Hi Guys,
i think that after murdering the Bastarnae, Galatian, Cretan and Thracian units with these new changes, we either have to exclude Roman Armies from tournaments or there is no point playing Hellinistic armies without CL units,
Basically the flexible Roman legions terrain given, they can dominate the flanks (especially if no CLs or Cataphracts are present) and threaten the pikes, who can be pinned by hillmen or other expendable units
The situation gets worse especially for armies that lack superior pikes and CLs and Cretan archers with thracian dc units combo, was the only weapon to avoid massacre from Superior Legions
For lists like Pontic the ally with extra cavalry is the only way to be playble, for Bithynian there is no reason at all to play against Romans unless the white dice gods help you
i think that in the balance between players demanding more control on professional armies (frankly because many including me, do not play the movement cards correctly) and having a balance between the army lists, we had a wrong turn...please reconsider
Quote from: GPAKOS on November 14, 2023, 09:52:15 AM
Hi Guys,
i think that after murdering the Bastarnae, Galatian, Cretan and Thracian units with these new changes, we either have to exclude Roman Armies from tournaments or there is no point playing Hellinistic armies without CL units,
Basically the flexible Roman legions terrain given, they can dominate the flanks (especially if no CLs or Cataphracts are present) and threaten the pikes, who can be pinned by hillmen or other expendable units
The situation gets worse especially for armies that lack superior pikes and CLs and Cretan archers with thracian dc units combo, was the only weapon to avoid massacre from Superior Legions
For lists like Pontic the ally with extra cavalry is the only way to be playble, for Bithynian there is no reason at all to play against Romans unless the white dice gods help you
i think that in the balance between players demanding more control on professional armies (frankly because many including me, do not play the movement cards correctly) and having a balance between the army lists, we had a wrong turn...please reconsider
Have you actually looked at the list changes?
The Bastarnae. Well you can actually field the same army as 2023! All we have done is given the barbarians is another choice.
Galatian. Again, you can actually field the same army as 2023. All we have done is given the barbarians is another choice.
Cretans. What we have stopped is armies with a disproportionate amount of skilled bow. Any army that had only 1 SuG of Cretans can still have the same army as 2023.
Thracians. The change only affects mercenaries and there are pros and cons to the change. The advantage is that a "Regular" army doesn't get a unit of uncontrolled Thracians. The charge only javelin can also be useful against mounted shooters and skirmishers. The disadvantage is that they don't have the DC. Hardly a huge factor for any army that is affected by the change.
You only have to look at the competition at Warfare to see that there whilst the Romans are good, there are plenty of other effective armies out there.
May I suggest you need to look at the changes before you post comments like this again.
Richard
Let's try and keep it civil, please?
I just took Pontic to the Warfare comp and did find the Thracians very useful. But I have to say their DC impact was very disappointing at the comp - it was the Melee Expert bit that was useful ... and that won't change. I'm already thinking about how you could use Charge Only javelin - and as Richard suggests that could even work better in my Pontics.
That's the game side of things - but there is also the historical side. Thracians and Cretans were definitely around in the armies you mention but I don't think contemporary accounts really emphasise them being decisive or even significant. If changing them nerfs a whole army then there is a bigger problem with the historical simulation than just worrying about those tweaks (to be clear - I don't think there is a problem)
Quote from: GPAKOS on November 14, 2023, 09:52:15 AM
Hi Guys,
i think that after murdering the Bastarnae, Galatian, Cretan and Thracian units with these new changes, we either have to exclude Roman Armies from tournaments or there is no point playing Hellinistic armies without CL units,
Basically the flexible Roman legions terrain given, they can dominate the flanks (especially if no CLs or Cataphracts are present) and threaten the pikes, who can be pinned by hillmen or other expendable units
The situation gets worse especially for armies that lack superior pikes and CLs and Cretan archers with thracian dc units combo, was the only weapon to avoid massacre from Superior Legions
For lists like Pontic the ally with extra cavalry is the only way to be playble, for Bithynian there is no reason at all to play against Romans unless the white dice gods help you
i think that in the balance between players demanding more control on professional armies (frankly because many including me, do not play the movement cards correctly) and having a balance between the army lists, we had a wrong turn...please reconsider
I'm trying to process why superior Legions would avoid pike? Its a rare Pike block that comes out a victor against those slippery Maniples.
