Re: Changes to "barbarian mercenaries" vis a vis Romans

[GPAKOS]

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

[lionheartrjc]

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

[Glactophagos]

Let's try and keep it civil, please?

[daveparish]

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)

[tarnowski1]

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 

[Jilu]

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 

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.

[lionheartrjc]

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

[GPAKOS]

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

[tarnowski1]

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 

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

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[GPAKOS]

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

[tarnowski1]

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?

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[GPAKOS]

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