Page 1 of 1

question to mid-republican romans

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:16 am
by Amenophis
i don't unterstand the armylist for mid-republican roman allies on page 10 in the rise of rome army book.

* how should i use these troops?
* were is the difference to th original romans on page 9? - same troop types, same capabilities, same points, bases per bg, only the total bases are less.
* is the restricition for max. 8 bases of the optional troop list also valid for these kind of troops? if yes, how should i combine these troops to a complete legion?
* finally, these troops are not part from the digital army creator in the digital field of glory army pack - why?

thx

amenophis

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:16 am
by madaxeman
Allied lists are used to draw up allied contingents.

This is how a Roman ally must be made up in other armies where a Mid Roman Ally is specified.

It has no connection to the videogame

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:30 pm
by Amenophis
that means i can ignore these part of the list for my army, right?

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:56 pm
by dave_r
Yes - it might be worth reading the appendices at the back as they give some good examples of how to build armies for the inexperienced.

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:12 pm
by Amenophis
thx for your help :-)

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:43 pm
by david53
dave_r wrote:Yes - it might be worth reading the appendices at the back as they give some good examples of how to build armies for the inexperienced.
Thought I missed something out.............

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:41 pm
by dave_r
david53 wrote:
dave_r wrote:Yes - it might be worth reading the appendices at the back as they give some good examples of how to build armies for the inexperienced.
Thought I missed something out.............
I said inexperienced, not inept ;)

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:31 pm
by david53
dave_r wrote:
david53 wrote:
dave_r wrote:Yes - it might be worth reading the appendices at the back as they give some good examples of how to build armies for the inexperienced.
Thought I missed something out.............
I said inexperienced, not inept ;)
Ah I now understand when they see me they say theres that dave he's inept and there was me thinking they were being nice?

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:38 pm
by philqw78
No. They were saying:

"There's that nice Dave, it's inapt that he has the same name as the other one"