Slitherine

My apologies if this has been done to death somewhere else.

What are the historical criteria for a troop type to be considered elite in the rules? There are no elite troops in Storm of Arrows for example, unless I have missed them. I thought maybe elite could only be drilled but the solidurii in the Gallic list are not. It seems strange that they are considere elite and that nothing in the medieval book is.

Jonathan

Here are some earlier threads in which the issue was discussed:

viewtopic.php?t=5936
viewtopic.php?t=5076

The bottom line seems to be that the Elite classification is typically reserved for small units with exceptionally high morale. For purposes of game balance, these tend to be relatively few and far between. For example, among all of the troops listed in Rise of Rome, only the following are rated as Elite:

Mid-Republican Roman triarii upgraded to veteran status (0-4 bases)
Late Republican Roman legionaries upgraded to veteran status (0-18 bases)
Gallic soldurii (0-6 bases)
Later Seleucid companion cavalry (0-4 bases)

Cheers,
Scott

And in Immortal Fire, Alex's companions (4 stands), and the Achaemenid Persian Guar Cavalry (4 stands).

Very few and far between....

(hoping the Knights of the Roundtable get elite status....) (incurable romantic)

Republican Roman triarii are tend to be overrated in wargames rules. FoG is no exception, but it's a point of view even if I disagree with it.

jonathanc wrote:What are the historical criteria for a troop type to be considered elite in the rules?

To be "elite" the troops must be distinctly better than the normals troops in that army and the normal troops of that army must be graded as "superior" to get the historical interactions.

Most elites are troops who are notably better than other troops in the same army who are already superior.

For an Alexandrian army the companions really have to be superior, the Agema, the best of the companions need to be better to distinguish them.

I wouldn't get hung up on elites, to be honest the vast majority of the troops I use are average, for me rerolling a 1 usually means I have a general fighting in the front rank. Rerolling 2s is a rare thing and I have never had the option to reroll 3s in any game of FoG I have played.

vsolfronk wrote:
(hoping the Knights of the Roundtable get elite status....) (incurable romantic)

Ah, no ...

Quintus wrote:Republican Roman triarii are tend to be overrated in wargames rules. FoG is no exception, but it's a point of view even if I disagree with it.

Look on the bright side, it is probably a waste of points and Superior would do the job just as well.,

nikgaukroger wrote:

Quintus wrote:Republican Roman triarii are tend to be overrated in wargames rules. FoG is no exception, but it's a point of view even if I disagree with it.

Look on the bright side, it is probably a waste of points and Superior would do the job just as well.,

from playing the alexandrian macedonian, i found that a group of 6 superior is far better than 4 elites.

more dice for starters.

Thanks for the explanations guys.

I see from the earlier discussions - thanks for pointing me there - that I had fallen into the same trap as many of those posters to whit thinking of the meaning of the word elite on its own, rather than as one element in a rules grading system.

Now, let's scrub those triarii from my list and get some more Superior guys.

Jonathan

Quintus wrote:Republican Roman triarii are tend to be overrated in wargames rules. FoG is no exception, but it's a point of view even if I disagree with it.

My reading of the FoG Mid-Republican Roman list suggests that the triarii are always one quality level higher than the hastati and principes within the same legion. In other words, only in a veteran legion comprised of Superior hastati and principes would there be any Elite triarii at all.

Cheers,
Scott

Phaze_of_the_Moon wrote:To be "elite" the troops must be distinctly better than the normals troops in that army and the normal troops of that army must be graded as "superior" to get the historical interactions.

Except of course for the Gallic and Later Seleucid FoG armies, wherein the vast majority of core troops are rated as Average.

cheers,
Scott

I think that "elite" troops are what they are, extra-ordinary and rare troops (either based on historical documents, or "myth and legend", not really based on what the rest of the army is.

ars_belli wrote:

Quintus wrote:Republican Roman triarii are tend to be overrated in wargames rules. FoG is no exception, but it's a point of view even if I disagree with it.

My reading of the FoG Mid-Republican Roman list suggests that the triarii are always one quality level higher than the hastati and principes within the same legion. In other words, only in a veteran legion comprised of Superior hastati and principes would there be any Elite triarii at all.

Cheers,
Scott

That's my reading too, excepting "downgraded" legions. I happen to disagree with it. If the higher rating enables the triarii to stick around and provide a rearguard action I have no problem with it really, it's just that I cannot see good evidence for it and I suspect that the army would work just as well with triarii having the same rating as the principes and hastati.