Principate Roman vs. Early German (again)

Forum for anyone to post reports of their battles and pictures, otherwise known as After Action Reports.

Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

expendablecinc
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

Post by expendablecinc »

rbodleyscott wrote:No troops are going to be points-cost-effective against their worst match-up. The points system is primarily intended for tournament games not historical refights. For tournament purposes the overall balance against a variety of opponents is what matters - though probably weighted somewhat towards "in-theme" opponents.

If playing a historical matchup between Romans and Early Germans, in which you wish to give the Germans an (unhistorically) equal chance of winning, it may be necessary to allow them a few extra points. (Of course, the trick will be judging how many to give them so as not to tip the balance the other way).
Exactly

We played a sixe player battle between mid republican romans and parthians on the steppe.

To compensate the parthians had 1200ap while the romans got 1350. (no allies on either side and doubling the min/max for compulsories).

PS the parthisa conceded after a few hours due to a roman flank march. Having it again as a historical scenario I'd not permit flank marches as legions are hardly likely to be able to sneak up on the steppe.
vingthorr
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ, USA
Contact:

Post by vingthorr »

If Germans had a 50-50 chance of beating the Romans every time with equal points values, then something would be wrong with the game.

Equal points is not the same thing as an equal matchup.

It's like rock-paper-scissors

Romans are just simply going to trounce Germans. But look at one of the other posts in this forum, where a player insists Romans are unwinnable, uneffective, overpriced, etc. But of course, he hasn't been gaming his legions against hordes of Germans.

If someone really wants a even matchup, they should play against an army exactly the same as their own, but how boring would that be?

The beauty is in the variety. If someone wants an even chance of being able to defeat every one of their possible opponents, their best bet would be a combined arms army.
Niceas
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:03 pm
Location: Directly above the center of the Earth

Post by Niceas »

vingthorr wrote:If Germans had a 50-50 chance of beating the Romans every time with equal points values, then something would be wrong with the game.

Equal points is not the same thing as an equal matchup.

It's like rock-paper-scissors

Romans are just simply going to trounce Germans. But look at one of the other posts in this forum, where a player insists Romans are unwinnable, uneffective, overpriced, etc. But of course, he hasn't been gaming his legions against hordes of Germans.

If someone really wants a even matchup, they should play against an army exactly the same as their own, but how boring would that be?

The beauty is in the variety. If someone wants an even chance of being able to defeat every one of their possible opponents, their best bet would be a combined arms army.
That is true enough. My Arminius-wannabe opponent is now painting some Sarmatians and is even thinking about adding some Batavians and getting rid of the cloud of light infantry that never seems to do him any good.

Curiously enough from the Army list, it appears that you could buy the max of German cavalry (12 stands), Buy the Batavian deserters (another 4 stands) AND get the Sarmatians too. That's a lot of cavalry.
Robert Sulentic

The only constant in the Universe is change. The wise adapt.
stecal
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:21 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Contact:

Post by stecal »

vingthorr wrote:If Germans had a 50-50 chance of beating the Romans every time with equal points values, then something would be wrong with the game.
I have a big problem with this statement. Given equal points (if the points system is accurate) it SHOULD be a 50-50 chance to win depending on the player skill, terrain and a few die rolls. Thw whole point of the points system is to determine that the Romans get 50 models to the Germans 150 models, or whatever to make a fair game. Individual troops may not be a fair matchup vs each other, but the entire army as a whole should be a fair matchup vs another.
Clear the battlefield and let me see
All the profit from our victory.
vingthorr
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ, USA
Contact:

Post by vingthorr »

stecal wrote:
vingthorr wrote:If Germans had a 50-50 chance of beating the Romans every time with equal points values, then something would be wrong with the game.
I have a big problem with this statement. Given equal points (if the points system is accurate) it SHOULD be a 50-50 chance to win depending on the player skill, terrain and a few die rolls. Thw whole point of the points system is to determine that the Romans get 50 models to the Germans 150 models, or whatever to make a fair game. Individual troops may not be a fair matchup vs each other, but the entire army as a whole should be a fair matchup vs another.

but that's just not going to happen if the armies are predominately one troop type. the more combined-armsy the german player can make his army, the better chance he'll have. like he mentioned above, adding more cavalry, should help him out alot. certain matchups are just going to be a rout. in the open, the germans are going to get chewed up by the legionaries every time. that's what makes it a historical wargame, instead of just a game. it has historical-ish results.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8812
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

Given equal points (if the points system is accurate) it SHOULD be a 50-50 chance to win depending on the player skill
But Superior Armd Roman Sk Sw are only as good as Unprotected Superior IF swordsmen against HA Knights. But the Romans cost twice as much. So for a points system to work for all troops types this cannot be true.
jcmedhurst
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:20 pm

Post by jcmedhurst »

Also, it is the veteran legions that chew up Germans and spit them out. Average legions have a much stickier time of it. And the veteran legions had to start average at some point. I also wonder whether an IC might be useful for the Germans, historically their best performances were in very congested terrain, so a good chance of winning the initiative and covering the board with forests might be a useful starting point. And scouting is not usually a Roman strong point.
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 »

Maybe we should invent a new category of commander (GC for gullible commanders, or UC for uninspired commanders) who cost -5 points but subtract 1 from the initiative roll, have no effect upon combat and can only bolster/rally broken units (as a TC) and it should be compulsory for Principate Romans against Early German lists (to represent Varro).
stefoid
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:58 am

