Darts - What Are They Good For?

[Geffalrus]

Let's Talk Darts

Dart units are foot units that have Light Spear POA, and the special Darts POA. This covers: Legio Palatina, Comitatensis, and Palatina Auxilia, all of which are used by the later Roman army lists, as well as some of the early Byzantine army lists.

From what I can see of pricing, it seems that darts units are priced the same as impact foot units; for example, Legio Palatina are 78 point superior armored dart swords just like Principate Roman Legions who are 78 point superior armored impact foot swords. Similarly, you have both Comitatensis and Imitation Legions at 51 points and some armor.

So lets compare how impact foot and darts work in various impact situations. First and foremost, foot units losing an impact phases vs. impact foot, whether attacking or defending, suffer a -1 cohesion penalty. Unless something has recently changed, this is not the case for darts. So already, darts need to be better at impact POA in some fashion to make up for this. The second most obvious difference is that impact foot poa vs. infantry is a flat 200 whether attacking or defending. For darts, they can also generate 200 poa.......but only if they're defending vs. foot who are not armored or better. Against armored foot, the 200 poa drops to 166 poa, a roughly 25 point poa deficit similar to charging up a small slope. So in the case of the Legion vs. Palatina, the attacking legion has a ~25 POA advantage, and if the Palatina is suicidal enough to be the attacker, then that becomes a 100 POA advantage. Not looking great for infantry combat. At no point is the darts ability better than the impact foot ability, and in most cases, it is actively worse. Less POA on impact when attacking, less POA on defense in certain situations, and no penalty to cohesion checks in the event it actually wins.

Theoretically, cavalry impact is where darts are supposed to shine.......but is it enough? First off, when charging cavalry, darts and impact foot behave exactly the same; 100 POA vs non-shock cavalry, and 0 POA vs. shock cavalry. Clearly, neither particularly wants to charge lancers in the open. Do lancers want to charge them? Against impact foot, your typical 64 point superior armored lancer will have 150 POA vs. the 150 POA of the 78 point armored legion. So that's an equal impact which results in ~15% chance to win. Of course, if the lancer does win, the legion has superior morale and heavy infantry +1 cohesion bonus vs the -1 cohesion penalty of the lancer. Obviously, things are better if the lancers are charging average quality impact foot, but at that point, you have a 64 unit picking on a ~50 point unit, which is less cost effective than using that same unit to ZOC lock a 78 point unit. Now if we're talking darts, things get a bit worse for the lancers. So long as the lancers are not heavily armored, dart infantry get 200 POA vs the 100 POA of the charging lancer. Lancers definitely don't want to charge dart infantry (other types of cav rarely want to charge heavy infantry period).

And that's it. Dart infantry are better than impact foot when charged by lancers. Instead of 100 POA, they get 200 POA (166 if the lancers are heavily armored). How much does this matter is a reasonable question. In the case of the Legio Palatina, the effect is probably marginal at best. As a 78 point superior armored heavy foot unit, a lancer charge was unlikely to do much, even before darts come into play. Against Auxilia Palatina, the effect is slightly better as they lack the heavy infantry bonus......but they're also substantially cheaper. Same with Comitatensis; darts make lancer charges futile, but they're already much cheaper than lancers.

Dart units are better than impact foot at taking a charge from most lancers, but they're worse at almost everything else. Worse at attacking infantry, worse at defending vs armored infantry, and they don't inflict any cohesion penalties. They're not completely useless.......but are they really equal in cost to impact foot? Impact foot are so incredibly potent against infantry in so many situations - especially flanking. And against cavalry, impact foot can always rely on unit size to help them out in extended melee. Being better vs lancer charges is not that amazingly great when you look at how lancers are most frequently used defensively to lock units in place.........something that darts don't really help with. The other defensive oriented unit - Defensive Spears - are great because of their relative cheapness. And the fact that they still do very well vs swords in melee.

As such, I would suggest that dart units either get some sort of minor buff to increase their utility, or a price decrease to reflect their relative inferiority to impact foot.

[BMAXIMUS]

Don't forget that Darts also lose the "shock" troop effect (which can be bad or good). I think they are supposed to be better vs cavalry which is, as I understand, the point. They might be indeed a bit expensive but you don't have the choice

[SnuggleBunnies]

Depends on the unit

1) Auxilia Palatina

Superior, Protected, Medium Foot. 54pts.