I have two armies that 'suffer' from the Cretan changes, Mercenary Greek and Seleucid but both now become rather more realistic in design than being based around 27 Skilled skirmishers. So I adjust and move on. The change was explained and its hard to fault the argument. Not to mention that when I stopped mucking about with that Gimmick choice they worked better ;D
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 14, 2023, 10:52:48 AM
Quote from: GPAKOS on November 14, 2023, 09:52:15 AM
Hi Guys,
i think that after murdering the Bastarnae, Galatian, Cretan and Thracian units with these new changes, we either have to exclude Roman Armies from tournaments or there is no point playing Hellinistic armies without CL units,
Basically the flexible Roman legions terrain given, they can dominate the flanks (especially if no CLs or Cataphracts are present) and threaten the pikes, who can be pinned by hillmen or other expendable units
The situation gets worse especially for armies that lack superior pikes and CLs and Cretan archers with thracian dc units combo, was the only weapon to avoid massacre from Superior Legions
For lists like Pontic the ally with extra cavalry is the only way to be playble, for Bithynian there is no reason at all to play against Romans unless the white dice gods help you
i think that in the balance between players demanding more control on professional armies (frankly because many including me, do not play the movement cards correctly) and having a balance between the army lists, we had a wrong turn...please reconsider
I'm trying to process why superior Legions would avoid pike? Its a rare Pike block that comes out a victor against those slippery Maniples.
I have two armies that 'suffer' from the Cretan changes, Mercenary Greek and Seleucid but both now become rather more realistic in design than being based around 27 Skilled skirmishers. So I adjust and move on. The change was explained and its hard to fault the argument. Not to mention that when I stopped mucking about with that Gimmick choice they worked better ;D
What Gpakos means is that the Romans are now way to strong and have no real opponents to match them certainly mid republic, late republic in narrow competitions.
An excellent impact weapon, melee expert, shieldcover is in these books almost unbeatable, superior version is almost the same.
Pikes and barbarians stand no chance what so ever.
It is the difference between the quality and abilities that is to great.
Barbarians stand no chance at all at impact and melee. the difference in numbers will not even have influence.
The Romans are simply allowed to many superiors, their weapons and abilities as average troops makes them better than all their foot oponents.
Quote from: Jilu on November 14, 2023, 11:21:33 AM
What Gpakos means is that the Romans are now way to strong and have no real opponents to match them certainly mid republic, late republic in narrow competitions.
That simply isn't the experience in the UK.
Even if it was true, then this has nothing to do with the army list changes as nothing substantial has changed. Skilled archers is never going to be an effective tactic against Superiors with Shield Cover. The mercenary Thracians change is very minimal.
Individually, bases of Romans are good because historically they were good.... That perhaps makes them easier to play against a player with less experience. Other armies take more time to learn how to use effectively.
Richard
Exactly my point
Firstly not all changes done are in the wrong direction
Secondly for the Bastarnae & Galatian units i refer to the units in other armies not the main lists
Thirdly i understand the too many skilled shooter effect, but in most cases as they are foot SuG they can rarely be played as an aggresive unit, especially without terrain
Last but not least for Armies like Later Macedonian, no skilled cretans, no CLs, no dc thracians, 0 chances to win a MRR or a LRR, unless you consider that the Macedonians would lose in 90% of the encounters (speaking tactically on unit levels match ups not in grand strategy) there is no way a Later Macedonian can win a roman army, they have no skilled shooting (to get the bonus s vs lots of superiors) no dc thracians to counter pedites or average legionaries, no CLs at this period, it only comes down to the Galatian ally to do the business, and that again in numbers to sustain the impact of superior and exceptional legions
My point is that it will be easy picking for Hellinistic armies vs Romans, now the romas have to worry only for either some to none superior pikes and/or lancers if any... they can win simply by moving forward with little to no (if no CLs or Cataphracts) worries on the flanks
Quote from: Jilu on November 14, 2023, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 14, 2023, 10:52:48 AM
Quote from: GPAKOS on November 14, 2023, 09:52:15 AM
Hi Guys,
i think that after murdering the Bastarnae, Galatian, Cretan and Thracian units with these new changes, we either have to exclude Roman Armies from tournaments or there is no point playing Hellinistic armies without CL units,
Basically the flexible Roman legions terrain given, they can dominate the flanks (especially if no CLs or Cataphracts are present) and threaten the pikes, who can be pinned by hillmen or other expendable units
The situation gets worse especially for armies that lack superior pikes and CLs and Cretan archers with thracian dc units combo, was the only weapon to avoid massacre from Superior Legions
For lists like Pontic the ally with extra cavalry is the only way to be playble, for Bithynian there is no reason at all to play against Romans unless the white dice gods help you
i think that in the balance between players demanding more control on professional armies (frankly because many including me, do not play the movement cards correctly) and having a balance between the army lists, we had a wrong turn...please reconsider
I'm trying to process why superior Legions would avoid pike? Its a rare Pike block that comes out a victor against those slippery Maniples.
