Improving Roman Infantry Performance

It gives an idea of decay in fire discipline and effect, as well.

Good suggestion, Gaius.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:

Gaius Cassius wrote:We could treat Roman infantry like the Chinese cavalry armed with firelance and allow them once per turn to reroll all their missed dice in melee. That would give them more hitting power without more actual dice or higher VBU. Just a thought.

I like this one.

I don't ....   ... sorry guys.

So your saying Romans fight better than other FPs ? ....better than Hypaspists or Spartans or Immortals ? ...or anyone really ? certainly not on an individual level.

If anything it should be discipline that wins the day for them this is where they should shine not so much in actual damage inflicted....I think they were no better than anyone else.
Interested to see what Lorenzo has in mind.

No need for apologies, Tarty.

Isn't that one of the points of this forum? We kick ideas around and discuss possible solutions and improvements. Better a civil discussion now than fisticuffs at the table later.

I confess I haven't looked at the Chinese lists much so was unaware that the fire-lance had that particular advantage. I don't think it necessarily makes Romans better than other highly trained troops. Discipline should indeed win the day. But if you have a handy stick like a pilum to throw, it helps.

For what it's worth, it is my belief that the qualitative difference between Romans and their contemporaries was strategic engineering not tactical deployment. Their ability to create engineering solutions was extraordinary.

We played a couple of games with the Romans tonight. We took away the pilum effect and gave the Romans the equivalent of the firelance rule in EI5. This rule allows rerolls for any non hits one melee per activation as long as the unit is in good order. We love it. It makes the Roman infantry truly shock infantry and very tough without unbalancing the game (I still lost against a Successor army with this rule.) Roman infantry degrades but the effect remains proportionally available to the player.

The 'firelance' rules sounds very interesting, do you allow it even after the unit has taken losses? It appeals to me as the Roman Legionary way of fighting seems to be more open and flexible, relying on individual skill as a swordsman in a space suitable for employing that weapon properly. Probably not for Raw Legionaries though? That could be worth 3 extra points for 'swordsmanship' as a new weapon type. As for the pilum it should come as part of the units basic cost (see below).

We have been coming up with some ideas, in no particular order and mostly not tried at all:

1. Reduced cost for large units - but if one is formed all must be. That agrees with an earlier thread on this post. Retain pilum until front unit is no longer fresh.

2. No cost for the pilum - its not a missile weapon and an extra, its integral to being a legionary. Also -1 per VBU loss, not lost when unit isn't fresh.

3. A pilum hit (not just failed cohesion test) loses the target its impetus.

4. The Republican Roman maniple while composed of FP was much more flexible due to its small size and seems to have performed better over rough terrain than much larger formations like the phalanx, indeed the Romans seemed to like fighting pikes on rough ground as it gave them a much better chance. Hence - manipular infantry aren't affected in movement or combat by broken ground.

Interesting topic, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Impetus Romans have a problem!

4.

Grenadier, we simply took away the pilum attribute and substituted the firelance rule (both are three points.) We presumed that firelance rule would reflect the pilum and swordsman ship of the Roman infantry and make them a bit tougher. The firelance rule applies even when the unit has take losses. The only condition is that the unit must be in good order.

The practical results is that Romans become a bit tougher without unbalancing the game and the attribute continues as the unit sustains loses.

One of the guys in my group uses romans without alot of luck. But his losses are due to not being aggressive enough with his legions. While the rest of his lighter troops die leaving the legion comands easier to break.
Some of those legions are scary and tough in large units. Yes but expensive.

All the well disciplined FPs need something to help them against warband type armies. I have no idea why the Germanic lunatics end up with 10 dice when they run against disciplined troops like a phalanx or a legionary type army.

But they do.

Having seen warband run through a phalanx on more than one occasion simply because they have twice the number of dice for no readily defined reason gives me the irrits. It's a rule so I go with it, and this thing of doing an opportunity charge at the end of one of their movement pulses will be used to good effect especially if I can't get the cavalry in there first, but why the warband have twice the dice of any real competitor is beyond me.

Not that I mind overly, they make nice Roman allies...

