Improving Roman Infantry Performance

Our gaming group finds that the performance of the Roman lists in Impetus to be one of the weak points in Impetus. I recently read Peter Heather's Fall of the Roman Empire. In the opening section he recounts the incredible destructive power of Roman infantry in the Republic and early Empire. The legions were the paramount infantry of the ancient world. Yet in Impetus they rarely live up to this. The problem with the Roman army in several lists is that the infantry is expensive and has high VD. The cost of three points for pilum is particularily problematic since it is lost easily (as compared to javelin, long spear or composite bow C which remains with the unit throughout its existence.)

I have three suggestions for improving Roman performance. I`d invite others to add to the list. Perhaps several groups could playtest various suggestions for Roman improvement and see which holds the most promise without unbalancing the game.

1. Make the pilum effect last as long as the unit lives with disorder being the only modifier.

2. At the beginning of each melee round the Roman player would make a pilum attack before melee itself is rolled for. The idea behind this is that when units are in melee it doesn't mean that they are in constant contact but represents combat at close quarters with periods of separation at short distances where the throwing of heavy missile weapons is optimized.

3. In the Punic Roman list treat the Hastati/Principes as a large unit for costing (28+21 points.)

Rather than blunt object type modifiers I'd prefer to see the Romans gain a benefit from discipline and training. In much the same way as some Carthaginians in the main rulebook get a free oblique move characteristic I'd suggest the Romans get something like that, or perhaps a combined wheel and move activation, to reflect their genuine level of discipline. Something a little bit different to A class moves (which some of them get anyway).

Simply adding to their dice pool just encourages head on confrontation, I'd give them something that makes to commander think how to use it otherwise they become a non thinking army. I don't have a major issue with your pilum suggestions other than the "storyline" that they were specifically designed as single use items so they should disappear at some point before unit destruction.

Equally I've seen enough Roman victories and losses to believe that as a tabletop experience they are not an uber army nor are they the runt of the litter.

The only major change I think justified is the cost of the pilum. It's expensive for what you get.

But yes I do think that flexibility is the key rather than just encouraging head banging competitions with Barbarians   

Jim

I'm tempted to say "fight better" but this would open me to trenchant attack.


Gaius, I believe your second suggestion over-corrects the issue.

Melee, whether it is one big brawl or a "combat at close quarters with periods of separation at short distances" as you describe it, will have profound effects on a mass fire weapon such as the pilum.

Just being disordered is not enough in my opinion. You might want to stage down the number of dice in continued melee to represent the fact that some rank ordering, target identification etc would be necessary so as to assemble a credible new round of pilum. Arbitrarily, the second round might fire at 50% of the number of dice and the third round 25%. And none after that.

I have some sympathy with GGs blunt object remark. The only observation I'd make about that is that it opens a can of worms that would affect other highly trained armies (Alexandrians etc).

Heh heh Starkers, we have circled each other at comps but never yet played, maybe MOAB.

Not sure if that will be my Romans, Alexandrians or some other highly disciplined army but I will do my utmost to "fight better" and make your mayhem inducing cavalry swarm earn their keep.

Maybe we could incorporate pilum into the appropriate Roman units but limit their damage to causing disorder only, not actual step losses. That would be in keeping with the traditional view that the pilum was there to lodge in enemy shields and weight them down rendering them either less useful or completely useless.

Or if the book keeping isn't too harsh make the subject of a successful pilum attack a bit easier to hit, maybe double 4s as well as double 5s because they no longer have an effective shield, or reroll all the odd 5s left over after melee rolls, or if you want reroll 1s or something.

Alexandrians and other phalanx armies should have a special phalanx rule, it was a common enough formation with special capability and special weaknesses to deserve it.

But that's a post for somewhere else methinks.

Ever been on the receiving end of a Roman rolling well with his pilum dice ? Can be very nasty.

