Need reasons to make an early Principate list..

[Fulgrim]

I was planning on making my EIR pretty early but after recieving the L.T companion i realized the Principate list doesnt really favor this, rather the opposite imho. Could you lot please help me with some good reasons to stick to my plan? (besides that the miniatures bought for this are more fitting to ca 100 AD...)

[nikgaukroger]

What makes you think the list doesn't favour building an early army?

[fredrik]

I drew up a principate list myself a couple of days ago that I'm considering building later this year - if nothing else you'll have an historical opponent if you do decide on continuing with your romans... (but then you'd have to show up at the club a bit more frequently)

Here's my suggestion:

- 3 x 6 superior legionaries
- 2 x 8 Auxilia (MF option)
- 1 x 6 auxillary archers (MF)
- 1 x 4 Numidian LH
- 1 x 6 Numidian LF
- 2 x 4 Cavalry (Superior)
- 1 x 4 Slingers (poor)
- 4 x TC

The idea is to put the three BGs of legos in the center (3x2 configuration) screened by the numidian LF and the slingers (sliners are only really there to up the breakpoint, not to fight). Cavalry stays back behind the legionaries for rear support as reserves. Auxilia on one of the flanks where I'd try to put as much BGO as possible.

One TC goes with the Aux, two with the legionaries, one with the cavalry to rally broken units from the center and to quickly march move the cavalry where it needs to be in the midgame.

[babyshark]

I am fairly impressed with the Principate Roman list. I think it will reverse the DBM trend of EIR being historically strong but weak in game play. The problem that I can forsee will be that there is almost too much choice. It will be dangerously easy to put together a list that is less than the sum of its parts.

Marc

[Fulgrim]

What makes you think the list doesn't favour building an early army?

There is almost only positive improvements of the list at later years. The only losses are Moorish LH, (but those are covered up by better Aux LH), Symmachiarii and marines. For that you gain more mounted in general, 4 more superior mounted, Cats, Lanciarii, more options regardning quality - but no loss if the better qualities are selected. In short - there is no reason to field an army before 197AD and at 260AD the list in itself is at its optimum. There is no reason in gaming terms to pick an erlier list. That will probably show in turnaments to come.

In the bigger picture many of the allies are restricted to erlier dates so those are lost of course. If there is a will to include an specific allied then there is a "reason" of course.

I do belive that there is reason to belive that legions degraded over time, i do belive that it would have been a nice touch to allow elites early in the Principate list and severley restrict superior legionaries in the Dominate list. Further i think that the Auxilia should be able to be upgraded early in the list. That would have made a more diverse list, with pluses and minuses in both "ends" of it. Further it think it would still have been in line with history as currently viewed.

At the club I will stick with my Trajan list, got an embryo to the Dacians aswell, but for tourmaments i will probably let my legionares carry outdated gear in a later verson of the list. My gamingnerve would not stand it if I picked a worse army than possible.

What do you think favours an early list Nik?

[durrati]

"Need reasons to make an early Principate list.."

Can think of two

1. Lorica Segmenta - which is quite possibly the greatest style of armour ever invented.

2. Those funky looking semi cylindrical shields, tres cool.

Against these what I feel are obviously overwhelming arguments you could counter

'Ah, if I take an army from 260AD this means that I will have more flexible choices because I can have 4 more bases of Superior cavalry and some Cataphracts and be able to downgrade some Auxilary and equip them with French Ticklers which means I may have a marginally better chance of winning a game of toy soldiers.'

We all choose our own priorites in this most diverse of hobbies.

[Fulgrim]

Point taken durrati!
I concur on your two pro:s - that why i started to build the EIR. The list of cons will make alot of competetive gamers shy away from the early list tough (and yes, i am a one of those - when i play tounaments i might not pick the "best" armies but i sure like to pick a list selection that i feel has the biggest chance of winning).

