Slitherine

In a previous discussion before New Year, Slitherine said that they would review the points cost of mixed units when LT came out.

It's out.

There is something definitely wrong with no extra points cost for mixed units:
>There are no negatives to mixed units for Impact foot, Light spear or Heavy weapons.
>They can fire
>They gain support fire on impact

The mixed unit Romans in LT are virtual fortresses against cavalry: The support fire is equal to a +1POA, more against protected cavalry, making them better than pikes - and in any terrain!

Defensive/Offensive Spears are OK because they lose POAs.

All other mixed units should be +1 points cost

Well, if two xtra dice is the equivelent of a POA, then they still arnt as good as pike

w/o support: (and assuming recieving the charge)

Light spear heavy infantry(or impact) will be net 0 vs lancers at impact
heavy weapons infantry - vs lancers
lancers would be -- vs pikes/spears

Since most lancers are superior and most heavies with light foot bow support will be average, i think the two xtra support dice are an equalizer rather than a huge advantage,.

Howver , I am unsure if light foot support automatically shoot during support at a - poa

I know what you are saying though, why should units that are "BETTER" cost the same, but i wonder if lists that depend on that small boost would be unduly weakened if the points increased.
(Im thinking of my inglorious use of early danes with light foot suppot, cant image how bad they would be if everyone of those sluggoes cost an xtra point)

I think Chris is right about mixed units needing to cost more. I have been seeing a lot of results like the one below. Attacker is protected superior cavalry, lance. Defender is protected superior heavy impact foot, swordsman plus with supporting light foot bows, both steady:

A none POA = 1, die = 2,2,1r1, hits =0
D none, POA = 1, die = 4,6,6,2, hits =5

Attacker was below 75%, defender was not. Attacker received 26% casulties, defender received 1% (if they were already routed, they would receive 25% casualties!) First, I assume that the cavalry received 5 hits due to 3 from normal dice plus 2 from the supporting light foot bows, although I am not sure as the information does not show up on the results box. I could not find it on the so called verbose results either.

The undrilled cavalry cost 12 points, the drilled mixed Roman unit costs 11 points. In my opinion, it is much better for the points than the cavalry. By adding the supporting bows, I believe this makes the Roman unit anarchy proof as well. If the cavalry bounce, they will just get shot at until they attempt another futile charge. If they stay in mele, they are no better than the Romans and have probably taken many more casualties on the impact combat. It seems to be common sense to pay for something extra and so valuable as the bow support and not being subject to anarchy is no small benefit!

Mac

Hmm, I havent noticed that impact legions w bow support wont anarchy... However, no shock foot (which includes impact foot) will ever anarchy into LANCERS per the game rules, maybe that is what you are observing (not observing)

In your lancer vs legion example, probobly shouldnt be charging a depleted lancer into a full strength legion of any type However , they dont get the support dice if you hit em in the flank.

It is not clear to me why they havnt programmed it so the support dice rolls to be visible....

Regarding anarchy, I noticed that light foot within charge range of the mixed units would not seem to produce anarchy either. The legios just seem to stand, in this case on a gentle ridge line, but in other cases in the open on clear terrain. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but it would be nice to know. I agree it is not wise to charge with depleted cavalry, but in this case it was due to...ANARCHY!

I am also confused by how many extra dice the legio would get in the impact. They are backed by light foot archers and appeared to get 2 extra dice, as 5 hits were received and the normal impact dice should only have produced 3 hits, based on the dice results (the dice were 4,6,6,2, so should be 3 hits, assuming a roll of 2 does not produce a hit.) If MF bows get 2 extra dice, I would think the LF supporting bows would only get one extra die. Does anyone know for sure? I think one die per two bases may be the way it is in the TT rules, but can't remember for sure.

Regarding the cost of mixed units, in the TT rules, protected, superior, drilled, skilled swordsmen impact foot cost 11 points, the same as the PC. However, to add superior, drilled bow light foot costs 6 points per base and are intended for 1/3 of the BG. If you assume a typical BG composed of 6 legio HF in 2 ranks and 3 bow LF as the third rank, the total cost of the BG would be 84 points (6 legio x11 points + 3 bow LF x 6 points.)

The TT rules say average base strength is about 250. Since rank depth cannot be transfered from the TT to the PC, it seems to me that to portray the same formation on the PC, it would be depicted by 3 mixed BGs that presently cost 11 points each or 33 points. This is half the cost of the 6 legio bases on the TT. Therefore, to equate the cost of the additional bow LF bases, I think you would use half the normal cost, or 3 points. However, this seems too high as the entire mixed BG on the PC is supposed to be 300 men, while the three rank formation on the TT would be 3 bases of 250 men or 750 men.

