Slitherine

I just got back from the local game store and picking up my copy of "Legions Triumphant". I am pretty excited about getting hold of this army book as I own three armies featured in it: Principate Roman, Dominate Roman, and Early German. The Roman lists are great as expected, alghough a bit different than I had been buying them as using my home grown lists over the last few months. But the Early German list was a little bit of a let down.

Yes, it's very one dimensional. I expected that to be the case. But I was hoping that we would see a few more tribal options, in particular an upgrade to buy Chatti warriors as "superior". After all they are graded as "irregular A" under 7th Edition/Warrior and "Warband Superior" in DBM.
What was the design thinking behind this decision if I might ask?

TR
Who is tempted to take all the long spear armed figures out of his army, paint up some chariots, and rebase the whole thing as Ancient British now....

I don't have the book yet but I am disappointed to hear of the Germans being one-dimensional. Tacitus went to such lengths to describe a very diverse set of German tribes that I was hoping for this to be reflected in the army lists. Perhaps I will have to see it for myself.

Or even better, get 32 light Chariots, 48 slingers & 24 Light horse, and field an AB army ?

Trench_Raider wrote:

Yes, it's very one dimensional. I expected that to be the case. But I was hoping that we would see a few more tribal options, in particular an upgrade to buy Chatti warriors as "superior". After all they are graded as "irregular A" under 7th Edition/Warrior and "Warband Superior" in DBM.
What was the design thinking behind this decision if I might ask?

We don't think the evidence actually stacked up to justify them being Superior - previous lists can be wrong

Quintus wrote:I don't have the book yet but I am disappointed to hear of the Germans being one-dimensional. Tacitus went to such lengths to describe a very diverse set of German tribes that I was hoping for this to be reflected in the army lists. Perhaps I will have to see it for myself.

He described a lot of tribes, many probably just made up to be honest, but the accounts of fighting don't appear to justify much difference if any IMO.

Well the 'Germans' seem to have given the 'Gauls' a hard time whenever they clashed. Given that the Gauls get more cavalry (which is fine) and some superior foot this might be difficult to reproduce. Not to mention that Ancient British get Elite Infantry, I'm still puzzled what justifies those, especially in comparison to similar enemies (say Romans?) fought by both armies.

nikgaukroger wrote:

Quintus wrote:I don't have the book yet but I am disappointed to hear of the Germans being one-dimensional. Tacitus went to such lengths to describe a very diverse set of German tribes that I was hoping for this to be reflected in the army lists. Perhaps I will have to see it for myself.

He described a lot of tribes, many probably just made up to be honest, but the accounts of fighting don't appear to justify much difference if any IMO.

Yes Nik, I wouldn't be too surprised if that were so. And he was making moral points too in contrasting German behaviour with contemporary Roman behaviour. However it's some of the best "evidence" we have and it's an absolute gift in historical terms. I am not altogether comfortable in rejecting or saying nay to some of the only history we have on such peoples. It is decades since I read the Germania but I was impressed with the descriptions of some of the tribes, e.g the Chatti, the Cherusci and the horse-riding Tencteri.

I find it very dissappointing that the German list has so little 'play'. It detracts from the flavour of the game not being able to have one or two units that are better than the rest. The same has been said about having a single BG of Elite Spartans. It is still a game and there is no, as far as I know, evidenca against some of the German tribes being more fierce, and some evidence for it. And the brits get up to 8 Elite bases?

I was disappointed that the Early Franks were not deemed superior either. But I guess as Nik says, differing rules have differing interpretations of a troops fighting abilities.

For my money, if that is the only problem I have with these rules, I am more than happy with them compared to every other set out there.

The beauty of this game system is the rulebook gives you the formula they used to get point values. Since I almost always wargame with friends its really easy if I have a slightly different interpretation of the troops I can change them to what I think is better. I know this doesn't help much if you are wanting to use them in a tournament though.

nikgaukroger wrote:We don't think the evidence actually stacked up to justify them being Superior ...

nikgaukroger wrote:He described a lot of tribes, many probably just made up to be honest, but the accounts of fighting don't appear to justify much difference if any IMO.

So, could you be so nice to list all your sources?

Erm, Tacitus, Caesar and bit in Dio IIRC and I think one other perhaps.

Ok, based on that, would you agree that, as far as we know, the Gauls, despite having (usually) more Cavalry, found it hard to deal with the Germans on the Battlefield?

I think we can say that at Caesar's time some Gauls had been dffeated by some Germans - hence Caesar had an excuse to intervene.

However, using their relative performances against Romans as a bench mark, and one we have some useful information to go on as we don't really for Gaul Vs German fights, they appear to me to have performed pretty much the same.

Can't say I entirely agree with that, but fine, let's assume they did perform equally well (or bad) vs. Romans. Why then do the Gauls 'need' (or get) Superior or even elite armoured troops to NIL for the Germans? Sure I don't have to field any above average troops for the Gauls, but that's beside the point. And those above average foot troops are in addition to more and partly better Cavalry the Gauls have. I don't see how these two armies are supposed to perform equal in a battle vs. Romans.

Btw. since you seem to use the Romans as the benchmark to base other armies against... what exactly is the justification for the Elite Warriors in the Ancient British list again?

Ghaznavid wrote:
Btw. since you seem to use the Romans as the benchmark to base other armies against... what exactly is the justification for the Elite Warriors in the Ancient British list again?

Flanders & Swann

According to Caesar for the Germans " ...life was based on hunting and the pursuits of the military art; from childhood they
devote themselves to fatigue and hardship". They could have even been considered more warlike than the Gauls - warlike enough to make a difference in FoG terms is debatable...

Mike

In Caesar's day, Germanic cavalry appear to have enjoyed a notable advantage in morale over their Gallic counterparts. For this reason, in my scenarios Gallic cavalry react to Early German horsemen as if they were elephants - the Gauls are disordered if less than 1 base width from Early German cavalry, and also take a -1 modifier to their cohesion test whenever they lose a close combat against their Germanic foes.

Cheers,
Scott

Tsk, tsk, tsk Nik, you aren't trying to distract us with jokes, are you? That might have worked in killing the early Frankish thread on the DBMM list, but I'm not Ludger. I'm FAR more relentless. Consider me Cato the Elder with yourself being Carthago in this.

Anyway... you were saying the justification for the Ancient British elite warriors to not even a superior foot slogger for the Early Germans when comparing the battle prowess of both armies vs. the Romans are?

@ars belli: Interesting interpretation although maybe a bit to harsh on the Gauls. I'm not sure they were that disadvantaged usually. They do seem to have had a knack for underestimating the germanic cavalry on their usually smaller horses though.
I think that giving the Early Germans the option to field their cavalry as elite would fit it better though and be more in tone with the attitude they had.

Ghaznavid wrote:
Tsk, tsk, tsk Nik, you aren't trying to distract us with jokes, are you?

Its the best you're going to get on this I'm afraid.