Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
philqw78 wrote:I think SSw needs a complete rethink. Take it off the Romans for a start. It then needs to do something for sword and buckler men v pike and spear; and Samurai v's spear and Hvy Wpn. The HW bit is already solved. But what about Pk and Sp.
Maybe just make SSw count against Steady Pike / Spear ?philqw78 wrote:I think SSw needs a complete rethink. Take it off the Romans for a start. It then needs to do something for sword and buckler men v pike and spear; and Samurai v's spear and Hvy Wpn. The HW bit is already solved. But what about Pk and Sp.
That seems right to me even for Romans provided that other things are changed. Actually Romans are even at impact against any other foot and they can be up or down at melee depending on the circumstances. I think that the main point is that legionaries are better at impact than they should. The above mentioned flexibility of the Romans allowed them to take the advantage in protracted melees. To me it seems odd that legions should rely on their charge to win over phalanx (get them non steady), when in the accounts we have they imposed after having succeeded to handle critical moments against an enemy that seemed to be superior at charge (the phalanx, the warband charge). Instead of wondering if they should be skilled swordsmen, shouldn't we be considering the point of not making them impact foot?Polkovnik wrote:Maybe just make SSw count against Steady Pike / Spear ?philqw78 wrote:I think SSw needs a complete rethink. Take it off the Romans for a start. It then needs to do something for sword and buckler men v pike and spear; and Samurai v's spear and Hvy Wpn. The HW bit is already solved. But what about Pk and Sp.
make it cancel a single spear/pike POA, even in impact. Then sw and buckler men would be evens against spear in impact, single minus to pike, then in melee, against protected types, they would be plus v spear and evens against pike. If they disrupt the spear or pike then its time to make bacon, adding their sword plus.nikgaukroger wrote:If Romans did not have SSw there would certainly be scope for doing something with it that could beef up troops who have it as their only capability - I guess a simple one would be that it counts against even Steady Spear and Pike.
Indeed, we do need to consider the interaction between legions and pike / spear. The ideas of SSw counting a POA versus steady pike / spear or canceling a pike / spear POA are worth considering.nikgaukroger wrote:shadowdragon wrote: Agree with the general sentiment that it's not the Romans that need to be degraded but the "barbarians" that need improving.
If you are just looking with the interaction between Romans and Barbarians then taking something away from the Romans will also be an improvement for the barbarians.
Of course in FoG, as it doesn't just cover those two types, the wider picture needs looking at. So to take an example of one suggestion that has been floated - no SSw for Romans, thus barbarians are better in the melee phase against Superior legionarii - you have to assess what other effects it would have within the game and whether they are OK or not. Similarly the suggested -2 CT modifier for losing to Undrilled Impact Foot has an effect on the interaction of Impact foot barbarians with hoplites and pikemen - whether that effect is reasonable needs to be assessed.
shadowdragon wrote: Indeed, we do need to consider the interaction between legions and pike / spear. The ideas of SSw counting a POA versus steady pike / spear or canceling a pike / spear POA are worth considering.
Sorry. My mistake, that wasn't clear. What I meant was to keep the legion vs phalanx interaction where it is now in FoG - and to agree with you last sentence. Doh!nikgaukroger wrote:shadowdragon wrote: Indeed, we do need to consider the interaction between legions and pike / spear. The ideas of SSw counting a POA versus steady pike / spear or canceling a pike / spear POA are worth considering.
As I believe the authors (and indeed most players) consider the legiones Vs pikemen/spearmen to be currently well balanced historically I think you'd need a pretty devastating case to get them to change it. If, however, you are thinking aboutn what SSw may have if the Romans don't have it there may be more options
The question here is about the approach of the changes. The interaction is right in the overall because Romans are overrated at impact (even) and they can count with the armour PoA to balance other PoA's. If there is any change that alters this relationship (as it has been said, dowhgrading the impact of armour), then the whole interaction has to be revisited too. The same happens if we downgrade the Romans to make the Barbarians better. According to how the legions fought there can be a case for taking out a little bit for the Romans at impact but then it should be given back at melee. Regarding the Barbarian vs Legions, I think that Barbarians should have their best chance at impact and then, if unsuccesful, be chopped down to pieces, which was what happened historically. In general I like the skilled swordsmen PoA as longs as my warband had more chances before. I don't think the game would be better if it becomes a game of who gets the most number of 4 in an all even PoA's competition. By the way, do not forget about interpenetration of Roman BG's, something very well documented and that can't happen now in Marian armies or with the triarii.shadowdragon wrote:Sorry. My mistake, that wasn't clear. What I meant was to keep the legion vs phalanx interaction where it is now in FoG - and to agree with you last sentence. Doh!nikgaukroger wrote:shadowdragon wrote: Indeed, we do need to consider the interaction between legions and pike / spear. The ideas of SSw counting a POA versus steady pike / spear or canceling a pike / spear POA are worth considering.
