Another Point about Romans versus Barbarians

[Eques]

If you are concerned about the Romans' current ++PoA surely the answer is to adapt your strategy accordingly. Yes if you just chuck your troops straight at the Roman lines you will lose but FoG is about much more than wanging units together and then rolling dice. Its about tactics and strategy. As in real war its about taking full advantage of your strengths while managing your weaknesses.

For example barbarian armies in the game tend to have scope for a lot of high quality mounted units and also a fair amount of average skirmishers. So hold your infantry back until your cavalry has got behind enemy lines or broken up their formation. Or concentrate everything you can on a raw legion and use your mounted/skirmishers to hold off counter attacks. Whatever. These are just examples.

Yes if we were playing snakes and ladders and your opponent was randomly given plus 2 on his dice rolls you would have grounds for complaint. But we're not.

[gozerius]

I've never seen a raw legion on the table.
I go for the morsels like LF, cav, camp, while tying up the legions with my own LF.

[Eques]

Exactly. If you have troops that are weak against legions then keep them away from the legions until the last moment.

As an aside my LRR army is going to contain some raw legions because the historical version usually did.

[Eques]

Also, giving Romans only a +1 means that their advantage will be totally negated when it comes to things like attacking uphill, rivers etc.

Whereas we know from their invasions of Britain that they were extremely effective at assaulting across rivers, contested beaches, hillforts etc.

[hazelbark]

Also, giving Romans only a +1 means that their advantage will be totally negated when it comes to things like attacking uphill, rivers etc.

Whereas we know from their invasions of Britain that they were extremely effective at assaulting across rivers, contested beaches, hillforts etc.

Well I think you make assumptions about how the rules are written that I assume the opposite.

If armour or skilled sword cannot get you a ++ you still have this.

protected sword barbarian uphill.
Roman armoured skilled sword.

The Roman is still going to attack uphil with a POA advantage. Doesn't sound bad for the romans.

Again I think you are overlooking a HUGE amount of games were on at least 3 continents the conclusion was the rules were so brutal on the barbarians it was pointless.

[Eques]

Again I think you are overlooking a HUGE amount of games were on at least 3 continents the conclusion was the rules were so brutal on the barbarians it was pointless.

Well on a similar vibe I recently beat a Syracusan army easily enough with my non-medizing EAP army. My infantry didn't even engage. My opponent surrendered when my cavalry destroyed his wings and went round behind him.

Now I love my EAP army and if I wanted to I could have a good moan along the lines of "Hoplites are too good against it, can't you make them worse?" but I won't because

a) It would be historically inaccurate.
b) EAP has lots and lots of missile troops, Hoplites don't.
c) EAP has lots and lots of cavalry, Hoplites don't.
d) Having worse troops means I get more of them for my 800pts.

[kevinj]

I think you are overlooking a HUGE amount of games were on at least 3 continents the conclusion was the rules were so brutal on the barbarians it was pointless.

Exactly. When the V2 Beta was running there were a number of ways suggested and tested to improve the Roman/Barbarian interaction. Nobody suggested that leaving it as it is in V1 was the right approach.

For example barbarian armies in the game tend to have scope for a lot of high quality mounted units and also a fair amount of average skirmishers

This was the approach taken by most players who did not use Romans. Of course they took the approach to its logical next step and chose an army that maximised their cavalry and skirmishers and forgot about taking all the foot that had no chance. Hence the popularity of Bosporans, Parthians etc.

[Eques]

For example barbarian armies in the game tend to have scope for a lot of high quality mounted units and also a fair amount of average skirmishers

This was the approach taken by most players who did not use Romans. Of course they took the approach to its logical next step and chose an army that maximised their cavalry and skirmishers and forgot about taking all the foot that had no chance. Hence the popularity of Bosporans, Parthians etc.

Which "Roman" players then started to complain about!!!

Again your comments only apply to the rather mechanical business of winning tournaments. Personally I would never use a Bosporan army because it doesn't fire my imagination.

An ancient British army, warts and all, does. If I want to play a generic strategy game I play chess or stratego.

