Romans Large Units

In Warbook 1 most FP armies got Large Units and this is really good unification. Especially good for Romans. They now in line with deep phalanxs and very-very chip gauls. I really love how romans looks in Warbook 1 and imho very good balance with main armies.

But Marius and later romans lost Large Units again and now dramatically underpowered with other chip LU armies. Especially against gauls or later goths (gauls with CP!). LU gives just too big advantage.
In 1 redaction Late Romans had rule, that at least auxiliares nullify Impetus Bonus, now Romans lost this too. Gauls (goths) just too chip and roll too many dices to hold them all with single units.

Historically roman infantry always fought in tight infantry formations and in fact nothing really changed after Punic Wars. Same cohort tactic with a few lines and massed line in battle. And same later, less flexible but more massed infantry formations.

I think Republic romans with Large Units really historical correct at least for Marians and Imperial, maybe for later FP too. And in game terms they good balanced with others.

Lorenzo, i dont know why you changed all romans after Punic Wars, but maybe u can add additional option in Errata with Large Units same as Middle Republican for later Romans?

The problem with single stand high VBU infantry is that it is very fragile. One bad CT and the unit becomes effectively done. Large units can sustain more than one bad roll.

In Impetus 2 the large warband vs Roman legion has become more favourable to the Romans in my opinion from Impetus 1. PBW/Pilum has been improved and the Roman legion gets benefits of pilum and quality dice on top other modifiers.

So for instance a 5/4 Gaul warband charges in on a fresh Roman legion. The Legion throws 4 pilum dice which hits about 45% of the time. If it does hit it could be hurtful. The warband would be at least disordered.

The warband attacks with 10 dice
The legion defends with 8 dice.

Everything depends on the CT. A disordered VBU5 unit can die very quickly if a few hits are put against it and it rolls at the higher end of the CT test.

Don't forget that the Legion infantry can interpenetrate each other. They are the only FP I can think of who can do this.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
So for instance a 5/4 Gaul warband charges in on a fresh Roman legion. The Legion throws 4 pilum dice which hits about 45% of the time. If it does hit it could be hurtful. The warband would be at least disordered.

Yes but even wound (about 20% chance) do not affect combat result much, because of gauls large units. All depends of romans CTs and they win only with a more then average luck. LU with same price just give too big advantage

After all republican Romans got LUs in Warbook 1 and games become more equal and interesting, all our community agreed with this. So we dont understand why other romans lost this, not historically or game balance, and will be good have same option.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
Don't forget that the Legion infantry can interpenetrate each other. They are the only FP I can think of who can do this.

But not Imperial or Late
And in fact we don't use it much because you cant allow place 28pt units in two lines against 25pts gauls large units and its too difficult change them.

The legionary units are able to interpenetrate each other. So a single unit that has to retreat, can retreat behind a fresh unit. The fresh unit would then fight the large Gallic warband. If the warband is not fresh and disordered, that would help the fresh legionary unit. For one thing, the Gallic warband would not enjoy its full impetus. Can the fresh legionary unit throw pila if it is charged by the pursuing Gallic warband?

Your complaint prapor is one that others have shared since Impetus was published. High quality single stand FP are quite vulnerable to bad CT rolls.

I do think representing Roman legions as the most difficult thing to do in ancient gaming. Things have gotten better over time in Impetus though. Quality and Flank Support have been introduced and the PBW/Pilum rule strengthened. Warbands lost 1 die against infantry so overall the system is in better balance than before. It still is a crap shoot however and to be honest I think that is probably should be. Warband armies stand little chance against large Roman legion units.

Gaius Cassius wrote:Your complaint prapor is one that others have shared since Impetus was published. High quality single stand FP are quite vulnerable to bad CT rolls.

I complaint only because Mid Republican Romans were changed to LU in line with others in Warbook 1 (its working and i like it) but not other romans (Imperial and Late), and i can't see gameplay or balance resons for such difference. So i (and our community) just asking add same option for all romans.