I have two armies that 'suffer' from the Cretan changes, Mercenary Greek and Seleucid but both now become rather more realistic in design than being based around 27 Skilled skirmishers. So I adjust and move on. The change was explained and its hard to fault the argument. Not to mention that when I stopped mucking about with that Gimmick choice they worked better ;D
What Gpakos means is that the Romans are now way to strong and have no real opponents to match them certainly mid republic, late republic in narrow competitions.
An excellent impact weapon, melee expert, shieldcover is in these books almost unbeatable, superior version is almost the same.
Pikes and barbarians stand no chance what so ever.
It is the difference between the quality and abilities that is to great.
Barbarians stand no chance at all at impact and melee. the difference in numbers will not even have influence.
The Romans are simply allowed to many superiors, their weapons and abilities as average troops makes them better than all their foot oponents.
the 2024 list changes make no difference to your comments above , it was literally the same in 2023. Romans in a narrow historical theme will significantly outclass their opponents. Its not as if its against the historical results? the problem comes with what problem do you want fixing? That pikes and/or Barbarian armies should have a better factors to allow the chance of beating average and superior legions, or that Romans should be weaker factor wise? The First choice makes Pikes/Barbarians Overly good performers against non-Roman style foot and cavalry armies. Weaken Romans and you end up with DBM and WRG effects where no one uses them because they are rule weak and unable to cope with their historical opponents. MEG actually makes Roman armies the beasts they could be on the filed, which despite the pain of trying to beat them is a good thing for me. I do take the point though that they have become akin to some WRG lists where the synergies can make them really OTT.
Also its often the value add between the Romans and their ally options which cause the damage as often as not.
Perhaps some list changes should be considered?
No more than 1/2 of legions fielded can be Superior or exceptional?
and/or no more than three tugs of legionaries may be Superior or Exceptional?
If any legionaries are ME all must be?
Can a Roman Legion ever be reasonably regarded as a 'poor' tug? unless historically appropriate and list specific, so no downgrading to poor, so no boltshooter equipped poor legionary 4's behind the line. You want that then its average, with ME as well or some such
so perhaps championing list alterations for more restrictive Roman lists might be a better way as I think the rule system has it about right.
Regards
Matt
I'm quite intrigued by the view that a unit or two of Galatians, etc. in a Hellenistic army (currently) materially improves their chances against Romans. From a Roman users point of view I've always considered such units as targets - Thracians the least out of the ones mentioned, but because of the Melee Expert rather than the Devastating Chargers and they retain that in the changes.
One thought on narrow competitions, since Juli mentioned that, is that an organiser may wish to think about what proportion of Superior troops is justified depending on the time period covered. The lists are designed to cover a significant timescale on a whole and not all of the options within them may be wholly applicable all the way through (we don't get too granular to keep the lists useable). Organisers can impose whatever conditions they like for their comps after all.
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 14, 2023, 11:53:10 AM
so perhaps championing list alterations for more restrictive Roman lists might be a better way as I think the rule system has it about right.
Regards
Matt
It is one thing this consultation period is for.
