Slitherine

I am a bit puzzled about the fact that Gauls warriors and Roman hastati only difference is their training (Drill/Undrilled). Princeps/Marianic have a better armor. I thought that the formation and working of both units was more different than just training. I have difficulty to have legion and warbands to be consider the same structure for POA. Can someone with historical or design insight can explain the "why"?

The DAg allows you to take Mid-Romans as Either armoured or protected. If armoured they will have an edge in melee.... If you take the Superior sword + legions w armour , you will have a huge edge;)

I think the game design in that impact troops are troops that either: charge into combat with heavy throwing weapons, ie pilum, francisas etc ( ie legions) or just have an violent and overwhelming initial rush ( Gauls, Early germans etc)

TheGrayMouser wrote:The DAg allows you to take Mid-Romans as Either armoured or protected. If armoured they will have an edge in melee.... If you take the Superior sword + legions w armour , you will have a huge edge;)

I think the game design in that impact troops are troops that either: charge into combat with heavy throwing weapons, ie pilum, francisas etc ( ie legions) or just have an violent and overwhelming initial rush ( Gauls, Early germans etc)

I'd agree. Impact Inf are units that rely more on disrupting the enemy formations with their initial charge, rather than any inherent advantages of their own.

Although the Romans more or less are the advantage all by themselves.
Impact Inf with a Swordsman+ skill can be a proper bastard to deal with *LOL*

Lars

I'd agree. Impact Inf are units that rely more on disrupting the enemy formations with their initial charge, rather than any inherent advantages of their own.

Although the Romans more or less are the advantage all by themselves.
Impact Inf with a Swordsman+ skill can be a proper bastard to deal with *LOL*

Lars

Armored Swordmen+ could just be ubber elite barbarian warbands. As you say, this is the Roman Legion organisation that give a real cutting edge. I feel that using outside element to mimics the effect of the legion combat tactics is strange (swordman+, superior are experience rating, armoured is equipment).

I wonder if this debate was raised on TT forum?

I think the debate on the TT forums is that "warbands" are too weak, not that legions are too strong (well, i think maybe there is some debate legions are too strong but only because you can buy a lot of smaller BG's in terms of bases , which or course doesnt come into play in fog PC)

You could argue sword + is unique as I cant think of any other BG's except legions that get it (except some type of medium sword and buckler guys in SOA)

Gauls already have elite armoured swordsman in ROR (not sure if they have sword +), the Soldati

Hi guys,

for anyone who is interested there is a fierce debate on how the rules should evolve in the Tabletop section http://slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=114

This forum is dedictaed to FoG 2.0 Tabletop but if you have ideas and suggestions about combat mechanics and POA's then you might want to get involved over there. While combats are slightly different because of the elements on the tabletop a lot is still shared and the relationship between Romans and Warbands has often been discussed. The role of armour & equipment & training too.

We dont have a time line for 2.0 yet but we'll probably update the Digital version after it is released with the improvements and changes in it.

Could we do something about legion interpenetration that are describe in the document of the time?

Like allow Rooman that withdrw to not disrupt other roman legions. (especailly for the hastati/princeps/triarii type of legion).

Other does people have though about Roman legion and Gauls Warband?

Having spent some time reading some of the posts in the other forum my concern is that the TT and PC games seem to have diametrically opposed problems.

In the TT game the problem seems to be that the barbarian armies are too weak.

In the PC game I'd say the barbarian armies are too strong. Am I alone in this thought?

I'd be really concerned if the horde armies got even stronger!

Morbio wrote:Having spent some time reading some of the posts in the other forum my concern is that the TT and PC games seem to have diametrically opposed problems.

In the TT game the problem seems to be that the barbarian armies are too weak.

In the PC game I'd say the barbarian armies are too strong. Am I alone in this thought?

I'd be really concerned if the horde armies got even stronger!

I tend to agree , the # of units on the PC table and better maneuvarabilty of horde armies makes them quite powerfull, pc and tt are very differnt animals in this regard.

Is a problem that is present in other games, use blitzkrieg tactics, because in the game isnt an activation system for units.

The main problem with horde armies is that they can do double flank attacks at the same time with a perfect timing if you know how to do it (of course enemy can stop a little this with sacrifices using now L units in broke terrain and with no retreat orders or using MF). Another question is that horde armies are not weak in the moral section, for example, you can defeat the best units in horde destroying the main battle line but you only win points not enough to win before be envolved and see how your camp is eat by a LF unit... or a MF unit because barbarians can try to take your camp, they have lots of units, you only can defend your camp and search enemy´s camp if you do a hole fast or a repulsed LF unit appear in a good position.

Is a problem with hard solution because we start to talk about commanders and bonus/malus.

Also, horde armies are not all barbarian armies. Some the versions of the seleucid, the hycannus the 2nd list are trained. There are many medium foot list that can field over 50 bp at 500 points.