Romano-British and Soissons (was Latest FOG2DL army stats )

[stockwellpete]

Complete army ratings (Seasons 1-7 combined)

Key to table
This is very straightforward. The numbers after the army name represent wins - draws (or ties) - losses. The table takes no account of the skill levels of the players using the army, it just gives the playing record of each of the armies that have been used in the competition. Any allies used (from Season 5 onwards) are disregarded - this table just uses the main component of the army. Obviously the higher the numbers involved with a particular army then the more meaningful the figures become as the disparity in skill levels between the various users is evened out.

Achaemenid Persian (550-546BC) 14-1-26
Achaemenid Persian (545-481BC) 41-3-37
Achaemenid Persian (480-461BC) 35-8-53
Achaemenid Persian (460-420BC) 5-2-2
Achaemenid Persian (419-329BC) 19-7-16
Aetolian (550-461BC) 5-0-4
Alan (25BC-650AD) 4-4-1
Ancient British (60BC-80AD) 46-6-44
Andalusian (756-1049AD) 49-2-12
Anglo-Danish (1017-1041AD) 12-3-12
Anglo-Saxon (600-870AD) 11-3-4
Anglo-Saxon (871-949AD) 4-0-4
Antigonid (320-301BC) 61-13-55
Arab (1000-313BC) 26-5-14
Arab Bedouin (300-636AD) 12-4-12
Arab, City (300-633AD) 70-5-52
Arab Conquest (629-637AD) 8-1-9
Arab Conquest (638-684AD) 32-2-11
Arab, Umayyad (685-750AD) 6-3-9
Arab, Abbasid (794-814AD) 0-1-8
Arab, Abbasid (815-835AD) 15-3-9
Arab, Abbasid (836-873AD) 4-0-5
Arab, Abbasid (874-946AD) 8-0-1
Arab, North Africa (789-999AD) 2-0-7
Arab, North Africa (1000-1160AD) 5-0-4
Arkanian (550-461BC) 6-0-3
Armenian, Tigranes (83-69BC) 19-3-29
Armenian (253-476AD) 2-2-5
Armenian (477-627AD) 3-1-8
Assyrian (681-609 BC) 25-7-49
Athenian (550-461BC) 9-0-0
Atropatene (144BC-226AD) 3-1-11
Avar (558-631AD) 2-0-11
Babylonian (626 -539BC) 13-1-13
Bithynian (297-74BC) 3-0-6
Boiotian League (550-461BC) 3-1-5
Bosporan (348-85BC) 4-2-27
Bosporan (84-11BC) 18-1-16
Bosporan (11BC-375AD) 10-0-8
Breton (411-579AD) 40-4-28
Breton (580-931AD) 2-1-6
Byzantine (493-550AD) 27-3-31
Byzantine (551-578AD) 38-3-50
Byzantine (740-903AD) 1-2-6
Byzantine (963-987AD) 17-3-25
Byzantine (988-1041AD) 28-4-40
Carthaginian (550-411BC) 26-6-31
Carthaginian (410-341BC) 7-0-3
Carthaginian (340-281BC) 0-0-9
Carthaginian (280-263BC) 3-0-0
Carthaginian (262-236BC) 10-2-12
Carthaginian (235-146BC) 24-4-8
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy (218-217BC) 20-2-26
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy (216-203BC) 58-4-37
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa (202BC) 73-5-48
