Slitherine

I am working on a few ideas for some Principate Roman vs. Early German games. I have a couple of questions about the Early German list.

1. I see where they are allowed 1 BG of Sarmations. Would this contingent require an "allied" general or can the German CinC command them?
2. Historically speaking; just how did the Sarmations end up in an Early German army? Maybe one of the authors can help out with this question. I don't doubt that Sarmations could or did fight with the Germans, I'm just curious under what circumstances they did.
3. Much like the Gallic armies, we have not had a lot of success with Germans against Romans. Being the Roman player, I can live with that but my German opponents would always welcome some advice.

On the Limes Germanicus
Mike B

For #3 sacrifice before the game to the Gods of victory

Really comes down to basic luck. when we started playing FOG Blathergut had both armies one was Romans and one was Ancient Spanish, also a horde of lambs to be slaughtered. Out of all the games we played with them, and it took almost a year before I had my own army finally, the Spanish only won maybe 5 or 6 games. Most of those went to the Sertorius drilled Spanish list but 1 or 2 was just a lot of lucky die rolls.
I would suggest trying to max out your cav to all 12 stands in 3X4 BG's and use them to try and get around on the flank or behind the Romans. Romans are normally kind of shy on cav but still a tough proposition. Perhaps a light vs lights battle will hold up the main line while you try to make a win on the flanks. The Spanish almost always won on the flanks but I could never make the CMT to get the buggers to wheel in on the Romans who ate the center and it was game over. Try to get your lights to stand when the Legions charge, another delay tactic while once again you try to win and turn a flank or two, with luck disrupt or even kill a legion, ok thats a long shot but it could happen.

As for the Sarmatians, they are part of the normal list so can be commanded by your C-in-C. Only those troops listed under the heading allies are allied troops and need a separate commander. My guess is the Sarmatians were mercenaries??

1. The Sarmatians would represent either mercenaries, or subject settlers in the German territories. They would be part of the main German contingent so could be commanded by either the CinC or any subgeneral, but not an allied general.
2. The Sarmatians, moving west, bumped up against the Germans as they pushed east and south. My handy Penguin Atlas of the Ancient World shows Iazygians bordering Quadi in what is now Bavaria and Austria by 67 AD. By 230 AD the Goths, Vandals and Gepids had absorbed the Iazygians and were pushing eastward against the Rhoxolani. The Original "Drang nach Osten".

Definitely take all 4 TCs and fight in the front rank of the 10-12 strong 4 wide, 3 deep warbands while your 4 units of cav pressure the flanks. The Roman will be hard pressed not to beef up his average cav with his generals, giving a slight advantage in the center. Force the Roman Legionaries to charge your lights to get at your center. Hopefully that breaks up his line a bit.

Myself I am going to try the Civilis option and add another unit of armored cav and some armored, drilled infantry

Only time I beat the Roman Chipper-Shreader Legions was when he took too many Auxilla or takes average downgraded legions

Germans against Romans is just one of those bad matchups, unfortunately. It can be won, of course, but given how inferior the German infantry are in a straight-up fight it needs a decent plan to have a chance. Some of the extra troops can be used to stiffen the front line. (Use of rear support; possibly forming up the frontline BGs in 3 ranks rather than 2.) Even then it probably depends on either getting some extra troops into the battle around the enemy flank at the right time (trickier when they are HF and undrilled), and/or some luck on the dice to allow you to hang on in the frontal fights for long enough for the extra troops to make a difference.

If both players are friendly and interested in getting a more balanced game, you can basically do anything you like (and can agree on!) to try to get that more balanced game. A few suggestions:

1. Don't have the Romans with large numbers of superior, skilled swordsman legionaries. Merely average but armoured will still get the job done. Or steer for the middle ground with superior legionaries WITHOUT skilled swordsman.
2. Allow some of the German infantry to be upgraded as a warrior elite. Superior? Skilled swordsman? Armoured? Take your pick.
3. Allow the Germans more points, as a handicap. I've no idea what the balancing point would be, but you could experiment until you find sometihng that seems reasonable.
4...and that leads on to the idea of an auction. Both players take turns bidding for control of the Romans, specifying how many extra points they will alow the Germans in handicap.

mbsparta wrote: 2. Historically speaking; just how did the Sarmations end up in an Early German army? Maybe one of the authors can help out with this question. I don't doubt that Sarmations could or did fight with the Germans, I'm just curious under what circumstances they did.

Something in Tacitus IIRC.

3. Much like the Gallic armies, we have not had a lot of success with Germans against Romans. Being the Roman player, I can live with that but my German opponents would always welcome some advice.

Come to Attack! in Devizes (GB) in July where there is a special comp rule that Romans are not skilled swordsmen (and are 1 point cheaper)

Nik

While I would love the Average HF to be 1 point cheaper, I suspect that the reduction is limited those that are in the book as skilled swordsmen, not those that are not.