As I believe the authors (and indeed most players) consider the legiones Vs pikemen/spearmen to be currently well balanced historically I think you'd need a pretty devastating case to get them to change it. If, however, you are thinking aboutn what SSw may have if the Romans don't have it there may be more options
Perhaps I can just clarify things here;Shall wrote:
So the trick to me is to find a solution that 80% improves warband armies and 20% lightens romans. Then the roman-gaul balance will be right AND we will encourage more warband armies to come out to play. I guess this is where this request for a "shieldwall" is coming from - something to stengthen the gauls? Have lots of other ideas from some playing around.
I disagree with the vast majority of this statement. Most people are coming to the conclusion that O/S are not super troops at all. Is this proposal of the back of the PC game? as it bears no relation to the tabletop game.zocco wrote:Perhaps I can just clarify things here;Shall wrote:
So the trick to me is to find a solution that 80% improves warband armies and 20% lightens romans. Then the roman-gaul balance will be right AND we will encourage more warband armies to come out to play. I guess this is where this request for a "shieldwall" is coming from - something to stengthen the gauls? Have lots of other ideas from some playing around.
My shieldwall proposal is meant to boost both barbarian foot and Roman foot against a variety of opponents. Certainly it will however (as I intended) improve barbarian foot against Romans - so that is for the good. It will also help Romans vs cataphracts (which currently I don't think is balanced) - there is no conclusive historical evidence to show that cataphracts should have an advantage over STEADY roman foot which is currently the case as cataphracts have a +POA in melee against legionaries at the moment.
I would reiterate that Roman and warband foot both need to be improved as in my opinion they are underpowered compared to the real ubermensch foot in FOG - namely Offensive spearmen and Heavy Weapon - both of which are awesome currently. My proposed shieldwall rule would help balance up the current inequity.
All I can suggest (ask - please !) is that the shieldwall rule be playtested - I think you will find it works quite well to give better historical outcomes (wb vs romans or romans vs cats) and make both impact foot and light spear a more viable troop type on table (making them a better match with Spearmen and HW in points cost /on table effectiveness).
Offensive Spear (with a shield wall) are super troop only during the persian wars; the only true super troop system are Roman Legion and Macedonian Pike. This is obvious as the offensive spear become obsolete. If offensive spears were so effective, why would the Romans abandon them and generalize the princeps type of troops?Most people are coming to the conclusion that O/S are not super troops at all.
dave_r wrote: I disagree with the vast majority of this statement. Most people are coming to the conclusion that O/S are not super troops at all.
Did they beat them every time? I think you are just making things up. Again.Skanvak wrote:Offensive Spear (with a shield wall) are super troop only during the persian wars; the only true super troop system are Roman Legion and Macedonian Pike. This is obvious as the offensive spear become obsolete. If offensive spears were so effective, why would the Romans abandon them and generalize the princeps type of troops?Most people are coming to the conclusion that O/S are not super troops at all.
The Gauls warband would defeat offensive spear. They did during early republic war. Thathy the Romans develops a new type of weapon system.
No, we don't. It is a complete waste of time. It is exactly this sort of thread which is bad for the development of FoG v2.0. We need to tweak the odd thing, not start a radical new proposal for something which is clearly not broken. You still haven't been able to answer what is broken, other than you want Roman Legions to be better against everything than they currently are.Therefore I share Zocco analysis (though Zocco some reference for Legion vs Cat behaviour would help us). We need to discuss the "shieldwall" rule and name (because shieldwall name will apply to too much troops unless the rule is for all of them).
I think there is some confusion going on here about whether we are talking about super troops in the game (i.e. something is too good for the points cost) or super troops in historical reality.dave_r wrote:Did they beat them every time? I think you are just making things up. Again.Skanvak wrote:Offensive Spear (with a shield wall) are super troop only during the persian wars; the only true super troop system are Roman Legion and Macedonian Pike. This is obvious as the offensive spear become obsolete. If offensive spears were so effective, why would the Romans abandon them and generalize the princeps type of troops?Most people are coming to the conclusion that O/S are not super troops at all.
The Gauls warband would defeat offensive spear. They did during early republic war. Thathy the Romans develops a new type of weapon system.
Time to apologize, Dave.Until the 4th century BC the massive Greek phalanx was the mode of battle. Roman soldiers would have thus looked much like Greek hoplites. Tactics were no different from those of the early Greeks and battles were joined on a plain. Spearmen would deploy themselves in tightly packed rows to form a shield wall with their spears pointing forwards. They charged the enemy supported by javelin throwers and slingers; the cavalry pursued the enemy, sometimes dismounting to support infantry in dire situations. The phalanx was a cumbersome military unit to manoeuvre and was easily defeated by mountain tribes such as the Volsci or Samnites in rough terrain.
No you and Zocco need to discussit. And then to come up with some evidence and a playable, simple way to put it into practice. Otherwise you are adding complication for no real value other than your own gratification.Skanvak wrote: Therefore I share Zocco analysis (though Zocco some reference for Legion vs Cat behaviour would help us). We need to discuss the "shieldwall" rule and name
Hear, Hear.dave_r wrote: No, we don't. It is a complete waste of time. It is exactly this sort of thread which is bad for the development of FoG v2.0. We need to tweak the odd thing, not start a radical new proposal for something which is clearly not broken. You still haven't been able to answer what is broken, other than you want Roman Legions to be better against everything than they currently are.