Chinese, Di (1046-701BC) 0-0-2
Chinese, Donghu (1046-209BC) 1-0-1
Chinese, Qiang (1046-701BC) 1-0-1
Chinese, Zhou (1046-701BC) 2-1-9
Chinese, Qiang (700-201BC) 0-0-2
Chinese, Zhou and Warring States (700-351BC) 2-0-2
Chinese, Zhou and Warring States (350-222BC) 7-0-3
Chinese, Qin (221-207BC) 4-0-2
Chinese, Wuhuan (208-201BC) 1-0-1
Chinese, Han (206-100BC) 15-1-18
Chinese, Xianbei (200BC-303AD) 0-0-2
Chinese, Han (99BC-23AD) 5-0-3
Chinese, Han (24-219AD) 2-0-0
Chinese, 3 Kingdoms, Wei (220-265 AD) 4-0-6
Chinese, 3 Kingdoms Shu (221-263 AD) 6-0-4
Chinese, Sixteen Kingdoms (304-439 AD) 3-0-7
Chinese, Jin (317-420 AD) 8-0-4
Chinese, Southern Qi (480-502AD) 1-0-1
Chinese, Chen (557-589AD) 3-1-6
Chinese, Sui (582-617AD) 2-0-2
Corinthian (550-461BC) 8-1-9
Cypriot (680-550BC) 16-4-16
Cypriot (549-490BC) 13-2-12
Dacian (50BC-88AD) 19-3-32
Dacian (89-106AD) 3-0-6
Dacian, Carpi (107-380AD) 2-1-6
Dailami (928-1055 AD) 26-7-21
Di (200BC-300AD) 17-1-15
Egyptian (664-571 BC) 26-3-16
Egyptian (570-525BC) 24-0-12
Egyptian (405-343BC) 11-0-7
Elamite (815-539BC) 5-0-4
Etruscan (490-331BC) 2-1-5
Frankish (496-599AD) 18-5-41
Frankish (751-887AD) 22-3-19
French (888-1049AD) 5-1-12
Galatian (280-63BC) 46-6-33
Galatian (62-25BC) 15-1-30
Gallic (390-301BC) 13-5-12
Gallic (300-101BC) 32-2-47
Gallic (100-50BC) 12-0-15
Gepid (493-567AD) 24-4-16
Germanic Foot Tribes (105BC-259AD) 9-4-14
Germanic Foot Tribes (260-599AD) 5-2-12
Germanic Horse Tribes (260-492AD) 52-13-37
Ghaznavid (962-1187 AD) 13-2-21
Graeco-Bactrian (250-130BC) 17-2-50
Greek (680-461BC) 8-1-9
Greek (550-461BC) 11-0-5
Greek (460-281BC) 15-1-26
Greek (280-228BC) 2-0-1
Greek. Mercenary (460-281 BC) 3-0-6
Greek (227-146BC) 10-0-17
Hebrew (681-586BC) 13-1-22
Hepthalite (350-570AD) 29-14-34
Hunnic (376-476AD) 6-5-7
Hunnic Sabir (463-558AD) 8-2-12
Hunnic Western (376-454AD) 37-14-33
Hunnic Western (455-559AD) 5-1-3
Indian (500BC-319AD) 96-5-51
Indian (320-545AD) 23-1-21
Indian (546-599AD) 22-1-22
Indian, Hindu North (600-1049AD) 3-2-13
Indian, Rajput 650-1049AD 3-1-14
Indo-Greek (175BC-10AD) 81-0-51
Indo-Parthian (60BC-130AD) 11-3-14
Indo-Skythian (95BC-50AD) 28-2-23
Irish (900-1049AD) 6-0-2
Italian Hill Tribes (490-275BC) 6-0-12
Jewish (167-164BC) 6-1-11
Jewish (163-111BC) 31-2-30
Jewish (64BC-6AD) 24-3-18
Jewish Revolt (66-135AD) 70-5-32
Kappadokian (260BC-17AD) 11-0-16
Khazar (738-969AD) 3-0-6
Khorasanian (821-1003 AD) 27-4-14
Kingdom of Soissons (461-486AD) 84-10-42
Kushan (130BC-476AD) 30-5-51
Kyrenean Greek (630-461BC) 28-4-13
Lombard (493-567AD) 23-4-17
Lombard (568-569AD) 9-0-20
