Slitherine

There seems to be fairly general agreement that the Roman vs Barbarian (Impact) foot interaction currently favours the Romans too much. Opinions differ on by how much, and what the best solution is.

One suggestion is that Romans should lose Skilled Swordsmen capability - as a simple and effective fix.

The view of others is that Barbarian foot need a boost against other troop-types too, and that it would be better to boost them more, and let the Romans keep Skilled Swordsmen capability - but possibly damp it down by only counting it when steady.

What do you think?

Skilled sword combines with a number of factors to stop some armies being used. (AND Because those armies are not used skilled sword Romans are used less because it is a wasted point in a competetive game). Army lists for Roman barbarian enemies at the time of especially MRR and Principate are very dull. The Germans, their main enemy, especially. No iron collar wearers, no superior foot, etc. Dacians, all those heavy weapons that the romans feared being useless. Gauls, toasted croissants for Roman breakfast. Against these enemies skilled sword could be treated like light spear, add a POA if even. But that really is unnecessary added complexity. It just needs to be dropped from Romans as, in my opinion, they can be good enough without it.

If the Romans lose it then it can be treated differently for other troops whose representation could be improved. Samurai, where it removes the bushi heavy weapon advantage, but also sword and buckler men who get no advantage from skilled sword against the troops they were trained to fight, pikes and spears. Oh, and gladiators who need a bit of a boost because they look so nice. (and I don't mean in a blood and sand way)

So after all that drop it from the Romans and then look at it again for samurai and sword and buckler men, and maybe others**.

** Viking Berserks, Dare to Die volunteers, Maybe even Skilled sword for mounted. French Knights come to mind there as they were the best allegedly, but are no better in FoG.

I wouldn't like to pick any one option without testing them all.

Losing skilled sword altogther would alter the interaction between veteran and normal legions, and between veteran legions and HW troops. Are they currently regarded as OK or unbalanced? Also it means changing the army lists.

Skilled sword only when steady, or skilled sword only as a tiebreaker (like mounted light spear) look like good options on the face of it.

It also depends on any changes to the effect of Armoured vs Protected in v2.

lawrenceg wrote:I wouldn't like to pick any one option without testing them all.

An answer that is both commendable and bloody useless - but mostly the latter. Indications are what is needed, just vote - it doesn't bind you to anything.

Losing skilled sword altogther would alter the interaction between veteran and normal legions, and between veteran legions and HW troops. Are they currently regarded as OK or unbalanced? Also it means changing the army lists.

Changing the lists is not an issue and should not be a barrier to a voting choice. Vote on the assumption that if list changes are needed they will be made - to mangle a quote "We are not the DBMM author"

It also depends on any changes to the effect of Armoured vs Protected in v2.

Just assume no change for the purposes of this poll.

The view of others is that Barbarian foot need a boost against other troop-types too, and that it would be better to boost them more, and let the Romans keep Skilled Swordsmen capability - but possibly damp it down by only counting it when steady.

Exactly what he said.

Ssw must be kept for other interactions, counting it only when steady is okay.

Mehrunes wrote:SSw must be kept for other interactions.

Such as?

Veteran Legions against HW (such as specially outfitted legions in the Dacian Wars) or Veteran Legions against Average Legions (Civil Wars).

nikgaukroger wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:I wouldn't like to pick any one option without testing them all.

An answer that is both commendable and bloody useless - but mostly the latter. Indications are what is needed, just vote - it doesn't bind you to anything.

Losing skilled sword altogther would alter the interaction between veteran and normal legions, and between veteran legions and HW troops. Are they currently regarded as OK or unbalanced? Also it means changing the army lists.

Changing the lists is not an issue and should not be a barrier to a voting choice. Vote on the assumption that if list changes are needed they will be made - to mangle a quote "We are not the DBMM author"

It also depends on any changes to the effect of Armoured vs Protected in v2.

Just assume no change for the purposes of this poll.

