Medieval

[Eques]

"Softening up" is often a phrase used in relation ancient shooting and I think it is well replicated in V1.

Have you ever been under fire ? I have ...not that funny ! Was archery that hopeless unless for the superhuman englishman and his longbow .., were crossbow hopelessly outclassed surely that's why they continued to use them for centuries ...

I like when you always complain,never give a solution, always comment on historical reality . Never forget : the victor writes history and never , never tell the truth .

Romans did loose many battles but won campaigns . They had no easy time against "barbarians" who, following you won thanks to tricks, treachery ...never thanks to planning ...an ambush is planning you know but I forget ..you know better . Thanks to you, we stand corrected ...am I being cynical ...the answer is ...yes

I give plenty of suggestions actually in this and my other threads. And I am not complaining I am just raising queries and putting my opinion forward, which is what this particular section of the forum is for!

I am not suggesting that barbarian victories are any less valid for being ambushes, only that FoG replicates the type of battle where the 2 armies line up on opposite sides of a field and duke it out. In those kind of battles, barbarians always got battered. I therefore feel uncomfortable when people complain that this happens in the game.

If you wanted to recreate an ambush scenario you could drop the Romans down to disordered for the first three turns.

[pyruse]

I am not suggesting that barbarian victories are any less valid for being ambushes, only that FoG replicates the type of battle where the 2 armies line up on opposite sides of a field and duke it out. In those kind of battles, barbarians always got battered.

Err, no they didn't. Several Roman armies were destroyed in open battle by Gauls/Tetutones/Dacians

[ShrubMiK]

>In those kind of battles, barbarians always got battered.

C'mon,let's be honest here. *Usually*, not *always*.

No doubt you can explain away occasions where this happened by some means. It was the commander's fault! They were clearly inferior troops, not top-notch proper Roman legionaries! They were ambushed!

i.e. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

>I therefore feel uncomfortable when people complain that this happens in the game.

Again, simplistically misrepresenting the majority of views expressed in order to adopt a straw-man strategy of argument.

[grahambriggs]

>In those kind of battles, barbarians always got battered.

C'mon,let's be honest here. *Usually*, not *always*.

No doubt you can explain away occasions where this happened by some means. It was the commander's fault! They were clearly inferior troops, not top-notch proper Roman legionaries! They were ambushed!

And let's not forget that many of the Roman victories were won by ambushes, being uphill, etc.

Romans wars against the peoples they called barbarian were almost always successful (until the late empire) and they tended to use good political strategies (divde and rule, client states, etc.). They tended to lose a fair number of the actual battles (but still a minority) but they kept coming back for more, often with a better commander, until they won.

[bahdahbum]

Ok they won campaings and battles...but not that easy not as in fog V1 . I wonder how many romans did loose vs gauls ...

[Lycanthropic]

I cannot for the life of me see how a guy in half plate armour with a shield the size of a door slung over his back is considered to have the same level of protection as a Gaul in just his pants.

He isn't. Protection levels (and even POAs) are relative within period, to ensure that in-period interactions work as intended. If you choose to play games out of period, that is your choice, but it is not what the rules are designed for.

How does classifying MF as armoured change any of the Medieval " in-period interactions " ? Medieval armoured MF when shot by Longbow are still hit on 4s, Crossbow still hit them on 5s? Exactly the same interaction as protected.

[rbodleyscott]

I cannot for the life of me see how a guy in half plate armour with a shield the size of a door slung over his back is considered to have the same level of protection as a Gaul in just his pants.

He isn't. Protection levels (and even POAs) are relative within period, to ensure that in-period interactions work as intended. If you choose to play games out of period, that is your choice, but it is not what the rules are designed for.

How does classifying MF as armoured change any of the Medieval " in-period interactions " ? Medieval armoured MF when shot by Longbow are still hit on 4s, Crossbow still hit them on 5s? Exactly the same interaction as protected.

Not the shooting interactions, the close combat interactions.