That is a shame imho - Babysharks comments highlights this, DBM list was not competative where the armies historically was, its repeated here regarding the pre 197AD part of the list. This list will "have a lot of choises" - yes, but only at later dates. So imo this list will not "restore the historical might" of the EIR. It will will probably make a good mid-imperial list though. The erlier dates are still shortchanged.

[durrati]

It is true that the later list has more flexibility - that gives the possibility of tweaking it more for tournament based play. Think it is slightly over egging it to say that only the later part of the list restores the historic might of the army where as the earlier part of the list does not.

For the early list, some units of Superior Legions and some Auxulia, support by some skirmishers / mounted I feel is plenty tough enough to take to an open competition. Might need a good player as it will be quite small so you will need to be careful to make sure you are getting maximum use out of each unit but it will be rock hard.

In a later list you can take more / a wider variety of mounted. Against a knight based army though you will spend most of the game trying to hide it from the opponents knights. This diversity of choice being an active weakness in such a situation.

The early list is rock hard - the later geting more options. Not an expert on the period but if by 3rdC AD the army was more diverse then more diversity in the list seems fair.

[carlos]

The difference between early and later principates are mostly a matter of opinion to be honest. Cataphracts are cool, but i'd rather spend the points in better troops. Cavalry lancers are cool too, but I'd rather have the light spear version. What really puts me off the principates though, is the compulsory camp - YUCK!

[rbodleyscott]

What makes you think that having more mounted makes the army better?

You are never going to be able to out-cavalry a cavalry army. By taking more cavalry (and hence less legionaries) you are simply giving the enemy more targets.

[Fulgrim]

What makes you think that having more mounted makes the army better?

You are never going to be able to out-cavalry a cavalry army. By taking more cavalry (and hence less legionaries) you are simply giving the enemy more targets.

its not really that there is more mounted - its that they are better (or rather there is an option to make them superior, see LH for instance). Futher the MF is better aswell (Lanciarii). There is more options to tweek the entire army at the later dates.

I dont object to that the Lanciarii comes later, that there is more cav later on etc. My point is that i think there is within reasonable doubt to put some legionaries as elites and some auxilia as superior at the erlier dates or something which would have made the list somewhat more balanced regardning "attractiveness at different periods". There is a large degree of freedom regarding quality on several other roman lists, why not toss a bone to the early principates?

Beg your pardon regarding my spelling/grammar etc - english isnt my first language.

[carlos]

I agree w/ Richard. You need to emphasize what you are good that, otherwise you might as well be playing the degenerate Foederates! And what you are good at is combined arms, not loading up on cataphracts or horse archers.

[nikgaukroger]

What do you think favours an early list Nik?

Whilst I think earlier and later are equally favoured, but for different reasons I think the earlier list's strength is that it is very focused and you are less likely to be distracted from the armies strength, the legiones.

[timmy1]

I think that RBS and Nik have it right. I am a poor DBM player and an AWFUL FoG player. In DBM at greater than 300AP I have lost every game when using an army other than EIR. Every game over 300 AP that I have ever drawn or won has been with EIR and in FoG it looks even better before 197AD. FoG gives you a real focus. You need to use the Cavalry to prevent the meat grinders from getting flanked. The Superior Legionaries are the winners. BIG PLUS - they DON'T fear hairy Germans. The Aux gives you flexibility and flank cover and you can run the Cav part as 4 base Superior BGs if you really want (though a waste of points IMO). Also you get MANY more archers than under DBM, 18 bases rather than 6 and they can be superior. Add to 5 or 6 other options depending on if before 100 AD if not. I can't wait.

I also look forwards to 600 points on a 5'x3' table with horse archers and numidians to provide a little delay, plus some heavy art to choose where I fight. I don't see ANY reason not to do EIR at +- 100 AD.

[Fulgrim]

Hmm..

The superior archers are only for support, and then only function vs mounted.

I do find the notion that playes needs help by a strict list to be focused very strange and more than a bit condecending... In general i think players of historical tabletop games are very mature people abele to make thier own decisions.