I couldn't vote for 1, 2 and 3 together so I voted 5.

Presumably "improve warband in other ways" could be done by altering the effect of Armoured vs Protected.

I think you should keep SSw but treat in a similar way as Mounted Light Spear - it only adds a POA if the SSw are on evens or at a minus, or a double minus (unlikely I know....)

So they'd be + against Protected Swords, rather than ++. And against Average Legions they'd still be +.

Personally I don't like the suggestion that they lose the SSw if they are Unsteady. One of the advantages of Roman HF SSw is that they can fight in terrain - It would be a shame to lose that IMO.

Mehrunes wrote:Veteran Legions against HW (such as specially outfitted legions in the Dacian Wars)

Although there is a mounting body of evidence that the equipment of the Dacia wars shown at Adamklissi was normal and not a reaction to the Bastarnae, etc. See the Carlisle excavation for example.

I voted 3 myself. If SSW go altogether then how do you deal with HW ?

Mehrunes wrote:Veteran Legions against Average Legions (Civil Wars).

You don't think that is adequately covered by the Quality grading?

zocco wrote:I voted 3 myself. If SSW go altogether then how do you deal with HW ?

It seems something of a moot point whether SSW should cancel HW at all.

petedalby wrote:I think you should keep SSw but treat in a similar way as Mounted Light Spear - it only adds a POA if the SSw are on evens or at a minus, or a double minus (unlikely I know....)

So they'd be + against Protected Swords, rather than ++. And against Average Legions they'd still be +.

That is certainly another possibility.

rbodleyscott wrote:

zocco wrote:I voted 3 myself. If SSW go altogether then how do you deal with HW ?

It seems something of a moot point whether SSW should cancel HW at all.

Unless you are Samurai type chappies.

zocco wrote:I voted 3 myself. If SSW go altogether then how do you deal with HW ?

With difficulty as the Dacian wars may show?

Do I take it that you voted not on history but on how the game plays out in your view/experience?

philqw78 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

zocco wrote:I voted 3 myself. If SSW go altogether then how do you deal with HW ?

It seems something of a moot point whether SSW should cancel HW at all.

Unless you are Samurai type chappies.

An herein lies a conflict. Currently, IMO, the SSw distorts the Dacian Vs Roman interaction in favour of the Romans so that it would be a good thing if SSw did not cancel HW, however, should Romans not have SSw that part of it could be left as a useful way of modelling Samurai.

It seems something of a moot point whether SSW should cancel HW at all.

You don't think that is adequately covered by the Quality grading?

Well, these were your ideas in the first place. That is why it is in the rules. On what evidence did you make this decision then?
I find it very strange to have to defend the current rules before them who wrote them....

I'm simply satisfied with most interactions of the game except the incredible 2,5-3 POA advantage of veteran legions over barbarian foot...

Although there is a mounting body of evidence that the equipment of the Dacia wars shown at Adamklissi was normal and not a reaction to the Bastarnae, etc. See the Carlisle excavation for example.

I'm certainly not such well informed as you, but weren't the Carlisle findings of Hadrian's time? What is contradicting the assumption that these manicae were employed under his predecessor Trajan? Don't some archaeologists assume these crushed armor pieces were destined for recycling?

nikgaukroger wrote:

Mehrunes wrote:Veteran Legions against HW (such as specially outfitted legions in the Dacian Wars)

Although there is a mounting body of evidence that the equipment of the Dacia wars shown at Adamklissi was normal and not a reaction to the Bastarnae, etc. See the Carlisle excavation for example.

Does the Carlisle excavation material and the "mounting body of evidence" date from before or after the Dacian wars?

Once they had the special armour, they would probably have kept it in case they needed it again. That is what happened with the up-armouring kits for AFVs originally developed as a special for the 1991 Kuwait/Iraq war.

lawrenceg wrote: Does the Carlisle excavation material and the "mounting body of evidence" date from before or after the Dacian wars?

Both IIRC.