CAN is the word I'd like to bring to everyones attention here and the thing I love so much about Impetus ....you start bringing reliable or certainty into it and it becomes a given. Dull . Personally I think that Romans are about right ( sorry GC haha... ) they also have very flexible army lists that alone makes them quiet powerful.
Just my 2c worth   .... I'll go away now and sit in my corner.

I can only go on my own experience but I`ve generally found the Roman lists to perform rather poorly against other contenders. As Jim states pilum is expensive for what you get. But since the lists are not going to be changed it seems the only option is to change the rules.

I`m not sure that Roman maneuverability is superior to other heavy infantry (except the true veterans and they are represented by the option of A class troops.)

You mention Tarty that being on the receiving end of a pilum throw can be very nasty but it isn`t all the consistent and isn`t reliable in the way, say, that Long Spear is in the rules. I agree too Tarty that the lists are flexible but the core of the army is the legion infantry and my complain is that they under perform to their quality level.

Anyway, specific ideas are welcome. I still like the idea of the Roman player throwing pilum dice before each round of melee (an idea from another guy in my group. Assuming he is disordered that`s only 2 dice but it could make the difference and would certainly make the 3 points worth it.

Yep pilum isn't very consistent your right GC...my point is do you really want it to be in the game ? It isn't a primary weapon for them remember... unlike javelin troops who then have every chance of becoming a grease spot if they shoot poorly   
What I'm trying to say is if there is a problem with Romans under performing I'm not sure it's because of the pilum rules.

Tarty wrote:What I'm trying to say is if there is a problem with Romans under performing I'm not sure it's because of  the pilum rules.

Is that "fight better" with more words?  

Tarty wrote:Yep pilum isn't very consistent your right GC...my point is do you really want it to be in the game ?

Yes, I agree Tarty. That's why I've never been a great fan of increasing the pilum dice to 4 as has been suggested in the past.

I also agree that pilum isn't the only reason that legion infantry under perform in Impetus. But a slight improvement in this area and few other minor mods might make all the difference. For instance perhaps legion infantry should be able to interpenetrate each other like FL and T troops do (in the spirit of what GG is recommends.) Perhaps legion troops hold their pilum effect until they are reduced to 50% of VBU.

Gaius Cassius wrote:perhaps legion infantry should be able to interpenetrate each other like FL and T troops do (in the spirit of what GG is recommends.) Perhaps legion troops hold their pilum effect until they are reduced to 50% of VBU.

No on 1. - I have a bad feeling that would lead to a constant "sewing machine" tactic that was not a feature of the army. Interpenetration in some circumstances possibly.

Yes on 2. - which is a variation on what I was suggesting. So it's an excellent idea. of course.

starkadder wrote:
No on 1. - I have a bad feeling that would lead to a constant "sewing machine" tactic that was not a feature of the army. Interpenetration in some circumstances possibly.

What? You mean they will do the infantry version of the light horse archer cab rank shoot and get pushed back by the next shooting unit method?

Perish the thought!

[quote="Granicus Gaugamela"]

starkadder wrote:What?  You mean they will do the infantry version of the light horse archer cab rank shoot....

You say it like it's a bad thing, GG. At least there is historical and organisational evidence for something like it.

As you know, I don't do it because I think it's a slight fiddle. Nevertheless, because of the insane prejudices against my proud Anatolian lads, I may be compelled to adopt the practice.

For what it's worth, Romans are among my least favourite opponents. They always seem to damage me in a disproportionate way. Having said that, the pilum is a curious beast. I have read that it wasn't that popular with the men which may be a comment on its utility and/or its cumbersome design. But, like the Australian long bayonet, it was held onto for cultural or sentimental reasons.

Tarty's observation about Impetus' unpredictability is a point well-taken. I've had amazing battles with everything falling my way. I have also had battles with everything falling on top of me. I would hate to lose that thrill of uncertainty.

starkadder wrote:

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:

starkadder wrote:What?  You mean they will do the infantry version of the light horse archer cab rank shoot....

You say it like it's a bad thing, GG. At least there is historical and organisational evidence for something like it.