Boris the blade wrote:One of the guys in my group uses romans without alot of luck. But his losses are due to not being aggressive enough with his legions. While the rest of his lighter troops die leaving the legion comands easier to break.
Some of those legions are scary and tough in large units. Yes but expensive.

Heard that rationalization before. Also heard the Roman players are too aggressive with their legions. Having played 40+ games with Middle Republican Romans (from 350 to 1200 points) and watched others in my groups as well play with Republican and Early Empire Romans I think it is clear to us at least that the Roman legions don't work quite the way they are supposed to.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:but why the warband have twice the dice of any real competitor is beyond me.  

That impetuous charge for war bands and the number of dice is about right in my opinion but it's still very much a gamble for them. ( you can attest to that GG rolling a handful of dice without getting a single hit ) it is their one real chance of breaking a more disciplined opponent but it has to be a good roll.

It may also be the case that our modern generals have a better idea of how legions work than our barbarian forebears. Thereby giving themselves a better chance to beat them.
Lets also not forget they lost lots of battles as well

Tarty wrote:

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:but why the warband have twice the dice of any real competitor is beyond me.  

That impetuous charge for war bands and the number of dice is about right in my opinion but it's still very much a gamble for them. ( you can attest to that GG rolling a handful of dice without getting a single hit ) it is their one real chance of breaking a more disciplined opponent but it has to be a good roll.

The problem Tarty with the warband/legion matchup isn't really the dice difference between the two. The warband player is almost always going to make a double move into the legions rather than risk being caught flat footed should the legions attack them. That put's them at high risk of starting melee disordered. So assume a warband with a front unit of VBU 5 attacking a legion. The warband is disordered and so throws 10 dice to 6. That isn't a very large advantage compared to the difference between 5-1 and 6 for the cohesion test. The problem between the warband and the legion is that being a large unit the warband can sustain loses in a way the legion can't. And considering that a large warband unit with an upgrade is still less than the legion in cost it makes for tricky play for the Roman player. The real downside for the Gaul or German player is that the VD of the warbands is high and the army routs surprisingly easily. If find this problem also with the Swiss. Brutal units but the army is brittle and breaks easily. But overall the current matchup between legion and warband favours the warband in my opinion.

The warband is disordered and so throws 10 dice to 6

But if they hold their line and allow themselves 3 pilum dice that's 10 to 9 essentially ... and the warband potentially has two cohesions tests it needs to pass before they can claim the day.

Disorder is more of a problem for warbands I think your right and as discussed before in 28mm on narrower tables you have far less opportunity to disrupt and break up their attack.

I think 28mm and narrow tables have a lot to answer for. If you've ever watched a warband army discover it's set up too far to one flank and had to frantically try and bring the warbands round to face the enemy whilst the Legions pick them off from the end of the line you'll begin to have some sympathy for them   

Jim

Yes, I agree Jim. When we play our games on deeper tables the problem isn't as severe. But with that said I think there is general consensus in my group that the Roman infantry underperform in Impetus. Moving to the firelance rule for Romans changes this.

Tarty, I agree about the pilum dice moving the balance more to the middle between the legion and the warband. But the pilum only hits about 30% of the time and is lost at the moment the legion takes a hit. In most cases a pilum hit will only cause disorder to the warband although in more rare cases it actually causes damage (assuming one hit from a pilum throw against a disordered VBU 5 warband gives 1-4 = 1 hit, 5 = 2 hits and 6 = 3 hits.) Because the warband is a large unit it can absorb this damage and still hit very hard. Even the Gaul player in our group agrees that the legions are underpowered in Impetus. We think going to the firelance rule makes the legions more powerful in Impetus.

Gaius Cassius wrote:

The problem Tarty with the warband/legion matchup isn't really the dice difference between the two. The warband player is almost always going to make a double move into the legions rather than risk being caught flat footed should the legions attack them. arbands is high and the army routs surprisingly easily. If find this problem also with the Swiss. Brutal units but the army is brittle and breaks easily. But overall the current matchup between legion and warband favours the warband in my opinion.