So I think adding 1 point is reasonable. There is definitely a benefit so there should be a cost for receiving it.

There was some discussion on this and I believe somewhere Hexwar confirmed that for the PC game, both light bow and medium bow support would get 2 dice at impact. (it would be nice to see these rolls though)

Not sure about your cost analysis comparison, in the TT you can have a legion BG substitue 1/3 bases for light foot. As such the Bg is cheaper than a pure unit . the offset is you get the dubious value of one xtra dice if charged by cavalry from the front (get one dice per 2 bases light foot) Also the mixed unit could get in some trouble if the lights end up being front rank troops!
I think a better way to compare is to say a TT base is equivelent to a pc BG

so 6 BG's of legions PC cost 66 , 6 bases of TT would be 66 all in one BG

however , 6 pc BG's w support still cost 66, on the TT a mixed legion BG would have 4 bases of legions, 44 aps plus two bases of superior light foot at 12 for 56 ap's cost total......

Anyway, I doudt it would effect the game much if these troops cost a point more or not. It really is a balance issue if you chose the non supported legions that are armoured or the supported ones that are protected. They have differnt strengths, Most armies i have met in MP will have a mix of both types so at most you are talking about 8 ap's or so total....

I will use the editor tonite to see if light foot supported impact foot EVER anarchy, they certainly should!!

In the TT, do you substitute 1 bow LF base or add a bow LF base? I was under the impression that a normal formation on the TT would be 2 ranks of Legio; with LF, I thought it became 3 ranks, so the 3 bases would cost 28 points (11+11+6) compared to 22 points without the bow LF (11+11).

I would like to duplicate the anarchy issue in a scenario as well, but I could not find the mixed unit Legio, as least under the LT section of the editor. If you find it, let me know where it is.

Thanks

I forgot to add that the real issue is the mixed unit has no reduction in impact or mele compared to a HF, protected, superior, swordsmen+, but has benefits that are not paid for - the ability to shoot and extra dice on impact. If the choice is between a protected BG and an armoured BG, the armoured BG would benefit in mele, but it costs 14 points compared to 11 for the protected BG. If they cost the same, I have no problem with it.

I suppose its scomes down to what you are going to use them against . Within battles within the LT book, Armoured legions w/o bow support would be the way to go vs most infantry based armies, if vs lancers go w the protected ones w support bows. The bows only give support vs being charged by cavalry so arnt that great IMHO, whereas amour is usefull against any opponent, and the cost reflects that. The fact that they can shoot is usfull but you really dont have enough to make a lot of difernece. Just my opinion of course, i like to mix the two types up

Just curious, do you think Roman armies are too powerfull?

Ran a quick test with the editor, impact legions with support light foot do indeed anarchy. Also, they only get one die when shooting long range, with means they will NEVER force any Bg to take a cohesion test for missle fire alone (as it takes 2 missle hits)

I concur with mceochaidh's & DHJ's view re the relative points for the mixed legions with bows..they are too cheap given the advantage they get at impact. I think the combination of the extra effect in impact and they can shoot justify at least 1 more point maybe 1.5. If they cost 1.5 more I would still buy them.

I think we are almost getting to a stage where 1/2 points are used as some of the points relativities justify a half point extra rather than a full point.

In response to TGM's question re Romans strength the answer is definitively Yes they are too strong. I don't play many games with a full Roman army as it's just not cricket. I will use them as Allies but feel you can be too lazy with a full roman side and still win.

dazzam wrote:I concur with mceochaidh's & DHJ's view re the relative points for the mixed legions with bows..they are too cheap given the advantage they get at impact. I think the combination of the extra effect in impact and they can shoot justify at least 1 more point maybe 1.5. If they cost 1.5 more I would still buy them.

I think we are almost getting to a stage where 1/2 points are used as some of the points relativities justify a half point extra rather than a full point.

In response to TGM's question re Romans strength the answer is definitively Yes they are too strong. I don't play many games with a full Roman army as it's just not cricket. I will use them as Allies but feel you can be too lazy with a full roman side and still win.

