Idea to give Barbarians a chance.

[hannibal]

My other thought would be maybe to give impact foot an additional POA at impact for a 3rd rank? Would give some advantage to large, deep warband units?

]

What historical tactic or weapon system is this 3rd rank reflecting? Warbands fighting with short spears and swords are not going to get any advantage from more guys pushing from behind like hoplites or pikes. Being pushed from behind when you are trying to fence with an enemy is probably detrimental.

My understanding of warband is that it was the initial impetus in the charge that was important - bit of a bulldozer principle. If they managed to smash through the enemy formation they had a chance, otherwise they were disadvantaged in the "fence with an enemy" phase of the battle. Seem logical that the more weight behind your initial rush the more chance you have of smashing through?

[Ranimiro]

Having dissmised the idea of the infantry breakoff i still think there is bit of a problem with romans vs barbarian mechanic (and i can see that many people think that too by some of the comments).

Going back to the concept of the pause-clash style melee. I agree that pehaps is a bad idea to include break off for infantry due to the scale of the battle represented in FoG, but and now talking specifically about romans i can see now that perhaps the problem is with them, not with undrilled impact foot.

The problem is the concept of Impact foot applied to romans representing the use of the pilae. The rule represents a massive volley of pilae in a very short period, this may have been the case for some situations. For example Caesar account of a battle in gaul (i dont remember exactly wich one) Reading the description of the battle I remember understanding that the romans where in a higher place and the gauls where standing or slowly advancing towards them when they received the volley, not a true CHARGE, they even had time to form a "shieldwall" (this is clearly described by Caesar when he describes how some of shields where "sew" togheter by the pilum and then discarded) If the gauls had been charging they wouldn´t have form a shieldwall and the omans wouldn´t have had time to throw such a volley of pilae.

My point is that, and this is of course an interpretation based on the concept of pause-clash melee, the pilum was not always used as a volley weapon, just in some situations. It was more and "attrition" weapon than anything else used in the "lulls" during the melee. So going back to the mechaninc of FoG. Perhaps IMPACT FOOT applied to romans just by having pilum is maybe too much.

I can see a number of posible solutions

New cathegory for the use of pilae or other heavy throwing weapons (wich would be (++) against slow aproaching enemys like phalanxs but (+) or (0) against TRUE IMPACT FOOT)

Giving just (+) for DRILLED IMPACT against UNDRILLED IMPACT

Having to pass a CMT to get the (++) for DRILLED IMPACT? not elegant, nevermind

Just making romans LIGHT SPEAR ( I can see your face going "OUTRAGEOUS" right now!!!) I dont like it either because of the problem that it will bring with spearmen and pike units.

Giving the IMPACT FOOT bonus depending on the context of who charge who? or distance? I dont want to fall in the mechanics of "old wargaming" where the effect of the charge was determined by the "previos history" of the unit as we are now "too cool" to do record keeping, but perhaps our wargame forefathers where not that wrong there. They also have read a LOT about ancient battles and do some betatesting.

[Strategos69]

Curiously I was getting to the same conclusion as Ranimiro. I can see the Romans more prepared to receive a charge (no matter if that is from a warband or pikes) and then managing in the melee to use their superior manouverability and drill to win the combat. In fact, as Ranimiro says, the pila were conceived to halt enemy charges more than breaking through the enemy and they were used many times during the melee, shooting overhead of firendly troops. The only problem I can see here is that legions are not even with pikes in the impact phase, reducing their whole performance against them.

[Ranimiro]

The only problem I can see here is that legions are not even with pikes in the impact phase, reducing their whole performance against them.

Thats why I think that the better solutions is to create a new cathegory for the "troops with heavy trowing weapons like pilum and soliferrum that disrupt the enemy advance" that is more contextual that the IMPACT FOOT cathegory

it can get ++ against slow advancing enemy like pike phalanx

it gets + or even 0 when charge by IMPACT FOOT
how about (+) agains Heavy foot Impact foot, and (0) against MEdium Foot Impact Foot ?

