 |
Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Mark Stone Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:15 pm Post subject: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
Ewan raises an excellent point that Chinese foot, however versatile and useful
they may be, are by and large quite vulnerable to opposing foot armed with HTW.
Since I've switched my thinking and painting to Oriental Warrior, I find myself
spending an awful lot of time thinking "but what if I have to face Romans?"
One of the reasons that SHC are essential to the Tang list is to provide some
answer to this question.
I do think we are sweeping once again through a well-trod cycle. When I first
started playing tournament TOG, Romans were enjoying some popularity simply
because pike/elephant armies were so pervasive at the time. This enabled what
was then the University of Rochester crowd -- Dave Stier, Christian Cameron,
myself, Sean Scott, and Frank Gilson (among others) -- to have some real
tournament success playing knight/cavalry armies at the time, partly because
Romans were so vulnerable to SHK and SHC. Dave had the most success, winning
the NICT repeatedly with Sicilian Hohenstaufen. Admittedly Dave has tremendous
skill to go with his shrewd choice of armies. That performance by cavalry
armies became hard to maintain as fewer Roman armies appeared and many cavalry
armies will still struggling with lancers that fought in only one rank (though
Dave and I did manage to win Cold Wars one year with single-rank Tibetans).
Knight armies have probably seen the biggest resurgence under Warrior, because
of the 1.5 ranks rule for lance. I don't think this means that knight/cav
armies are overall better, simply that they were the early benefactors of Jon's
vision because those army lists happened to come out first and because lance was
a Warrior rule, not a list rule.
A natural counter to knights is elephants, and the last couple of years has
certainly seen an increase in the prevalance of elephant armies. Oriental
Warrior will no doubt accelerate that process, and Classical Warrior will take
it even further.
Lost in all of this is a comment that Jon made some months ago on the list,
namely that people have yet to really appreciate how potent the Romans can be
with the new list rules. I've actually spent some time thinking about this,
thanks mainly to some very tough games from Rich Gagliasso, our resident Early
Imperial Roman here on the West Coast.
So I'll make a couple of comments. First, I'm not at all concerned about Late
Imperial Romans as a competitive threat. Not that they can't be a dangerous
army, but I think they are no more competitive than they used to be, and lots
of armies have gotten better. The inherent problems remain: if you take lots of
legionaries fully armed, you have some slow, expensive units that don't hold
very much frontage. If you max out on the support troops, you have a finesse
army with no punch. Finding the balance in between is difficult, and in any
case close order foot do not make good punch troops to combine with loose order
foot.
Second, I do think Romans will gradually become more popular again, but it will
be the earlier lists with the list rules that we'll see more of. By the way, I
consider this a very good thing in terms of the image our hobby projects and in
terms of helping recruit new players.
Here's one example of how the Romans have gotten better, and it's only one
example.
A typical past strategy for me playing Later Paleologan Byzantines against EI
Romans would have been to pin the Roman player back as much as possible, and
drive off his skirmishers with mine on some critical "hinge" in the line,
leaving his legionaries exposed to my French SHK. This tactic worked because
although the Romans have very good LI, (a) I have more and better LC, and (b)
he has no heavier cavalry backing up his LI to prevent me from charging them
off.
Voila: one HI HTW exposed to world, and my knights charge home gleefully, and
eagerly looking forward to a bunch of waver tests by nearby and now likely
uneasy C class units.
That was then. Things are different now.
Now the legions can go into fulcrum. I can still beat them handily with my SHK
at contact, but I have no chance of routing him at contact. And if one
legionary unit is hanging back in reserve to replace in combat, then I'm
screwed.
Case 1: I beat the front line legionary unit, follow up and expand. Let's say
it's 16 HI HTW,Sh, with another unit of the same behind it. I'm 6 Irr B SHK
L,Sh. So I'm following tired, but not disordered, and the reserve legion
charges through. He has HTW vs. SHK is a 1. 12@1=18. I have other cav vs. HI is
a 2. Tired is a 1. 6@1=9. Gee, I take 3 CPF and twice as many. I rout.
Case 2: I beat the front line legionary unit, follow up, but don't expand. Now I
only take 9 from the replacing legion, but I only put out 4. I recoil
disordered. Wasn't that fun?
