What about the actual changes?

[zocco]

Whilst V2 is positive in many aspects I agree that Romans have been dudded . But then FOG (including V1) is overall an anti_Roman set of rules anyway so no surprises there.

SSW is no longer worth the points and should be given as optional in all lists.

And as for "Heavy weapon capability no longer cancelled by skilled swordsmen or skirmishers." - a please explain is in order. One would have to wonder the utility of skilled swordsman in the Japanese lists.

Z.

[thefrenchjester]

Hi Zocco,

Fog is not an anti roman ruleset;

in V1.0, why taking romans bg per 4 "average " if you can have "sup, ssw,ar." able to cut to pieces all they meet on their way, even in the bad going, just for exemple in a game 2 BG of 4 "degenarated morally bankrupted legio sup ssw"came in a rough to attack 3 BG of 6 MF " chinese HW av. footmen" and slaughtered them to the last without loosing a base or a cohesion level, and it's only one of the numerous examples I could write, the option to have a small and tough army, I met too many on the tables with "average non skilled" to be unhappy if the ssw is less powerful in V2.0, ok I concede that it was an easy choice to take the Ssw;

in V2.0 , the romans still have some of their advantages against the " for example" the dacians footmen and must take care to deal with the Falxmen in a different way, so it's better in my point of view, it gives a chance to the dacians to use their mix of troops in different tactics other than wait impatiently the end of the battle fleeing everywhere on the battelefield;

the beta testers made a great work on the V2.0, the overall changes will give a renewal in FOG, try the V2.0 and then you will see that it 's well balanced;

I hope you will have fun with the V2.0;

Best regards

thefrenchjester "optimistic "

Ps: oh,I forgot one thing, write after me :" Romanes it domum ! " one hundred times "

[hazelbark]

Whilst V2 is positive in many aspects I agree that Romans have been dudded . But then FOG (including V1) is overall an anti_Roman set of rules anyway so no surprises there.

Balderdash. In v 1 the romans are way better than their contemporaries. The Roman legions are refred to as woodchippers by barbarians who are made out of wood.The only thing that as a chance versus them are things that run away, cataphracts and Pike. And none of those are crushingly advantaged over romans.

[marty]

How about this one:

Restricted area:
Any battle group capable of doing so can move straight back perpendicular to its own rear. A battle group in the restricted area of enemy even partly behind it rear can move straight forwards. These moves are permitted even if the battle group ends its move no longer in front of the enemy battle group.
Moves by pinned battle groups can include contraction of files that are not in any restricted area.

Seems a bit contrary to the intention of making skirmishers less slippery. One of the few ways they ever got caught in V1 was by shepherding them to where you wanted using restricted zones (and if possible flank charges). This would seem to mean that carefully positioned skirmishers will almost always have an out unless there is someone actually behind them.

I wonder if the overall effect of this in competition with the reduced turn and move of skirmishers (+other changes like shooting range and max 90 deg wheel) will leave them more or less "slippery"? I was a beta tester but cant recall this one been tested.

Martin

[zocco]

It seems that some dispute my claim on an anti-Roman bias in FOG. So I thought I should make at least some reply.

1. Whilst I sympathise somewhat with hairy foot vs Veteran legionaries I think we do need to remember that the hairies are usually worth about 7 AP vs legionaries with Ssw cost 14 AP. So it is not exactly comparing like with like.

2. As for Dacian falx vs Sup arm ssw legionaries again it is a 7 AP v 14 AP. Indeed given the points discrepancy this interaction (and even more so under V2 now that ssw cannot nobble HW) is close to broken.

Here perhaps I'll digress a minute - FOG HW's ability to completely neutralise armour is very very dubious. For one thing experiments written up in Slingshot (re Dacian falx) have shown that armour does markedly reduce tissue damage (and these experiments we should remember were using assumptions very favourable to the falx - in real life many hits would be glancing blows) . Also if we are to believe that HW can completely remove the armour POA advantage we have to believe that Roman legionaries fighting Dacian falx wielders might as well roll up to the battle wearing nothing more than a cotton tunic (ie are unprotected). As a Thai girl once said to me (I don't tink so....I won't say what proposal I put to her !).