Lydian (687-551BC) 15-0-12
Lydian (550-546BC) 56-6-51
Lysimachid (320-281BC) 54-11-57
Macedonian (355-329BC) 7-1-13
Macedonian (328-321BC) 27-3-33
Macedonian (320-261BC) 52-7-68
Median (626-550BC) 30-4-20
Moorish (220-56BC) 12-1-5
Moorish (55 BC-6AD) 1-0-8
Moorish (350-698AD) 12-8-16
Moravian (833-907AD) 0-1-8
Mountain Indian (492-170BC) 10-0-2
Nabataean (260-106AD) 3-2-14
Norman (923-1040AD) 1-0-8
Northern Dynasties, Northern Zhu (557-581AD) 6-1-3
Ostrogoth (493-561AD) 25-6-31
Palmyran (258-273AD) 47-13-70
Parthian (250BC-225AD) 7-12-16
Pergamene (190-129BC) 28-3-32
Phoenician (681-539BC) 11-0-7
Phokian (550-461 BC) 2-1-6
Pictish (210-476AD) 13-4-28
Pictish (477-850AD) 21-1-5
Polish (966-1057AD) 35-6-22
Pontic (281-111BC) 6-0-12
Pontic (110-85BC) 36-5-46
Pontic (84-47BC) 9-1-18
Ptolemaic (320-167BC) 35-6-23
Ptolemaic (166-56BC) 43-1-28
Ptolemaic (55-30BC) 60-7-41
Pyrrhic (280-275BC) 48-8-38
Qiang (1046-701BC) 7-1-2
Qiang (200BC-300AD) 7-0-8
Rhoxolani (350BC-24AD) 29-17-26
Roman (490-341BC) 17-6-15
Roman (340-281BC) 5-0-10
Roman (280-220BC) 2-0-1
Roman (219-200BC) 30-1-34
Roman (199-106BC) 86-16-60
Roman (105-25BC) 70-6-86
Roman (24 BC-196 AD) 27-5-22
Roman (197-284AD) 26-3-56
Roman (313-378AD) 30-9-36
Roman (379-424AD) 7-3-8
Roman (425- 492AD) 29-1-18
Romano-British (407-599AD) 103-12-40
Rus (960-1053AD) 20-6-28
Saka (300BC-50AD) 7-3-23
Samnite (355-272BC) 71-3-40
Sarmatian (350BC-24AD) 10-4-4
Sassanid (224-349AD) 14-4-11
Sassanid (350-476AD) 31-8-26
Sassanid (477-590AD) 12-3-29
Sassanid (591-628AD) 39-4-29
Scots (851-1051AD) 6-0-3
Scots-Irish (50BC-476AD) 62-12-41
Scots-Irish (477-846AD) 14-4-18
Seleucid (320-303BC) 1-0-8
Seleucid (302-301BC) 9-0-10
Seleucid (300-206BC) 35-5-35
Seleucid (205-167BC) 9-1-17
Seleucid (166-125BC) 47-10-41
Seleucid (124-63BC) 34-5-40
Skythian (300BC-50AD) 7-4-7
Slave Revolt (73-71BC) 7-1-28
Slav (500-599AD) 4-0-4
Spanish (300-10BC) 24-4-24
Spanish, Sertorius (80-70BC) 50-4-37
Spanish (900-1049AD) 11-1-15
Spartan (680-551BC) 6-2-10
Spartan (550-461BC) 26-6-31
Spartan (460-281BC) 6-1-9
Syracusan (550-461BC) 6-3-18
Syracusan (412-281BC) 13-2-25
Syracusan (280-211 BC) 10-1-7
Thracian (680-461BC) 19-1-25
Thracian, Getae (680-330BC) 8-1-9
Thracian (350BC-46AD) 9-3-6
Thracian Hellenistic (350-281BC)13-3-14
Thracian, Triballi (350-46BC) 3-0-0
Thracian, Gallic (280-212 BC) 4-2-3
Urartian (681-585BC) 12-3-21
Viking (780-899AD) 16-2-16
Viking (900-1049AD) 15-0-21
Viking, Ireland (780-899AD) 15-1-20
Viking, Ireland (900-1049AD) 9-5-12
Visigoth (419-621AD) 23-2-30
Welsh (477-599AD) 7-2-19
Welsh (600-1049AD) 4-2-12

