Slitherine

Since I play FOG, I am surprised that the roman Legion and the Gauls have the same "Weapon". Ie everything works as if Roman legion soldiers were just drilled Gauls. According to the shield wall tactics used by romans (I have seen actual people doing it and explaining how it work) this is not even close to having people fighting with blades like Gauls warbands. I would advocate the creation of a "shield wall" weapon type to represent tactics involving more the use of the shield with very short weapons (contrary to the phallanx that use long reach weapons). Basically it will be work like swordmen but with a bonus over them (and spear/pike as shield wall even things more than swords alone) as long as the unit is not disorganized.

Best regard,

Skanvak

Disclaimer : I have started this thread for FOG PC it is Ian that suggest to move it here, so I don't understand the concept of bases as we use battlegroup.

Skanvak wrote:Since I play FOG, I am surprised that the roman Legion and the Gauls have the same "Weapon". Ie everything works as if Roman legion soldiers were just drilled Gauls. According to the shield wall tactics used by romans (I have seen actual people doing it and explaining how it work) this is not even close to having people fighting with blades like Gauls warbands.

Your mistake here is thinking about how the individuals actually fight - the classifications are more about what effect they have on the opposition that the mechanics of fighting. If you look within all the capabilities you will find troops who actually fought in different ways and, indeed, sometimes with quite different weapons, but they are "clumped" together in classifications based (hopefully) on their effect - if FoG had separate classifications for all these different methods and weapons it would have an unmanageably large number of classifications (plus many of the differences would be spurious).

I don't think I am mistaken as I don't speak of how the individual fight but how the group fight. I follow your logic and my conclusion is that the Gauls warbands and Roman legion behave differently in the result on the opposition.

Skanvak wrote:I don't think I am mistaken as I don't speak of how the individual fight but how the group fight. I follow your logic and my conclusion is that the Gauls warbands and Roman legion behave differently in the result on the opposition.

Isn't that covered by the skilled swordsmen feature?

Isn't that covered by the skilled swordsmen feature?

No, it isn't. Skilled swordmen is not affected by organisation so it is about individual training. 3 element prove this :
_ Only Elite and superior legions are swordmen+, if this was an organisation things, all romans legion would be swordmen+
_ Samurai (and Gladiators) are swordmen+ despite the fact that there fighting technique is the same as Gauls and they don't have shield at all (their weapons and techniques are better, but they don't use organised fighting).
_ Swordmen+ give a bonus only over swordmen whereas whereas the shield wall should protect the Legion from Pike which the swordmen+ does not

I think that legion should have a bonus similar to the swordmen+ and a +1 general bonus against all except elephant (and may be Heavy Weapons) if they are steady. This bonus would be quickly lost leaving them as normal swordmen (or swordmen+ I don't know, they perhaps not deserve swordmen+ rating).

Another possibility is to make Shield wall a secondary weapon that would be apply to both Roman Legion (swordmen/shieldwall) and Greek Phalanx (spear/shield wall) in this case it should read +1 bonus against all except Elephant and Heavy weapon if the BG as equal POA or no POA at all.

This should have been left in the PC forum.

Skanvak wrote:I don't think I am mistaken as I don't speak of how the individual fight but how the group fight. I follow your logic and my conclusion is that the Gauls warbands and Roman legion behave differently in the result on the opposition.

Yeah, one is a bunch of farmers called upon in times of need and the other are a bunch of chaps whose job it is to be in the military.

We tend to give the Romans the benefit of the doubt despite that though.

This should have been left in the PC forum.

I guess the main reason Ian asked me to post it here is that rule like POA and troop type should stay the same in TT rule and PC rules. There should not have devisation on such fundamentals.

I would like to point out that legionares are scary as is.

I assumed that shields where included in armour POA's, but can see how they can affect impact.

I'd like to have some historical insight on this.

Skanvak wrote:I'd like to have some historical insight on this.

On what in particular?

Difference in Roman legion tactics and Gauls tactics. I feel that organisation is important for the Roman shield wall and that it is less relevant to the Gauls warband, but I wonder if some people with more knowledge than me have idea on the question or recommend some ready. I feels to that Shield are not armour but again, I am not an historian on the subject. Up to know the debate is about the system not reality related to system.

So basically you demand that the Romans should get another POA over barbarians like Gauls?
Did you miss some of the countless discussions here in which many users tried to save barbarians from their fate of being mere victims for Romans?

Out of interest, should this POA be an impact or melee POA or even both?

Mehrunes wrote:So basically you demand that the Romans should get another POA over barbarians like Gauls?
Did you miss some of the countless discussions here in which many users tried to save barbarians from their fate of being mere victims for Romans?

Out of interest, should this POA be an impact or melee POA or even both?

I don't think that the OP was saying that the Romans should be made better, just that having both as impact foot, Sword does not bring out the tactical differences between the two. The OP assumption seems to be of a Roman Shieldwall with gladius vs Gallic bodyshield and broadsword.

I don't know enough of the tactics myself to comment much, but the overall feel is first charge could be a problem for the Romans, otherwise they tend to take the gauls down after a hard fight. I think RBS' proposed change of an extra -1 for losing to undrilled impact foot would achieve this reasonably well.

