Warbands need a rebalance???
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
Interesting post and some good tips there Jishmael,thanks. I'll try some of those tips next time I venture out against Germanic tribes.
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
I tried with editor, 20 roman legionaries (78pnts) in row , all in open plain, no generals
vs
case-1. 20x average close order warband (63 points each)
result:
IMPACT
2 romans pushed back on impact, 1 of them got distrupted
5 warbands got distrupted & pushed back, 2 got fragmented & pushed back, 2 were pushded back
MELEE AFTER THAT
romans won clearly almost all the melee after initial impact.
result was a clear and fast roman victory
case-2. 20x superior close order warband (81 points each)
IMPACT
two romans were pushed back on impact
two warbands were pushed back on impact
MELEE
even though odds said, the warbands will propably win the impact and then start loosing the melee, odds were soon changed as attrition took its toll.
after a round or two warbands had clear upperhand in almost all the melees, and after 4 rounds first roman unit broke, couple more were fragmented. Worst warbands were distrupted but there were only two of them. The fight was clearly going to be a clear roman defeat.
vs
case-1. 20x average close order warband (63 points each)
result:
IMPACT
2 romans pushed back on impact, 1 of them got distrupted
5 warbands got distrupted & pushed back, 2 got fragmented & pushed back, 2 were pushded back
MELEE AFTER THAT
romans won clearly almost all the melee after initial impact.
result was a clear and fast roman victory
case-2. 20x superior close order warband (81 points each)
IMPACT
two romans were pushed back on impact
two warbands were pushed back on impact
MELEE
even though odds said, the warbands will propably win the impact and then start loosing the melee, odds were soon changed as attrition took its toll.
after a round or two warbands had clear upperhand in almost all the melees, and after 4 rounds first roman unit broke, couple more were fragmented. Worst warbands were distrupted but there were only two of them. The fight was clearly going to be a clear roman defeat.
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
Well, this is more or less pure math and seems like reasonable results to me. Points wise I think they are all fairly well balanced. If Roman units should be better or worse from a realistic perspective will be impossible to know, that is a highly subjective matter.kujalar wrote:I tried with editor, 20 roman legionaries (78pnts) in row , all in open plain, no generals
vs
case-1. 20x average close order warband (63 points each)
result:
IMPACT
2 romans pushed back on impact, 1 of them got distrupted
5 warbands got distrupted & pushed back, 2 got fragmented & pushed back, 2 were pushded back
MELEE AFTER THAT
romans won clearly almost all the melee after initial impact.
result was a clear and fast roman victory
case-2. 20x superior close order warband (81 points each)
IMPACT
two romans were pushed back on impact
two warbands were pushed back on impact
MELEE
even though odds said, the warbands will propably win the impact and then start loosing the melee, odds were soon changed as attrition took its toll.
after a round or two warbands had clear upperhand in almost all the melees, and after 4 rounds first roman unit broke, couple more were fragmented. Worst warbands were distrupted but there were only two of them. The fight was clearly going to be a clear roman defeat.
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
You could make superior warband a little smaller. That would make it stand melee little less and give a legion (which has almost the same point value) at least a little change in 1 to 1 situation.
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
Are you not completely dismissing the fact that warbands are unmaneuverable and will always follow and pursue an enemy which are pretty hard drawbacks you can easily exploit. Points wise they should beat a Roman superior unit in 1v1 combat.kujalar wrote:You could make superior warband a little smaller. That would make it stand melee little less and give a legion (which has almost the same point value) at least a little change in 1 to 1 situation.
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
You clearly have reading comp issue here or are just not reading.76mm wrote: There is of course some truth to this, but the fact is that from what we know of Gallic vs Roman warfare (which is much more than we know about most other types of ancient warfare), Gauls should not be expected to stand up to legions in prolonged melee combat. Still no sources from you with evidence to the contrary... I consider this to be relevant to my gaming experience, you don't, I get it
Uh, yeah, they are the "same unit stat wise" other than that loose order warbands don't get the +1 heavy foot modifier during cohesion tests, which is of course a key factor in this discusssion. So if you have been assuming that loose order and close order warbands are exactly the same, your conclusions are "out of touch with the situation."
1)Warbands get crushed by Late Roman Legions in straight open field combat. Crushed. Its not even close. Unless you are playing some weird version of the game everyone else isn't. The smack down occurs AFTER the impact round where Warbands have a slight edge. After Impact, the Romans dice up Warbands for breakfast and come back for seconds. There is your Romans better the Warbands in sustained combat right there. I told you over and over again that what you want is already baked in the game. You get 1 extra Warband for every 7 Legionnaire units. That is not even close to enough of an point gap to make up the difference.