[stockwellpete]

I want to raise something from a discussion in "The Rally Point" (FOG2DL forum) from last July where we were discussing the continued success of horde armies like Kingdom of Soissons, Romano-British and Scots-Irish. The stats in the post above show that these armies continue to be very successful . . .

rbodleyscott - "The other possibility would be to target the troop types that make the horde armies so successful by increasing the size of their units to reduce their number of manoeuvre units, like we did with Raw Shieldwalls."

stockwellpete - I have just been looking at some of these horde armies with regard to this idea. With the Romano-British or the Scots-Irish, it would make a difference to their armies if their MF infantry was made larger and unmanoeuvrable. But the Kingdom of Soissons army have heavy foot Limitanei at 24 pts each (already unmanoeuvrable) as their "horde" troop type and they would not be affected by this change. I am not sure what the answer could be with this army. Maybe the Limitanei could be rated "below average" instead of "raw" and increased in size from 480 to 720 soldiers? At the moment they cost the same as skirmishers and perhaps they shouldn't? Making them "below average" would take them to 30 points each and then making them 50% larger would add some more points, I guess? I am not sure what the new points values would be for these larger units, but if they reduced the overall size of these armies by 2-3 units and slowed them down a bit too, then that might achieve a better balance.

Cunningcairn - I realise this was discussed last season but raw and below average heavy foot are continually getting combat results that are far above their status. There are too many Rorke's Drift performances from Limitanei, Sub-Roman foot etc. Maybe heavy foot with raw or below average status should not get the heavy foot bonus when testing?

rbodleyscott - That is an interesting idea.

Is it the right time to look at this now or should we wait for the full beta with the next DLC?

[rbodleyscott]

Cunningcairn - I realise this was discussed last season but raw and below average heavy foot are continually getting combat results that are far above their status. There are too many Rorke's Drift performances from Limitanei, Sub-Roman foot etc. Maybe heavy foot with raw or below average status should not get the heavy foot bonus when testing?

rbodleyscott - That is an interesting idea.[/i]

Is it the right time to look at this now or should we wait for the full beta with the next DLC?

This was already implemented in v1.5.21

o Heavy Infantry that are of “Below Average” (or “Somewhat Disheartened”) or worse quality (quality <= 90) no longer get the +1 CT modifier for Heavy Foot.

[stockwellpete]

OK thanks. I completely missed that. What else can we do then to prevent Syagrius being regarded as a military genius by FOG2 players?

[rbodleyscott]

OK thanks. I completely missed that. What else can we do then to prevent Syagrius being regarded as a military genius by FOG2 players?

With regard to making Limitanei units larger, it would be hard to justify as the Soissons ones represent numeri who were usually under-strength.

However, the Limitanei could be replaced by the Sub-Roman version who are below average and hence cost 30 points.

It will have to wait for a later update, because I have already finalised the build for v1.5.28.

[SnuggleBunnies]

For what it's worth, I have had an easier time fighting Soissons after the change to Raw HF cohesion tests.

[stockwellpete]

However, the Limitanei could be replaced by the Sub-Roman version who are below average and hence cost 30 points.

It will have to wait for a later update, because I have already finalised the build for v1.5.28.

OK, that sounds like a plan.

What about the Romano-British? There is something incongruous about them being one of the top armies given the atomised state of post-Roman Britain. The cheap Brythonic and sub-Roman foot allow them to build a maximum-sized "wall of crap" army of 38 units (at 1200 points). Should they really have so many Brythonic units available? Currently they can have 18. What if it was reduced to, say, 10 (3+ 0/7)? And what if you reduced the sub-Roman limit to, say, 12 (3+ 0/9)?

I suppose the historical problem is that we do not know exactly how these armies lined up - and maybe they were quite dissimilar in different parts of the country? But given the Welsh have huge numbers of Brythonic foot available in their list, might there be a case for balancing the Romano-British list a bit towards the sub-Roman foot element. Presumably, these sub-Roman chaps were more likely to be urban-based while the Brythonics were more rural. I know that it is more complex than a binary Romano-British/urban v Welsh/rural characterisation, but you get my drift?

With a 10 Brythonic unit maximum all picked, and a 12 sub-Roman unit maximum all picked, you would still be able to build a large army with 35 units in it (at 1200 points), but it would have to include some warband and cavalry units which would diminish the "horde" aspect a bit (possibly by 3 units down from 38 to 35).

[rbodleyscott]

However, the Limitanei could be replaced by the Sub-Roman version who are below average and hence cost 30 points.

It will have to wait for a later update, because I have already finalised the build for v1.5.28.

OK, that sounds like a plan.

What about the Romano-British? There is something incongruous about them being one of the top armies given the atomised state of post-Roman Britain. The cheap Brythonic and sub-Roman foot allow them to build a maximum-sized "wall of crap" army of 38 units (at 1200 points). Should they really have so many Brythonic units available? Currently they can have 18. What if it was reduced to, say, 10 (3+ 0/7)? And what if you reduced the sub-Roman limit to, say, 12 (3+ 0/9)?

I suppose the historical problem is that we do not know exactly how these armies lined up - and maybe they were quite dissimilar in different parts of the country? But given the Welsh have huge numbers of Brythonic foot available in their list, might there be a case for balancing the Romano-British list a bit towards the sub-Roman foot element. Presumably, these sub-Roman chaps were more likely to be urban-based while the Brythonics were more rural. I know that it is more complex than a binary Romano-British/urban v Welsh/rural characterisation, but you get my drift?

