Slitherine

Based on my reading, I have always imagined that a phalanx would be the ultimate "impact" type troop, presenting a fearful "wall of spears" to opposing troops on contact, but that the integrity and therefore effectiveness of this wall of spears would gradually degrade during melee as opposing troops got within the pointy ends. (and of course, in practice the phalanx' effectiveness on impact could be reduced due to ground conditions, etc.)

I have also imagined that Roman troops on the other hand, with their short gladius, would not do particularly well on impact (they couldn't even reach the pikemen with their swords), but would excel at melee (ignoring the pila for the moment) as they cut and thrust into opposing formations. Regarding pila, I think I have read (not sure though frankly) that the pila, while an excellent impact weapon, was also less effective against the phalanx because they tended to be deflected by the numerous pikes or perhaps the pikemens' shields.

Yet in this game this is 180 degrees reversed--Romans dominate on impact, and pikes do better in melee if not disrupted. As explained above, to me this is rather counter-intuitive--could one of the devs or an experienced TT player explain the rationale for this design decision? The game system seems pretty thoughtfully designed, so I expect that they have a good rationale, but I cannot think of it for the life of me...

Actually full-strength legionaries and pikes are on exactly the same POAs at impact. However, the legions are usually Superior and the pikes are usually Average, in which case the odds will slightly favour the legions because they re-roll 1s.

If the pikes are Superior and the legions are Average the roles are reversed.

Where you get the idea that legions were not good at impact I do not know. This is not our reading of the history. In fact, in FOG TT their impact phase capability is actually called "Impact Foot"! They were good at impact (because of their pila plus a vigorous charge) but were also particularly resilient (through long training and superior equipment) in a prolonged melee.

Pikes are good at impact and in melee, as long as nothing goes wrong, but deteriorate rapidly if anything does go wrong.

Thanks for your response. A couple of follow-on questions:

1) In a seperate thread, RyanDG ran a tests with superior legions vs. average phalanx. I've pasted his results below:

"Out of 98 combats (small sample size, but bear with me) and the combat resolution chance in favor of the Romans (46 to 28 to cause a hit), on average, Romans inflicted 6.16% against the Pike while the Pike (surprisingly) dealt 6.91% casualties against the Romans. Out of the 98 match-ups, Romans were Disrupted 15 times and had 1 Fragmentation. In comparison, the Pikes were Disrupted 28 times and also had a single Fragmentation. These were all caused in the first impact phase. If you look at the initial hit chance numbers ( 46 to 28 ) vs. the number of disruptions caused (28 to 15) they are very, very close to being proportional..."

These results don't sound like the "slight" advantage that you describe in your post (based on re-rolling 1s), but are more than a 3 to 2 (46-28 ) advantage based on hits, or almost 2 to 1 (29-16) advantage based on disruptions/fragmentations. Granted this is only one test involving 98 samples, but does that sound right to you?

2) I raised the point about the pila being a good impact weapon in my post, but thought that the role of the pila changed somehow around the time of Marius, making it less of a factor in combat...don't have my sources in my current residence though, so maybe I'm confused on this...do you think that the pila remained as much of a factor in, say, Caesar's time as during earlier periods?

3) How is the legion's advantage in prolonged melee reflected? Is it just that they don't lose effeciveness as quickly as the phalanx (but this seems to apply to many other troops as well), that more of the legions are rated as superior or better (because of better training and equipment), or some other mechanism? I'm guesing the second, but wanted to check...

76mm wrote:Thanks for your response. A couple of follow-on questions:

1) In a seperate thread, RyanDG ran a tests with superior legions vs. average phalanx. I've pasted his results below:

"Out of 98 combats (small sample size, but bear with me) and the combat resolution chance in favor of the Romans (46 to 28 to cause a hit), on average, Romans inflicted 6.16% against the Pike while the Pike (surprisingly) dealt 6.91% casualties against the Romans. Out of the 98 match-ups, Romans were Disrupted 15 times and had 1 Fragmentation. In comparison, the Pikes were Disrupted 28 times and also had a single Fragmentation. These were all caused in the first impact phase. If you look at the initial hit chance numbers ( 46 to 28 ) vs. the number of disruptions caused (28 to 15) they are very, very close to being proportional..."