Historical results came not only from difference in the quality of troops in equal conditions match up
There are many cases that poor decisions on tactical level (how & when to use units) and/or strategical ones were the ones that decided the outcome
We can write an essay on the mistakes done by Greeks, Carthaginians, Gauls and etc in and out of the battlefield that Roman General exploited and maybe it was the mistakes of the opponent that give us the idea of many superior legionaries and not the actual training or experience of the Romans, but that is a debate for another time
My main point is that Hellinistic armies of the later period, especially the ones lacking heavy cavarly, relied in the combination of arms of these changing units not as reviewed above individually
It is different to worry for 2-3 units that can roll a skull in shooting or with the help of a shatter ability in the close combat
What i am merely saying is that certain professional led armies will rely in quantity rather than quality and that is not their point i think... we should play lowland gallic in that manner not the Later Macedonian or Bithynian Army
That is my point of view, because frankly i have seen many systems rise and fall (in numbers of players) and it all started with some minor changes at first that seemed irrelevant at the time
Quote from: GPAKOS on November 14, 2023, 12:16:18 PM
Historical results came not only from difference in the quality of troops in equal conditions match up
There are many cases that poor decisions on tactical level (how & when to use units) and/or strategical ones were the ones that decided the outcome
We can write an essay on the mistakes done by Greeks, Carthaginians, Gauls and etc in and out of the battlefield that Roman General exploited and maybe it was the mistakes of the opponent that give us the idea of many superior legionaries and not the actual training or experience of the Romans, but that is a debate for another time
My main point is that Hellinistic armies of the later period, especially the ones lacking heavy cavarly, relied in the combination of arms of these changing units not as reviewed above individually
It is different to worry for 2-3 units that can roll a skull in shooting or with the help of a shatter ability in the close combat
What i am merely saying is that certain professional led armies will rely in quantity rather than quality and that is not their point i think... we should play lowland gallic in that manner not the Later Macedonian or Bithynian Army
That is my point of view, because frankly i have seen many systems rise and fall (in numbers of players) and it all started with some minor changes at first that seemed irrelevant at the time
to be clear you are saying that with the 2023 lists these armies do regularly beat Romans and these changes destroy those advantages?
Quote from: GPAKOS on November 14, 2023, 12:16:18 PM
It is different to worry for 2-3 units that can roll a skull in shooting or with the help of a shatter ability in the close combat
My take from what has been said is that you feel that various "late classical" period armies (especially the Hellenistics?) need significant numbers of Skilled shooters or Devastating Chargers because of the prevalence of Superior legionaries. Or have I missed your point?
If I may be a bit pedantic here.
The Skilled shooters cannot roll Skulls against those as they are on a White + or, indeed, a Black + if the Romans use Shield Cover. Obviously better than if not Skilled, but not a worrying about Skulls situation. An important thing about the Skilled Cretans is that the list writers view (inc. me) is that the numbers are just not justified historically under any criteria - would you agree or disagree with that? If correct, then looking for those high numbers of them is just a non-historical game balancing approach and I'd like to think we can do better than that.
For the DC types, as these would be Average they would be getting a Shatter only on an "S" result as they would be on White dice - nice bonus for neighbouring files of course, but just a 1 in 6 chance. If no S the 2 White dice of the 2024 suggested classification is better than the 1 White dice of past years. I suspect how one judges which is better is going to be a personal thing - but no doubt a statistician could tell us how the odds play out (my stats skills are lacking that level of skill I'm afraid). Ongoing melee is difficult for the DC types in either classification - with the ME Thracians being the best there.
Nik you know better than me that if positioned good the cretan archers can easily target the auxiliary units of the Roman army or roll a skull when charged in the plain by average legionaires (which means either stayed pinned on a white+ dice or risk a charge with potential green dice
As a tactic i was involved with superior legions, after i had cleared them from the softer targets
Now i do not have the tools to hit even the soft targets like average legionaires with shooting or with dc going on green vs green or to +2 from shatter
it is difficult now to win with some armies even the peripheral units, not the core veteran units
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 14, 2023, 11:53:10 AM
Can a Roman Legion ever be reasonably regarded as a 'poor' tug? unless historically appropriate and list specific, so no downgrading to poor, so no boltshooter equipped poor legionary 4's behind the line. You want that then its average, with ME as well or some such
so perhaps championing list alterations for more restrictive Roman lists might be a better way as I think the rule system has it about right.
i would agree about restrictions.
But yes Roman poor TUGs?
now what about the Raw legion raised after the catastorphic battles against Hanibal ? The Pompean legions in Greece?
i wonder what training they had perhaps not poor, but perhaps not drilled or flexible, no shield cover ?