[hannibal]

I think I come back to finding a way to give undrilled impact foot another (tie breaker) POA at impact. I still think there's mileage in the idea of awarding this for a 3rd rank at impact. What about an additional POA for undrilled impact foot in 3 ranks if no other net POA at impact and also maybe a POA for the 3rd rank in melee if opponent has lost cohesion (disr/frg). This would recognise the impetous of the charge, and if successful the pressing home of the advantage gained? Maybe the CT modofyer for losing to undrilled impact foot should be -2 rather than -1? Would need testing to check it doesn't swing things too far the other way.

[shadowdragon]

Curiously I was getting to the same conclusion as Ranimiro. I can see the Romans more prepared to receive a charge (no matter if that is from a warband or pikes) and then managing in the melee to use their superior manouverability and drill to win the combat. In fact, as Ranimiro says, the pila were conceived to halt enemy charges more than breaking through the enemy and they were used many times during the melee, shooting overhead of firendly troops. The only problem I can see here is that legions are not even with pikes in the impact phase, reducing their whole performance against them.

I think the discussion is going in the wrong direction now. Reducing Roman (really mid to late Rupublican / Early Imperial) effectiveness is only going to remove those armies from tournament play and NOT see an increase in barabarian armies. Is that really a better outcome? Do we want to go back to DBM days for the Roman armies?

Checking the FoG tournament database for the highest ranking armies (either ELO or average points per game) doesn't show a bunch of Roman armies in the top. The best Roman army is Dominate and I would think it's high placing is for a lot of other reasons than Roman impact capability.

Improving barbarian armies is going to mean that they have a chance - on an equal points basis - against Christian Nubian (lots and lots and lots of superior shooty stuff), Hungarian / Turkish (lots of shooty stuff, cavalry, etc.), Late Medieval (Knights, longbow, heavy weapon, etc.), later Greek / Successor armies (pikes and very good cavalry)....

[hannibal]

I think the discussion is going in the wrong direction now. Reducing Roman (really mid to late Rupublican / Early Imperial) effectiveness is only going to remove those armies from tournament play and NOT see an increase in barabarian armies. Is that really a better outcome? Do we want to go back to DBM days for the Roman armies?

I agree - Romans seem to work OK, Warband too weak

[grahambriggs]

I think the problem though is not with the classification of the Romans. They were reasonable at impact against the fierce gallic and british charges, and the pilum was part of that - all that colour in Caesar's Gallic Wars about the celtic shields being useless once a pilum was stuck in them, and so on. And they had drills that meant they threw their pila on most occasions (though sometimes got caught out). But badly led or not very good legions could be swept away.

The problem is that impact is less important than melee. Even if you were able to come up with a new troop type (unlikely to be adopted as it would mean rewriting army lists) that meant the legions were a POA down at impact the reality is that they would still chop the barbarians up in the melee quite quickly. I like RBS' idea of a -2 for losing an impact against undrilled Impact Foot as the charge could be harder to contain.

[shadowdragon]

I think the discussion is going in the wrong direction now. Reducing Roman (really mid to late Rupublican / Early Imperial) effectiveness is only going to remove those armies from tournament play and NOT see an increase in barabarian armies. Is that really a better outcome? Do we want to go back to DBM days for the Roman armies?

I agree - Romans seem to work OK, Warband too weak

I continue to see merit in the -2 on the CT for losing to undrilled impact. If that's not enough, then we should consider increasing the morale rating of barbarians. If they were considered superior one on one at the time then allowing those armies more superior / elite troops would be a lot simpler and just as effective as tinkering with the combat mechanism.

There is, in fact, a barbarian army with the option to field all warrior types as superior - the Galatian army. Looking at the FoG database there have only been 13 games entered for the Galatians with them having caused 4 army routs and suffered 4 army routs. Tournament results aren't brilliant but not bad either (15/46, 4/12, 8/10, 7/18 ) . Armies the Galatians beat were Palmyran, Later Seleucid, Dominate Roman, Anglo-Norman, Gallic, Graeco-Bactrian and Late Republican Roman. Defeats were to Graeco-Bactrian, Lydian, Classical Indian and Later Seleucid. One draw to the Late Republican Romans and one with an unrecorded opponent.

