Slitherine

Classical period ‘barbarian’ infantry are not usually fielded in themed competitions (where they should be seen), and one reason cited is that with Roman legionaries able to be Armoured and Skilled Swordsmen (when Superior/Elite quality) the chances of the barbarians winning is practically nil – as, whilst they are on even POAs at Impact (although probably lesser quality), they are 2 POAs down in melee as well as being of inferior quality. History suggest that as long as the Romans held the initial rush they should beat these barbarians after a tough fight, however, at present the subsequent fight is a very rapid defeat for the barbarians – too quick to be credible. In fact, even if the Romans suffer a disastrous initial impact (double cohesion drop), their advantages in the melee phase are so great that it is still a pretty even fight. Again this cannot be right.

Even the Dacian Falxmen, who we know were a danger to legionaries, are quite vulnerable as Skilled Swordsmen negates the Heavy Weapon PoA in melee meaning that the Falxmen are a PoA down in both Impact and Melee phases and, thus, likely to lose the fight – an even fight would be more realistic, although we have to accept that they will be a PoA down at Imapct due to the way the Imapct PoAs are, and which should be left as is. In fact, the best use for the Falxmen is as rear support for the ordinary warriors, which means the game is giving the wrong incentives on how to use these troops as they should be the part of the Dacian army that Romans have some concerns about.

Therefore, to adjust the interaction to make it more historical I would suggest the following amendments to the army lists:

All Roman legionaries and Seleucid ‘Roman’ Argyraspides, who are listed with Skilled Swordsmen capability in the army list books are, instead, to be classified as ‘Swordsmen’ only. Additionally, their points cost is reduced by 1 point per base - for example Late Republican Roman legionaries are 13 points instead of the 14 points in Rise of Rome. This reduction, obviously, applies to legionaries in allied contingents as well as main lists, and any Roman legionaries in other armies (such as Later Ptolemaic) which are not in allied contingents.

These changes would affect “Rise of Rome” and “Legions Triumphant”.

richnz wrote:This is a good idea. But the other thing that is missing from a lot of barbarian lists is the option for superior troops. The addition of 1-2 large BGs of superiors gives them a good chance of hanging on, if not beating up some Romans.

e.g Gauls with 2 large BGs of gaesati are quite a good test for Roman armies, whereas Early German etc composed entirely of average troops will get slaughtered.

peterrjohnston wrote:They will also win in rough going, downhill, against MF Gauls... ouch!


However, if the armour POA is modified as per the suggestion in this thread

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18570

then it probably wouldn't need this modification, as the melee would be even POAs (sw vs sw), with superior being the only advantage. With both changes, and a 13AP to 7AP difference, I could see legionaries disappearing from the game.

One or the other, I think. Personally I think the armour POA is more broke.

Lionelc62 wrote:Hi,
-

If a -1 Ct for "losing against an enemy that has 2x more bases" is added, it should help barbarians armies a lot without too much POA or armies change.

A +1 for losing against an enemy that has 2x less bases can also be added (not applicable to MF fighting mounted).

Regards
Lionel

DavidT wrote:The best thing about FoG has been the fact that early Roman armies (Republican and Early Inperial) are now viable armies because their legionaries are effective. After years of DBM in which early Roman armies couldn't beat anything (while their later conterparts could beat them at every turn and were very successful DBM armies) it is good to see them used again.

The removal of the SSw ability would affect the interaction between veteran legions and average legions of many civil war battles. They would now be evens in both impact and melee with only the superior making the difference (and that isn't much of a difference). I played a civil war battle last night which was a very close game between the smaller superior army and the larger average army. If the superior legions had not been SSw, the battle would have been much more one sided.
It may be better to allow the option to upgrade to SSw. Many players may take the cheaper Sw option as against many opponents (Sp, Pk, mtd it is of no benefit).

Jilu wrote:And why not SSw in first rank counts as normal, and in second rank as Sw against any but steady pike etc...

nikgaukroger wrote:

Jilu wrote:And why not SSw in first rank counts as normal, and in second rank as Sw against any but steady pike etc...

Jilu wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

Jilu wrote:And why not SSw in first rank counts as normal, and in second rank as Sw against any but steady pike etc...

Against barbarian types it means the Romans would still rip through way too fast, but they'd save some points because only half would be SSw,

that would be the point..

stecal wrote:I still think the best fix for SSW in melee is to make it a +1 POA only if all other POAs are even - just like mounted Lt Spear in impact. That allows SSW to beat other SW if all other factors (armor) are even.

I still think the best fix for SSW in melee is to make it a +1 POA only if all other POAs are even - just like mounted Lt Spear in impact. That allows SSW to beat other SW if all other factors (armor) are even.