For both the above If I'm paying 14AP per base I expect to win against an opponent paying half the cost ! I wouldn't expect 10 AP Cv to do particularly well against 20 AP Kn's for example.

Perhaps I can illustrate my anti-Roman claim futher using Dominate vs Sassanid.

1. Dominates must have at least 1/2 BG's average or poor. Sassanid have no such limitations.

2. Sassanid can have bucket loads of Superior heavy mounted with not an average or poor in sight. Roman types (and here I'll include other contemporaries of the Sassanids - Foederates and Early Byzantines) cannot. Note bog standard Sassanian Cv are just as good as elite Sassanian Cv (eg the Immortals). Not even Mongols and such can get that !

3. Sassanid get up to 6 bases of elephants. To oppose them the Doms can get a single BG of 4 LF (yes count them). Under V1 it was difficult for Dom foot vs Elephants (light spear/sw and impact foot/sw just don't do it) now with the 3 impact die in V2 it is even worse. Pity the fact that Roman battle infantry actually did ok against elephants (both Sassanid and others) and in fact probably no worse than Pike when looking at the historical record.

4. Sassanid levy spearmen - ah yes. It seems that Sassanid levy (all 24 bases of them in fact) were well trained enough to be given the option of being classed as Defensive Spearmen. I for one would be very interested to know what evidence that is based on. Not only does it require evidence that Levy are better than Mob but that they were trained in shieldwall tactics (that is supposedly the standard required under FOG). It is also interesting that Dom militia (the Dom equivalent of Sass Levy) obviously don't know such 'secrets' because they rate as Light Spear only.

Indeed Spearmen seem to get a rather good run under FOG and I have to say that I put up quite a coherent case as to why Dom Roms (and later Roms) battle infantry could be given the option of being alternatively rated as Spearmen from the historical evidence. This argument was howled down - although it is based on evidence much much stronger than that for Sassanid Levy Spearmen or for that used to justify many Dark Age armies (eg Merovingians) using shieldwalls post 600AD (as noted in Guy Halsall's book - which was based mainly on changes in shield design and too a lesser extent weaponry changes). Indeed if we had used the same criteria Roman heavy foot could be rated as Spearmen some time in the latter part of the third century.
Is there more - quite probably but that will do for the moment.

Z.

[stecal]

it does really matter if the Romans are 14 points and the barbarian hordes cost 1 point each. With the table size limitation the Romans will be able to cover most of the table width and the hordes will only be able to match their frontage with 2 overlaps on the extreme ends. The V1 hordes will just be munched thru 3 to 5 all day since the rules do not consider fatigue.

As the owner of several of these expensive barbarian horde armies I am eagerly awaiting V2. My Germans NEVER won a game vs Superior Romans in 5 years of playing.

[zocco]

it does really matter if the Romans are 14 points and the barbarian hordes cost 1 point each. With the table size limitation the Romans will be able to cover most of the table width and the hordes will only be able to match their frontage with 2 overlaps on the extreme ends. The V1 hordes will just be munched thru 3 to 5 all day since the rules do not consider fatigue.

As the owner of several of these expensive barbarian horde armies I am eagerly awaiting V2. My Germans NEVER won a game vs Superior Romans in 5 years of playing.

Hi Stecal,

My main arguement with the rules is that they have not played the evidence for Roman armies on an equal footing with many others - As I have illustrated with the Doms vs Sass comparison etc.

Regarding your Germans I certainly wish you well in V2. As I said I do empathise with you - in fact I put up a proposal (the Fulcum Rule) on this forum that would have evened out some of the problems impact foot/ Lt spear have vs various opponents - this would have helped Romans a tad but would also have improved your Germans against roman Sup legionaries .

cheers

Zocco

[ShrubMiK]

> evidence

No, what you actually mean (and I do remember some fairly lengthy arguments along these lines with you and some others in the past) is that the list authors have not paid sufficient attention to YOUR OPINION on the subject of Romans, spearmen, etc.