This would suggest that adding in a -2 CT for losing to undrilled impact might really elevate this army in the standings.

[jlopez]

Improving barbarian armies is going to mean that they have a chance - on an equal points basis - against Christian Nubian (lots and lots and lots of superior shooty stuff), Hungarian / Turkish (lots of shooty stuff, cavalry, etc.), Late Medieval (Knights, longbow, heavy weapon, etc.), later Greek / Successor armies (pikes and very good cavalry)....

There are two separate issues:

1. Combat rules to simulate likely impact and melee outcomes based more or less on historical evidence: simulation
2. The desire to field different armies with a reasonable chance of success of winning: playability

Tinkering with POAs to correct an imbalance between two historical foes is fine but it cannot be used to make barbarian armies "better" against armies or rather tactical systems they never or very rarely encountered. Assuming we insist on playing open competitions where army mismatches (HF vs LH) will occur, a solution must come through modifying the victory conditions not the combat system.

Foot barbarian armies (mostly IF but also other protected foot) are rarely seen because IMHO they suffer on both counts. They are excessively fragile in combat against heavier armies and they, rightly, cannot come to grasp with lighter armies. You can sort the first with changes to POAs and/or CTs but the second requires victory conditions which allow both armies to use their preferred tactics (shooting or melee) for a while to achieve victory but then forces both both players into hand to hand combat to force a decision.

[Strategos69]

The problem is that impact is less important than melee. Even if you were able to come up with a new troop type (unlikely to be adopted as it would mean rewriting army lists) that meant the legions were a POA down at impact the reality is that they would still chop the barbarians up in the melee quite quickly. I like RBS' idea of a -2 for losing an impact against undrilled Impact Foot as the charge could be harder to contain.

Well, historically the Barbarians did not have much chance. They lost most of the battles when they did not manage to break through with the initial charge so I think it is accurate that they don't have much chance in melee. That is the reason why they should be given an advantage only in the impact phase and that is why they should be differentiated from Romans and Spanish. What it does not seem right to me is that, even if the final effect is the same (and somehow I think it is not that bad), that Spanish and Romans are treated in the rules in the same way as Gauls and Germans, while their way of fighting was different.

The changes that are being proposed (like undrilled impact foot) almost seem to say: only apply to Gauls and Germans, which would be resolved better with a special rule (which in FoG do not exist and create this trouble when writing amendments). But what about Spanish undrilled impact foot that did not relied on the charge to win the day?

What about applying that -2 when facing impact foot in a deep formation (provided the reclassment of Spanish and Romans)?

[grahambriggs]

The problem is that impact is less important than melee. Even if you were able to come up with a new troop type (unlikely to be adopted as it would mean rewriting army lists) that meant the legions were a POA down at impact the reality is that they would still chop the barbarians up in the melee quite quickly. I like RBS' idea of a -2 for losing an impact against undrilled Impact Foot as the charge could be harder to contain.

Well, historically the Barbarians did not have much chance. They lost most of the battles when they did not manage to break through with the initial charge so I think it is accurate that they don't have much chance in melee. That is the reason why they should be given an advantage only in the impact phase and that is why they should be differentiated from Romans and Spanish. What it does not seem right to me is that, even if the final effect is the same (and somehow I think it is not that bad), that Spanish and Romans are treated in the rules in the same way as Gauls and Germans, while their way of fighting was different.

The changes that are being proposed (like undrilled impact foot) almost seem to say: only apply to Gauls and Germans, which would be resolved better with a special rule (which in FoG do not exist and create this trouble when writing amendments). But what about Spanish undrilled impact foot that did not relied on the charge to win the day?

What about applying that -2 when facing impact foot in a deep formation (provided the reclassment of Spanish and Romans)?