I could send in two knight units instead of one, but I still won't rout him at
contact, and now I'll have two recoiling, tired, disordered knight units
instead of one.
The moral of the story is that I can't reduce the battle against the Romans to
one of breaking a single point of focus. That strategy simply will not work any
more. I have to engage more broadly across the whole line, so that (a) he either
doesn't have reserves everywhere, or (b) if he does have reserves everywhere
he's shortened up his line so much that his flanks are exposed. The problem
with this approach is that it really evens the playing field. I have greater
shock power, but by using it in a more dispersed manner I give the Roman a real
chance to compensate with his greater numbers and greater maneuverability in
close.
I don't think this means that I, as the knight player, am at anything like a
_disadvantage_ against the Romans. I still know who I'd rather be in this
matchup. But it's a much, much more even fight than it used to be, and one in
which I, as the knight player, no longer have a guaranteed winning formula.
And this is only one of the many complexities presented by the new Roman rules.
It will take time for the Roman players to figure out all the nuances. As they
do, I suspect a number of non-Roman players will be caught unawares, and we may
see a short period of striking Roman tournament success. Then the rest of us
will get smart, and things will balance out again.
But that's the point: it will be balanced. Early Roman armies, once understood,
are going to be far more competitive than people give them credit for.
-Mark Stone
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Turner Recruit

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 221 Location: Leavenworth, KS
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
Thanks Mark,
All of us Roman players REALLY appreciated letting the HTW vs. OW cat
out of the bag! :-)
Some of us are hoping for a Roman revival, but we were also hoping
to "sneak" up on the group flocking suddenly to OW.
Et tu Stone'
Mike
Born and raised in Rochester, NY
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Ewan raises an excellent point that Chinese foot, however versatile
and useful
> they may be, are by and large quite vulnerable to opposing foot
armed with HTW.
> Since I've switched my thinking and painting to Oriental Warrior, I
find myself
> spending an awful lot of time thinking "but what if I have to face
Romans?"
>
> One of the reasons that SHC are essential to the Tang list is to
provide some
> answer to this question.
>
> I do think we are sweeping once again through a well-trod cycle.
When I first
> started playing tournament TOG, Romans were enjoying some
popularity simply
> because pike/elephant armies were so pervasive at the time. This
enabled what
> was then the University of Rochester crowd -- Dave Stier, Christian
Cameron,
> myself, Sean Scott, and Frank Gilson (among others) -- to have some
real
> tournament success playing knight/cavalry armies at the time,
partly because
> Romans were so vulnerable to SHK and SHC. Dave had the most
success, winning
> the NICT repeatedly with Sicilian Hohenstaufen. Admittedly Dave has
tremendous
> skill to go with his shrewd choice of armies. That performance by
cavalry
> armies became hard to maintain as fewer Roman armies appeared and
many cavalry
> armies will still struggling with lancers that fought in only one
rank (though
> Dave and I did manage to win Cold Wars one year with single-rank
Tibetans).
>
> Knight armies have probably seen the biggest resurgence under
Warrior, because
> of the 1.5 ranks rule for lance. I don't think this means that
knight/cav
> armies are overall better, simply that they were the early
benefactors of Jon's
> vision because those army lists happened to come out first and
because lance was
> a Warrior rule, not a list rule.
>
> A natural counter to knights is elephants, and the last couple of
years has
> certainly seen an increase in the prevalance of elephant armies.
Oriental
> Warrior will no doubt accelerate that process, and Classical
Warrior will take
> it even further.
>
> Lost in all of this is a comment that Jon made some months ago on
the list,
> namely that people have yet to really appreciate how potent the
Romans can be
> with the new list rules. I've actually spent some time thinking
about this,
> thanks mainly to some very tough games from Rich Gagliasso, our
resident Early
> Imperial Roman here on the West Coast.
>
> So I'll make a couple of comments. First, I'm not at all concerned
about Late
> Imperial Romans as a competitive threat. Not that they can't be a
dangerous
> army, but I think they are no more competitive than they used to
be, and lots
> of armies have gotten better. The inherent problems remain: if you
take lots of
> legionaries fully armed, you have some slow, expensive units that
don't hold
> very much frontage. If you max out on the support troops, you have
a finesse
> army with no punch. Finding the balance in between is difficult,
and in any
> case close order foot do not make good punch troops to combine with
loose order
> foot.