These results don't sound like the "slight" advantage that you describe in your post (based on re-rolling 1s), but are more than a 3 to 2 (46-28 ) advantage based on hits, or almost 2 to 1 (29-16) advantage based on disruptions/fragmentations. Granted this is only one test involving 98 samples, but does that sound right to you?

There is only a "slight" advantage in the combat, but what I forgot to mention is that there is also a -1 cohesion test modifier for foot losing an impact combat vs "impact foot". (This is listed in the help entry on cohesion tests). In addition, Superior troops re-roll 1s scored on Cohesion Tests. These two factors account for the apparent discrepancy in rates of cohesion drop.

You will find that, with a score to pass of 7 on two dice, rolls tending to congregate towards the mean, -1 makes a bigger difference to the pass/fail rate than might seem immediately apparent.

2) I raised the point about the pila being a good impact weapon in my post, but thought that the role of the pila changed somehow around the time of Marius, making it less of a factor in combat...don't have my sources in my current residence though, so maybe I'm confused on this...do you think that the pila remained as much of a factor in, say, Caesar's time as during earlier periods?

Very much so. It only became less of a factor around the turn of the 3rd/4th century AD when the pilum became to some extent replaced by lighter throwing spears. (This period would be covered by the "Legions Triumphant" supplement which is book 5 in the TT army list companion series). It has been speculated that longer range (lighter) throwing spears (and weighted thowing darts - plumbata or martiobarbuli) were better against cavalry, who formed an increasing proportion of the Empire's foes as time went on.

3) How is the legion's advantage in prolonged melee reflected? Is it just that they don't lose effeciveness as quickly as the phalanx (but this seems to apply to many other troops as well), that more of the legions are rated as superior or better (because of better training and equipment), or some other mechanism? I'm guessing the second, but wanted to check...

Also they are better armoured, and if the pikes are unsteady (disrupted, fragmented, or disordered by terrain) the legions get a POA for being swordsmen. (Do not try fighting against legions with pikes in terrain). The overall effect is that (as in history) they are more resilient. I would advise not getting too hung up on the internal details of how this is achieved. Suffice it to say that we have attempted to finely balance the TT interactions, and the PC game largely replicates these.

Also bear in mind that the Superior Armoured Legionary BG costs 14 points to the Average Protected Pike BG's 11 points.

rbodleyscott wrote:There is only a "slight" advantage in the combat, but what I forgot to mention is that there is also a -1 cohesion test modifier for foot losing an impact combat vs "impact foot". (This is listed in the help entry on cohesion tests). In addition, Superior troops re-roll 1s scored on Cohesion Tests. These two factors account for the apparent discrepancy in rates of cohesion drop.

Yeppers - and this is what I was getting at when it comes to battle lines having issues holding up for more than one or two turns in my other post. Due to the nature of the way the PC rules work (for combat resolution), impact foot and their ability to pick on a single battle group (with their -cohesion test and the ability to move a second impact troop into combat after the first combat has been resolved and cohesion tests completed) can destroy a unit far quicker than what would normally be available on the Table top. It's kind of interesting how a small change can ultimately create a completely different result...

In regards to the ganging up issue: i have always wondered why when two battle line are locked into melee combat sometime, say when you start in the middle to begin resolving the combats, sometimes you have a choice to melee the unit to your front right, sometimes only to your front left, or sometimes both(ie can chose either to melee)

I've not been able to understand that one either

petergarnett wrote:I've not been able to understand that one either

Stop reading this and do your turn.

And that's another thing - why can't it ring a big bell to let you know your opponent is waiting