These are totally worth it. Superior Medium Foot in an era when there's very little decent Medium Foot around. Mediums don't get the +1 to cohesion that HF get, and suffer -1 when losing to Lancers in the Open, so the combination of quality and Darts POA is actually helpful. At only 54pts, they cost just 3 more pts than Legio Comitatensis, but gain 50 Impact POA, 38 melee POA, and Superior status.

2) Legio Comitatensis

Average, Some Armor, Heavy Foot. 51pts.

Not really worth it, though I feel forced to bring some anyway a lot of the time. Against Cataphracts, they'll still probably draw the Impact and then get slaughtered in melee due to Armor. Against Warbands, equal Impact if they defend, but despite the 12 Armor Advantage they'll likely get ground down due to Combat Strength Modifier. I'd rather get 2 units of Limatanei most of the time.

3) Legio Palatina

Superior, Armored, Heavy Foot. 78pts.

Overpriced garbage, totally not worth it. You could get 1 Limatanei and 1 Auxilia Palatina for the price of this unit. If it gets locked in by cheap cavalry it's wasted. You really want expensive units like this in melee all the time, but darts makes it subpar at actually initiating contacts. Yes it is a very strong unit. But compare it to the Auxilia Palatina - you get HF status, which is good in the open and bad in rough, and Armor, which is some survivability vs missiles and 25 more melee POA. Those benefits cost you 24pts - that's a Limatanei you could have blocking a flank, or a light javelin horse you could have harassing the enemy rear, etc. etc. I never, ever bring these, unless I roll some sort of narrow mountain pass type map.

[Geffalrus]

Well here's the funny thing. I was stumped because I couldn't think of an impact foot version of the Auxilia Palatina, but then realized that I had totally blanked on Veteran Dailami Foot. Vet Dailami are superior medium protected foot swords just like AP......but - they - cost 60 points. And I can't think of anyone who would argue that they're a bad unit that is improperly priced. So in this situation, we have the dart version of Veteran Dailami costing........only 54 points. And I would agree with Snuggles that the AP are a decent unit because of the balance between their cost and utility.

Should the 6 point discount also apply to Legio Palatina and Comitatensis? For LP I think the answer is yes. At 72 points, they would be on par with superior armored spears and pikes in terms of cost. On attack vs. superior armored spears, they'd be equal on impact and then down 50 in melee. On defense, they'd be up 66 POA. I'd still rather have superior armored spears, to be honest, but it's a lot closer to being balanced. The one advantage they'd have over either unit would be that they have maneuver.

For Comitatensis that would take them to 45 points which is right in between citizen and mercenary hoplites. Like the MH, they have maneuver. For the rest of the comparison......on defense, they have a solid 100 POA advantage, but in melee they'd lose 50 sword POA and gain 12 armor POA. Compared to imitation legions in the same situation, they lack the 100 POA advantage on attack, and the cohesion penalty on attack/defense, which seems fair when you consider the 6 point discount.

So yes, that's my suggestion now that I think about it:

- In Ancients, decrease the Legio Palatina and Comitatensis unit cost by 6 points to bring them in line with the cost pattern of Auxilia Palatina.

[Nosy_Rat]

Agreed here, Auxilia Palatina is a pretty good unit and a mainstay of all Late Roman armies, but Comitatensis and Legion Palatina feel pretty overpriced. For a defensively-oriented unit to be efficient it should be cheaper than most enemies they could encounter, otherwise there's no pressure for the enemy to actually attack them.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Agreed, Legio Palatina and Comitatensis should both be cheaper for what they are. Not sure if comitatensis should be 45 or 48; the latter would still be the cost of 2 limatanei or sassanid levy spearmen

[Geffalrus]

The Legio Palatina is the most desperate for a discount because an expensive defensive unit is hard to justify. Why would you ever attack it? Superior Legions don't have that problem because they are just as happy to force the issue, but LP lose part of their value when they attack. And if I'm bringing dismounted noble armored lancers, then I'm probably fine tanking the impact since I don't have to worry about a cohesion penalty. To be a good unit, LP need better cost efficiency. As it stands, every other 78 point unit is just better at impact or melee.

Honestly, I might even suggest a more extreme discount for LP of 8 points, while only doing 3 points for Comitatensis. 6 points across the board might be better from a consistency viewpoint, but from a "needs it" perspective, LP need it the most, AP already have it, and Comits need it probably the least as they're already cheap-ish.

[edb1815]

" Absolutely nothing" - Sorry I couldn't resist.

[Brenmusik]

... say it again

[Geffalrus]

*grunts

Good god y'all