>
> Second, I do think Romans will gradually become more popular again,
but it will
> be the earlier lists with the list rules that we'll see more of. By
the way, I
> consider this a very good thing in terms of the image our hobby
projects and in
> terms of helping recruit new players.
>
> Here's one example of how the Romans have gotten better, and it's
only one
> example.
>
> A typical past strategy for me playing Later Paleologan Byzantines
against EI
> Romans would have been to pin the Roman player back as much as
possible, and
> drive off his skirmishers with mine on some critical "hinge" in the
line,
> leaving his legionaries exposed to my French SHK. This tactic
worked because
> although the Romans have very good LI, (a) I have more and better
LC, and (b)
> he has no heavier cavalry backing up his LI to prevent me from
charging them
> off.
>
> Voila: one HI HTW exposed to world, and my knights charge home
gleefully, and
> eagerly looking forward to a bunch of waver tests by nearby and now
likely
> uneasy C class units.
>
> That was then. Things are different now.
>
> Now the legions can go into fulcrum. I can still beat them handily
with my SHK
> at contact, but I have no chance of routing him at contact. And if
one
> legionary unit is hanging back in reserve to replace in combat,
then I'm
> screwed.
>
> Case 1: I beat the front line legionary unit, follow up and expand.
Let's say
> it's 16 HI HTW,Sh, with another unit of the same behind it. I'm 6
Irr B SHK
> L,Sh. So I'm following tired, but not disordered, and the reserve
legion
> charges through. He has HTW vs. SHK is a 1. 12@1=18. I have other
cav vs. HI is
> a 2. Tired is a 1. 6@1=9. Gee, I take 3 CPF and twice as many. I
rout.
>
> Case 2: I beat the front line legionary unit, follow up, but don't
expand. Now I
> only take 9 from the replacing legion, but I only put out 4. I
recoil
> disordered. Wasn't that fun?
>
> I could send in two knight units instead of one, but I still won't
rout him at
> contact, and now I'll have two recoiling, tired, disordered knight
units
> instead of one.
>
> The moral of the story is that I can't reduce the battle against
the Romans to
> one of breaking a single point of focus. That strategy simply will
not work any
> more. I have to engage more broadly across the whole line, so that
(a) he either
> doesn't have reserves everywhere, or (b) if he does have reserves
everywhere
> he's shortened up his line so much that his flanks are exposed. The
problem
> with this approach is that it really evens the playing field. I
have greater
> shock power, but by using it in a more dispersed manner I give the
Roman a real
> chance to compensate with his greater numbers and greater
maneuverability in
> close.
>
> I don't think this means that I, as the knight player, am at
anything like a
> _disadvantage_ against the Romans. I still know who I'd rather be
in this
> matchup. But it's a much, much more even fight than it used to be,
and one in
> which I, as the knight player, no longer have a guaranteed winning
formula.
>
> And this is only one of the many complexities presented by the new
Roman rules.
> It will take time for the Roman players to figure out all the
nuances. As they
> do, I suspect a number of non-Roman players will be caught
unawares, and we may
> see a short period of striking Roman tournament success. Then the
rest of us
> will get smart, and things will balance out again.
>
> But that's the point: it will be balanced. Early Roman armies, once
understood,
> are going to be far more competitive than people give them credit
for.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ewan McNay Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2778 Location: Albany, NY, US
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:40 pm Post subject: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
Cliff Notes: I disagree on earlier Romans.
Mark Stone wrote:
> One of the reasons that SHC are essential to the Tang list is to provide some
> answer to this question.
Yes. [And I would take the Tibetans in the Tang also; I then start to
worry about knights, because SHC are so much meat to decent K. Especially
if, like me, you're tempted to take them backed by MC.]
> So I'll make a couple of comments. First, I'm not at all concerned about Late
> Imperial Romans as a competitive threat. Not that they can't be a dangerous
> army, but I think they are no more competitive than they used to be, and lots
> of armies have gotten better. The inherent problems remain: if you take lots
of
> legionaries fully armed, you have some slow, expensive units that don't hold
> very much frontage. If you max out on the support troops, you have a finesse
> army with no punch. Finding the balance in between is difficult, and in any
> case close order foot do not make good punch troops to combine with loose
order
> foot.
