Slitherine

I have been thinking about the "Barbarians vs Legionaries" debate and I have an idea.

Why not have a -1 on cohesion tests for undrilled troops losing an impact round vs drilled and visa versa?
This would simulate the disadvantage of drilled troops losing cohesion vs a successful barbarian charge say or equally the barbarians disadvantage vs the cohesion of trained troops if their initial charge fails.

I think this would be a simple change that would make being drilled a combat issue not simply a movement one, it would reflect the fighting styles of warbands and legionaries, phalanxes etc. better and leave the combat system itself unchanged whilst making this particular kind of clash more decisive in impact, and leaving 'like for like' combats unchanged.

Anybody got any thoughts on this?

dsellers wrote:I have been thinking about the "Barbarians vs Legionaries" debate and I have an idea.

Why not have a -1 on cohesion tests for undrilled troops losing an impact round vs drilled and visa versa?
This would simulate the disadvantage of drilled troops losing cohesion vs a successful barbarian charge say or equally the barbarians disadvantage vs the cohesion of trained troops if their initial charge fails.

I think this would be a simple change that would make being drilled a combat issue not simply a movement one, it would reflect the fighting styles of warbands and legionaries, phalanxes etc. better and leave the combat system itself unchanged whilst making this particular kind of clash more decisive in impact, and leaving 'like for like' combats unchanged.

Anybody got any thoughts on this?

This seems a very sweeping change backed by no historical evidence. Many troops can be either drilled or undrilled depending on their ability to follow drill, but they fight pretty much the same - greek Hoplites, for example. Why would Athenian hoplites fighting Thebans (both undrilled) go as it does today but Athenians vs Spartan line hoplites be more decisive at impact?

The problem with you suggestion is the in fixing a couple of drilled vs undrilled anomalies you would create significantly more.

OK, I didn't make it up. There is plenty of historical evidence about the way the Celts fought against the Romans for instance - which is where the idea came from. The Osprey book on the Celts "Lords of Battle" p122 - p128 gives a good summary and includes quotes from Caesar, Tacitus etc.

Having said that the point about the wider implications of such a rule change is well made, although I would argue that Spartans are better than Athenians precisely because of their better, drill, training and cohesion so why shouldn't drill come into the equation somewhere?

I can easily see why such a change might not necessarily be appropriate for mounted troops say, who rely less on cohesion/order in the first place.

Perhaps an adjustment limited to Impact Foot only?

Given that this seems to be the single biggest issue with FoG I thought it would be worth adding to the debate. I want to have a chance with my Goths!

dsellers, did you read about my proposal of a shield wall weapon system for Roman instead/in addition to swordmen.

I think drill is about mouvement. So the thing you read should translate as a weapon system.

Skanvak wrote:dsellers, did you read about my proposal of a shield wall weapon system for Roman instead/in addition to swordmen.

I think drill is about mouvement. So the thing you read should translate as a weapon system.

No it is all about the end result of the combat system. It doesn't matter if you call it a weapon system, a tactical system or a toilet cistern. What matters is the outcome.

In your other thread you want to give Legio in effect the same capability, just call it something different.

Also Mr Sellers the outcome between Drilled Spartans and Undrilled Athenians would not change, it would just happen faster as your proposal states -1 CT for drilled v Undrilled and vice versa. Incestuous drilled on drilled (or undrilled on undrilled - virginal?) combats would just last longer. Where is the historical reasoning, or even reasoning behind this interaction.

Why do you think the Romans used a shieldwall system?
It's pretty hard to use a sword in a shieldwall.
There are loads of accounts of Romans charging without orders - hardly the behaviour of a shieldwall.
Really Romans fight pretty much the same as Celts - they are just better drilled, so maneuver better, and better trained, so count as Skilled Swordsmen.

Oh look, that's what the rules already do.
I don't think any change is needed.

Read my roman vs warband thread I tell the story there. In short I have listen to an historian explaining that the Roman strike from under the shield. They are not fencing according to this historian. So I can only disagree with your statement that the Roman fight like the Gauls.

Beside Spartans do charge without order too and use shieldwall....