Imperial Roman infantry classification

[badhabum]

Quote from: accard on August 15, 2022, 04:06:49 PM
Re the Germans - yes, a change to shieldwall for the Romans would affect the chance of significant impact in the charge phase.
To be honest, in most games I have seen recently the shatter/shove doesn't play a huge part because the Roman player normally partially negates it, either by aligning/charging at angles/narrow deployment of separated TugS  so as to minimise the number of files which can benefit from it.

True. The Romans going 2 wide and having a 1 BW gap between units is a pretty effective way of neutralising Shatter anyway - been there, done that 

But it has a cost in command cards as coordination is a bit more difficult

[nikgaukroger]

Not overly onerous for Romans in my experience.

[Chevalier de la Terre]

The classification of the legions and auxilia in this list seem to be to be a bit unfocused.

If any part of the Imperial Roman list need changes, it is the cavalry options and classifications above all else: the infantry is pretty decent as-is, if.


Short Spear Infantry should have the Shieldwall characteristic as an option, so too in the Foederate and early Eastern Roman/Byzantine lists, etc. Impact Weapon foot with Shieldwall would be broken.

I really do hate the way you are forced into building Superior Legionaries/Palatina in 8s, the 0-16 option should be expanded to 0-18 Veteran/Palatina/Superior foot in the Imperial Roman and Foederate Roman list so you can do 3x 6-base TuGs. I know you won't, I'll say it anyway.

The Imperial Roman list should have the options for Superior/Veteran Equites increased, 0-12 bases. Examples include the cavalry under Aurelian vs. Cataphracts at Lake Antioch, Constantine's veteran cavalry, etc.

There should be a Cataphractarii/Charging Lancer/call-them-what-you-like option. Currently it makes little sense that this troop type is an option in the Early Imperial list, then disappears, then re-appears in the chaos of the Foederate Period. I'm well aware of the confusion/debate over the exact terms and equipment/fighting style, but it makes little sense to force all Cataphractarii/Clibanarii units to only be FA/Long Spear as currently.

CdlT

[LawrenceG]

The classification of the legions and auxilia in this list seem to be to be a bit unfocused.

I really do hate the way you are forced into building Superior Legionaries/Palatina in 8s, the 0-16 option should be expanded to 0-18 Veteran/Palatina/Superior foot in the Imperial Roman and Foederate Roman list so you can do 3x 6-base TuGs. I know you won't, I'll say it anyway.

I discovered there's a super-cheesy way to get around this problem of being forced to be in 8s. I don't know if anyone has spotted it before.



Take two 6s and a 4.

[nikgaukroger]

The classification of the legions and auxilia in this list seem to be to be a bit unfocused.

I really do hate the way you are forced into building Superior Legionaries/Palatina in 8s, the 0-16 option should be expanded to 0-18 Veteran/Palatina/Superior foot in the Imperial Roman and Foederate Roman list so you can do 3x 6-base TuGs. I know you won't, I'll say it anyway.

I discovered there's a super-cheesy way to get around this problem of being forced to be in 8s. I don't know if anyone has spotted it before.



Take two 6s and a 4.

What an astonishing idea   

It works quite well in practice as well 

FWIW a lot of lists have similar "irritating" maxima for some trop types. Whilst arbitrary (and I have included such in lists I have contributed) they do provide some differences and interesting list writing challenges IMO. YMMV.

[Chevalier de la Terre]

they do provide some differences and interesting list writing challenges IMO. YMMV.

They really don't: they take away from list-building variety and reduce each army to a more limited set of workable options.

CdlT

[nikgaukroger]

Short Spear Infantry should have the Shieldwall characteristic as an option, so too in the Foederate and early Eastern Roman/Byzantine lists, etc. Impact Weapon foot with Shieldwall would be broken.

Agree on both counts. Thought I'd mentioned the former, but maybe it was elsewhere.

I really do hate the way you are forced into building Superior Legionaries/Palatina in 8s, the 0-16 option should be expanded to 0-18 Veteran/Palatina/Superior foot in the Imperial Roman and Foederate Roman list so you can do 3x 6-base TuGs. I know you won't, I'll say it anyway.

