Okay, I think the question has been raised so I am throwing it out there. I am pretty neutral over this.
This is not referring to Average legionaries. I cannot see any case for removing melee expert from them. For information, I don't see a case for extending melee expert to more Barbarian armies.
A few rules:
1. First, this is only to discuss the merits or disadvantages of such a change. No decision has been taken or will be taken lightly.
2. Please keep things polite.
3. Give your view, don't claim to be giving views on behalf of others.
4. Consider the range of Roman opponents - not only DC barbarians, but pikes, cataphracts etc.
5. If there are any historical sources which might be relevant, great.
6. Please stay on topic.
Richard
I'll chip in straight away to say that I think if Superior legionaries cannot have Melee Expert the interaction with catafracts goes wrong - Parthian and Sasanid being the historical cases here of course.
As for Exceptionals there is only Caesar's Xth that are both Exceptional and have ME (IIRC) - whilst it may be a bit of an exaggeration they do appear to have a reputation well above even other good legions and, as Jacques often says (well, a paraphrase anyway), we should have a bit of "fantasy"/leniency in lists for interest.
nope I think the only restriction should be if any Legionaries have ME they all must have it, same for Auxilia. We are either accepting that Roman training makes then inherently better at close combat than their contemporaries or it doesnt. The Superior or average classification is the flex in the Roman effectiveness.
and paying through the nose for Exceptional with ME is the price if you want all ME.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 14, 2023, 05:14:16 PM
I'll chip in straight away to say that I think if Superior legionaries cannot have Melee Expert the interaction with catafracts goes wrong - Parthian and Sasanid being the historical cases here of course.
You might be able to rebalance that by giving them more "special rule" 2HCC bases.
By the way, I note that Imperial Roman SSp legionaries lose the ME when they upgrade to superior.
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 14, 2023, 05:21:32 PM
nope I think the only restriction should be if any Legionaries have ME they all must have it, same for Auxilia. We are either accepting that Roman training makes then inherently better at close combat than their contemporaries or it doesnt. The Superior or average classification is the flex in the Roman effectiveness.
and paying through the nose for Exceptional with ME is the price if you want all ME.
The thing is, a superior non-ME legionary is still inherently better than the average barbarian with no melee factor. But now he is better in charge than a DC barbarian, or an average legionary.
Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 05:32:36 PM
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 14, 2023, 05:21:32 PM
nope I think the only restriction should be if any Legionaries have ME they all must have it, same for Auxilia. We are either accepting that Roman training makes then inherently better at close combat than their contemporaries or it doesnt. The Superior or average classification is the flex in the Roman effectiveness.
and paying through the nose for Exceptional with ME is the price if you want all ME.
The thing is, a superior non-ME legionary is still inherently better than the average barbarian with no melee factor. But now he is better in charge than a DC barbarian, or an average legionary.
how or rather why does a superior non-ME legionary lose his effectiveness in melee combat against an Average ME legionary?
Though if the argument for change is that Superior veterans bring an elan to the early phase/impact of a combat but then fall back on routine/muscle memory for the slog then I can see why losing ME from superior would make sense.
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 14, 2023, 05:21:32 PM
nope I think the only restriction should be if any Legionaries have ME they all must have it, same for Auxilia. We are either accepting that Roman training makes then inherently better at close combat than their contemporaries or it doesnt.
Allowing variations can reflect variations between units - an Average legion that is a bit better than another but not fully up to Superior Vet level for example.
That sort of flexibility is essentially built in to the MeG list philosophy. As I said elsewhere in a related topic, if you did it for the Romans why not for many other similar examples?
Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 14, 2023, 05:14:16 PM
I'll chip in straight away to say that I think if Superior legionaries cannot have Melee Expert the interaction with catafracts goes wrong - Parthian and Sasanid being the historical cases here of course.
You might be able to rebalance that by giving them more "special rule" 2HCC bases.
I think we have given it to all for which there is evidence - which is basically under Aurelian, Constantine and Constantius II, but it is allowed for the period in which they were on the basis it was a known thing.
Quote
By the way, I note that Imperial Roman SSp legionaries lose the ME when they upgrade to superior.
That was done to still give barbarian infantry a chance when facing Shieldwall legionaries - it is a bit of a kludge as it then buggers up the catafract interaction; on reflection the SSp, Shield Cover, Shieldwall option may not have been the best option to include. Sort of works in the west but not the east but there probably isn't any real justification for a difference.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 14, 2023, 05:45:57 PM
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 14, 2023, 05:21:32 PM
nope I think the only restriction should be if any Legionaries have ME they all must have it, same for Auxilia. We are either accepting that Roman training makes then inherently better at close combat than their contemporaries or it doesnt.
Allowing variations can reflect variations between units - an Average legion that is a bit better than another but not fully up to Superior Vet level for example.