No differnence is made between the consular legions (4 legions) and the levied ones, perhaps these consular legions could be superior, and the levied average?
The superiority of the Roman army was a combination of factors : of manpower, of wealth, of organisation, of politics of philosophy, of the sentiment of belonging to a nation and the will to win, all of this in a continuity in time and circumstances regardless of the rulers.
The kingdoms the Romans faced were different and less homogenous, except for Cartago that was beaten due to a lack of resources to maintain a prolonged war.
As for imperial Romans, half the armies were auxilia, in the first half on the first century where it is not even sure the auxilia fought in roman fashion.
Perhaps and equal number of legio and auxilia should be imposed ?
I remember reading that there was a Batavian Preatorian Equites unit, and that it was disbanded upon Nero's death. This unit seems lost ?
Honestly i do not know, the timespan allowed for the roman armies is perhaps to large, maybe segementing them as per the wars fought might be better.
It is normal that we complain, a lot of us have known the mistakes made with DBM and 7th edition.
Rendering armies useless is not optimal for the players especialy if you have to recruit new players, we have already lost players due to list changes.
That is why downgrading barbarians is controversial.
For Gauls and similar i would agree for javelinmen, charge only, short spear. but there is something missing in the feeling of these troops. Perhaps mellee expert is missing,
Perhaps something is missing in the weapon types allowed, spear protection was invented for Byzantines, perhaps for Gauls and Britons or Early germans, Warrior characteristic that would give a +1 vs foot if in 2 or 3 ranks deep?
Or melee expert for half a unit, or 1/3 of a unit?
What you do in producing the armylists it is a great and thank you.
Quote from: Jilu on November 14, 2023, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 14, 2023, 11:53:10 AM
Can a Roman Legion ever be reasonably regarded as a 'poor' tug? unless historically appropriate and list specific, so no downgrading to poor, so no boltshooter equipped poor legionary 4's behind the line. You want that then its average, with ME as well or some such
so perhaps championing list alterations for more restrictive Roman lists might be a better way as I think the rule system has it about right.
i would agree about restrictions.
But yes Roman poor TUGs?
now what about the Raw legion raised after the catastorphic battles against Hanibal ? The Pompean legions in Greece?
sorry that is what I meant by 'unless historically appropriate and list specific' so for those and similar Roman examples the list would include a line allowing their downgrade to poor. You can still have the poor legions but no blanket free choice on it.
Quote from: GPAKOS on November 14, 2023, 01:23:10 PM
Nik you know better than me that if positioned good the cretan archers can easily target the auxiliary units of the Roman army or roll a skull when charged in the plain by average legionaires (which means either stayed pinned on a white+ dice or risk a charge with potential green dice
As a tactic i was involved with superior legions, after i had cleared them from the softer targets
Now i do not have the tools to hit even the soft targets like average legionaires with shooting or with dc going on green vs green or to +2 from shatter
it is difficult now to win with some armies even the peripheral units, not the core veteran units
At the risk of getting away from the core points of this discussion I would suggest that for Cretans to get into position to shoot weaker parts of an enemy, the enemy needs to be cooperative in this to a degree. Having played against a 3 Cretan unit Seleukid earlier this year with an army that was almost entirely Average, it is not too tricky (IMO) to neutralise them if you think ahead a bit about how you can shove SUGs around, etc. - in that game the 3 units did practically no damage.
They are effective if the opponent plays "straight up and down" - i.e. is cooperative as I mentioned.
Likewise the DC troops can be rather neutered by manoeuvre to limit the bases they contact with.
Obviously in both cases the whole thing is dynamic so I am not saying that counter-measures will be successful all the time; player experience and skill obviously plays a big part.
Quote from: Jilu on November 14, 2023, 01:39:00 PM
As for imperial Romans, half the armies were auxilia, in the first half on the first century where it is not even sure the auxilia fought in roman fashion.
Perhaps and equal number of legio and auxilia should be imposed ?
Just to comment on the first point there - I think there is possibly a case for some Auxilia to be differently classified prior to the Flavians; a nice little research project maybe?