In addition to Lawrence's point I'd add that there are 0-24 Superior auxilia types allowed as well as the 0-16 you refer to. Now they aren't quite as tough as the IW types, but having used some they are still pretty handy troops.

Note that this gives potentially more Superior types than the EIR - something I think is wrong and needs adjustment (although in practice  due to the restriction on number of Exceptional/Superior units you can field it does not normally happen so isn't a biggie in the real world).

Also, as I'd prefer to have the infantry as all one classification or the other (excluding the Dart types as previously mentioned) I would review the upgrade anyway and probably go with 0-24.

The Imperial Roman list should have the options for Superior/Veteran Equites increased, 0-12 bases. Examples include the cavalry under Aurelian vs. Cataphracts at Lake Antioch, Constantine's veteran cavalry, etc.

I am not convinced about this. Aurelian's cavalry against the Palmyrans skirmished until the catafracts were knackered and then fought them rather than fighting them head on - no need for Superior there. Zosimus 1.50 is the reference for this. The Romans tried it again in the following battle but got caught and suffered appropriately. Possibly a better argument for Constantine, however, I rather feel that a Superior unit with a Legendary general at their head would get the desired result when supported by Average ME cavalry - a trickier one for sure, but only Constantine really has an argument for more being allowed, for the rest of the time the Roman cavalry was really a bit indifferent.

There should be a Cataphractarii/Charging Lancer/call-them-what-you-like option. Currently it makes little sense that this troop type is an option in the Early Imperial list, then disappears, then re-appears in the chaos of the Foederate Period. I'm well aware of the confusion/debate over the exact terms and equipment/fighting style, but it makes little sense to force all Cataphractarii/Clibanarii units to only be FA/Long Spear as currently.

I think the ones in the Foederate list are a tad dubious and may well justify a bit of a review. They are based on the probably weak argument that units such as the Comites Alani are recruited from barbarians who bring their "native" fighting style along with them. In respect of the catafractarii/clibanarii I am personally comfortable that for this list they had replaced the older style and so there are none in the Imperial Roman list.

[nikgaukroger]

they do provide some differences and interesting list writing challenges IMO. YMMV.

They really don't: they take away from list-building variety and reduce each army to a more limited set of workable options.

CdlT

We'll just have to disagree on that.

[LawrenceG]

they do provide some differences and interesting list writing challenges IMO. YMMV.

They really don't: they take away from list-building variety and reduce each army to a more limited set of workable options.

CdlT

We'll just have to disagree on that.

You can't really disagree that 0-16 of something gives you reduced options compared to 0-18.

While we're about it, I was looking at the Scots Irish list and I reckon it would have an improved range of options if it was allowed 0-18 infantry drilled flexible superior protected impact weapon melee expert shield cover, too.

[nikgaukroger]

You can't really disagree that 0-16 of something gives you reduced options compared to 0-18.

I can't, but that isn't what I was suggesting disagreement about 

[lionheartrjc]

Think of 0-16 as 0-12 but allowing you an extra 4!

I am happy to reduce it to 0-12 if it stops the complaints....  (okay I am joking, but my point is that limits are set as limits).

Richard

[Chevalier de la Terre]

...if it stops the complaints...

The fact that you think this is about min/maxing and "complaining" in that regard is rather missing the point. This isn't about that when I raise a point: it is about trying to make the army list allow for more interesting and different combinations/configurations within both a historical context and game context. But they're just ideas...

CdlT

[ShrubMiK]

Just take two 6 base units? Wanting three might come across as being greedy :p

In my Devil's advocate spirit today, I will also argue that if we follow the logic that "wasting" available bases reduces your options, 0-18 then forces you to take three 6 base units rather than two 8s. Which is obviously a good argument for making it 0-24!

[Ambiorix]

In my Devil's advocate spirit today, I will also argue that if we follow the logic that "wasting" available bases reduces your options, 0-18 then forces you to take three 6 base units rather than two 8s. Which is obviously a good argument for making it 0-24!

indeed 

[badhabum]

Now coming back to the "common" legion soldier,from MRR, LRR and Imperial roman times IMO they should not be close or flexible but loose ( with shield cover ) as in battle they needed some space to fight, twice the space an hoplite needed. They are battle infantry fighting in a loose order but I fear MEG does not have it in the rules to represent such a thing