My observation was:
a) there is no loss in quality or functional options (bar the symmerachii - the only access to MF impcat foot in the list) at later dates
b) there is a real gain in options at later dates, both regardning quality and functionality.

My grief was:
There is no reason list-wise to select an early list - there is no real loss of real options, there is on greater access of functionality.

I will build my 30th legion and put at 100ish AD, but that purely out of historical reasons (wich is a big deal even to me) BUT gamers that want a Principate list and starts from scratch without any specific period in mind wont. They will select a later one (post 260AD) as there is nothing really to lose and much to gain by doing so. To me that is a shame since im sure that there is historical morsels to pass out to an early list.
An option to upgrade legioneries to Heavily armoured during the Dacian campaign for instance or whatever.

I know this is to late and probably unwanted, but the obesrvations a+b is still facts and hope that in future list effort are put into make them more "time neutral" if you follow me. History should be deciding factor of course but if looked at more closely im sure there is always something that could be done making selection of listdate a trade-off, not a no-brainer.

BTW - thanks for a great game, im not at all displeased even if it might appear so in this forum.

[nikgaukroger]

I do find the notion that playes needs help by a strict list to be focused very strange and more than a bit condecending... In general i think players of historical tabletop games are very mature people abele to make thier own decisions.

However, I can assure you that it doesn't stop them making very strange army choices - in the many tears of list checking I've done I've seen some very strange armies indeed from very intelligent people, and I've done it myself more than once

[Fulgrim]

I do find the notion that playes needs help by a strict list to be focused very strange and more than a bit condecending... In general i think players of historical tabletop games are very mature people abele to make thier own decisions.

However, I can assure you that it doesn't stop them making very strange army choices - in the many tears of list checking I've done I've seen some very strange armies indeed from very intelligent people, and I've done it myself more than once

As have I , but i then you dont repeat it right? thats part of the learning process and it would be a boring world if everybode made the same choises all the time. Further it would be a really boring if there was no choises to start with, some people have it like that and i dont envy them thier "simplistic life". Put a little faith in the players regardning this (while keeping close to history of course) and i think all of us will gain.

[ars_belli]

Offhand, I cannot think of any troop types from actual Roman armies of the Early Principate that are not available in the FoG army list. If such omissions do exist, can someone cite some specific historical examples?

Cheers,
Scott

[Fulgrim]

Offhand, I cannot think of any troop types from actual Roman armies of the Early Principate that are not available in the FoG army list. If such omissions do exist, can someone cite some specific historical examples?

Cheers,
Scott

If your read trough my post you will see I have been suggesting adjustments av quality or armour. Not more troop types. I do think there is within reason, for the erlier dates, to consider Elite for some veteran legionaries, superior for some first line auxilia and perhaps heavy armour for some legionaries to represent the increased armour (basically full body armour+shield) used during the Dacian camapign.

Thinking about it - the heavily armoured anti-falx units doesnt work historically in FOG and actually would be wasted vs falx-men as increased armour has no effect due to the mechanism of "heavy weapon"....

[ars_belli]

If your read trough my post you will see I have been suggesting adjustments av quality or armour. Not more troop types. I do think there is within reason, for the erlier dates, to consider Elite for some veteran legionaries, superior for some first line auxilia and perhaps heavy armour for some legionaries to represent the increased armour (basically full body armour+shield) used during the Dacian camapign.

There is nothing to suggest that any legionaries ever had "full body armour," even for the Dacian campaign. Images from the Adamklissi monument show extra protection for the right arm, nothing more: http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... /met-c.jpg
http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/a ... anica8.jpg

And with all due respect, I don't see any historical rationale given for your requested Quality upgrades, just a desire to have as many potential choices as found in the later version of the Principate Roman list. Which specific battles indicate that some EPR auxiliary foot BGs should merit Superior status, and why? Which specific EPR legions would be represented by upgrading some legionary BGs to Elite, and what documented historical evidence would support this? Otherwise, it's just the old "I feel that Spartans/samurai/fill-in-the-blank should be rated as Elite" argument all over again.

Cheers,
Scott