Not that you are entirely wrong, it's just that the significant bias in the rules is actually anti-foot

[hazelbark]

Regarding your Germans I certainly wish you well in V2. As I said I do empathise with you - in fact I put up a proposal (the Fulcum Rule) on this forum that would have evened out some of the problems impact foot/ Lt spear have vs various opponents - this would have helped Romans a tad but would also have improved your Germans against roman Sup legionaries .

Well the authors did a few things in the beta to help the barbarians. I don't know if they were your specific ideas.
Barbarians are better at impact than v 1
Barbarians get more superior troops.
Armour and skilled sword matter less versus barbarians.

[ravenflight]

Seems a bit contrary to the intention of making skirmishers less slippery. One of the few ways they ever got caught in V1 was by shepherding them to where you wanted using restricted zones (and if possible flank charges). This would seem to mean that carefully positioned skirmishers will almost always have an out unless there is someone actually behind them.

I wonder if the overall effect of this in competition with the reduced turn and move of skirmishers (+other changes like shooting range and max 90 deg wheel) will leave them more or less "slippery"? I was a beta tester but cant recall this one been tested.

Martin

It does seem a little DBMish 'Buttocks of Death'. If you get a corner of a BG to be in line with the 'straight back' does that mean they can no longer move? I can see a BG of skirmishers getting a 1mm corner into that 'retreat zone' and cause problems.

Not sure if it will be an issue, but I can see certain circumstances where it's a bit meh.

[hannibal]

Balderdash. In v 1 the romans are way better than their contemporaries. The Roman legions are refred to as woodchippers by barbarians who are made out of wood.

I agree, and maybe for historical re-enactment this is right - as we all know unless they were surrounded the Romans did pretty much chop up any barbarian army they faced, at least in the early periods. Problem is it makes for a pretty dull game if the Romans always win! So the game rules need a balancing mechanic to give the hairys a chance - because let's not forget we are playing a game here & generally are not a re-enactment society. I don't think they had a chance in v1 so an adjustment is required. The aim of any rule set must be that pretty much any army is viable - with effectiveness balanced by points value. Not the case ATM

[ValentinianVictor]

That's right, why let a little thing like historical accuracy get in the way of playing a good game. I vote to give the barbarians laser cannons just to even things up just a tad more. It wont matter as its only a game after all...

[SrWilliam]

That's right, why let a little thing like historical accuracy get in the way of playing a good game. I vote to give the barbarians laser cannons just to even things up just a tad more. It wont matter as its only a game after all...

In a fight consisting of 10,000 Barbarians vs. 10,000 Romans it is safe to assume using V1 or V2 rules, the Romans would win, as they did historically.

I think 800 pts. Barbarians vs. 800 pts. Romans should be a somewhat fare fight.

[philqw78]

That's right, why let a little thing like historical accuracy get in the way of playing a good game. I vote to give the barbarians laser cannons just to even things up just a tad more. It wont matter as its only a game after all...

But surely in an even points game, as stated above, the Barbarians should have an equal chance. Its just that in V2 a base of hairy rabble will represent a lot more men on the ground if you need to rationalise it

[philqw78]

Also

Lots of riff raff armies get upgraded warriors. Seems a bit of a cop out

How about the Picts? They were riff raff too.

[zocco]

Regarding your Germans I certainly wish you well in V2. As I said I do empathise with you - in fact I put up a proposal (the Fulcum Rule) on this forum that would have evened out some of the problems impact foot/ Lt spear have vs various opponents - this would have helped Romans a tad but would also have improved your Germans against roman Sup legionaries .

Well the authors did a few things in the beta to help the barbarians. I don't know if they were your specific ideas.
Barbarians are better at impact than v 1
Barbarians get more superior troops.
Armour and skilled sword matter less versus barbarians.