I agree with all of this, to some extent; I can get a lot of legions if I
take them as mostly D class, but the lack of shock elsewhere is all true.
[The same could be said for a Tang in the absence of SHC, though, no?]
The major point I want to make here is that I'm not sure that Earlier
Romans do better on any of this, and that I think they actually do worse:
HI legions of decent morale are *EXPENSIVE*. Trying to keep a line, much
less anything resembling a reserve is tough. A 4E unit of even C class
Reg HI HTW, Sh is 106 points, or roughly the same as an average knight
unit. So, as the knight player, I ca expect to (roughly) throw one unit
of K into every legion - and eventually rout them all, even if they start
in fulcrum - or to have spare K elsewhere to kill things while >=2 legions
are trying to take down a knight unit.
*And* the earlier armies are no better off in terms of punch - indeed,
worse, given absence of D to at least project from the legions a little.
So I don't see an early Roman as being able to get tournament big wins, or
even necessarily wins at all.
The LIR, we agree, are dead to decent K. However, this comes back to how
to win tournaments, especially as the variety of armies increases: take
something that does somethings well, even if it has weaknesses, rather
than something that is mediocre everywhere. The latter may get you into
the top half, but it won't get you a win. The former may see you crash
and burn if you fight four knight armies - but if you fight four elephant
or Chinese armies, voila, your chance.
[And the odds are better for the smaller tournaments. If you're playing
only 3 rounds, and maybe 1/4 of the field is K, your chances of avoiding
them is (.75)^3 or 42%. Pretty good.]
> Now the legions can go into fulcrum. I can still beat them handily with my SHK
> at contact, but I have no chance of routing him at contact. And if one
> legionary unit is hanging back in reserve to replace in combat, then I'm
> screwed.
I think this comes down to 'if the Roman, with inferior light troops and a
line moving at only 80p, can put me in a situation where he outnumbers me
2-1 in points at the schwerpunkt with his best troops against mine, and
force action there... I lose.' Which would not be a thought that scared
me overly as the Byzantine.
> The moral of the story is that I can't reduce the battle against the Romans to
> one of breaking a single point of focus. That strategy simply will not work
any
> more. I have to engage more broadly across the whole line, so that (a) he
either
> doesn't have reserves everywhere, or (b) if he does have reserves everywhere
> he's shortened up his line so much that his flanks are exposed. The problem
> with this approach is that it really evens the playing field. I have greater
> shock power, but by using it in a more dispersed manner I give the Roman a
real
> chance to compensate with his greater numbers and greater maneuverability in
> close.
Maybe. I could be wrong .
> I don't think this means that I, as the knight player, am at anything like a
> _disadvantage_ against the Romans. I still know who I'd rather be in this
> matchup. But it's a much, much more even fight than it used to be, and one in
> which I, as the knight player, no longer have a guaranteed winning formula.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Smith Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 877
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
Lost in all of this is a comment that Jon made some months ago on
the list,namely that people have yet to really appreciate how potent
the Romans can be with the new list rules. I've actually spent some
time thinking about this, thanks mainly to some very tough games
from Rich Gagliasso, our resident Early Imperial Roman here on the
West Coast.
***Mark;
After FHE released Imperial Warrior, I thought that they they really
nailed the Romans so much better than the other rules systems, I
immediately felt encourage to start my 25mm EIR. AS I continue to
gain experience with them (EIR), I agree with your overall
asessment. Romans are expensive, but you are getting a very unique
and flexible troop type with some very potent weapon combos (HTW,
1HCW).
I have put together an actual for our spring tourney that is based
on the battle of Ad Castorum in 69AD . It's a smallish battle,
15,000 or so combatants on the Othonian side, so it suits our 1200
point mini very well.
Dave
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Smith Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 877
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
Geez, spell checker and proof reading were not done very well on
this. My apologies.
Dave
***Mark;
>
> After FHE released Imperial Warrior, I thought that they they
really
> nailed the Romans so much better than the other rules systems, I
> immediately felt encourage to start my 25mm EIR. AS I continue to
> gain experience with them (EIR), I agree with your overall
> asessment. Romans are expensive, but you are getting a very
unique
> and flexible troop type with some very potent weapon combos (HTW,
> 1HCW).