The problem for the barbarians was often strategic: the Romans could put as many men into the field as they could. i.e they had more AP to spend. When the barbarians could get into an equal AP fight they did OK. So, for example, in the Cimbric War you have Arausio, where the Romans obligingly split their forces in two and were slaughtered. The first half were thrown away assualting the Cimbrii's camp and the second half, having seen this, were swept away with a river to their back.

Roman generals who were more sensible (Marius, Caesar) would try to be uphill of the barbarians (e.g. at Aquae Sextiae and Bibracte) and would make sure they had good quality troops to take them on with. So that probably says taking the barbarians on with average troops on the level should be fraught with danger. I think a -2 for losing vs undrilled impact foot at impact might add sufficient risk.

[hannibal]

The changes that are being proposed (like undrilled impact foot) almost seem to say: only apply to Gauls and Germans, which would be resolved better with a special rule (which in FoG do not exist and create this trouble when writing amendments). But what about Spanish undrilled impact foot that did not relied on the charge to win the day?

I think you make a good point - we are effectively making undrilled impact foot a slightly different troop type to drilled impact foot. Spanish don't have that much in common with the massed warband that we have been debating, and arguably Almughavars, Dailami etc fall into the same category. Can we make a HF/ MF distinction? maybe the changes we are debating are only required for Heavy Foot?

[shadowdragon]

There are two separate issues:

1. Combat rules to simulate likely impact and melee outcomes based more or less on historical evidence: simulation
2. The desire to field different armies with a reasonable chance of success of winning: playability

These aren't really two separate issues but two sides of one coin as these must be in balance. The game must be playable or - well, - it won't be played and it must be able to produce outcomes that are realistic on the basis of historical evidence and - not to be forgotten - our currently held perceptions of that evidence.

There is a school of thought amongst simulation developers that if you build a valid, very detailed tactical simulation you can use that simulation to recreate operational or even theatre level conflicts. I've met quite a few of these types of analysts / simuation developers from the US Dept of Defence and a couple from the French Ministry of Defence. However, I have yet to see a detailed simulation - either professionally for defence purposes or commercially for fun - that was able to produce valid results when used for higher level engagements. The UK has by far the most sensible approach which is to produce a hierarchy of simulations (tactical, operational and strategic); and while they use the results of more detailed, low-level simulations to inform the data for higher level simulations it is necessary to calibrate those results by reference actual, historical results. Simply put there are huge aggregation issues which we don't completely understand but usually put down to "the friction of war".

Now if that's true for modelling & simulating modern warfare for which we have terra-bytes of data, how much more so will it be true for ancient warfare with only snippets of information?

FoG has pitched itself at the level of modelling an ancient or medieval battle and the results seem to be right - for the most part. The above discussion on the detailed, almost blow-by-blow engagement between Romans versus barbarians is, for sure, an interesting one, but how one extrapolate that discussion into what, if anything, should be done to FoG rules seems to me to be predicated upon each person's a priori preference more than anything else.

I’ve commented on the tournament results for the Galatians. I’ve also looked at the Gallic army results and their record versus Roman armies seemed about right.

RBS has proposed a -2 CT for losing to undrilled impact. How about trying that in a few games? Maybe it’s enough of a difference and we don’t need to add the complexity of more capability categories – which would mean reviewing / re-writing every POA table at the very least.

As for Early German armies – well, one should only play them if you are head over heels in love with them!

[nikgaukroger]

The problem for the barbarians was often strategic: the Romans could put as many men into the field as they could. i.e they had more AP to spend. When the barbarians could get into an equal AP fight they did OK. So, for example, in the Cimbric War you have Arausio, where the Romans obligingly split their forces in two and were slaughtered. The first half were thrown away assualting the Cimbrii's camp and the second half, having seen this, were swept away with a river to their back.

Roman generals who were more sensible (Marius, Caesar) would try to be uphill of the barbarians (e.g. at Aquae Sextiae and Bibracte) and would make sure they had good quality troops to take them on with. So that probably says taking the barbarians on with average troops on the level should be fraught with danger. I think a -2 for losing vs undrilled impact foot at impact might add sufficient risk.