Thats why they are beatable, players get complacent with them:) Forget no matter how powerful the legions are, all the eggs are in one basket so to speak, and if if they get spread out they are doomed.
Only suffered a loss and a draw fighting them sofar (and the draw was using Early Germans, a dog of an army if there ever was)

Any how , the bonus in impact is only when receiving a charge vs cavalry only , and then only from the front . The shooting is almost neglible, a poor light slinger will do more damage. So , what other armies would be effected by increasing the poinst ? The danes would , and they need all the help they can get:0

mceochaidh wrote:In the TT, do you substitute 1 bow LF base or add a bow LF base? I was under the impression that a normal formation on the TT would be 2 ranks of Legio; with LF, I thought it became 3 ranks, so the 3 bases would cost 28 points (11+11+6) compared to 22 points without the bow LF (11+11).

I would like to duplicate the anarchy issue in a scenario as well, but I could not find the mixed unit Legio, as least under the LT section of the editor. If you find it, let me know where it is.

Thanks

In the TT you build a BG out of available and legal bases. Late legions can be bought, normally with even #s, 4 6 or 8 (maybe 10 or 12 ) Howver, you do have the option in some lists to take one third of the bases as light foot , in which case odd # of bases is legal. So a mixed BG of 6 bases would have 4 bases of HI, 2 LF, a BG of 9: 6 and 3, 12: 8 and 4. Normally the LF bases are the rear most rank and since the ist two ranks of bases contribute toward melee combat , a normal formation for a 6 base mixed Bg would be two wide and 3 deep, a 9 base would be 3 wide and 3 deep. All about the frontage. So mixed BG's in the TT are actually cheaper than a pure unit of equal base size and have the same combat power to their front , assuming the enemy is on the same frontage. however , I believe once you start losing bases (which come from the front ranks) you will be in trouble faster than a pure BG (not to mention combats that involve flank or rear hit combats that might involve the LF fighting in the front rank.)

Im not sure if there is a unit that is "premade" with light foot support within the editor although the graphics for the mixed are in the imperial folder. Just right click on the unit and edit the paramter for rear rank wepaon and chose light foot bow to create the unit. Then copy and paste as many as you need (so happy that added that feature in the editor)

Thanks for the information on editing BGs. I also confirmed that the mixed units do anarchy; I see now that they have the yellow borders of shock troops and I played a DAG battle last night and actually saw some of these mixed Bgs anarchy.

As to your question regarding Romans being too strong, I think that perhaps in some cases they do not cost enough, but think that their historical capabilities are well portrayed in the PC game. Another advantage the Romans have is one of choice of many different options. They can easily customize their troop selection, perhaps more so then any other armies, especially in the Principate and Dominate periods. In addition, the PC lists seem to offer many more alternative lists than the TT books. THe TT books also limit the numbers of Superior troops. Looking at the Dominate TT list, it states that "Excluding allied contingents, at least 1/2 of the army's battle groups must be of average or poor quality. The Principate list also has similar restrictions. I don't have access to the PC game at the moment, but I think this rule is not imposed on selection in the many lists from these periods.

Your right , there are all kinds of restrictions for the Romans in LT TT, and all in only 3 armies as opposed to 10 or so in the PC game!. I think Iain M stated somewhere re a similar thing for other armies lists is that they wanted to make army building in the DAG simple and not fiddly. Imagine how byzantine the selections process would be if they tried to keep with all the minimas , maximas and date restrictions(which the pc has nothing remotely resembling) This forced them to make so many seperate Roman lists imho.

I agree though , some of the major restrictions should somehow be implemented , especially the only 50% superior legions/aux in the Dominate and Foederate lists.

I think the simplest way to do that would be to organise in the DAG purchase sceen the legions and aux by type rather than by quality rating. For every Superior of one type you buy, you automatically are forced to buy an Average of the same type (up to the caps) Of course you could buy xtra average ones and not be forced to take more superiors. I think only actual legion and Aux have the 50% rule applied to them in the tt , not other troops types.
Of course, with all those spare points they will then be able to buy more cavalry etc!

I think TGM suggestion re picking a superior means you need to pick an average as well. I think it is the Brit army in ROR where if u pick cavalry the system automatically adds a chariot as well to your selection so to ensure you have a mix. I am sure this could be easily implemented to Roman sides as well with regards to the Superior/Average mix of Legions and Auxillary.

dazzam wrote:I think TGM suggestion re picking a superior means you need to pick an average as well. I think it is the Brit army in ROR where if u pick cavalry the system automatically adds a chariot as well to your selection so to ensure you have a mix. I am sure this could be easily implemented to Roman sides as well with regards to the Superior/Average mix of Legions and Auxillary.

Exactomento!

Also similar to the Mid Republican Romans where once you buy x amount of legions the army generator auto forces you to buy a velite and a triarii