One interesting comment I read at the airport concerned undertaking an opportunity charge at the end of the active players first "pulse" thereby denying him his Impetus bonus.  Now if that is true, and I don't have my rulebooks with me to confirm, it will change a LOT of tactics.  The Romans will go onto opportunity, the warband have no choice but to press forward once they are close and the Romans should be able to get an opportunity charge against the VBU4 +2 = 6 for the warband.  Not perfect but an interesting consideration.

From there the larger base VBU for the Romans comes into play and they pass cohesion tests more easily meaning they should then start rolling the warband backward.

I still don't get why light troops can deny Warband impetuousness, one would have thought they would be relatively easily brushed aside compared to tightly formed men in heavier armour but that's just the way the rules work.

With respect to opportunity charging warbands before the end of the 1st move that only works with FP. FL usually moving from beyond the guaranteed charge distance of the the legion. Also, overall I think the Roman player would prefer to have the warband double move and come in disordered even though it would get 3 more dice on the melee (4 - 1 for being disordered.) But its one of those Impetus moments where there is no conclusive decision.

Gaius Cassius wrote:With respect to opportunity charging warbands before the end of the 1st move that only works with FP.

Quite possibly yes. Equally the quote was about acting at the END of the first move but before the second, hitting them when they count as standing still. I haven't seen that before and have always played it that opportunity charge hits moving target so both have Impetus.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
FL usually moving from beyond the guaranteed charge distance of the the legion. Also, overall I think the Roman player would prefer to have the warband double move and come in disordered even though it would get 3 more dice on the melee (4 - 1 for being disordered.) But its one of those Impetus moments where there is no conclusive decision.

Well, they do have to move at least a full move in their first move so positioning yourself to good effect is almost mandatory.

And if I can catch them stationary that is my preference so I can disorder their line and hopefully disrupt their ability to provide support to each other.

You can't opportunity charge between moves (ie. opportunity charge is in response to a moving unit.) Usually one would opportunity charge just before the 1st move is complete. The downside in this is that the warband doesn't have to make a second move into the melee and risk disorder. The upside is that you're coming in with 8+1 dice versus 7. But overall the large unit wins in this contest because it can sustain it's full hitting power longer.

I agree that it is possible to position yourself for optimum response but the downside is that in moving you risk the real possibility of not being able to get back into opportunity mode. If the warbands are FL they are especially barrelling down on your legions.

Opportunity charging legionaries ? ... yes a rare beast indeed considering they only move 5U. Well technically possible I suppose under some strange circumstances but at that range it would probably be a counter charge. But then why would you bother ? you'd loose most of your pilum dice ? "hold the line boys.." would be my advice and more than likely get your supporting neighbours in on the action as well   

Assume that the warband and legion are 5U apart at the beginning of the turn and the legion command is activated first. Overall I'd choose to advance the legions in against the warband because the dice is better 8+1 vs 7 rather than 6+3 vs 11 when staying on the defense. But if the warband ended its first move 5U from a legion that was on opportunity I'd generally be inclined to let the warband make a second move and suffer the results of the discipline test rather than opportunity charge in the first turn since overall I think the warband coming in disordered is better for the Roman player than suffering 4 extra dice. But of course there are unknowns. The warband might pass its discipline test.

The strange thing in the legion/warband confrontation in Impetus is that the legion must do well on the initial impact or it will wither since warband can sustain more loses and keep its fighting power up over a longer time. Yet this is exactly the opposite of what I would imagine should happen. It is the warband that should have to do well on the first round of melee or the stronger cohesive power of the legion will triumph over time.

I think warband are part of the problem, I don't think they should get depth bonus unless they also have impetus - a lot of men behind may be useful when charging but would be of no benefit when the unit is stood in place. And should they get depth bonus at all? But that's another topic maybe     

I agree with GGS above. The large unit was often at a disadvantage due to its numbers. The front line was often crushed by the force from behind and unable to swing their swords. We hear that the dead and injured were sometimes held upright, unable to fall to the ground. There may be an agruement for a depth penalty !

Most troop types get a benefit of some kind, be it evasion, moving through terrain at no penalty etc.

But what do the heavily armoured poor bloody infantry get? Bugger all. Except a +1 vs missile weapons.

The reroll of misses seems not unreasonable, this is a solid body of guys just looking to take down their opponent, alternatively make them harder to hit (heavier armour) such that 5s do not count perhaps.