>
> I have put together an actual for our spring tourney that is based
> on the battle of Ad Castorum in 69AD . It's a smallish battle,
> 15,000 or so combatants on the Othonian side, so it suits our 1200
> point mini very well.
>
> Dave
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Recruit

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
Mark and Ewan,
You all are speeking of 25mm here, yes?
David
Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:
Cliff Notes: I disagree on earlier Romans.
Mark Stone wrote:
> One of the reasons that SHC are essential to the Tang list is to provide some
> answer to this question.
Yes. [And I would take the Tibetans in the Tang also; I then start to
worry about knights, because SHC are so much meat to decent K. Especially
if, like me, you're tempted to take them backed by MC.]
> So I'll make a couple of comments. First, I'm not at all concerned about Late
> Imperial Romans as a competitive threat. Not that they can't be a dangerous
> army, but I think they are no more competitive than they used to be, and lots
> of armies have gotten better. The inherent problems remain: if you take lots
of
> legionaries fully armed, you have some slow, expensive units that don't hold
> very much frontage. If you max out on the support troops, you have a finesse
> army with no punch. Finding the balance in between is difficult, and in any
> case close order foot do not make good punch troops to combine with loose
order
> foot.
I agree with all of this, to some extent; I can get a lot of legions if I
take them as mostly D class, but the lack of shock elsewhere is all true.
[The same could be said for a Tang in the absence of SHC, though, no?]
The major point I want to make here is that I'm not sure that Earlier
Romans do better on any of this, and that I think they actually do worse:
HI legions of decent morale are *EXPENSIVE*. Trying to keep a line, much
less anything resembling a reserve is tough. A 4E unit of even C class
Reg HI HTW, Sh is 106 points, or roughly the same as an average knight
unit. So, as the knight player, I ca expect to (roughly) throw one unit
of K into every legion - and eventually rout them all, even if they start
in fulcrum - or to have spare K elsewhere to kill things while >=2 legions
are trying to take down a knight unit.
*And* the earlier armies are no better off in terms of punch - indeed,
worse, given absence of D to at least project from the legions a little.
So I don't see an early Roman as being able to get tournament big wins, or
even necessarily wins at all.
The LIR, we agree, are dead to decent K. However, this comes back to how
to win tournaments, especially as the variety of armies increases: take
something that does somethings well, even if it has weaknesses, rather
than something that is mediocre everywhere. The latter may get you into
the top half, but it won't get you a win. The former may see you crash
and burn if you fight four knight armies - but if you fight four elephant
or Chinese armies, voila, your chance.
[And the odds are better for the smaller tournaments. If you're playing
only 3 rounds, and maybe 1/4 of the field is K, your chances of avoiding
them is (.75)^3 or 42%. Pretty good.]
> Now the legions can go into fulcrum. I can still beat them handily with my SHK
> at contact, but I have no chance of routing him at contact. And if one
> legionary unit is hanging back in reserve to replace in combat, then I'm
> screwed.
I think this comes down to 'if the Roman, with inferior light troops and a
line moving at only 80p, can put me in a situation where he outnumbers me
2-1 in points at the schwerpunkt with his best troops against mine, and
force action there... I lose.' Which would not be a thought that scared
me overly as the Byzantine.
> The moral of the story is that I can't reduce the battle against the Romans to
> one of breaking a single point of focus. That strategy simply will not work
any
> more. I have to engage more broadly across the whole line, so that (a) he
either
> doesn't have reserves everywhere, or (b) if he does have reserves everywhere
> he's shortened up his line so much that his flanks are exposed. The problem
> with this approach is that it really evens the playing field. I have greater
> shock power, but by using it in a more dispersed manner I give the Roman a
real
> chance to compensate with his greater numbers and greater maneuverability in
> close.
Maybe. I could be wrong .
> I don't think this means that I, as the knight player, am at anything like a
> _disadvantage_ against the Romans. I still know who I'd rather be in this
> matchup. But it's a much, much more even fight than it used to be, and one in
> which I, as the knight player, no longer have a guaranteed winning formula.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ewan McNay Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2778 Location: Albany, NY, US
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
David Beeson wrote:
> Mark and Ewan,
> You all are speeking of 25mm here, yes?