That sort of flexibility is essentially built in to the MeG list philosophy. As I said elsewhere in a related topic, if you did it for the Romans why not for many other similar examples?
the very nature of this question is looking at removing said flexibility from the Superior and Exceptional Legions. So not sure thats a valid criticism of an alternative. The free choice of ME on Roman training techniques seems slightly at odds with 'More skilled in open hand to hand combat than typical for their grade.' I have the choice to put ME on my poor 'Hastati, principes and triarii may be downgraded to represent unenthusiastic allied, raw, slave or penal legions' which I suspect is throwing good points after bad but still doesnt seem out of place with the feel of a Legion training and representation.
Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 14, 2023, 05:41:32 PM
how or rather why does a superior non-ME legionary lose his effectiveness in melee combat against an Average ME legionary?
Though if the argument for change is that Superior veterans bring an elan to the early phase/impact of a combat but then fall back on routine/muscle memory for the slog then I can see why losing ME from superior would make sense.
Think of it not as a "superior legionary" but as a "veteran legionary" who is a bit better than an average one, modelled in the game as +1 in charge combat, evens in melee and a better CAB if it comes to it.
(As an aside: in Hohenstaufen Sicilian and I think in some other lists, "Best Knights" are superior with no melee expert, normal knights are superior with an optional ME, so they can be better than the best knights in melee. These kinds of anomaly are not unprecedented).
The only thing that I would change with romans is to reduce the number of available Exceptionals to 6 bases.
Otherwise in relation to the quality and ME arguments it all seems to work as is.
Generals are another matter......
Lance.
Personally i would restrict Exceptional ME to Ceasars Xth Legion. Its extremely unlikely that Praetorian troops based in Rome would have done much other than look pretty.
I think an army should only be allowed a single unit of Exceptional.
To me each Unit ie 4-6-8 Tugs represents a Legion.
Pretty sure you would have had Legions of varying quality and fighting experience in the various field armies.
Roman armies are small and expensive. Until the last UK competition, few people use them and i doubt they have ever won a competition.
Other than allowing only one Exceptional unit i would leave them alone. I doubt removing ME will do anything other than irritate a few players that have invested time and money.
If its not broken, don't fix it.
I agree with Robin - if it's not broken don't fix it. With the possible exception of the Praetorian Guard, which is likely over-rated for much of the Imperial period, I am not seeing implausible historical outcomes in games. Furthermore, competitions are not being dominated by successful Roman armies so I don't believe they are overpowered.
Quote from: SteveO on November 14, 2023, 10:16:22 PM
I agree with Robin - if it's not broken don't fix it. With the possible exception of the Praetorian Guard, which is likely over-rated for much of the Imperial period, I am not seeing implausible historical outcomes in games. Furthermore, competitions are not being dominated by successful Roman armies so I don't believe they are overpowered.
I'm guessing the idea was prompted by the assertion that it is pointless taking a Hellenistic or barbarian army to a Legion fight. If correct (if) then it is broken.
But it might simply be that in a game of rock/paper/scissors, Romans exist in a historical/geographical sweet spot where they are rock and everyone else is scissors.
However, if Nik is right that historically veteran legions stood up against cataphracts, and it is obvious that superior impact weapon melee expert has the advantage over average pike (Polybius' comments notwithstanding), what can you do against them?
I don't consider legionaries a problem in general. The multiplier for exceptional is, however, clearly too low. There are cases where it is cheaper to be exceptional than superior melee expert! There's a reason most players will always take every exceptional they can get.
Martin
Rather than removing ME I would prefer to see a restriction on the proportion of Sup/Exc legionaries allowed - eg no more than half the bases.
Certainly in the player pool I am in, the most common Roman armies normally have greater than 50% legionaries sup/exc. Certainly the ones I take do.
Split off a digression on cost of Exceptionals. A valid topic, but not really part of this topic per se.
[quote'll chip in straight away to say that I think if Superior legionaries cannot have Melee Expert the interaction with catafracts goes wrong][/quote]
Ok but what about interaction with all other type of UGS ?
Quote from: SteveO on November 14, 2023, 10:16:22 PM
I agree with Robin - if it's not broken don't fix it. With the possible exception of the Praetorian Guard, which is likely over-rated for much of the Imperial period, I am not seeing implausible historical outcomes in games. Furthermore, competitions are not being dominated by successful Roman armies so I don't believe they are overpowered.
Are they dominated by successful Greek hoplites armies or gallic ones ?
QuoteAs for Exceptionals there is only Caesar's Xth that are both Exceptional and have ME (IIRC) - whilst it may be a bit of an exaggeration they do appear to have a reputation well above even other good legions and, as Jacques often says (well, a paraphrase anyway), we should have a bit of "fantasy"/leniency in lists for interest.
R
I fully agree when do we add some women on horses to the Trojan list ?
Quote from: badhabum on November 15, 2023, 07:55:01 PM
QuoteI'll chip in straight away to say that I think if Superior legionaries cannot have Melee Expert the interaction with catafracts goes wrong]
Ok but what about interaction with all other type of UGS ?