With a 10 Brythonic unit maximum all picked, and a 12 sub-Roman unit maximum all picked, you would still be able to build a large army with 35 units in it (at 1200 points), but it would have to include some warband and cavalry units which would diminish the "horde" aspect a bit (possibly by 3 units down from 38 to 35).

I will look at that, but army lists must have some choice.

[stockwellpete]

I will look at that, but army lists must have some choice.

Yes, OK. I have just looked at the possible variations that a player could pick if the Romano-British army was restricted to maximums of 12x sub-Roman foot and 10x Brythonic foot.

Choice 1 which would involve picking the best units gives you . . .
1x Armoured Noble cavalry
5x Noble cavalry
2x Light Javelin Horse
4x Warband
5x Brythonic foot
12x sub-Roman foot
3x Light Archers

So that is 32 units. If your battlefield had lots of rough terrain then you would probably pick towards 7x sub-Roman foot and 10x Brythonic foot.

Choice 2 would be to maximise the army for "horde effect" . . .
1x Armoured Noble cavalry
5x Noble cavalry
3x Light Javelin Horse
1x Warband
10x Brythonic foot
12x sub-Roman foot
3x Light Archers

That gives you 35 units, which is now the biggest army you could build. Compared to Choice 1 you have basically swapped 3 warband units for 5 Brythonic, plus a Light Javelin Horse.

Also there is another intermediary choice where you could go for primarily a foot army. So restricting the number of sub-Roman and Brythonic units does restrict the choices a bit until you factor in the allies that are available to the Romano-British, namely the Romans and Anglo-Saxons. This really opens up the player choices and maybe makes the changes I am suggesting a bit more feasible. Maybe we need to say to players that to get the best out of the Romano-British you will probably need to pick an ally. Historically, this has a lot going for it in terms of the Anglo-Saxon allies, whereas the Roman allies I assume to be a hypothetical addition.

One other question I have concerns the comparison between the Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons lists. The Soissons list is much more "Romanised", with units like the Auxilia Palatina, Legio Comitatensis, Limantei and Auxilia Sagittariorum. I know from researching the Battle of Soissons that this characterisation is correct. My question is - is there any evidence at all that a similar "Romanised" military tradition existed at all in Britain in the 5thC AD? We do have the Arthurian legend with mounted knights, after all. Is there any historical case for adding a few auxilia units, maybe, to the Romano-British list just to give it a little more variety? This would address your lack of choice concerns.

[rbodleyscott]

Is there any historical case for adding a few auxilia units, maybe, to the Romano-British list just to give it a little more variety?

Not really, except in the realms of highly speculative fiction.

[stockwellpete]

Seeing as we are all "locked in" at the moment it is as good a time as any to get into this subject of the Romano-British. First-up I found this website with some interesting stuff on them, the second link here provides an excellent survey of how the Romano-British have been treated by the various wargame rulesets over the last 30 or 40 years . . .

http://chuckgame.blogspot.com/2017/02/m ... -ages.html
https://chuckgame.blogspot.com/2017/03/ ... aming.html

My first set of queries relate to who are the various troop types in the FOG2 list in the real historical landscape. The army has the following categories . . .

Armoured noble lancers - presumably this is the hypothetical "Arthurian unit"? (personally I would keep this unit)
Noble cavalry - I don't know who these people are? Welsh allies, perhaps?
Light Javelin Horse - sub-Roman scouts and light cavalry
Warband - Anglo-Saxon mercenaries/settlers
Brythonic foot - who are these people exactly? Welsh allies again?
Sub-Roman foot - presumably these are a mixture of city dwellers and farmers fighting under Roman banners with some residual (and diminishing) Roman military characteristics?
Light archers - again, who are these people? Remnants of larger Roman archer formations perhaps? The Welsh do not have light archers in their lists.

Then we have the allies . . .
Anglo-Saxons - fair enough historically
Romans (2 groups) - completely hypothetical, the Roman legions did not return to Britain (personally I would remove this option).

Richard, if you get time, I would be interested in your responses to these questions.

[rbodleyscott]

Noble cavalry - I don't know who these people are? Welsh allies, perhaps?

Romano-British and Welsh are the same people. The Welsh are just the ones that were left after the Saxons took over the rest of the country.

They are mounted nobles.

Brythonic foot - who are these people exactly? Welsh allies again?

