Slitherine

I have been playing around with many armies. I seem to well with Later Republican Romans. I was wondering if a change to the list may be needed. Currently you are not required to buy any Green (Average) legionaries. I was wondering if the elite/superior/average legionaries could be grouped in such a way where if you took an elite unit you would be required to take an average legion. If you took maybe 2 superior legionaries, you would be required to take one average Legionary unit.

Being able to field all elite/superior heavy infantry seems a bit unbalancing. If you are playing a tournament or league, I think it would be more realistic to do the above. Friendly games it really doesn't matter. There was also another topic that talked about the Roman cavalry being a bit to strong. From my reading, most generals did not fear roman mounted. In this game, they are exceptionally good. I think it is being superior rather than average, that is causing the issue. But the authors probably know more than I do about it.

I think the basic problem is that 9 elites (which is less than before) is probably still 3 too many. But also because it is possible to max out on superiors and elites, there is no real reason ever to pick average or poor legions. It might be better if the limit for elites and superiors was 18 (say) with a 6 elite cap, and there was an additional 'group' for average legions of 0-9. Same perhaps for poor. But lumping all the legions together makes picking averages or poor rather counterproiductive. (Similarly there was very little reaon not to pick all elites before they reduced the elite cap to 9.

Simply requiring a player who picks elites to pick averages also would make representing Caesar's veterans impossible as although his legions certainly included some greener troops on occasion, in many of his battles it is entirely reasonable for them to be rated as all superior with a sprinkling of elites (X and VII)

For scenarios it is reasonable to have higher percentage of elites. In a campaign, you don't have to limit elites, because overuse, reduces their numbers. In a point based match, like we play they probably need to be limited because there is no long term penalty for overuse or high casualties.

Although in one-off's players may favor armies of seasoned troops, the Average and Raw Legionaries will show up in scenarios and campaigns, and players such as I may see reason to include some slack or raw second-line supporting troops in FOGPC since they are useful in a way that they are not on the table.

Could you expand on that last part Mike?

I'm not sure what Mike meant, but certainly there will be cases where historical events specifically refer to the use of raw recruits or slack troops, so the scenario builders will need these options even if the MP player may not have much call for them.

On the tabletop, rear support is provided only by troops of equal quality. In the PC version, they need not be, so a second line of second-rate troops has some tactical value.

MikeK wrote:On the tabletop, rear support is provided only by troops of equal quality. In the PC version, they need not be, so a second line of second-rate troops has some tactical value.

OTOH your line will degrade all the faster if the front rank fails.

Do people think the late Romans are two powerful??

I have beaten them several times using Mid Republicans , soley, I feel, because my opponnet chose all elites and superiors and was sorely lacking in support troops and or lights...
By the time the lines lock I am swarming in the rear with light cav velites and sometimes even an Elephant!
Usually you also have a a very large cushion of break point advantage as well....

I am not sure about to powerful, I am not a good enough player. I did have an elite roman legionary break on contact which was a suprise. I was just suggesting that a more historic general list would be better. Most people think skirnishers need to have something done to make them a little worse too. There are a few threads about that.