I'm definitely coming to like this -2 CT for losing to Undrilled Impact Foot idea. Couple with removing the Skilled Swordsmen from Superior (and indeed Elite) legionarii to take away the unnecessary (and silly) ++ for them in melee against your average barbarian and I think we are getting somewhere. These have the benefit of being simple and should move the interaction to a more historical outcome.

[nikgaukroger]

Spanish don't have that much in common with the massed warband that we have been debating,

True, at least as long as you ignore the bits in (IIRC) Livy where the Spanish are described as hard/fierce charging troops that cause the legiones real problems.

and arguably Almughavars, Dailami etc fall into the same category.

Not sure about Almughavars, other than we must have had a reason for giving them the IF option, however, Agathias' description of Dailami effect supports IF.

[Strategos69]

The problem for the barbarians was often strategic: the Romans could put as many men into the field as they could. i.e they had more AP to spend. When the barbarians could get into an equal AP fight they did OK. So, for example, in the Cimbric War you have Arausio, where the Romans obligingly split their forces in two and were slaughtered. The first half were thrown away assualting the Cimbrii's camp and the second half, having seen this, were swept away with a river to their back.

Roman generals who were more sensible (Marius, Caesar) would try to be uphill of the barbarians (e.g. at Aquae Sextiae and Bibracte) and would make sure they had good quality troops to take them on with. So that probably says taking the barbarians on with average troops on the level should be fraught with danger. I think a -2 for losing vs undrilled impact foot at impact might add sufficient risk.[/quote]

Right now Late Roman legionaries cost around 14 (depending on grading) and Gauls and Germans 7AP. If we believe the description made by Roman authors (something polemic, I admit) legions were always outnumbered by 2 to 1 at least in any battle against Cimbri and Teutones. We also know that in most of these battles we had a clash between the two lines the Barbarians relying on their fierce charge. Sometimes they managed to break through, others they didn't (in some cases due to good generals getting and advantage position, true). I would say that in FoG terms it is fair to say that most of those battles were "equal points". The problem right now is that it is hard for Barbarians to make these numbers count more and I think that the 3rd/4th rank PoA could help. Moreover, given that Barbarians come into greater numbers, I think that the option of adding a PoA for having a greater depth would force to deploy them in depth and they would not be played as the manouver army they were not.

The problem with reducing everything to that -2 is that, first, Spanish are also undrilled impact foot and they did not fight like Gauls; second, that what we really have is a set of troops (Romans and Spanish) that did not rely on the charge but are classed as impact foot. In my opinion there is a category missing in there, even if I agree that it can be problematic to implement it as we will break the balance with other troop types.

[Ranimiro]

I think the discussion is going in the wrong direction now. Reducing Roman (really mid to late Rupublican / Early Imperial) effectiveness is only going to remove those armies from tournament play and NOT see an increase in barabarian armies. Is that really a better outcome? Do we want to go back to DBM days for the Roman armies?

You missunderstand me. I was proposing not a nerfing of the drilled impetous troops, just an adjustment of POAS against undrilled IMpact foot (that could be done by a new cathegory).

But you are right in saying that that would not make impact foot any better against other armies (based on cav and shooting) but I was talking from a historical point of view. I allwas try to play historical oponents and I dont give a damn about tournament play. MAybe thats is my sin.

[Ranimiro]

Spanish don't have that much in common with the massed warband that we have been debating,

True, at least as long as you ignore the bits in (IIRC) Livy where the Spanish are described as hard/fierce charging troops that cause the legiones real problems.

Ancient authors always depict any roman enemy as "Fierce charging". ;p It doesn´t count.

So the "rejected" options are:

break offs
new cathegory for roman and spanish infantry


The proposed options are:


tie breaker POA

give a depth POA

give a negative modifier for enemies loosing against this troops.

[jlopez]

Ancient authors always depict any roman enemy as "Fierce charging". ;p It doesn´t count.

That's a reasonable and well-laid out explanation.