No, I have to confess they weren't my ideas and most I'm quite unconcerned about. The one above however that I REALLY don't like is the skilled sword no longer nobbling HW. Dacian falx wielders become pretty close to being the equal in combat to Veteran legionaries (Sup, arm, impact foot, ssw) at 1/2 the price. Which too my mind is completely wrong gamewise - doubly so when you consider that there are very few troops rated as ssw and you have to pay a lot of points for them. HW on the other hand is quite common and even Japanese schoolgirls seem to be able to wield them with enough aplomb to completely neutralise the heaviest armour. Indeed one of the problems with FOG is that some weapon systems are heavily underpriced (HW & Off sp to me are prime examples). I suspect that those who use barbarian foot armies are going to find that they may well do a bit better against Roman armies in V2 (and good luck to them) but they are likely to be dogfood against some other opponents (eg Off Sp, elephants etc) so they still may not come out to play that often.

[grahambriggs]

That's right, why let a little thing like historical accuracy get in the way of playing a good game. I vote to give the barbarians laser cannons just to even things up just a tad more. It wont matter as its only a game after all...

The historical accuracy is not that the Romans would beat the barbarians frontally every time without having to do much; as they do in v1.

The Cimbric war is a good example. Fought against a typical warbands and a few mounted army of the Cimbrii and Teutones. Weak Roman generalship led to losses due to numbers (Noreia), dividing the army (Arausio, 80,000 Romans died). Marius takes over and doesn't fight fair: uphill and ambush (Aquae Sextiae), cavalry advantage and exploit (Vercellae).

So we need a game where if the tribesmen can use their numbers they can swamp the Romans but a better roman tactician can out manouvre the barbarians. v1 doesn't do that: the Romans are best placed charging the warband head on and usually win despite double overlaps.

v2 will at least make the Romans think. And that seems historical to me.

[thefrenchjester]

Also

Lots of riff raff armies get upgraded warriors. Seems a bit of a cop out

How about the Picts? They were riff raff too.

Hi Phil,

they have their tatoos "or paints" to do the job and it in cases it doesn't work they can throw their wild cats to the head of their enemies;-)

best regards

thefrenchjester "ex DBM 1.3 pictish world tour roadie;-)"

[ShrubMiK]

"Dacian falx wielders become pretty close to being the equal in combat to Veteran legionaries (Sup, arm, impact foot, ssw) at 1/2 the price. Which too my mind is completely wrong gamewise"

Where to start...?

First of all, let's note that you can almost always "prove" that any troop type you like is undercosted or overcosted by carefully selecting the matchup to suit your argument on.

You have to look at the overall picture. And in that overall picture, the Dacians suffer from being less manoeuvrable than the Romans, are more vulnerable to shooting. They also have different POAs against different opponents. In particular, they don't get the ++ agsint foot that the Romans do, and they don't always get a + against mounted.

Not to mention that the difference between average and superior makes quite a difference, both in term sof causing hits and surviving tests. Not exactly "close to equal" IMO.

"doubly so when you consider that there are very few troops rated as ssw and you have to pay a lot of points for them."

Well, being pedantic, you pay most of those points for being superior (3?) which is still useful, and for being armoured (2?) which is generally useful just not when in combat with the flaxmen.

Personally I've always been in favour of removing Ssw form legionaries, as it seemed too overpowering for too little cost in many situations, and too cheap to really worry about in the situations in which it didn't help...perhaps reatining it in the game only for some very specialist sword-only troops (e.g. gladiators?) to make up for not having impact capability.

If you want to argue that HW troops are under-costed, then feel free to do so. But to use it as a reason why Roman legionaries should be improved is a bit silly.

I'll also point out that if you think the veteran legionaries are over-costed for their abilities, you still have the option of taking non-veteran legionaries to avoifd the problem entirely. Your call.

[Vespasian28]

....armoured (2?) which is generally useful just not when in combat with the flaxmen.

I have often found armour useless when fighting linen troops weaving all around you