Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote:Sorry to hear that some of you are unhappy with the Early German list.

On the matter of consistency, however, I would have to say that if any list is out of sync with policy it is the Ancient Brits/Gauls, not the Germans. In general we have tried to avoid probably spurious distinctions between troops based on scanty evidence.

With regards to the Principate Roman list, it has less options than the others because this is the period of maximum consistency and homogeneity in the Roman Army.

The Dominate Roman lists offer more options not because it is "favoured" but because the quality of troops in the Roman army became far less consistent as the Empire declined. This needs to be reflected in the list, which inevitably therefore gives more options. However many of these additonal options are hardly desirable - anyone for Poor Cataphracts? The overall quality of the army is also restricted (at least half its BGs must be Average or Poor), which is not the case in the Principate period.

I applaud the fact that you admit you may have made a mistake with the British/Gallic list and aren't perfect. Nothing annoys a person more when a rules maker's justification for something is "because I said so."

flameberge wrote:

bignic wrote:Quality has a quality all its own

cheers
Nick

Quantity has a quality all its own.

Hi

My point is that were I to have the choice of quality over quantity in an Early German army whilst trying to beat Romans (FOG's "Space Marines" ) I would choose quality; to wit the blunt instrument of a superior warband with a general in the front rank trying to maximise damage output at impact and hoping to consequently survive melee.

Because it seems manly and Germanic to do so.

Of course this was hard to tell from my original post

cheers
Nick

I think the more attacking minded nature of the Spanish gives them the edge....

sorry - wrong forum.

Ole!!!!!!!

Perhaps it's an omen to use Spanish this year & be aggressive


Cheers,
XenaJer

bignic wrote:[. . . whilst trying to beat Romans (FOG's "Space Marines" ) . . .

As in deployed in small numbers into hostile terrain to face ravening hordes of fierce and unrelenting aliens who leave no remnants other than a few half chewed emblems which once recovered are placed in positions of honor in barracks to encourage new recruits? Or am I missing the thrust of this?

As in "a litmus test for any Ancients rules is how effective Romans are."
If they can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag - ie WRG 5th edition - then there is lamentation.

If they are sexy, armed with chainswords/Gladii of Barbarian Slaying and a popular starter army, then the rules work and all is right in the world - so comparable to Space Marines (GW's best-selling product line and a forgiving choice for Young Johnny).

Yes - I am being very tongue-in-cheek
I even own a Roman army.

cheers
Nick

"Proudly using Romans since the days virtually anything beat them."

Thinking about Early Germans, I think the following looks serviceable.

Early German (Tencteri)
IC, 2xTC, Gallic Ally FC Init: +3
Avail Terrain & Choice: Woodlands
OM Description
1 6 Archers, LF Unp Avg Bow
2 4 Light Cav, LH Unp Avg Jav LSp
3 4 Light Cav, LH Unp Avg Jav LSp
4 4 Gallic Javelinmen, LF Avg Jav LSp
5 6 Javelinmen LF Unp Avg Jav LSp
6 8 Woodsmen HF Pr Avg IF Sw
7 8 Woodsmen HF Pr Avg IF Sw
8 8 Woodsmen HF Pr Avg IF Sw
9 8 Woodsmen HF Pr Avg IF Sw
10 4 Gallic Chariots, LCh Sup LSp
11 8 Gauls, MF Pr Avg IF Sw
12 8 Gauls, MF Pr Avg IF Sw
13 12 Gauls, MF Pr Avg IF Sw


DOCTRINE NOTES:
Early German, Gallic Ally pre-100 BC.
1. Early Germans have Woodlands terrain. This army has a +3 Initiative modifier and seeks to get Woodlands where the MF and LF can have free rein while the few LH delay and the HF either defend or attack in the open. The goal is to work the terrain as much as possible - the IC is to boost initiative, help maneuver, and bolster the battle front. The two TCs probably go with Warbands and the LH. This army should work ambushes heavily. The LH can be flank marched with a TC.
2. HF deepen to 3 ranks for solidity.
3. 2 LH should work together, maybe with the Chariots. These are cheaper and more useful than non-Tencteri cavalry. They may flank march.
4. Light bows are to seek to disrupt by shooting, Javs for utility and clearing weaker LF.
5. Overall battle plan is to get the HF Wb stuck in with shooting support once the terrain is worked to develop an advantage.
6. Terrain in Woodlands: Large compulsory forest, additional forests or mix of those and rough depending on nature of enemy forces.