These represent Romano-British/Welsh troops that have abandoned any attempt to fight in a Roman style.

Sub-Roman foot - presumably these are a mixture of city dwellers and farmers fighting under Roman banners with some residual (and diminishing) Roman military characteristics?

Yes

Light archers - again, who are these people?

Romano-British/Welsh archers.

The whole list is speculative, and it would be more speculative to suggest that they had no noble cavalry or archers than the reverse.

Unfortunately, speculative lists do tend to play into the hands of minimaxers.

[stockwellpete]

Romano-British and Welsh are the same people. The Welsh are just the ones that were left after the Saxons took over the rest of the country. They are mounted nobles.

OK, so they are local aristocrats, an integral part of post-Roman society rather than "external" nobles from farther afield e.g. Powys and Gwynedd in what becomes Wales.

These represent Romano-British/Welsh troops that have abandoned any attempt to fight in a Roman style . . . Romano-British/Welsh archers

OK, so again these people are "insiders" rather than "outsiders".

The whole list is speculative, and it would be more speculative to suggest that they had no noble cavalry or archers than the reverse. Unfortunately, speculative lists do tend to play into the hands of minimaxers.

Thanks. I have found a couple of things this morning that are helpful. This link gives quite a bit of detail about the composition of post-Roman armies with an emphasis on recognising that the armies fought in a very similar way to each other at this time, whether you are calling them Romano-British, Anglo-Saxon or Welsh . . .

https://darkagewargaming.wordpress.com/ ... and-rules/

I know there is an issue about resources and how many different troop types you can represent, but I am definitely beginning to wonder about the "Brythonic foot" category in the Romano-British list. This is the medium foot element that allows the army to "swarm" over opponents pretty much regardless of the terrain. I notice that in some of the earlier rule sets (WRG) the infantry for the Romano-British is described as "medium", but FOG seems always to have classified them as heavy foot. In the Wolves From the Sea book for FOG1 it says "the spearmen of the lowland kingdoms would be more likely to qualify as heavy foot, while those of the hillier regions, such as Rheged, might be more appropriately classified as medium foot." (page 6)

From the link just above they give the following components for any army "south of Hadrian's Wall" . . .

Leader/bodyguard (5%) given as mounted warriors, in helmets and full metallic armour, armed with swords, thrusting spears, heavy throwing spears and shields. Noble cavalry

Nobles and their "retinues" (5-20%) who are mounted warriors, in helmets and good body armour, metallic and leather, armed as above. Noble cavalry

Career warriors (20-80%) with good protection, with some form of helmets and at least good leather body armour, armed with spears, shields, and sidearms (including a good sprinkling of swords). Most, if not all, should also have throwing spears of some sort. Up to a quarter of these would be mounted. These seem not to be represented in the FOG2 list

Skirmishers (0-15%) with javelins, bows and slings. Could javelinmen and slingers be added to the skirmisher roster?

‘The Rest’ (0-70%) including levied spearmen (0-70%) being warriors from classes of free, land-holding society which do not usually, or at least regularly, perform military service . . . as such they are less well equipped and motivated. Are these the sub-Roman foot?

- and mercenaries (0-30%) presumably Anglo-Saxon foederates?

I have put in brackets and bold text the troop categories from the FOG2 list into this classification. There is nowhere for Brythonic foot to go. On the other hand, it looks like there is room for a few better quality heavy foot units and a few average cavalry units to represent the "career warrior" category. There also seems to be scope to expand the roster of skirmishers offered on the list. Something along these lines would transform the Romano-British army to a predominantly heavy foot army. Is that desirable given what I have quoted from the "Wolves at Sea" book earlier. The alternative might be to go back to the designation of some of the earlier rule sets and have sub-Roman foot categorised as medium foot, with just the "career warrior" types as heavy foot. From the description of the levied spearmen from that link, they sound as if they might be best represented as medium foot.

So an alternative list for Romano-British might look like this (new or adjusted units in bold text) . . .
Armoured noble lancers 0/1
Noble cavalry 2 + 0/2
New Cavalry unit - average, protected, light spear/sword 1 + 0/2
Light Javelin Horse 0/3
New infantry unit - undrilled heavy foot, above average, protected, light spear/swords 2 + 0/4
Warband (Close Order) 0/4
Sub-Roman Foot - undrilled medium foot, below average or raw, protected, light spear/swords 3 + 0/15
Light javelinmen 0/2
Light archers 0/1
Slingers 0/1

Keep Anglo-Saxon allies, lose Roman allies.