This is an interesting discussion. Hopefully Lorenzo provides his thinking on the Mid Republican Romans.

The LUs in the Mid Republican lists represent the line exchange of the hastati and the principes. On what basis do you propose that later legions should have the option of LUs?

I should note that the Later Republican list has far greater flexibility and more useful options that the Mid Republican list. It is a superior list in almost all features. The Early Imperial list also have many helpful options that are absent in the Mid Repub list.  Later Empire lists start getting quality CP. One has to look the whole list and not focus on one element.

With that said, I do feel for you and your group around high quality FP units. They are very powerful but quite brittle.

In addition, if you are concerned about a bad cohesion test roll with a single FP unit, and use tactical cards, you could purchase the TC2 Faith card or TC9 Last Stand card.

LU units can be brittle in their own way. If you attack them on the flank or rear and cause a retreat, the entire LU is lost. That could be somewhat devastating to an army.

Gaius Cassius wrote:The LUs in the Mid Republican lists represent the line exchange of the hastati and the principes. On what basis do you propose that later legions should have the option of  LUs?

I dont agree with you. Later legions with cohort tactics used very similar duplex acies or triplex acies, fought in massed infantry formations and were very reliable against warbands. Of course its not same in field as Polybian, but very very similar in Impetus game mechanics and balance, and looks just like republican or any other Large Units.

In fact in game terms Mid Republican army from Warbook 1 in par with any others but far more powerful and reliable then any other later roman armies. And this is not true by any means historically.

As for late Rome they too used tight infantry formations, but in Warbook 2 now a lot single 4 or 5 VBU units. In 1st Edition every of them can add T and become LU, and this was OK, but this was removed too. As auxiliaries bonus. I really don't understand how play with them against germans/goths now.

Don't understand why Mid Republicans in 2 Edition were buffed (and all our community like new balance), but only they and all other romans really nerfed. Its logical make them all in line

Unfortunately if you like Impetus and you want to play within the lists you going to have to deal with the differences between Mid Republic and the later Roman lists. Knowing Lorenzo from years of discussion on this Forum, I don't see him making the change you have requested.

Now of course, if your group supports it then go ahead and give Late Republican Roman and Early and Mid Imperial Roman legions the opportunity to form large units. No one will know and everyone in your group seems to support this approach so you don't have a problem. We have made a few modifications to the rules and are contemplating some minor revisions to a few of the lists.

prapor wrote: I dont agree with you. Later legions with cohort tactics used very similar duplex acies or triplex acies, fought in massed infantry formations and were very reliable against warbands. Of course its not same in field as Polybian, but very very similar in Impetus game mechanics and balance, and looks just like republican or any other Large Units.

I think what Lorenzo has come up with for the later legions is quite clever. I personally think the ability for legions to interpenetrate each other in these periods better reflects the interaction between different Roman infantry lines than the large unit does. So I think we will just have to disagree on this one.

Yes, we discussed it a lot and made our own lists. But i think we have a good point and Lorenzo can at least hear our considerations. Its up to him agree or disagree of course.

As for me imho buffing all rome armies in line with Mid Republicans works better historically and game balance and this is good for Impetus.

But its all up to Lorenzo

Nothing wrong with asking.

What I have found is that once the lists are inscribed into a book Lorenzo is very reluctant to make alterations. I can appreciate this. People spend a lot of money on the army list books and for all their potential imperfections they forum a authorized corpus for the game. One doesn't want to fiddle with this too much.

Putting aside the historical argument you might find with more games that you concerns about this particular matter will soften over time. That is what I have found at least with similar matters of concern.

After Scipio the Romans learn that flexibility is more important than impact. A Mid Rep Roman armys as not much more than legionaries while later armies have more cavalry, artillery (so improve the FP), auxiliaries etc.

Large Units are easy to use, or better, they give you a often a false confidence (see Cannae). They are a good choice for a inexpert player. Manouvrability needs more experience. I think that later Roman armies are more focussed on that.