advantage, it will just not be so unrealistically overwhelming and will give opponents a chance. I don't think in this case that "generally Romans are losers in this version", they are just not going to be so unreasonably superior.

The slowing down of manoeuvering I also like. I think it will more accurately reflect the time taken for the "men" in the BG's involved to carry out the turn/formation change or whatever and it will give the watching opponents time to start to respond. Even though the game is I go/you go it is still a reflection of simultaneous events.

Not having the initiative and choosing my terrain pieces first - like this alot. Instead of insignificantly and minimally sized terrain I can choose whopping great pieces. With being able to put them next to a river and roads going down last there is a good chance of actually getting them on the table. Being able to deploy a little bit further forward is good. Potentially that is 1 move less before infantry lines meet.

Support shooting loosing the - 1. I don't like this. I think archers were powerful enough without the change. Think of all the extra hits archers will get. Surely shooting in support, from rear ranks who are unlikely to be able to see the target, should not be as effective.

HF moving further in terrain. Good. Personally, I always thought that it was more likely that it was the formations being broken up that was the main disadvatage for HF in rough/difficult terrain. They can walk or run just as fast as anyone else but can't fight as effectively.

As much as I dislike Romans, I don't like the minimum BG sizes for light spear auxiliaries in the two lists being increased. Not because I don't think this should happen, but because I think minimum sizes of combat BG's (not skirmishers) should be increased overall, not just in those 2 armies.

Single level of armour advantage not resulting in ++ POA. Interesting one this. Will this mean more lesser armoured BG's appearing?

Rear support changes. They will make multi lines more viable - but only if the tables are smaller. Otherwise flanks will be even more vulnerable. On the other hand, smaller BG's can be used for rear support.

Caliph wrote: Support shooting loosing the - 1. I don't like this. I think archers were powerful enough without the change. Think of all the extra hits archers will get. Surely shooting in support, from rear ranks who are unlikely to be able to see the target, should not be as effective.

I'm not sure about this. Until we find out how the two work together I'm not particularly bothered by it. I think the amount of time an enemy will be 'in the beaten zone' will be greater than the amount of time an impact combat actually takes. I use this to (slightly) counter your argument about more difficult shooting due to not being able to see. Additionally, the entire unit will be shooting on the way in until the very last minute and then the front ranks will drop bows and draw swords.

So, I can see it more like "several minutes of running through a hail of arrows, followed by a very short amount of time actually 'in the impact combat'".

Caliph wrote: Single level of armour advantage not resulting in ++ POA. Interesting one this. Will this mean more lesser armoured BG's appearing?

I'm not sure. It will mean when some troops (like spear and pike) start to go down to armoured sword that they wont suddenly crumble. For example, if they are +/- 0 because armour vs spear, then they will only get + not ++ when they finally disrupt the spear (I think). So there will still be AN advantage for armour, just not an overwhelming advantage.

As of V1 "Superior" and "Armoured" were the two 'definite takes'. That being the case, it meant that something was broken. Now, if people consider it but don't necessarily take it, then it's balanced. Until we see the competition format we wont really know.

IMHO the main problems with v1 were that skirmishers were too good and elephants & protected impact foot not good enough. it would have been easy to over-correct for this, but the changes made seen like a reasonable step & I'm sure have been suitably play-tested for balance (although I would still like to have seen more restrictions on movement after an evade). House-rule changes to v1.0 anyone?

marty,

The changes seem pretty good to me too. Most of them seem to be as tested with the beta version and those changes that weren't part of the any beta version (e.g., limits on the number of BG that can be controled by a commander, one level of armour not giving a ++ POA, only foot battle troops can loot camps) seem reasonable. The restriction on looting camps might seem harsh, but given the advantages of a mounted army I'm happy with it. At least it prevents "slipping 1 LH BG through or around the lines to get a winning draw" situations. I think the guys have done a good job and I'm looking forward to playing v2.

shadowdragon wrote: only foot battle troops can loot camps) seem reasonable.

Didn't notice this one. I'm not sure I agree, but am not bothered by it.

Fortified camps, that is.

Which I can see as being beneficial to earlier Roman armies with compulsory fortified camps when fighting mounted/LH armies. No need to worry about such an army skipping a LH BG round the back, so theoretically less need to spend points on mounted flank "guards". It also frees them from effectively having to deploy in front of the camp. In addition, with the increased deployment distance (it applies to camps as well, IIRC from the beta), you have a nice free-placing impassible terrain piece.

I was about to say the same thing as Peter. It gives a reason to fortify your camp. Indeed it seems quite historical. Unfortified camps can still be sacked by mounted, like what happened to Alexander in Gaugamela.

Strategos69 wrote:I was about to say the same thing as Peter. It gives a reason to fortify your camp. Indeed it seems quite historical. Unfortified camps can still be sacked by mounted, like what happened to Alexander in Gaugamela.

It does indeed make the purchase of a fortified camp a reasonablly good deal.

shadowdragon wrote:
It does indeed make the purchase of a fortified camp a reasonablly good deal.

Until a BG of poor JLS LF take it

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:
It does indeed make the purchase of a fortified camp a reasonablly good deal.

Until a BG of poor JLS LF take it

JLS LF are battle troops?

ravenflight wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:
It does indeed make the purchase of a fortified camp a reasonablly good deal.

Until a BG of poor JLS LF take it

JLS LF are battle troops?

D'oh. My bad, I read foot battle groups.