Anyway, time for some nosh. Please excuse my potterings, but I think something needs to happen with the Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons lists now. I am not so concerned about the Scots-Irish because their stats are more modest and armies that invaded Scotland did sometimes come a cropper.

[rbodleyscott]

Anyway, time for some nosh. Please excuse my potterings, but I think something needs to happen with the Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons lists now. I am not so concerned about the Scots-Irish because their stats are more modest and armies that invaded Scotland did sometimes come a cropper.

Scots-Irish are Irish not Scottish. Scotti are what the Romans called the Irish!

[stockwellpete]

Scots-Irish are Irish not Scottish. Scotti are what the Romans called the Irish!

Yes, I know. I was thinking more of the terrain than the people.

[Geffalrus]

So an alternative list for Romano-British might look like this (new or adjusted units in bold text) . . .
Armoured noble lancers 0/1
Noble cavalry 2 + 0/2
New Cavalry unit - average, protected, light spear/sword 1 + 0/2
Light Javelin Horse 0/3
New infantry unit - undrilled heavy foot, above average, protected, light spear/swords 2 + 0/4
Warband (Close Order) 0/4
Sub-Roman Foot - undrilled medium foot, below average or raw, protected, light spear/swords 3 + 0/15
Light javelinmen 0/2
Light archers 0/1
Slingers 0/1

Keep Anglo-Saxon allies, lose Roman allies.

Anyway, time for some nosh. Please excuse my potterings, but I think something needs to happen with the Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons lists now. I am not so concerned about the Scots-Irish because their stats are more modest and armies that invaded Scotland did sometimes come a cropper.

That list makes a lot of sense to me. Use the existing Sub-Roman foot unit models for the New Infantry Unit and the Brythonic Foot for the levy foot unit.

[stockwellpete]

A few more thoughts on this. Perhaps another aspect of this problem is the timespan given for the Romano-British army - currently it is 407-599 AD. I think really that you could identify two distinct sub-periods, firstly the "Romanised period" where the Britons continued with a Roman military tradition (degrading all the time though), and secondly a post-Romanised period where Roman military traditions are more or less extinct. I think the dividing line between the two sub-periods could be somewhere between 475 and 500 AD, as we know from "The Groans" of the British that circa 450 they were still appealing to Rome for help at that time, and the military ideas they had in their heads then must still have been substantially Roman.

If you read Richard's explanation for the current army list then you have the sub-Roman foot who are still trying to fight in the Roman way and the Brythonic foot who have abandoned all Roman military traditions. My question is - would you have these two types of soldiers in the same Romano-British army? My own guess is that I think it very unlikely over a period of time - and certainly not for long enough to warrant representation in the FOG2 army lists.

So maybe the Romano-British list should be reduced to 407-476 AD, not continue on to 600AD? Then you would need to add a new early British list from 477-599 AD, without the shieldwall units that are in the British 600-1030 AD list (note: the Welsh have a similar list dated 477-599 AD). I think this might solve the problem.

Also of interest, I came across these people . . .

http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=926

They make some beautiful figures and they differentiate between an urban-resourced Romano-British army and a rural resourced one. What really stands out though is that there is no cavalry in the armies at all! Their classification is . . .
Tribune (C-in-C)
Comanipulares ("retinue")
Milites (regular soldiers)
Numeri (levy of farmers and traders)
Skirmishers

So what should our Romano-British army list (407-476 AD) look like? I think it should be more "Romanised" than the current Romano-British list, but less "Romanised" than the Kingdom of Soissons list. Or, at least, the distinctly Roman-styled units should be degraded somewhat if we are aiming at around 440 AD to be the mid-point representation of this 407-476 AD new list.

Again for 1200 points . . .
Armoured noble lancers 0/1 (Arthurian unit)
Roman cavalry 0/2 (below average, some armour, light spear/sword)
Light Javelin Horse 0/3
"Legio Comitatensis" (or whatever you want to call it) 2 + 0/2 (below average, some armour, bow, dart, light spear swords)
Warband (Close Order) 0/4
Sub-Roman Foot - 6 + 0/12 (medium foot, below average, protected, light spear/swords)
Sub-Roman Auxillia Sagittariorum 0/1 (medium foot, below average, protected, bow)
Light javelinmen 0/2
Slingers 0/2

I think this comes to over 1300 points if you pick everything, so the list probably needs to offer a bit more choice. Maybe the Roman cavalry could be 0/3, the "Legios" 3 + 0/3 and the Warbands 0/5?