I do hope that this becomes an errata to the lists as I have only once used the advantage and the point saved will be useful elsewhere.

nikgaukroger wrote:

mbsparta wrote: 2. Historically speaking; just how did the Sarmations end up in an Early German army? Maybe one of the authors can help out with this question. I don't doubt that Sarmations could or did fight with the Germans, I'm just curious under what circumstances they did.

Something in Tacitus IIRC.

3. Much like the Gallic armies, we have not had a lot of success with Germans against Romans. Being the Roman player, I can live with that but my German opponents would always welcome some advice.

Come to Attack! in Devizes (GB) in July where there is a special comp rule that Romans are not skilled swordsmen (and are 1 point cheaper)

............ Thanks to Nik and the rest for your feedback. I would come to Devizes, but alas I am afraid of volcanic ash.

Phil, my hairy German opponent, claims to have a plan. As soon as he divulges it I will share. When not commanding fierce, yet ugly, German warriors he is a science teacher. No doubt he has something mathmatical/scientific up his animal pelt sleeve.

Roma Victa!
Mike B

What worked once for me was to angle 2 cav units on the ends of my warband line and intercept charge the flank Legionaries. Of course the cav lost and broke off, but this led to the center warbands getting overlaps on the first turn. I doubt this would work twice on a skilled Roman player though.

Warbands 4 wide & 3 deep with a general & rear support is the way to go and even then you are only buying time as the Romans usually get 4-6 hits and kill a base outright each turn.

Come to Attack! in Devizes (GB) in July where there is a special comp rule that Romans are not skilled swordsmen (and are 1 point cheaper)

............. We played a short 2 game theme on Saturday. We had 2x Late Republican Roman Armies, 1x Gallic and 1x German. We decided to try Nik's suggestion to not allow skilled swordsmen and lower their cost by -1 point. While just four games does not a playtest make, it did realy give the barbarians a chance to stay in the fight long enough for something positive to develop for them. While the Romans took 3 of 4 games, the last Roman game Vs Gauls came down to whoever lost the last BG. So the day could have easily been a 50-50 split. My only concern is if the lack of skilled swordsmen in the Late Republicn Roman list might affect the balance of Roman Civil War battles?

Mike B

It doesn't make much difference since the same applies to both sides, I think.

Against opposing legionaries the net POAs will still end up the same (zero in the absence of hills or fortifications). Where the quality of legionaries differ, the superior ones no longer have skilled sw POA advantage but still have a significant advantage of being superior.

The legionaries will lose a POA advantage over allied/mercenary MF, but will often be better armoured anyway. And again, the troops that would have had an advantage due to skilled sw are also superior so still have significant advantage for that reason.

No change to legionaries vs. cavalry, because skilled sw never applied there in the first place.

And don't forget that the vast majority of both armies in Roman civil wars of this sort of era are likely to be legionaries

I reckon that gladiators should still be allowed to be skilled swordsmen. Given their lack of an impact POA, skilled sw is needed to make them an interesting option. And doesn't feel historically unreasonable to me.

ShrubMiK wrote:It doesn't make much difference since the same applies to both sides, I think.

Against opposing legionaries the net POAs will still end up the same (zero in the absence of hills or fortifications). Where the quality of legionaries differ, the superior ones no longer have skilled sw POA advantage but still have a significant advantage of being superior.

The legionaries will lose a POA advantage over allied/mercenary MF, but will often be better armoured anyway. And again, the troops that would have had an advantage due to skilled sw are also superior so still have significant advantage for that reason.

No change to legionaries vs. cavalry, because skilled sw never applied there in the first place.

And don't forget that the vast majority of both armies in Roman civil wars of this sort of era are likely to be legionaries

I reckon that gladiators should still be allowed to be skilled swordsmen. Given their lack of an impact POA, skilled sw is needed to make them an interesting option. And doesn't feel historically unreasonable to me.

.............. Thanks for the feed back Mr. Shrub. I guess my worry is based on the Army list. The basic legionary from the LRR list is superior, skilled sword. Other types (Elite, Slack and Raw) legionaries make up only a part of a Roman Army (from the list). So the basic legionary changes from the superior re-roll and a +1 POA to just the re-roll. I'm not sure a one point savings compensates for the lost POA. Now Pompey's army at Pharsalus is going to be better compared to Caesar's veterans if we eliminate SSW.

I know, we just can just ignore the army lists ... I was just trying to comment on a change that seems to improve LRR vs Gallic battles may have consequences with LRRs vs other foe(s).

Mike B

But that doesn't change my mind. Caesar's legionaries still beat Pompey's (with average dice) due to being superior - if that's how you want to grade them. And that is my point.

>I'm not sure a one point savings compensates for the lost POA.

I agree, it doesn't. But that is another way of saying that paying merely 1 point on top of 13 to gain a whole extra POA is rather on the cheap side, which puts a slightly different spin on it

If you are going to be recreating something like Pharsalus, I wouldn't be bound by the army list and points anyway.