On the second point I have to point out that by design the MeG lists are very light touch on that sort of prescription. A good thing or a bad thing depending on your viewpoint. If that were to change I really don't think you could single out a specific small subset of the lists to impose a reduction of flexibility on - that would be unfair to say the least; we would have to try and be as even handed as possible which would have knock ons to (probably) most lists. Lot of work too :P
Quote
I remember reading that there was a Batavian Preatorian Equites unit, and that it was disbanded upon Nero's death. This unit seems lost ?
Covered by the Superior cavalry option in the EIR list I would think.
OK I'll sent a PM to RJC and NIK a bit later 8)
But what most UK players and conceptors do seem to forget is that while you have the opportunity to discuss game philosophy intra-muros, we, in France, Belgium and Greece we also discuss intra-muros and have our way of judging armies but this creates 2 community and two way of feeling things..
The general feeling is that romans are overpowered. They have too many SUP ( we do not even speak of their weaponry and so on it's the number of SUP ) yet again and again they were defeated .What did win the campaigns was their organisation, supply and so on.
Also the famous "balance" between pikes and legio is non-existent and false. Speaking of history, the romans never won a frontal action against pikes, NEVER . They were repulsed, had a pretty tough time even to survive but were saved by flank charges and so on ..so it would be up to the consul to engineer it but being SUP the roman will usually have the upper hand even at impact which is ahistorical. it's not your experience in UK well it's the experience in France, Belgium and Greece and we value our experience
So perhaps we should discuss it but not here on the forum and not in bad temper .
UK should listen to the continent that should listen to UK
Quote from: badhabum on November 14, 2023, 03:04:47 PM
So perhaps we should discuss it but not here on the forum and not in bad temper .
I think the wider the range of contributors the better; the forum isn't perfect but allows many inputs. I'm not keen on only including (often) self appointed gatekeepers.
The problem is that due to language problems, most of the Belgian, french and Greek players will not intervene on the forum but speak to their " leading" players or the people they perceive as leading players. So may I invite you to discuss the matter on the french forum in french ?
Did you not notice that suddenly you have more messages from Greek players that never intervened ? that does say a lot
On our WhatsApp, most Belgian players agree with the greeks
Quote from: badhabum on November 14, 2023, 04:26:56 PM
Did you not notice that suddenly you have more messages from Greek players that never intervened ?
It is a great development.
Quote from: badhabum on November 14, 2023, 04:26:56 PM
The problem is that due to language problems, most of the Belgian, french and Greek players will not intervene on the forum but speak to their " leading" players or the people they perceive as leading players.
And nothing will stop that continuing. However, IMO, if we hold discussion here in what is effectively public, then the players can see what we are all saying and contribute directly or through others to whom they pass on opinions. It is more likely to encourage participation, some indirectly maybe, and enhances openness - as opposed to hidden away in a DM thread.
Quote from: Jilu on November 14, 2023, 01:39:00 PM
But yes Roman poor TUGs?
now what about the Raw legion raised after the catastorphic battles against Hanibal ? The Pompean legions in Greece?
i wonder what training they had perhaps not poor, but perhaps not drilled or flexible, no shield cover ?
No differnence is made between the consular legions (4 legions) and the levied ones, perhaps these consular legions could be superior, and the levied average?
Consular legions were also levied, of course.
FWIW I think average legions should have ME as compulsory as that is intrinsic to being a legionary. If they are raw, then they would be poor but still ME.
They should still be drilled and flexible (as Bodley-Scott once said: "The only thing raw regulars can do well is drill") and you don't need any expertise to hide behind a huge shield.
A significant part of the argument about Roman ME is the training they had, quite essential if you were a peasant who had no fighting skill or experience whatsoever. I might suggest that being a junior member of a warlike warrior, at least aspiring, tribe would mean that you grew up with the desire to emulate your seniors and be more of a natural, `instinctive` fighter?
A generalisation of course.
To that end I think the option to give legionaries ME is the correct route and not to give it to most barbarian who fought in a more individual style./
Lance.
that is why i propose to give ME to barbarians in the first rank, it will give them the ability to fight the romans, yet over time they might crumble.
They will for sure hold their ground better.
That is not a totally unreasonable suggestion.
Another might be that rather than having separate units of superior barbarian nobles then these could form the front rank of mere average warband types? This would give them more of a threat at impact and also a bit more clout in the ongoing melee.