Well looking at what might be "the big 2" for wargamers.
For "barbarian foot" broadly no change and a bit of mitigation for the barbarians which is no issue.
Pikes I am quite undecided about. The more I have delved into this the less certain I am that we have a clear picture, at some point we're going to have to make one of those leaps of faith and make a call as to how we see it. At present I am suspicious of confident assertions as to which way it should go.
The problem I am finding is that unlike some other interactions the "big fights" all seem to have factors significantly affecting the outcome so working a probable desired outcome of a straight up fight is problematical IMO.Kynoskephalae and Pydna, for example, were both sorts of "meeting engagements" and at Magnesia the battle was essentially over before the Romans turned on the phalanx which then formed square and retreated. I wonder if Thermopylae is the nearest of the battle against the Hellenistics to a straight up fight? There the Romans pushed the Argyraspides back, but did have numbers on their side IIRC.
Quote from: badhabum on November 15, 2023, 07:56:51 PM
Quote from: SteveO on November 14, 2023, 10:16:22 PM
I agree with Robin - if it's not broken don't fix it. With the possible exception of the Praetorian Guard, which is likely over-rated for much of the Imperial period, I am not seeing implausible historical outcomes in games. Furthermore, competitions are not being dominated by successful Roman armies so I don't believe they are overpowered.
Are they dominated by successful Greek hoplites armies or gallic ones ?
I would suggest they are dominated by good players, I don't think any particular army or type of army dominates. We are blessed with a nice variety in the UK; we're lucky in that.
QuoteI wonder if Thermopylae is the nearest of the battle against the Hellenistics to a straight up fight? There the Romans pushed the Argyraspides back, but did have numbers on their side IIRC.
Last time I read about the Thermopylae, the romans were beaten by the Argyraspides and could not break them. But the pikemen were "outflanked" and then lost as every phalanx that was outflanked by nellies, cavalry, infantry ..
Is my memory wrong ?
Not quite correct. The Romans were able to force the Agyraspides behind the rampart before the wall of sarissa proved impenetrable. Then the Romans manage to outflank the Seleucid position and the Seleucid army broke.
At no point could the Agyraspides break the Romans.
Richard
Quote from: badhabum on November 16, 2023, 04:10:18 PM
QuoteI wonder if Thermopylae is the nearest of the battle against the Hellenistics to a straight up fight? There the Romans pushed the Argyraspides back, but did have numbers on their side IIRC.
Last time I read about the Thermopylae, the romans were beaten by the Argyraspides and could not break them. But the pikemen were "outflanked" and then lost as every phalanx that was outflanked by nellies, cavalry, infantry ..
Is my memory wrong ?
A quick check in Head has a hard fight pushing the phalanx back. He suggests the Argyraspides
may have been in front of the wall if that is what is meant by "peltasts" - that is probably why they sprang to my mind.
BTW have you read this recent article on Pydna? https://www.academia.edu/76265133/Reconstructing_the_Battle_of_Pydna
Nice piece of work IMO.
Whilst we're here, and as I reread the section last night, Richard Taylor's "The Macedonian Phalanx: Equipment, organization and tactics from Philip and Alexander to the Roman conquest" has a good (IMO) chapter assessing the Hellenistic phalanx vs. the Roman legion.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 16, 2023, 05:47:01 PM
BTW have you read this recent article on Pydna? https://www.academia.edu/76265133/Reconstructing_the_Battle_of_Pydna
Nice piece of work IMO.
it is interesting read, sadly the phalanx was taken on the flanks so it does tell that perhaps it should not be able to turn bases to face ennemies in the flank. And that the Romans were better at deploying, so perhaps these Macedonian phalanxes were much more cumbersome, perhaps even to reflect this they should be in blocks of 12 bases.
There is merit I think in placing a restriction on the number of Melee Expert Legions in the Early Imperial Roman list that is similar to the allowance of Superior or Exceptional Tugs allowed in the Imperial Roman list but instead of cutting the number of Melee Expert Legions to 1/2 or fewer, allow 2/3 of the Legions in the EIR to be Melee Expert. I think the LRR being allowed all Melee Expert is perfectly reasonable, as indeed is having the MRR Legions as all optional Melee Expert to counter the fact they're close Legions.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 15, 2023, 08:33:36 PM
Quote from: badhabum on November 15, 2023, 07:56:51 PM
Quote from: SteveO on November 14, 2023, 10:16:22 PM
I agree with Robin - if it's not broken don't fix it. With the possible exception of the Praetorian Guard, which is likely over-rated for much of the Imperial period, I am not seeing implausible historical outcomes in games. Furthermore, competitions are not being dominated by successful Roman armies so I don't believe they are overpowered.
Are they dominated by successful Greek hoplites armies or gallic ones ?
I would suggest they are dominated by good players, I don't think any particular army or type of army dominates. We are blessed with a nice variety in the UK; we're lucky in that.
+1 ;)
We won't be making any changes in this regard.