Romans

[nikgaukroger]

We must all being playing different versions of FoG. I have a Mid-Republican army, 2x Late Republican Armies and a Principate army. We/I play all four extensively almost always against historical opponents. With the exception of the Roman Skilled-Swords ability to crush barbarians, I believe that FoG, by far, captures the Roman army better than any rule system. Pike armies are a challange, as they should be. A frontal attack against steady pike is a loosing effort for the Romans, as it should be. Nik is 100% on target with his comments.

Mike is a prince amongst men with an incisive mind

Tournaments are a terrible way to measure the historic results of rules and armes. The ability of the player coupled with lucky or unlucky dice determine the winner in most every tournament type game I play. Be careful what you do to the Romans in 2.0. They work perfectly in 1.0.

Mike B

Although I assume from what you said above a change in the interaction with barbarians would be in order.

[grahambriggs]

At my last tournament I saw a classic encounter. 4 x 4 base elite armoured legions vs 4 x 8 base average protected Pike. The legions had a general fighting at either end of the line, the pike had one general fighting.

One pike block disrupted at contact, and slipped down the lttle slope to bye bye land as a result. The victorious legion pursued and then hit nother pike block in the flank - elite legions to front and flank; night night.

However, the other two pike blocks survived the impact and managed to kill the roman general, disrupting the legion he was with. This legion then lost a base and was doomed, which sealed the fate of the legion next door. So a 2-2, which felt like the pike had got a bit lucky.

[Strategos69]

Be careful what you do to the Romans in 2.0. They work perfectly in 1.0.

I agree that they are about right. Romans shouldn't be relying too much beating phalanxes fighting them in frontal assaults. But, in the other hand, I can't see the problem of allowing interpenetrations between legions while fleeing, which would nicely capture the historical deployments (a reserve line with some cohorts in Caesar's legions or the trarii covering them all in Polybean ones, even playing in a triplex acies could be tried for romantic players like me). In fact the idea of the line relief could be just covered by the fact that they are allowed to interpenetrate while fleeing without losing cohesion points whereas historical oponents can't. One phrase amendment in the proper lists and it would be done. I never understood why that was not allowed.

[lawrenceg]

Be careful what you do to the Romans in 2.0. They work perfectly in 1.0.

I agree that they are about right. Romans shouldn't be relying too much beating phalanxes fighting them in frontal assaults. But, in the other hand, I can't see the problem of allowing interpenetrations between legions while fleeing, which would nicely capture the historical deployments (a reserve line with some cohorts in Caesar's legions or the trarii covering them all in Polybean ones, even playing in a triplex acies could be tried for romantic players like me). In fact the idea of the line relief could be just covered by the fact that they are allowed to interpenetrate while fleeing without losing cohesion points whereas historical oponents can't. One phrase amendment in the proper lists and it would be done. I never understood why that was not allowed.

Mainly because they don't want to make special rules for particular armies.

If you put the triarii in 4's then the columns can expand into a solid line as soon as the routers have passed.

[timmy1]

I agree with Nik and MikeB re Romans vs Historical Opponents. They feel right to me other than the Illyrians which are a bit too easy (terrain) and some of the Hairy Barbarian types (I like RBS idea for a theme of having them cost 1 point less per base than they do now). When you fight against S*ss*n*ds, you understand why the army changed to be more missile armed and the MLMBDR swarm (which seems a historically valid evolution). Don't change Principate Romans vs Pike too much (unless it is to allow the pike to fight at max when 3 deep) as the result today is never certain frontally and usually depends upon the quality of the supports and flankers - Thracians and Thorataki (sp?) vs Auxillia often is where you have to look for the edge.

[Strategos69]

Mainly because they don't want to make special rules for particular armies.

It seems to me a big concept mistake and that makes that the rules themselves contain many aspects that, for particular players, are completely innecessary. In particular, it is seen in the post about the Barbarians. A general rule has to be created only thought for a bunch of armies. Bad sign.

But, in the other hand, as it is stated in the rulebook, some troops might be given the possibility to interpenetrate and it is announced that they will be marked in the companion lists. Therefore, it is not even a special rule but a notation on the list. Let legions interpenetrate and problem solved: welcome back triplex acies.

If you put the triarii in 4's then the columns can expand into a solid line as soon as the routers have passed.

My problem with that is that you have to trick the game in order to work historically, which in my opinion is really a dowturn for it. I hope they really end with the supporting columns

[Strategos69]

(I like RBS idea for a theme of having them cost 1 point less per base than they do now).

Even with that you will not get the result of Barbarians breaking though the Roman formation as it happened historically when they won, but rather performing outflanking manouvers that they were not capable of. Anyway, I agree that Romans are ok, and the problem to fix are the Barbarians.

[mbsparta]

We must all being playing different versions of FoG. I have a Mid-Republican army, 2x Late Republican Armies and a Principate army. We/I play all four extensively almost always against historical opponents. With the exception of the Roman Skilled-Swords ability to crush barbarians, I believe that FoG, by far, captures the Roman army better than any rule system. Pike armies are a challange, as they should be. A frontal attack against steady pike is a loosing effort for the Romans, as it should be. Nik is 100% on target with his comments.

Mike is a prince amongst men with an incisive mind

Tournaments are a terrible way to measure the historic results of rules and armes. The ability of the player coupled with lucky or unlucky dice determine the winner in most every tournament type game I play. Be careful what you do to the Romans in 2.0. They work perfectly in 1.0.

Mike B

Although I assume from what you said above a change in the interaction with barbarians would be in order.

I think it was your suggestion to eliminate skilled-swords and reduce the cost of the legionary by one point. We have bee using this and it seem to fix any barbarian issue.

Mike B