Two armies for Friday night 1st game - look OK ?

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:58 pm

Hi all
I am having a go at the rules this Friday night.
Here are the two army lists at 650 points using 25mm figures.
I have had to use the late republican roman list with some mods.
I have added my archers as MF and the Auxillia as MF .
I'm also using my Catacphracts as Armoured superior Cav and my BG of 6 Roman cav as protected average Cav.
Sound OK ?

The Gallic list is as per the book.

So do the armies looked legal and matched ?
Easy enough to handle ?

Early Imperial Romans 650 Points-----------------------------

General FC BG 1
Tribune TC BG 1
Tribune TC BG 1

Veteran Legion HF BG 6
Legionaries HF BG 4
Legionaries HF BG 4
Legionaries HF BG 4
Heavy Cav (Cat) Cv BG 4
Heavy Cav Cv BG 6
Auxillia MF BG 6
Archers MF BG 6
Ballista Hart BG 2
Ballista Hart BG 2

The tribe of Keithengetrix 650 points --------------------

Keithengetrix FC BG 1
Troop Commander TC BG 1
Troop Commander TC BG 1

Light Chariots LCh BG 4
Warband HF BG 10
Warband HF BG 10
Warband HF BG 10
Noble Cav Cv BG 6
Slingers LF BG 6
Javelinmen LF BG 6

Allied Commander TC BG 1
Hill Tribe Warband MF BG 8
Hill Tribe Warband MF BG 8

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:25 pm

yes that looks excellent with 1 proviso.

H Art are very restricted in the rules and primarily for set piece battles - more anon in the Cmapaign supplement. They cannot move once deployed.

You may find them less use than L Art in such a stand up battle. L Art only havea 6 MU range but are more field aartillery as they can move with a CMT.

On the other hand if testing rules out and the gauls attack fully then they might be rather nifty.

Just to alert you to that from experience.

Si

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:42 pm

One point: The Romans did not have any cataphracts at the time they were fighting the Ancient Britons.

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:44 pm

Richard

I think Keith said he was using the figures as armoured superior cavalry rather than cataphracts.

Si

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:46 pm

shall wrote:Richard

I think Keith said he was using the figures as armoured superior cavalry rather than cataphracts.

Si

Ah yes I didn't spot that. On the other hand, as we are talking about Early Imperial Rome the Average cavalry should also be Armoured, not Protected.

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:58 pm

Yes fair does on that one - quite right.

Si

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:07 pm

Ok thanks guys.
I will make the cav armoured.
And should I make the Ballista light artillery , the boltshooters are rated as heavy in the late republican rome list ?
I didn't realise you couldn't move them , so I''ll make them light.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:17 pm

Keith wrote:Ok thanks guys.
I will make the cav armoured.
And should I make the Ballista light artillery , the boltshooters are rated as heavy in the late republican rome list ?
I didn't realise you couldn't move them , so I''ll make them light.

The EIRs get a choice of light or heavy.

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:22 pm

Ok thanks
I have downgraded them to light and upped the BG of 6 cav to armoured.

shall · Post by **shall** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:02 am

So .... how did they do?

Si

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:16 pm

It was a good game , bit slow at first , but the game sped up once we had the rules worked out.
I was just getting into the rules when my allied general informed me that we our army had broken

The Roman superior foot were awesome , getting the + for better armour in the melee phase helped them.
The warband were dropping in cohesion very turn, even with more attacks.

Next game will flow a lot better and we can concentrate on the actual battle , rather than , lets see what happens here.

shall · Post by **shall** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:46 pm

Yes the Romans are pretty awesome in a head-to-head fight = but then they were.

With a bit of practice they are beatable by barbarian armies. Needs a mix of good army design, use of generakls, use of rear support, terrain rules and timing but definitely can be done.

Managed to 25-0 an Early Imperial Roman army with Britons without losing a BG once. Not that this is easy or without some luck - but proves it can be done.

Si

Tiger · Post by **Tiger** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:08 am

Hi

Just interested in the unit sizes.

I note the veteran legionaries are 6 bases and the other legionaries 4 bases. I would have thought the vets would not be larger than the normal line? I appreciate its a matter of choice.

I also wonder if the barbarian warbands are more useful at 8's rather than 10's - at least it allows for an additional unit overall which could be used as rear support.

I am interested in unit sizes for EIR as I am redesigning my arny and would find feedback useful.

many thanks

P

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:13 pm

I am currently playing a campaign based on Caesar's Gallic Wars. For the campaign, a raw legion begins eight bases strong and rated as Poor, except for the Xth, which (having been mustered well before the others) begins as Average. Following a battle, any bases lost will carry over to the next battle, rounded to even numbers. After a decisive victory, each legion's rating goes up one level, to a maximum of Superior (or Elite for the Xth). In so doing, I find that FoG very nicely models the historical record for the Late Republic, in which the legions tend to become smaller, but also tougher over time. I can't see why this wouldn't also work for campaigns featuring legions of the Principate or Dominate.

Cheers,
Scott