Post by stefoid »

what was the germans response to having their arses handed to them by the romans? guerilla warfare and setting up defensively, wasnt it?

maybe you could try that?

what is the opinion of fighting Romans in the woods? sure, both sides will be severely disrupted (asusming barbarians are HF), but reducing the number of dice will reduce the averaging effect and make it more random, and may make it harder for the romans to get 2 more hits? also reduces roman manouverability.

maybe you could plan to deploy mostly in the woods in a 'come and get me' style, and buy all the light and medium foot you can.
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark »

timmy1 wrote:Maybe we should invent a new category of commander (GC for gullible commanders, or UC for uninspired commanders) who cost -5 points but subtract 1 from the initiative roll, have no effect upon combat and can only bolster/rally broken units (as a TC) and it should be compulsory for Principate Romans against Early German lists (to represent Varro).
That is a great option. I don't know if the -5 is worth it but at -15 I would definiately buy one. NEver going to happen of course. But a fun notion for scenario.
SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet »

-1 Initiative? Make it -2 Initiative and it would be worth it to lower the PBI for some armies.

Mike
fredrik
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by fredrik »

Have we forgotten the Cimbri and Teutones? Trashed a number of roman armies before Marius came along unless I'm not entirely mistaken. Teutoburgerwald was neither the first or the only roman defeat at the hands of the early germans.

I'm building an EG army at the moment that's going to be entirely MF with maxed out skirmishers and mounted, I think that's the way to go especially versus the romans. It is a waste of troops to fight the superior/armoured/SSWD legionaries frontally so my plan is to use the manouverability of the MF together with an overwhelming advantage in cavalry (including the sarmatian lancers, thank you very much!) to chase down the roman support troops and/or flank the legions. The idea is to make the legions choose between engaging the central "bait" MF/IF units or protect the support troops and camp, it all falls apart if the opponent fields an army with just the maximum 40+ bases of legionaries but I'm betting that such an army will be small enough to make the flank attack easier.

Furthermore, by with the warbands being MF I can take full advantage of the terrain, picking Forest if I have the initiative or putting down the maximum number of rough/difficult possible if the initiative goes to the romans.

I think the game is winnable for the Early Germans, but as has been commented on before the EG really must be the worst barbarian list out there, if comparing with AB/Gauls who get all sorts of goodies. While you can argue that the germans did not in fact have elite or superior troops, the army list - like the points system - is primarily used for tournament games and hence should be designed for competitiveness in a tournament setting.
ars_belli
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: USA

Post by ars_belli »

I have been trying out a few historical additions the EG list, and I have been pleased with the results thus far. The proposed changes are posted in a dedicated thread in Player Designed Lists forum:
viewtopic.php?t=9644

Any additional feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Scott
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

timmy1 wrote:Maybe we should invent a new category of commander (GC for gullible commanders, or UC for uninspired commanders) who cost -5 points but subtract 1 from the initiative roll, have no effect upon combat and can only bolster/rally broken units (as a TC) and it should be compulsory for Principate Romans against Early German lists (to represent Varro).

Varus not Varro, and he wasn't the only one to fight the Germans so cannot be compulsory.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
lawrenceg
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Former British Empire

Post by lawrenceg »

fredrik wrote:Have we forgotten the Cimbri and Teutones? Trashed a number of roman armies before Marius came along unless I'm not entirely mistaken. Teutoburgerwald was neither the first or the only roman defeat at the hands of the early germans.
The Cimbri and Teutones did it by having huge superiority of numbers.

Marius only beat them individually after they split up and even then he adopted strong defensive positions and on occasion declined battle altogether until reinforcements joined him. So play 1600 points versus 800 to simulate the German victories.
Lawrence Greaves
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 »

Nik

You are correct about the commander.

Frederik

'as has been commented on before the EG really must be the worst barbarian list out there'. Not in my opinion. the EG are an A+ compared to the Illyrians.
SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet »

A+ compared with Illyrians?!

They have MF Offensive Spearmen, some useful options and support troops, and helpful allies if desired. I' d favor their chances against Early Germans or in preference to Early Germans against Romans (or Medieval French for that matter).

Cheap troops so use rear supports, keep steady on Impact and thereafter it's about even as Romans have Armoured in their favor and the cheaper Illyrians have Spears. neutralizing Swordsman or Skilled Swordsmen.

Mike
jlopez
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 589
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlopez »

lawrenceg wrote:
fredrik wrote:Have we forgotten the Cimbri and Teutones? Trashed a number of roman armies before Marius came along unless I'm not entirely mistaken. Teutoburgerwald was neither the first or the only roman defeat at the hands of the early germans.
The Cimbri and Teutones did it by having huge superiority of numbers.

Marius only beat them individually after they split up and even then he adopted strong defensive positions and on occasion declined battle altogether until reinforcements joined him. So play 1600 points versus 800 to simulate the German victories.
The Cimbri and Teutones fought against the legions from the MRR list and given most of them were freshly raised or without experience they would largely be average or even poor. Try it out and feel the pain.

The point of this thread is how your average tribesmen army is toast against a veteran legionnary army. And it's not just tribesmen. I once faced 32 veteran legionnaries (Principate) with 32 average ones (MRR) and it boiled down to me sitting the legions on a hill whilst manoeuvering like a maniac on the flanks to get a slight advantage from my extra units.

While I feel the result is historical, if someone suggested we play a friendly historical match-up I'd either ask the Roman player to limit veterans to one or two BGs or I wouldn't bother. Otherwise, what is the point?

Julian
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory AAR's”