Warbands need a rebalance???

[Scutarii]

I think warbands are excesive good in game thanks to the change in how unit size impact combat but with no a rework in their performance.

I suggest made that superior warbands only have 480 soldiers, like the other heavy foot, only average warbands can have more soldiers around 600-650, not the actual 700 or superior size, to compensate they could be a little cheaper.

Maybe with this is enough to avoid strange things like warbands rushing over heavy foot because they have a great advantage in impact and in melee simple are to strong VS troops trained to fight like an unit and not a for single combat like warbands.

Other point is why is possible that streams has 0 impact over attacker heavy foot, something that is a little ridiculous, this is something that in FOG I was much better done and needs return, heavy foot over streams cant be firm and attack like there is not an obstacle between them and enemy.

[rbodleyscott]

Other point is why is possible that streams has 0 impact over attacker heavy foot, something that is a little ridiculous, this is something that in FOG I was much better done and needs return, heavy foot over streams cant be firm and attack like there is not an obstacle between them and enemy.

The lowest level of stream is intended to represent very small streams, which would not be a significant obstacle. There are two higher levels of stream that are.

I suggest made that superior warbands only have 480 soldiers, like the other heavy foot, only average warbands can have more soldiers around 600-650, not the actual 700 or superior size, to compensate they could be a little cheaper.

I like this idea, especially for the Superior Warbands, who, as picked men, would inevitably be less numerous.

[Scutarii]

Well, in general unit size need a rework... now diferences are between 250 (triarii) and 900 (phalanx-pike) i think made it smaller something like 350-750 at same time diferent heavy foot units receive diferent combat atributes... for example pikes reduced mobility when they are closed to enemy but stronger front combat value, warbands could not suffer the big target effect VS javelin and sling units (they have more soldiers BUT are less organized, you are not going to hit perfect lines of soldiers that are easier targets for direct shot units) and the other heavy foot like legions and hoplites mantein the 2 square mobility and they are not big targets for javelin and sling units.

Even is possible made that units under average have a small size bonus... like 5 soldiers more per figure... this means you can have superior hoplites with 480 soldiers and raw with 520 or similar maybe this help raw be more attractive because now they are not good even to be in rear.

I read the manual and about streams

"Non-Open terrain (e.g. Enclosures, some Streams) does not cause disorder, but stops combats counting as “In Open Terrain” thus reducing Impact POAs for some troops.

Streams vary in difficulty level according to the size of the stream."

But how i know the type of stream??? in terrain description only appear stream, not define a level for it and manual not define diferent POAs for diferent stream types.

Maybe this + the change in how elevation affect POAs are the 2 terrain things i like less in game.

Thanks for the reply.

[76mm]

From what ive seen warbands seem a bit overpowered. I hadnt thought of justbreducing their size, that might work. Currently a warband will usually win an attritional melee vs a Roman legion, which seems wrong...

[Scutarii]

The point is that warbands and in general units with less training to fight in formation are excellent for fast attacks-hit and run but when combat is long their lack of formation made them very nimble because they fight soldiers that selfsupport each other (2 soldiers working together are more capable than 2 not working together) and at same time they percive casualties diferent (formation made soldiers support each other to in a morale aspect something lack units with no strong formations).

For me warbands need a reduction in size and something to made them more capable to break or to fight with lower efficiency... maybe they could break faster with less casualties BUT in compensation they can return to combat at least 1 more time... i refer you break teh warband after lose... 15-20% soldiers but after 1 turn retreating they return to combat again... they can recover from break to disrupted or to firm status in 2 turns... after this they work like normal infantry in cohesion area.

[olin0111]

I would not rush any changes to warbands. If you make them less numerous and cheaper there will be unintented consequences. For example, players will buy plenty of warbands and use them to envelop and flank everything. And I don't know if Gauls were known to be the "flanky" ones. I think the barbarians in general relied more on forming big blobs of infantry and fierce frontal charge. You more or less get this results with the warbands in their current state.

[rbodleyscott]

But how i know the type of stream???

Mouse over them.

Stream = small stream. Not open terrain but no worse effect.
Large Stream = Rough terrain
Deep Stream = Difficult terrain

[Scutarii]

Thanks, i think never find a large stream... only the first and last one that need a bridge to cross over it.

