Slitherine

I am unsure of where to post this but figure its a technical problem so here goes. I am currently in a battle Late Republican Roman vs Dialami(Buyids)

Now in melee it shows Superior Armoured MF impact foot Dialami vs Superior Armoured Drilled impact foot Roman Legoinaries as 36/36 chance of success ie evens. Now how can this be correct as surely drilled HF has some advantage in combat if not then what the!!!! I have specifically set up this battle to see what advantage the Dialami have in battle as they seem to perform like Ninjas and clean up even mounted lancers easily. Can someone explain what the heck is happening here?By the way the Dialamis are also winning all combats easily and even suffering 15% casualties without dropping cohesion level.Romans are dropping cohesion much easily.

The Roman legionaries are exactly even with the Dailami for impact at ++ POA.The differences that favor the Romans are in melee due to the fact that MF get an additional -1 on cohesion tests if they lose to HF and once you are in melee the Romans will have a net +POA since their Sword+ will negate the Dailami Sword POA. So the dailami should lose in the long term as long as the Romans do not lose the impact badly.

The second drawback to the MF Dailami is that they are significantly more vulnerable to mounted in the open than the Roman legionaries are.

Chris

Thanks Chris as the fight goes on the Dailamis are infact starting to lose but just.As for them being more vulnerable to Cav in the open. I have seen them easily dispatch superior armoured lancers that have Anarchy charged into them in the open.Then again my opinion of Lancers is not all that great

batesmotel wrote:The Roman legionaries are exactly even with the Dailami for impact at ++ POA.The differences that favor the Romans are in melee due to the fact that MF get an additional -1 on cohesion tests if they lose to HF and once you are in melee the Romans will have a net +POA since their Sword+ will negate the Dailami Sword POA. So the dailami should lose in the long term as long as the Romans do not lose the impact badly.

The second drawback to the MF Dailami is that they are significantly more vulnerable to mounted in the open than the Roman legionaries are.

Chris

Don't t the MF also have a -1 on Cohesion test if they lose Impact versus Heavy Foot?

Tks

Turk1964 wrote:Thanks Chris as the fight goes on the Dailamis are infact starting to lose but just.As for them being more vulnerable to Cav in the open. I have seen them easily dispatch superior armoured lancers that have Anarchy charged into them in the open.Then again my opinion of Lancers is not all that great

Hi Turk, as Batesmotel said the Lancers has better posibilties than the MF Impact Foot on impact.

As for anarchy try to keep the Lancers under command. Rear support also helps for this. If the Lancers are drilled they are less afected by anarchy. The Inspired commanders are better than the other ones to keep them under control.

Cheers!

Turk1964 wrote:Thanks Chris as the fight goes on the Dailamis are infact starting to lose but just.As for them being more vulnerable to Cav in the open. I have seen them easily dispatch superior armoured lancers that have Anarchy charged into them in the open.Then again my opinion of Lancers is not all that great

If the Dailamis have light bow support , they get two xtra dice vs attacking cavalry...

Thanks Mouser
Ok so in combat agaist say HF impact foot does the fact that Dailamis have bows make any difference to combat. I have noticed those without bows seem to perform better in Mellee against their own kind ie other Dialamis with bows.Oh the Result of the battle between Late Republican Romans and Dialami was extremly close Romans 36/38 vs Dialami 39/31. It was only the last turn where i routed a fair amount of Dialamis close all the way through.

LF bow rear support only counts in impact versus mounted and not versus foot. So dailami with and without LF bow support should be identical versus other foot. LF rear support should only give 1 die versus mounted not 2. I suspect this is a bug and should be fixed.

Chris