Slitherine

Adrianople is a good example of just how hazy knowledge of the strength of an enemy army could be even in the best of circumstances. The Goths had been rampaging around a fairly small area of imperial terriitory for a good length of time and Valens (admittedly one of the less impressive of Emperors) seriously underestimated the number he would find himself facing on the battlefield.

So rather than precise numbers how about showing army strengths in a range eg under 200 (U2) or 200-400 (2/4) or 400-600 (4/6).

Ironclad wrote:

davouthojo wrote:

batesmotel wrote:Which version of Dominate Roman list will be used. I think the Early ends at 367 AD so officially after the starting year but just barely.

Early, the troop limits and allies are based on that, and our Roman generals are so good they will avoid Adrianople-like disasters that makes the change necessary....

Hurrah! God is a Roman.

Uhhh..... The late list is actually better! (especially with the quality caps)

TheGrayMouser wrote:

Ironclad wrote:

davouthojo wrote: Early, the troop limits and allies are based on that, and our Roman generals are so good they will avoid Adrianople-like disasters that makes the change necessary....

Hurrah! God is a Roman.

Uhhh..... The late list is actually better! (especially with the quality caps)

right..the late list gives you a couple of Alan lancers and hun archers.....but the Eastern loses arab/armenian allies - visigoths instead....

Will consider when (if!) we get to 379AD.....

davouthojo wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:

Ironclad wrote: Hurrah! God is a Roman.

Uhhh..... The late list is actually better! (especially with the quality caps)

right..the late list gives you a couple of Alan lancers and hun archers.....but the Eastern loses arab/armenian allies - visigoths instead....

Will consider when (if!) we get to 379AD.....

Fair enough - false assumption on my part.

That its "better" is of course purely subjective and just my opinion however , same infantry options, 3 cats instread of two as well as 2 armoured lancers as an option, Ill forgoe the xtra allies(especialy the arabs)

These "Romans" who won't just fight with Romans!

If it doesn't carry a pilum and wear a tunic it ain't Roman.

Dances around in a Roman tunic captured at Teutoburger!!!

Wonders why it's so "breezy" in the derriere...

Just want to make sure i didnt miss something, the announcements page states next move due today.... Didnt we do move 2 due due at end of Saterday? Would figure some battles would be occuring prior to move 3

TheGrayMouser wrote:Just want to make sure i didnt miss something, the announcements page states next move due today.... Didnt we do move 2 due due at end of Saterday? Would figure some battles would be occuring prior to move 3

Move due today is move 2

Ahhh, figured the reimforcments and moves were all the same time and everyone had completed. Will just need to be patient

I'm trying to fix a problem with my copy of FoG so I'm hoping to nominate or avoid battle this turn!

petergarnett wrote:I'm trying to fix a problem with my copy of FoG so I'm hoping to nominate or avoid battle this turn!

Just pull your horde out and go home, then you wont need to worry about it

petergarnett wrote:I'm trying to fix a problem with my copy of FoG so I'm hoping to nominate or avoid battle this turn!

You seem to have far too many problems with your computer and this game. I'm willing to fight a battle for you if you can't get things working in time and can't find someone else you'd rather delegate to. Hope you can get things straightened out quickly. Might be worthwhile to send an email to Iain (info@slitherine.com).

Chris

Nothing a new PC won't fix but I can't spare the pennies.

TGM, 2 battles to launch - please PM challenges directly

As a thought, it might make more sense to restrict the barbarian players to moving one army per turn rather than one invasion per turn. This would make it a bit less safe for the Romans to assume that they can ignore the barbarian player's second army once the first is invading. And a withdrawal from Roman territory back to the barbarian's home province shouldn't count against the one move limit for that player given that it effectively takes the army out of play for two years. I think this would make the strategic moves more interesting with out making the barbarian's too coordinated.

Chris

batesmotel wrote:As a thought, it might make more sense to restrict the barbarian players to moving one army per turn rather than one invasion per turn. This would make it a bit less safe for the Romans to assume that they can ignore the barbarian player's second army once the first is invading. And a withdrawal from Roman territory back to the barbarian's home province shouldn't count against the one move limit for that player given that it effectively takes the army out of play for two years. I think this would make the strategic moves more interesting with out making the barbarian's too coordinated.

Chris

I kinda disagree Chris. Look at last 2 turns, 3 barbarian armies entered the empire. They ALL stayed put the next turn which means you all could have entered with the OTHER 3. Seems a little over whelming unless you want to add a rule that the Romans can launch pre-emptive invasions of the barbarian homelands:)

Hey D quick question re the below rule:

"Max 50% superior HF/MF"

example: The Dag allows up to 9 superior legions and 9 average

does the 50% rule mean I could buy 9 superior but would also have to take 9 average? 50% criteria appears to be met or 8 and 8 or 6 and 9 etc etc ....

OR

do you mean one can only take 50% of what the DAG allows on that line so 4.5 superior legions rounded up or down to 4 or 5.....

I hope it is the ist as its cleaner , and the romans will have some oddly balanced armies at higher AP levels (basically an army top heavy in leaders and superior cavalry, archers, lights)