The problem is that now warbands are not working as they need work because are more like steamrollers than barbarian heavy infantry units... a full army of warbands (the mix of heavy and the one that work like med in the cohesion test) simple can roll over a heavy foot army very easy because they engage units with half size... this means you can lose 50 soldiers in a warband and not suffer cohesion test while the other unit simple lose with a lot of luck 1 level of cohesion.

I have battles VS warbands that after suffer casualties by my own light foot when impact over my hoplites with same quality-armor but with offensive spear (that is not very relevant VS heavy foot but that is much better to deal with a charge than a sword for example) made them lose 2 cohesion levels in impact (and after this unit simple is dead)... i dont see balanced that a heavy foot unit that cost 61 points can even when is damage impact over other heavy foot and put it in fragmented status + push it one square back in a single impact.

Warbands can roll over other heavy infantry very easy even without need mass 2-3 units over 1 enemy unit... for example in Cartago armies the warband that is average and has less armor than the african veteran spear unit (armor+superior) are not doing a worst job compared with them... even they are more effective in the moment have lower chance to lose a cohesion test simple because pass less cohesion test... and this VS roman units....

Is no tome to rush masive changes or changes that touch game rules... but the size of units for me needs a rework... made size diferences smaller (350-750) and made that worst the unit more soldiers it have to made them capable to at least stand a little better.

[GiveWarAchance]

Be careful about nerfing warbands cause they are radically outnumbered in battles. If they are weak, then the Gauls will automatically lose every time cause they can easily be surrounded and destroyed.

[Scutarii]

Be careful about nerfing warbands cause they are radically outnumbered in battles. If they are weak, then the Gauls will automatically lose every time cause they can easily be surrounded and destroyed.

This is why made warbands smaller but cheaper could help... and well, maybe the aproximation to warbands in FOG II is not correct at all... weaker units but cheaper for me is better than the actual oversized units with high price but better price-performance relation compared with other heavy foot.

[GiveWarAchance]

Be careful about nerfing warbands cause they are radically outnumbered in battles. If they are weak, then the Gauls will automatically lose every time cause they can easily be surrounded and destroyed.

This is why made warbands smaller but cheaper could help... and well, maybe the aproximation to warbands in FOG II is not correct at all... weaker units but cheaper for me is better than the actual oversized units with high price but better price-performance relation compared with other heavy foot.

That would be good and probably more realistic. Making them cheaper than the staggering 84 gold for superior warbands is vital to not nerfing the poor Gauls out of the game.

[JorgenCAB]

The only change I would support is to make Superior warbands more into the same size as a regular heavy foot unit, seem appropriate to me. Normal warbands seem quite fine otherwise. Gaul units are quite expensive and a regular Hellenistic or Carthage army can easily surround them and they are still susceptible to attacks from elephants for example.

[Scutarii]

Well, elephants are other thing to see... i dont know why they are vulnerable VS javelin units but not VS heavy impact foot... but is true that elephants are the combat unit that is easier to catch with flank attacks in the moment their best use is in attack.

First for me is reduce superior warband size to 480 to test (with price reduction of course) and if it works next thing test a more global rework of heavy foot units size... is not only the excesive size of warbands... is the to small size of triarii that made them very inefective (apart the armament) and that pike armies maybe need more pike units but with a reduced size...

In old FOG units size had no impact in game simple bigger units lose more soldiers in combat but dont have advantage, in FOG II size is very important because add more resistance to the unit... more vulnerable to lights??? yes, but in the moment evasion system is not working very well... you risk a lot using javelin units VS heavy foot and archers-slingers depend a lot of army.

[GiveWarAchance]

Well, elephants are other thing to see... i dont know why they are vulnerable VS javelin units but not VS heavy impact foot... but is true that elephants are the combat unit that is easier to catch with flank attacks in the moment their best use is in attack.

First for me is reduce superior warband size to 480 to test (with price reduction of course) and if it works next thing test a more global rework of heavy foot units size... is not only the excesive size of warbands... is the to small size of triarii that made them very inefective (apart the armament) and that pike armies maybe need more pike units but with a reduced size...

In old FOG units size had no impact in game simple bigger units lose more soldiers in combat but dont have advantage, in FOG II size is very important because add more resistance to the unit... more vulnerable to lights??? yes, but in the moment evasion system is not working very well... you risk a lot using javelin units VS heavy foot and archers-slingers depend a lot of army.