Q1: LH deploy in open areas where we want to delay the enemy, the Gallic Javs go down where we expect the MF to go, and Archers go down where they can shoot up something or at least screen.
Q2: The HF go down along with the regular Javs, looking for enemy LF to chase off or kill.
Q3: The last HF are deployed responsively in relation to the main body and the Chariot is deployed.
Q4: The Gallic foot go down responsively to take advantage of the terrain, unless one is placed in ambush.

Thoughts?

Mike

Looks reasonable to me Mike,

You might want to try to get the BG sizes up on the HF. 8 base BGs of protected HF are not that scary to anyone, 10s have a number of advantages.

And hope like mad you don't come across any armoured spearmen.

Double minus at melee really isn't pleasant irrelevant of how big your BG's are. I played a Gallic army and my opponent threw a 5 for his death roll, which meant he lost 2 casualties in one melee.... His was a very similar list to yours.

Looks like a good list to me, nice use of allies to balance out the German HF warbands. I agree with Hammy that increasing the size of your German warbands to ten bases would be a good idea (I might even try twelve for one, but that would mean losing the chariots). The wooded terrain, combined with skirmishing foot and horse/chariots, along with lots of impact foot is a good combination.

The Gallic ally seemed apt - there are many armies that can be tactically re-engineered with Allies.

I was deliberating on the infantry sizes and balance between HF and MF and wanted HF flexibility for fighting between and around terrain.

I could cut the Gallic 12 down to 8 and use the points to increase 2 of the German BGs to 10, or turn 4 x8 German HF into a 12 and two 10s and leave the Gauls as they are (or shift to 2 10s and one 8 for Gauls).

Or, and this was the hard part, give up the LH and Tencteri and switch to another tribe allowing German MF. The Gauls could then be recruited as HF - with an ally commander this would be fine as they are probably clustered in one spot anyway. I would miss the LH though.

rbodleyscott wrote:On the matter of consistency, however, I would have to say that if any list is out of sync with policy it is the Ancient Brits/Gauls, not the Germans. In general we have tried to avoid probably spurious distinctions between troops based on scanty evidence.

Yeah, as someone who is currently converting his Gallic army, I certainly can't complain about the richness of options here. Going down the list:

1. 24 stands of cavalry is a -lot- more than anyone else in the area gets. Nothing like a single battle (Telamon) where the mounted ratio is dramatically higher than at any time before or after... kind of reminds me of how Ptolemaic lists have so much focus on the Egyptian Phalanx that got used -once- to the political regret of the kingdom.
2. Speaking of the cavalry, 0-6 can be armored. Did the Gauls have seperate units of better armored nobles?
3. The usual heavy/medium compromise (also seen in the lists for the Germans, Roman Auxilia, Thyreophoroi, etc.). I wonder, with the exception of actual dedicated phalanx/shieldwall formations, if we aren't just kidding ourselves that there is really a distinction here. By Polybius's very specific description, the Mid-Republican Romans should be "medium", but no rules do that.
4. Apparantly being naked makes you superior. I don't necessarily disagree with the rating, though I will point out that the Gaesati didn't exactly prove to be world-beaters in the battles we know about (the Galatians had a mixed record as well).
5. Soldurii. Mentioned once in Caesar (they surrendered on that occasion IIRC). Given the benefit of the doubt for armor and eliteness.

Heh, I guess I picked the right "barbarians" back in the day.

Seriously, though, I'm not certain I'd say any of the above are necessarily "spurious distinctions"; each can be backed up by at least some sort of historical reference or inference of status. But while the Gauls and the British may have been given a very "liberal" application of the troop classification policy, it might be possible that the Germans are getting a much stricter standard of evidence than the typical army. Or maybe not, but I could see someone with an Early German army at least being confused here.

bignic wrote:My point is that were I to have the choice of quality over quantity in an Early German army whilst trying to beat Romans (FOG's "Space Marines" ) I would choose quality; to wit the blunt instrument of a superior warband with a general in the front rank trying to maximise damage output at impact and hoping to consequently survive melee.

I wouldn't hold out a great deal of hope. The legionaries would be on ++ in the melee (assuming armoured SSwd vs protected Swd). Even disrupted they'll probably beat you.

lawrenceg wrote: I wouldn't hold out a great deal of hope. The legionaries would be on ++ in the melee (assuming armoured SSwd vs protected Swd). Even disrupted they'll probably beat you.

I played a game yesterday where my BG of 8 german bases pinned a BG of 4 veteran legionaries frontally and another battlegroup of 8 germans hit their flank and the Romans STILL won. And yes, I counted in the fact that they were only on a single POA because the legionaries were facing in 2 directions. And I remembered to drop the Romans one cohesion level at impact from the flank charge.