> David
I think I put a note in one of the messages about LIR being better in 25mm
- the legions having a better chance to actually contact; true in general
of close foot. On the other hand, the excellent light troops of the LIR
are not *quite* so useful - LI still good, LC not so good, but then roman
LC is not *that* good.
[So, yes, mostly speaking of 25mm. Since I bought the Sass, my thoughts
have focussed there, especially with the forced-25mm of the NICT recently.
if the NICT reverts to being two-scale, or (my pref) alternating scale
or (my *real* pref) staying in 25mm but alternating table size) I'd
doubtless attune my general thought accordingly.]
>
> Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:
> Cliff Notes: I disagree on earlier Romans.
>
> Mark Stone wrote:
>
>>One of the reasons that SHC are essential to the Tang list is to provide some
>>answer to this question.
>
>
> Yes. [And I would take the Tibetans in the Tang also; I then start to
> worry about knights, because SHC are so much meat to decent K. Especially
> if, like me, you're tempted to take them backed by MC.]
>
>
>>So I'll make a couple of comments. First, I'm not at all concerned about Late
>>Imperial Romans as a competitive threat. Not that they can't be a dangerous
>>army, but I think they are no more competitive than they used to be, and lots
>>of armies have gotten better. The inherent problems remain: if you take lots
of
>>legionaries fully armed, you have some slow, expensive units that don't hold
>>very much frontage. If you max out on the support troops, you have a finesse
>>army with no punch. Finding the balance in between is difficult, and in any
>>case close order foot do not make good punch troops to combine with loose
order
>>foot.
>
>
> I agree with all of this, to some extent; I can get a lot of legions if I
> take them as mostly D class, but the lack of shock elsewhere is all true.
> [The same could be said for a Tang in the absence of SHC, though, no?]
>
> The major point I want to make here is that I'm not sure that Earlier
> Romans do better on any of this, and that I think they actually do worse:
> HI legions of decent morale are *EXPENSIVE*. Trying to keep a line, much
> less anything resembling a reserve is tough. A 4E unit of even C class
> Reg HI HTW, Sh is 106 points, or roughly the same as an average knight
> unit. So, as the knight player, I ca expect to (roughly) throw one unit
> of K into every legion - and eventually rout them all, even if they start
> in fulcrum - or to have spare K elsewhere to kill things while >=2 legions
> are trying to take down a knight unit.
>
> *And* the earlier armies are no better off in terms of punch - indeed,
> worse, given absence of D to at least project from the legions a little.
>
> So I don't see an early Roman as being able to get tournament big wins, or
> even necessarily wins at all.
>
> The LIR, we agree, are dead to decent K. However, this comes back to how
> to win tournaments, especially as the variety of armies increases: take
> something that does somethings well, even if it has weaknesses, rather
> than something that is mediocre everywhere. The latter may get you into
> the top half, but it won't get you a win. The former may see you crash
> and burn if you fight four knight armies - but if you fight four elephant
> or Chinese armies, voila, your chance.
>
> [And the odds are better for the smaller tournaments. If you're playing
> only 3 rounds, and maybe 1/4 of the field is K, your chances of avoiding
> them is (.75)^3 or 42%. Pretty good.]
>
>
>>Now the legions can go into fulcrum. I can still beat them handily with my SHK
>>at contact, but I have no chance of routing him at contact. And if one
>>legionary unit is hanging back in reserve to replace in combat, then I'm
>>screwed.
>
>
> I think this comes down to 'if the Roman, with inferior light troops and a
> line moving at only 80p, can put me in a situation where he outnumbers me
> 2-1 in points at the schwerpunkt with his best troops against mine, and
> force action there... I lose.' Which would not be a thought that scared
> me overly as the Byzantine.
>
>
>>The moral of the story is that I can't reduce the battle against the Romans to
>>one of breaking a single point of focus. That strategy simply will not work
any
>>more. I have to engage more broadly across the whole line, so that (a) he
either
>>doesn't have reserves everywhere, or (b) if he does have reserves everywhere
>>he's shortened up his line so much that his flanks are exposed. The problem
>>with this approach is that it really evens the playing field. I have greater
>>shock power, but by using it in a more dispersed manner I give the Roman a
real
>>chance to compensate with his greater numbers and greater maneuverability in
>>close.
>
>
> Maybe. I could be wrong .