From the little I know, elephants historically tended to frenzy and run amok when attacked with javelin and spear units. Heavy impact foot are usually sword units which are the easiest targets for elephants to stomp into mess in real life.

I also agree that triarii are too small to be combat effective. In reserve they can beat a cavalry unit but only if they surround and flank attack it, but they can't do much in a fight.

Evasion system seems to work perfectly in my games. What do you mean it is not working?

[MikeC_81]

Superior Warbands are among the most expensive units in the game. I wonder if they are overcosted if anything given their propensity to chase and are unmaneurvable. I am also unsure whether there is enough real data to show whether much of anything is or is not unbalanced. The game is less than a month old.

[GiveWarAchance]

Superior Warbands are among the most expensive units in the game. I wonder if they are overcosted if anything given their propensity to chase and are unmaneurvable. I am also unsure whether there is enough real data to show whether much of anything is or is not unbalanced. The game is less than a month old.

Very good comment. Also to consider before nerfing the poor Gauls is the warbands are the only strong unit the Gauls have so if they are nerfed then the Gauls maybe too weak.
In my MP game with me as Gauls, my superior warbands are now joining the regular warbands in running off the battlefield in a mad herd cause they were hit on 3 sides by the numerous enemy so they don't seem overpowered especially cause I only had 6 infantry units bravely but futilely going into battle against an enemy army 2 to 3 times bigger plus elephants. (And my opponent is an expert at the game versus my weak skills which kind of makes it harder on the Gauls too)

[JorgenCAB]

Well, elephants are other thing to see... i dont know why they are vulnerable VS javelin units but not VS heavy impact foot... but is true that elephants are the combat unit that is easier to catch with flank attacks in the moment their best use is in attack.

First for me is reduce superior warband size to 480 to test (with price reduction of course) and if it works next thing test a more global rework of heavy foot units size... is not only the excesive size of warbands... is the to small size of triarii that made them very inefective (apart the armament) and that pike armies maybe need more pike units but with a reduced size...

In old FOG units size had no impact in game simple bigger units lose more soldiers in combat but dont have advantage, in FOG II size is very important because add more resistance to the unit... more vulnerable to lights??? yes, but in the moment evasion system is not working very well... you risk a lot using javelin units VS heavy foot and archers-slingers depend a lot of army.

I suppose the reason why elephants are not weak against the javelins of impact foot is that it is too late. Most account of javelin being effective against elephants relate to harassment fire of javelins over time, this make elephants panic. Once they committed to the charge then enemy fire would be too late and most elephants probably also had more armour or at least some protection in the front so harder to injure that way.

[JorgenCAB]

Superior Warbands are among the most expensive units in the game. I wonder if they are overcosted if anything given their propensity to chase and are unmaneurvable. I am also unsure whether there is enough real data to show whether much of anything is or is not unbalanced. The game is less than a month old.

Yes... I don't necessarily think they are too cheap points wise. I think it is more their battlefield performance that might be just a tad bit too effective at punching holes in the line of anything not Roman or Phalanx. I usually look at Hoplites here.

[76mm]

Also to consider before nerfing the poor Gauls is the warbands are the only strong unit the Gauls have so if they are nerfed then the Gauls maybe too weak.
In my MP game with me as Gauls, my superior warbands...were hit on 3 sides by the numerous enemy so they don't seem overpowered

With all due respect, most units won't do well if hit on three sides and outnumbered 2-3 to one. I think that if you look at how warbands do 1-on-1 vs other heavy infantry, they are too resilient, I guess because of unit size.

[Scutarii]

Phalanx can deal with heavy warband heavy assault but is not very common see heavy warbands assaults failing VS other heavy foot and if you start with a cohesion test in impact the melee could be the door to fragmenation or even break.

I dont really like the excesive size of heavy warbands and pike units, the number of soldiers have to much impact in results and offer an extra bonus to this units... they are expensive but the size made them a very valuable assault unit... and defensive unit because you can have 3 VS 1 and they manage to survive more than any other heavy foot unit in game (even superior romans).

Now warbands have a clear advantage VS non pike heavy foot, need a balance but at same time pike need something to... think this is the base game and we are going to see very special armies in future... medieval armies have WTF armies like Swiss that could be a big lol... and wait see the longbow units... if they go first for inmortal fire could be interesting see how they are going to deal with hoplite armies VS the asian medium foot armies... with mounted bows in heavy cavalry units.