Lance.
i think we are wandering into "historically accurate" narrative again, and away from an "accessible and playable" Wargame.
FWIW the Romans where one of histories great adapters, adapting there armies continually over time as well as with geography and threat, there is an argument for the "historically focused" for a different composition at every Battle!, which would make the permutations ridiculous in the context of a wargame.
Cretans are not the only skilled shooters in the list and are a lot easy for legions to deal with than some of the skilled cavalry armies :(
if superior Legions where so over powering you would see them continually on top table and winning tournaments, which you don't, i am sure Paul could actually give you the stats. what they are actually good at is not loosing a boon for new players.
I think we have reached a point in list evolution where we are discussing conflicting opinions, so why don't we put any changes in as optional? that gives both organizers options in constructing theme's and players the choice to vote with there feet with which armies and changes are either popular or playable?
Don't be so sensible Roger 😂😂😂
I completely agree with Roger's opinion on that, such major changes should be optional
These changes will bring imbalance in the match ups of existing army lists in the same manner each new edition of warhammer 40k brings
Since our aim as a community is not to sell minis or books in the thousands like the fantasy codexes, we should leave room for options in the army list
Last but not least, i am still not convinced that the changes in DC units did not came from players that pationately want to play less impetuous units to save cards for later manoveuring, that could simply exclude this units from their army lists (in most of them if not all, none of the units that changed were not compulsory)
They could simply take only one unit of cretan archers, or illyrians & hillmen instead of thracians, instead they are pushing on the wrong direction to have universal changes that for me are creating more problems in the community than solving them
I don't think this change to barbarians came from any player seeing an advantage. My impression is that it came from a changing interpretation by academic historians - who felt that Roman accounts of "impetuous" barbarians were just Roman propaganda.
This is one difference between MeG and Warhammer. In Warhammer the rules writers can change the history as they want (I assume, I've never actually played it) while in MeG there is a past reality we are trying to reflect. RJC does keep up with academic historical accounts - and my impression is that this is what drives "tweaks" like these.
I think on the academic side the whole idea of impetuous barbarians who can sweep away enemies has been seen as a Graeco-Roman trope that doesn't bear close examination for a long time now. Wargamers on the other hand like to cling to it - hence as I said a bit back, we are actually wargaming the Graeco-Roman trope and not not history ;D But as the trope is so deep rooted it is being left in the lists for "barbarian" armies with the other view as an option; the mercenaries are, of course, a different matter and are the ones so vexing some on the European continent (other continents may vary ;) ).
The impetus for this seems to have been a discussion on the MeG Podcast about the Gauls in Hannibal's army - although I'm sure it had been mentioned before.
As I read all of the various comments and suggestions not just in this thread but others as well,
there are so many different little nuances and interpretations of the historical basis of lists even as we also accept and live with some lists that are more Hollywood than Oxford, that it reinforces my belief that after 5 years of fine tuning, the evolution of the lists has to evolve!
Lets move from the "nerfing syndrome of absolutes" to an "options to enjoy alternatives" this will allow a more healthy conversation and opportunity to enjoy without alienating players, new or old in the process.
Quote from: GPAKOS on November 15, 2023, 12:50:04 PM
I completely agree with Roger's opinion on that, such major changes should be optional
These changes will bring imbalance in the match ups of existing army lists in the same manner each new edition of warhammer 40k brings
The trouble with making changes optional is you can end up where everyone has so many options that all armies are the same.
The changes won't make much difference to balance in army matchups because the change in capability of units is balanced by the change in the points you pay for them. They might mean you need to adapt your tactics, which is annoying when your army was at a sweet spot, but war is hell.
The specific change under consideration in this thread (it seems to me) will not make much difference anyway. If the barbarians are close enough to have a forced charge as DC, the Romans will probably want to charge them anyway. A white shot followed by a white has the same expected number of wounds as 1 green. You miss out on shatters, but they only happen 1 time in 3 and often don't change the results of the neighbouring files.
Quote from: Roger on November 15, 2023, 02:23:47 PM
As I read all of the various comments and suggestions not just in this thread but others as well,
there are so many different little nuances and interpretations of the historical basis of lists even as we also accept and live with some lists that are more Hollywood than Oxford, that it reinforces my belief that after 5 years of fine tuning, the evolution of the lists has to evolve!