>
>
>>I don't think this means that I, as the knight player, am at anything like a
>>_disadvantage_ against the Romans. I still know who I'd rather be in this
>>matchup. But it's a much, much more even fight than it used to be, and one in
>>which I, as the knight player, no longer have a guaranteed winning formula.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Stone Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
--- On March 7 David Beeson said: ---
>
> Mark and Ewan,
> You all are speeking of 25mm here, yes?
> David
>
Yes, but I actually don't think, in this case, it makes that much difference.
The specific example I put forth -- EI Romans vs. LP Byzantines -- surely
doesn't matter. Both armies have enough skirmishers and rough terrain troops to
secure their flanks, so the extra 5 elements' width of a 15mm table doesn't
matter. The interaction is almost certainly one of the LP Byzantines taking the
initiative, and the Romans responding/counter-punching. So I don't think the
greater depth of the table in 15mm makes any difference either.
At 1600 points, I just don't think there's a great deal of difference between
15mm and 25mm. Armies that rely on close order foot are going to be somewhat
tougher to play in 15mm, as your opponent has further to fade back away from
your foot and thus more time to work on harrassing your flanks. Armies that
rely on LC are going to be somewhat more constrained in 25mm, as there just
isn't quite as much room to evade back. But I've yet to find an army I like in
one scale at 1600 points that I think is unplayable in the other scale.
Now, at 1200 points it's a different story. I can still find certain foot armies
at 1200 points that can literally fill the frontage table edge to table edge in
25mm. That really isn't going to happen in 15mm. At 1200 points in 15mm you
have a more wide open game, reminiscent of the TOG days of 1500 point armies,
15mm, and being able to retire and march in the same bound.
-Mark Stone
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Recruit

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
Mark,
Don't the LP Byzantines get knights?
David
Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On March 7 David Beeson said: ---
>
> Mark and Ewan,
> You all are speeking of 25mm here, yes?
> David
>
Yes, but I actually don't think, in this case, it makes that much difference.
The specific example I put forth -- EI Romans vs. LP Byzantines -- surely
doesn't matter. Both armies have enough skirmishers and rough terrain troops to
secure their flanks, so the extra 5 elements' width of a 15mm table doesn't
matter. The interaction is almost certainly one of the LP Byzantines taking the
initiative, and the Romans responding/counter-punching. So I don't think the
greater depth of the table in 15mm makes any difference either.
At 1600 points, I just don't think there's a great deal of difference between
15mm and 25mm. Armies that rely on close order foot are going to be somewhat
tougher to play in 15mm, as your opponent has further to fade back away from
your foot and thus more time to work on harrassing your flanks. Armies that
rely on LC are going to be somewhat more constrained in 25mm, as there just
isn't quite as much room to evade back. But I've yet to find an army I like in
one scale at 1600 points that I think is unplayable in the other scale.
Now, at 1200 points it's a different story. I can still find certain foot armies
at 1200 points that can literally fill the frontage table edge to table edge in
25mm. That really isn't going to happen in 15mm. At 1200 points in 15mm you
have a more wide open game, reminiscent of the TOG days of 1500 point armies,
15mm, and being able to retire and march in the same bound.
-Mark Stone
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Todd Schneider Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 904 Location: Kansas City
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:19 am Post subject: Re: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
I think the tournament Roman Army you're going to see
used more often than not (ecspecially by those players
who have a better command of the game) is Marian
Romans, with a Numdian Ally General.
Theres enough LI to make an effective screen on one
flank, and backed by a unit in a ditch (say Thracians)
that flank can hold out for awhile so that the other
flank, using a "pod" combination of Elephants and
Legions, you can beat most Infantry Units and make a
Knight Army really work hard to try and achieve a
local tabletop superiority, ecspecially if your a
Knight trying to take on a Legion in Fulculm supported
by Elephantsthat disorder you on the way in. I
haven't looked at the intracacies that much since I
moved to a new list, but I would think other players
have.
I did three different versions of such a list when IW
first came out, but they are invalid because of my
misinterpretation of how a General's element counts
towards a minimum; anyways you can get 13-15 Units
with 3 Commands and anywheres from 14 to 37 scouting
points, and thats just what I came up with in my spare
time back in the day. I am posistive if someone spent
an entire afternoon with the IW Marian List and ran
the numbers, they'd come up with a highly effective
Army that would give everyone a hard time.