So the interaction should remain the same but with different named POA that would only complicate things further?
I don't really understand what the OP wants. Perhaps he can clarify?

Or even better, maybe he can provide historic examples to illustrate why the interactions don't work as they should between Roman legionaries and some other troop types.

So basically you demand that the Romans should get another POA over barbarians like Gauls?

Not exactly.

Did you miss some of the countless discussions here in which many users tried to save barbarians from their fate of being mere victims for Romans?

Yes, I missed them but that does not change the point.

I don't think that the OP was saying that the Romans should be made better, just that having both as impact foot, Sword does not bring out the tactical differences between the two. The OP assumption seems to be of a Roman Shieldwall with gladius vs Gallic bodyshield and broadsword.

grahambriggs gets perfectly the aim of my post. Due to rehearsal of Roman tactics I have seen the Gauls and Roman don't work the same at all and Globally Shield Wall cannot be reduce to armour. Thought I think that if the shield wall is not broken then the Legion should have a POA over the Gauls.

Or even better, maybe he can provide historic examples to illustrate why the interactions don't work as they should between Roman legionaries and some other troop types.

My historical knowledge is limited but I have watch a program on roman legions where they explained in detail their tactics (they tried to remake them with real people).

It is hard to sum up in a small post, but I will try :

The Roman form a shield wall (that is a continuous line of shields touching each other a bit like a greek phalanx), of which they put themself totally behind. Think like they put the shield over there head in order to offer no weak point.

Once contact is made the Romans soldier will try to maintain the shield wall and strikes from under the shield so as to never expose their head. This allow to get full cover of the shield wall aven when striking, they don't break the shield wall to attack. This is a Great differences with other blades like Samurai (no shield) or Gauls (no walls). Similar tactics can be seen with Greeks phalanx (spear and shield) or Frank Army (Poitier) but they will not keep the wall if they strike with their blade.

Continuing with the Roman, striking from under the shield resulted (according to the historian speaking) in wound to legs that made the ennemy to fall on ground. The Legion when enough ennemy were so wounded will push forward ignoring the wounded. The second line would slaugther them.

I heard too that the CRS (french riot police) used Roman tactics to take out leader from a crowd.

The main conclusion I have from this report on roman tactics are the following :
_ Cohesion is an avantage against warband. The Legion would be put on equal footing only once the shield wall is broken. So corelatively, there should be a loss to the roman legion POA when they lose cohesion.
_ Roman Legion should be nearly imprevious to Pike as it is reported in most battle as the Pike won't pass the Shield wall (though they will be push back ultimatly with very to no losses as they cannot close to the phalanx either to push with their shield) Right now The phalanx have advantage in melee which I find somewhat wrong.
_ Roman Qualify as impact foot to represent their pilum use before closing in, so I guess they should remain Impact foot.


Big shield used in formation (like Greek Phalank or Roman legion or Early Frank) have a bigger impact on tactical combat than armour (even very heavy). That why I think that it should be an item by itself. Once disorganized, the Shield Wall lose its effect.

Greek phlanx would be : Spear, Shield Wall, When Disorganized they become spear.
Roman Legion would be : Swordmen, Shield Wall, when disorganized they will just fight as swordmen which they are (that would explin why they defeat Pike in rough terrain). To even thing out, I beleive the Roman superior and elite legion should not be made swordmen plus as the gladius is not a long weapons and therefore not that much good for duel.

I think that this "bonus" should not stack with Impact foot and should only play while receiving a charge (when charging the shild wall cannot really be maitain) if this bonus is used in Impact at all (I beleive it should be used in impact though).

I think that this "bonus" should not stack with Impact foot and should only play while receiving a charge (when charging the shild wall cannot really be maitain) if this bonus is used in Impact at all (I beleive it should be used in impact though).

So in words of the rules, you are proposing a new impact POA called "Shield Wall" which says: + (against all while stationary and steady) and is in the same section as impact foot (so it does not stack with it).

This leads to all your examples remaining the same as it does not affect melee and does not stack with Impact Foot POA (which you cannot lose).

I'm still failing to get your point. Try to say it in the rules' words what you would like to have.
What current POA situations do you want to alter?

I did say this is mainly a "melee bonus", I just feel it should work for impact too but not sure.

I didn't want to make it too big, I just want Legion and warband to be consider different weapon system as I feel it should be the case. (and during the debate, I think of the shield wall as a separate feature that can simulate it and be applied to other troops too).

What current POA situations do you want to alter?

I want Steady Romans Legion in melee to have greater POA than standard swordmen of same armour and quality because of their combat tactics.

I want Disorganized Romans Legions in Melee to lose this POA and become standard swordmen.

This is close to what dsellers is trying to do in another thread, but he links the bonus to drill troops. I just feel it historically wrong as it is.

Is it still puzzling you?

I just don't think that Romans should be better against barbarians as they are at the moment. Most discussion is about making barbarians better and you want another POA for Romans. Even when they disrupt, they remain as good as now. Before they are even better!