Lets move from the "nerfing syndrome of absolutes" to an "options to enjoy alternatives" this will allow a more healthy conversation and opportunity to enjoy without alienating players, new or old in the process.
Generic Army List
Generals: Any
Camps: Any
TuGs: 0-25, Troop Type: Any Armour: Any Quality: Any Formation: Any Shooting Weapon and Skills: Any Melee Weapon: Any Characteristics: Any
SuGs: 0-25 Troop Type: Any Armour: Any Quality: Any Formation: Skirmisher Shooting Weapon and Skills: Any Melee Weapon: Any Characteristics: Any
Okay, problem solved!
My point is that the whole purpose of army lists is to impose constraints. (It sure isn't to win a popularity contest!). MeG army lists actually provide a lot of options, you can downgrade quality and shooting skill. How many options for each troop type should be allowed? Where I feel it is appropriate I have allowed options. I don't feel it is appropriate for these mercenaries and I have yet to be sent any argument that actually makes me feel I should change my mind.
Richard
That is exactly my point, "appropriateness" has become a matter of opinion, other wise 5 years ago it would already be in the list as a result of research?
I have no problem with somebodies opinion of appropriateness, but lets accept that it is an opinion.
if that opinion is going to change a list at least trial it as an alternative for a year as a an option to see how popular that configuration is rather than imposing it
We have 600 + lists that are for the purposes of wargaming pretty accurate, This constant striving for Historical accuracy is losing the point of what the list are for ! and more crucially unachievable, the level of accuracy you are looking for would eventually lead you to lists for every battle,
Surely good enough is good enough?
For the purist by all means add options, but a constant tinkering in the name of Historical accuracy is for academics and NATO not to play a game with mates
Quote from: Roger on November 15, 2023, 04:23:59 PM
Surely good enough is good enough?
The view is that in some place the lists are not yet good enough.
Information and interpretations are continually appearing and evolving within and without of academia.
To say "historical accuracy" is for academics is quite amusing for ancient/medieval history as the honest answer to a huge array of questions is "we don't really know" as any credible and honest historian will admit - hence the ever changing views ;D
Quote from: Roger on November 15, 2023, 04:23:59 PM
We have 600 + lists that are for the purposes of wargaming pretty accurate, This constant striving for Historical accuracy is losing the point of what the list are for ! and more crucially unachievable, the level of accuracy you are looking for would eventually lead you to lists for every battle,
Surely good enough is good enough?
For the purist by all means add options, but a constant tinkering in the name of Historical accuracy is for academics and NATO not to play a game with mates
imv, changes should avoid downgrading, best would be to level up armies that seem a bit to weak
Quote from: Jilu on November 15, 2023, 04:42:08 PM
imv, changes should avoid downgrading, best would be to level up armies that seem a bit to weak
What constitutes downgrading can clearly be subjective as demonstrated by this whole topic.
Likewise, I'd suggest whether an army is "weak" is going to be too.
I am sure you are right, we "don't really Know" but i wonder how many " don't really care" ?
Maybe it would be step in the right direction if appropriateness was polled instead of imposed?
Quote from: LawrenceG on November 15, 2023, 02:47:24 PM
[...] but war is hell. [...]
Certainly for those involved in the actual fighting, and this is a game made to be enjoyed, right ?
On another level, everyone seems to agree that good enough is good enough, but no agreement on whether good enough has been reached ... Which brings me to this : if not now, when will it be "good enough" ? What are the criteria for the endgame ? How is it intended to assess whether the objective has been reached ?
Cheers
Antoine
Quote from: Princeps on November 15, 2023, 04:54:30 PM
On another level, everyone seems to agree that good enough is good enough, but no agreement on whether good enough has been reached ... Which brings me to this : if not now, when will it be "good enough" ? What are the criteria for the endgame ? How is it intended to assess whether the objective has been reached ?
Given the ever changing nature of what we have to draw on, plus the number of lists that have never been reassessed and are based on often very old assumptions, I'd plump for never.
The only constant is change ;) ;D
Heraclitus also believed opposite things are identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time.
So list are indeed good whilst at the same time being inaccurate
;D ;D ;D