And the Early British army (477-599 AD) would be basically the same as the Early Welsh (477-599 AD). Whether you would still need two separate lists or whether you could just change the title of the Early Welsh list to Early Welsh/British is something that would need to be decided. The only issue really is the Picked Warband units in the Welsh list. The really big difference between the British and Welsh lists in FOG2 occurs after 600 AD where the Welsh retain the large Brythonic foot element, while the British start to fight in Germanic shield walls after coming into more regular contact with the Anglo-Saxons.

[rbodleyscott]

Obviously, if we are going to tweak the list, we need to be sure that the tweak will have the intended effect.

Here is a question. Why is the Romano-British list considered so superior to the British 600-1030 AD list, which also contains a mixture of cheap heavy and medium foot, that nobody has used the latter list in the tournament at all?

Is it something to do with the metagame in the Early Medieval Period, or is there some other reason (aside from inertia)?

Or is the issue more one of the cheapest units simply being too cheap and hence too numerous?

One solution to armies with too many cheap units, used in the old pre-DBM WRG rules, was for there to be a basic unit cost for all units, on top of the cost for the "bases" of which it was comprised.

If, for example, 5 AP (or 10, or whatever) was added to the cost of all units in the game, could that solve the swarm army problem without fiddling with individual lists?

If the excessive efficacy of the Romano-British army and some others is a symptom of a problem with the points system, rather than something unique to those lists, then the problem really ought to be addressed by altering the points system and not the army lists.

[stockwellpete]

Here is a question. Why is the Romano-British list considered so superior to the British 600-1030 AD list, which also contains a mixture of cheap heavy and medium foot, that nobody has used the latter list in the tournament at all?

I am using the British list (with Viking allies) in the KO Tournament, basically to see if I could win a game with them after failing to beat them several times with the Picts and Scots in several friendly matches. I narrowly won a match with them against the Romans in the first round and it looks like being a stalemate against the Romans again in the second round (where I have the terrain), so I think the British are definitely a bit under-estimated and might do quite well in Early Middle Ages, as their defensive spearmen can hold off mounted units which are plentiful in the Early Middle Ages period. I think the difference with the Romano-British list is that the defensive spearmen are not much good as an attacking unit, whereas the sub-Roman foot are better at that, so that might explain why they haven't been picked. And maybe they have been overlooked by some players too.

One solution to armies with too many cheap units, used in the old pre-DBM WRG rules, was for there to be a basic unit cost for all units, on top of the cost for the "bases" of which it was comprised.

If, for example, 5 AP (or 10, or whatever) was added to the cost of all units in the game, could that solve the swarm army problem without fiddling with individual lists?

If the excessive efficacy of the Romano-British army and some others is a symptom of a problem with the points system, rather than something unique to those lists, then the problem really ought to be addressed by altering the points system and not the army lists.

Yes, I think this could be looked at if you didn't want to alter the existing lists. But wouldn't that run the risk of opening up all sorts of other issues right across the huge roster of armies we have now?

I do think there is an issue with the Romano-British list though. I accept what you say about it being speculative anyway, but at the moment it seems to me to suffer a lot from being a hybrid of a post-Roman (basically 5thC) list and a non-Roman British/Welsh (basically 6thC) list. There is a bit of a historical knot there that needs untying really.

[Nosy_Rat]

Here is a question. Why is the Romano-British list considered so superior to the British 600-1030 AD list, which also contains a mixture of cheap heavy and medium foot, that nobody has used the latter list in the tournament at all?

Is it something to do with the metagame in the Early Medieval Period, or is there some other reason (aside from inertia)?

My guess is that the main reason is probalby the lack of good infantry in Late Antiquity that can destroy sub-standard troops quickly enough. Apart from Romans, most common infantry types are warbands (that are generally awful) and light spears/swordsmen. In Early Middle Ages there are plenty of cheap-ish superior troops, and shieldwalls being in like every single list restrict medium light spears infantry to rough terrain only, considerably reducing maneuverability and flexibility of spam armies.

Also, unlike Late Antiquity, in EMA there's just so many other very strong and versatile armies like Arab and Arab-style lists.