Page 1 of 1

superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:41 am
by Aryaman
Hi
I think the second tournament results so far has shown a clear superiority of the Pyrrhic army over the Roman army, since everytime both players won each won of the battles, they all won with the Pyrrhic army.

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:21 pm
by JaM2013
which kinda suggests balance is a bit off towards Romans... Their main strength is set against them in FoG2.. they had number advantage, yet because their units are smaller, pikemen army has advantage.. i think unit cost should also take into account number of men in unit..

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:35 pm
by jomni
JaM2013 wrote:which kinda suggests balance is a bit off towards Romans... Their main strength is set against them in FoG2.. they had number advantage, yet because their units are smaller, pikemen army has advantage.. i think unit cost should also take into account number of men in unit..
It does actually.

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:40 pm
by TheGrayMouser
Well the Romans did lose battles to Pyrhuss, but caused him much grief and seems the way many of those MP game went.

Was it Plutarch that wrote that instead of teeth, he had one large "rim" of solid bone in which he had "teeth lines" drawn?

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:55 pm
by JaM2013
they lost first one(Heraclea), while the second one (Asculum) was celebrated as victory by both sides... third one (Maleventum/Beneventum) was clear victory for Romans..

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:56 pm
by JaM2013
jomni wrote:
JaM2013 wrote:which kinda suggests balance is a bit off towards Romans... Their main strength is set against them in FoG2.. they had number advantage, yet because their units are smaller, pikemen army has advantage.. i think unit cost should also take into account number of men in unit..
It does actually.
I know it is, but i think it should be improved a bit, based on more aspects...

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:22 pm
by TheGrayMouser
JaM2013 wrote:they lost first one(Heraclea), while the second one (Asculum) was celebrated as victory by both sides... third one (Maleventum/Beneventum) was clear victory for Romans..
So? Perhaps the roman players need to pay three games in a row against a Pyrrhic army so they can learn form their mistakes. I know I would like to play that tournament battle again ;)

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:00 pm
by JaM2013
my point is if its too one-sided, then there is some balance problem.. because in reality, these battles were close calls, with heavy losses on both sides.

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:23 pm
by JaM2013
From historical perspective - while Pyrrhus had a lot of veterans from Epirus and Macedonia, Roman army was not inexperienced, most of them fought against Samnites in quite intense conflict, therefore had plenty of combat experience. (only rookies would be young Hastati, but Principes were old enough to have combat experience from Third Samnite war which ended in 290BC)

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:04 pm
by rbodleyscott
JaM2013 wrote:my point is if its too one-sided, then there is some balance problem.. because in reality, these battles were close calls, with heavy losses on both sides.
That is certainly how both my battles played out.

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:03 pm
by MikeC_81
The early list Romans vs Pike armies definitely have the onus on the Romans executing a more complicated game plan and has a higher skill floor required.

Not necessarily unbalanced though. If would be interesting to see a pike vs early Roman matchup in round 3 of a tournament and see how the top ranked players do

Re: superiority of Pyrrhic army

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:23 pm
by MaxDamage
they have huge phalanxes and lance armored shock cavalry so what did you expect. As good as it gets back then.

also i would humbly note that romans are not required to auto win 24/7 365 on sight in all games