Slitherine

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.

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.

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 ?

Polkovnik wrote:

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 ?

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?

In the other hand, I think that the nicest solution should be improving Barbarian foot and especially making bigger numbers count more (some more +1 for CT would be really helpful to make the combat last more and eventually inflict base loss on their oponents).

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.

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.

But definately take it away from Legio. Maybe leave it with the lanciarii. ? .

Tangentially related, why are dismounted knight treated always* treated as HW, and not SSw?

* Except that if no dismount option is given in a list, when they can dismount because of BWg of FF, they do so as offensive spearmen...!

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.

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.

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 problem I see ith skilled swordmen is that in the rule it represent just that more skilled swordmen with the same founctioning on the battlefield.

For example as Samurai are skilledswordmen (with I reckon to be correct) I don't think they will perform well against pike as they don't have shield neither a very organised way of fighting (they do fencing). So giving them the bonus against pike seem odd. Though I am not sure that sword and buckler unit vas very effective compare to Roman tactics against Pike, they do use a buckler in a way similar the roman use the scutum to try to advance against the pike wall. I don't think that Japanese troops or Gauls/galatians warbands can do the same.

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

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!

shadowdragon wrote:

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

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!

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.

It seems like another option for sk swordsmen (i think someone already suggesgted this) is make them like mounted light spear. Only a + if no other net POAs in melee.

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.

Perhaps I can just clarify things here;

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).

zocco wrote:

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.

Perhaps I can just clarify things here;

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).

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.

Most people are coming to the conclusion that O/S are not super troops at all.

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?

The Gauls warband would defeat offensive spear. They did during early republic war. Thathy the Romans develops a new type of weapon system.

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).

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.

Quite. There may be some issues in FoG, but Offensive Spear (and indeed Heavy Weapon) being super troops is definitely not one of them.

Skanvak wrote:

Most people are coming to the conclusion that O/S are not super troops at all.

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?

The Gauls warband would defeat offensive spear. They did during early republic war. Thathy the Romans develops a new type of weapon system.

Did they beat them every time? I think you are just making things up. Again.

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).

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.

Do you play Romans per chance?

dave_r wrote:

Skanvak wrote:

Most people are coming to the conclusion that O/S are not super troops at all.

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?

The Gauls warband would defeat offensive spear. They did during early republic war. Thathy the Romans develops a new type of weapon system.

Did they beat them every time? I think you are just making things up. Again.

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.

From wiki

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.

Time to apologize, Dave.

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

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.

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.

Hear, Hear.