Todd
_________________ Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:34 am Post subject: Re: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
I am posistive if someone spent
an entire afternoon with the IW Marian List and ran
the numbers, they'd come up with a highly effective
Army that would give everyone a hard time.>>
I would agree.... :)
J
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bill Chriss Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1000 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:52 am Post subject: Re: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
> I did three different versions of such a list when IW
> first came out, but they are invalid because of my
> misinterpretation of how a General's element counts
> towards a minimum;
Todd:
Please elaborate. Perhaps I have made the same mistake at one point or
another. I always assumed the *troop* minima were in addition to
general's elements. So if you have an HC general element and your list
then continues on another line to specify that you need a minimum of
one HC, L, B, or something, that means you need at least one such
element regardless of, and in addition to, any such similarly armed
general's element.
Greek
_________________ -Greek |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Greg Regets Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:13 am Post subject: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
Probably a vast over simplication, but in general I feel that in
25mm, most of the Roman armies will play reasonably well. Certainly
the list rules help them quite a bit.
I have my doubts in 15mm. I feel that quite often, quality players
might end the first day having won all three games, only to find that
they are on the outside looking in, for the Sunday playoff rounds.
Perhaps the worst thing that can happen to you at a tournament. ;-)
g
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I am posistive if someone spent
> an entire afternoon with the IW Marian List and ran
> the numbers, they'd come up with a highly effective
> Army that would give everyone a hard time.>>
>
> I would agree....
>
> J
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Stone Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:09 am Post subject: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
> Message: 25
> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:34:35 -0500
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Subject: Re: Re: romans as tourney army
>
> I am posistive if someone spent
> an entire afternoon with the IW Marian List and ran
> the numbers, they'd come up with a highly effective
> Army that would give everyone a hard time.>>
>
> I would agree....
>
> J
CinC,PA w/Rg A HC JLS,Sh 1 st124
Gallic Cav Irr B MC JLS,Sh 2 21 1 0 0 67
Thracians Irr C LC JLS,Sh 4 12 1 0 0 73
Legions Reg C HI HTW,Sh 4 24 0 1 0 106
Legions Reg C HI HTW,Sh 4 24 0 1 0 106
Legions Reg C HI HTW,Sh 4 24 0 1 0 106
Legions Reg C HI HTW,Sh 4 24 0 1 0 106
Pelts Reg C LMI LTS,JLS,Sh 4 20 0 1 0 90
Pelts Reg C LMI LTS,JLS,Sh 4 20 0 1 0 90
Cretans Reg C LI B,Sh/B 2 7 0 1 0 24
Cretans Reg C LI B,Sh/B 2 7 0 1 0 24
Cretans Reg C LI B,Sh/B 2 7 0 1 0 24
Ally w/Irr B LC JLS,Sh 1 82 0 0 1 82
Numidians Irr B LC JLS,Sh 2 14 0 0 1 28
Numidians Irr C LC JLS,Sh 3 12 0 0 1 36
Numidians Irr C LI S,Sh 6 6 1 0 0 61
Numidians Irr C LI S,Sh 6 6 1 0 0 61
Numidians Irr C LI JLS,Sh 6 6 1 0 0 61
Num El w/Irr C 2 w/JLS 2 40 1 0 0 105
Num El w/Irr C 2 w/JLS 2 40 1 0 0 105
Num El w/Irr C 2 w/JLS 2 40 1 0 0 105
Ditch 2 10 0 0 1 20
TOTAL 1604
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Todd Schneider Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 904 Location: Kansas City
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: Re: romans as tourney army |
 |
|
I am going to let Jon answer this, as he knows the
full story.
Todd
--- hrisikos@... wrote:
---------------------------------
> I did three different versions of such a list when
IW
> first came out, but they are invalid because of my
> misinterpretation of how a General's element counts
> towards a minimum;
Todd:
Please elaborate. Perhaps I have made the same
mistake at one point or
another. I always assumed the *troop* minima were in
addition to
general's elements. So if you have an HC general
element and your list
then continues on another line to specify that you
need a minimum of
one HC, L, B, or something, that means you need at
least one such
element regardless of, and in addition to, any such
similarly armed
general's element.
Greek
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
_________________ Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|