As you know, I don't do it because I think it's a slight fiddle. Nevertheless, because of the insane prejudices against my proud Anatolian lads, I may be compelled to adopt the practice.

There should be some penalty for the number of units interpenetrated. When people line up half a dozen CL units and rotate them through each other that is just daft.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:

There should be some penalty for the number of units interpenetrated.  When people line up half a dozen CL units and rotate them through each other that is just daft.

This tactic in Impetus seems to me to be appropriate when one considers the ability of CL to swarm opponents. And you give up a lot of frontage. In a game a few months back the Mongol player did something similar to his opponent. The opponent's knights managed to come in on an angle, avoid the CL's ZOC and attack the CL. In one turn several CL were destroyed and the game was over.

[quote="Granicus Gaugamela"]

starkadder wrote:

What?  You mean they will do the infantry version of the light horse archer cab rank shoot and get pushed back by the next shooting unit method?

Perish the thought!

I don't know what you're talking about. Pilum is only effective when in melee and it is not possible to interpenetrate a unit in melee. It would simply mean that Roman legions can make passage of line through training. Just a thought

Gaius Cassius wrote:

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:

There should be some penalty for the number of units interpenetrated.  When people line up half a dozen CL units and rotate them through each other that is just daft.

This tactic in Impetus seems to me to be appropriate when one considers the ability of CL to swarm opponents. And you give up a lot of frontage.

Swarm is fair enough, but not in a perfect revolving column, that is just ridiculous.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
In a game a few months back the Mongol player did something similar to his opponent. The opponent's knights managed to come in on an angle, avoid the CL's ZOC and attack the CL. In one turn several CL were destroyed and the game was over.

Yep. Wintercon I left my baggage way in the outer and the enemy CL General took the easy 3 point bait (blighter killed it first round with good rolling, I was hoping to delay him acouple of turns at least). Cost him his life and ultimately the game exactly as you describe. Once you point out evasion is triggered by frontal threats only things start getting very different to how many people play.

Gaius Cassius wrote:

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:

starkadder wrote:

What?  You mean they will do the infantry version of the light horse archer cab rank shoot and get pushed back by the next shooting unit method?

Perish the thought!

I don't know what you're talking about. Pilum is only effective when in melee and it is not possible to interpenetrate a unit in melee. It would simply mean that Roman legions can make passage of line through training. Just a thought

Well it would be Roman unit hits enemy in melee, enemy retreats (or perhaps Roman retreats and enemy does not catch the pursuit), Roman 1 in victory holds, second rank Roman unit can then rush through, Roman 2 is fresh having been protected by Roman 1 so throws pilum and engages with movement boost etc etc etc enemy retreats and Roman 3 cycles in etc etc etc.

Unlikely yes but we have Line Relief to handle that situation.

Equally I have no problems if Romans are given interpenetration or perhaps some form of open order (a la elephant negation) benefit. Their discipline and training deserves it.

And don't get me started on Testudo...

first, are we talking abour Romans or about legionaries?

Because Roman armies are pretty strong, provide they have a good support of cavalry.

In their history they sufferred from having a poor cavalry against armies with good cavalry (see Carthaginians) less VS warband armies.

Said that legionaries in Impetus 2 will benefit from discipline and training, not for having a machine gun instead of pilum  

dadiepiombo wrote:
Said that legionaries in Impetus 2 will benefit from discipline and training, not for having a machine gun instead of pilum  

Sounds.... interesting!

I think it was mentioned early on in that the problem with the pilum isn't the rules, but rather the cost. Why not knock off a point and see how that goes.

Christopher

I don't think the suggestion about the pilum to allow its continual use is historically very accurate. From my reading the Romans were hard because of discipline and the gladius. Personally I'd like to see them just have more dice to reflect this- but I know this will not be popular.
B.

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.

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.

Warband will get more dice for overall ferocity, but the Romans will have the benefit of well aimed strikes.

I am assuming we are talking FP only, the FL guys get the benefit of the warband negation mechanism.