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.