[kevinj]

Once you take tournaments out of consideration, what's in the actual rules becomes less important as you can apply whatever scenario specific adjustments you need to recreate the battle you are trying to simulate and you can ensure that the armies include whatever non-optimum troop types are appropriate.

But if you're looking at an equal points encounter, in a tournament or otherwise, the prevailing opinion is that the game is not much fun for the barbarian player using V1 rules.

[grahambriggs]

Again I think you are overlooking a HUGE amount of games were on at least 3 continents the conclusion was the rules were so brutal on the barbarians it was pointless.

Well on a similar vibe I recently beat a Syracusan army easily enough with my non-medizing EAP army. My infantry didn't even engage. My opponent surrendered when my cavalry destroyed his wings and went round behind him.

Now I love my EAP army and if I wanted to I could have a good moan along the lines of "Hoplites are too good against it, can't you make them worse?" but I won't because

a) It would be historically inaccurate.
b) EAP has lots and lots of missile troops, Hoplites don't.
c) EAP has lots and lots of cavalry, Hoplites don't.
d) Having worse troops means I get more of them for my 800pts.

But the hoplite armies thought themselves very vulnerable to Persian cavalry in open country so tried to avoid fighting them there. So a hoplite army with open flanks would be in trouble. I don't particularly like the Persian foot vs hoplite feel in FOG. Compared with the historical accounts the Persian foot are far too manouverable so can get away. Perhaps v1 will improve that.

I also don't like the hand to hand combat interaction. It should be a tough fight for the Greeks until the mantlet wall goes down, and then a slaughter. But actually, what happens is that the Persians collapse in melee - seems too early in the fight to me. Often that's because the Greeks have armour and weapon POAs.

[Eques]

But the hoplite armies thought themselves very vulnerable to Persian cavalry in open country so tried to avoid fighting them there. So a hoplite army with open flanks would be in trouble. I don't particularly like the Persian foot vs hoplite feel in FOG. Compared with the historical accounts the Persian foot are far too manouverable so can get away. Perhaps v1 will improve that.

I also don't like the hand to hand combat interaction. It should be a tough fight for the Greeks until the mantlet wall goes down, and then a slaughter. But actually, what happens is that the Persians collapse in melee - seems too early in the fight to me. Often that's because the Greeks have armour and weapon POAs.

Well I would say historically they did have both an armour and weapons PoA.

I don't think the historic accounts ever make that much out of the mantlet wall. On 2 occassions the Greeks just smashed through it, thus deciding the whole battle, although the Persians fought on bravely after they had been broken.

I really do think there needs to be more than one level of PoA in the game otherwise we may as well be playing checkers, and I think both Rome vs Barbarians and Greeks versus Persians are prime candidates for it (and I am someone who would rather play as both Persians and Barbarians). People complaining about being on the receiving end of double PoAs are really just asking for an easy life for their particular favoured army at the expense of an interesting game.

[madaxeman]

People complaining about being on the receiving end of double PoAs are really just asking for an easy life for their particular favoured army at the expense of an interesting game.

I'm not entirely convinced that being a POA down in every melee would fit my definition of "an easy life".

And I'm pretty sure that in my world, being two POA's down in every melee doesn't make for an interesting game either.

But each to his own - if V2.0 brings in changes to game balance that you don't agree with (which it clearly is going to), it's going to be perfectly possible to keep playing V1.0, or even play V2.0 but leave some of the POAs the same as V1.0 in your own games. As long as you don;t try and publish it yourself that is...

[Eques]

People complaining about being on the receiving end of double PoAs are really just asking for an easy life for their particular favoured army at the expense of an interesting game.

I'm not entirely convinced that being a POA down in every melee would fit my definition of "an easy life".

And I'm pretty sure that in my world, being two POA's down in every melee doesn't make for an interesting game either.

It might not make for an interesting melee but it would make for a more interesting game in that you would have to exercise more imagination in dealing with it as one of your opponent's strengths, other than just attacking each other head on. Also for a more interesting game in the broader sense that there would be more diversity in troop types and troop quality available, as there was in the ancient world.

[hazelbark]

Also for a more interesting game in the broader sense that there would be more diversity in troop types and troop quality available, as there was in the ancient world.

Well that has not been the lessons that have come forth in the years we have been playing version 1.