Superior Warbands can beat Roman regulars one on one but they cost more and they come with negative drawbacks like pursuing and being unmaneuverable. The biggest drawback is that you can't spam them since they are extremely limited in numbers all Warband lists. Even Germanic Foot Tribes can max out at 4. And its not like Romans can't counter with Vet Legions which will own Superior Warbands. Even if they couldn't you could always exploit their lack of maneuverability. You can seem my Greek vs Warbands AAR. There are times when Superior Warbands could beat their targets and never get turned around in time to help save the rest of their army. I know because I have been on both ends of this multiple times. Against real live opponents.
2) The Loose order Warband was brought up to show how ludicrous your claim is that Heavy Foot Warbands somehow roll over Legions in sustained fighting. How can this be when their loose order equivalent is struggling for multiple turns of advantageous terrain to break legions. It took me 12 turns of sustained fighting to break them on ground that is unsuitable for them. Thats how resilient Legions are with superior morale are.
What does Loose warbands not being heavy foot have to do with here? None. What does +1 morale check have to do here? None.
3)What I objected to is not whether Warbands are good/bad/terrible in sustained action. This game already lives in that trope right or wrong. This whole thing started when I said it is irresponsible to talk about nerfing warbands. Lets see here... this is page 1.
Seems like a pretty conclusive statement to me. I actually step in, point out all of the terrible weaknesses Warbands come with and how we should just play the bloody games out and see if this is a trend. Then all we get is you and Scutarii go on and on and on about how Warbands somehow roll over Legions and other heavy foot like somehow repeating over and over again would make it true. Nope, not too early at all, lets discuss nerfs. Ok finally I get through that you need to get more data. What is your suggestion? Rather than simply play Warband vs whatever games. You wanted to run a set of hilarious isolated 1 v 1. What would that do? Other than completely negate one of the biggest Warband traits of being maneuverable. Or the fact that it isolates them from panic chains that Roman legions with superior morale rating are far more resilient to?76mm wrote:With all due respect, most units won't do well if hit on three sides and outnumbered 2-3 to one. I think that if you look at how warbands do 1-on-1 vs other heavy infantry, they are too resilient, I guess because of unit size.GiveWarAchance wrote:Also to consider before nerfing the poor Gauls is the warbands are the only strong unit the Gauls have so if they are nerfed then the Gauls maybe too weak.
In my MP game with me as Gauls, my superior warbands...were hit on 3 sides by the numerous enemy so they don't seem overpowered
This is what I am talking about when I am saying you are being absurd.
Stratford Scramble Tournament
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
The length and vehemence of this argument is funny as Hell.
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
MikeC_81 wrote: 1)Warbands get crushed by Late Roman Legions in straight open field combat. Crushed. Its not even close. Unless you are playing some weird version of the game everyone else isn't.
Sometimes I wonder...
This is what I'm looking at. And while I agree that some mechanics are baked into the game, I am looking to see whether it is working in the way that I would expect.MikeC_81 wrote: The smack down occurs AFTER the impact round where Warbands have a slight edge. After Impact, the Romans dice up Warbands for breakfast and come back for seconds. There is your Romans better the Warbands in sustained combat right there. I told you over and over again that what you want is already baked in the game.
Uh, OK. Not sure what point you were trying to make, but the general discussion on this thread is about whether warbands are overpowered, not one happened with one of your units in one of your games. A +1 cohesion modifier is clearly relevant to the topic.MikeC_81 wrote: What does +1 morale check have to do here? None.
I am not sure whether the "game lives in that trope" or not--from what I've seen, the longer a melee goes on, the more likely the Gauls are to win it as the Romans auto-break. I understand that that you think that as long as a battle ends the right way, nothing else matters, but I don't agree. Feel free to state your position, but I am also entitled to mine.MikeC_81 wrote: What I objected to is not whether Warbands are good/bad/terrible in sustained action. This game already lives in that trope right or wrong.
MikeC_81 wrote: Seems like a pretty conclusive statement to me.
Sooo....cherry-picking one statement out of about fifty, and I'm the one with a "reading comp issue here or are just not reading"? You seem to have some weird obsession with showing that I have been demanding immediate changes to the game, which I have not. Give it a rest...
In the meantime, I'll run some tests and post results and the relevant files here for anyone to review/comment on.
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
Just remember that being unmaneuverable and allways pursuing enemy are drawbacks included in the points. So points wise Warband should beat another equally expensive unit in 1v1 combat that don't have those flaws. We also must understand that higher quality is not only more usable in combat but also important for not loosing cohesion from routing friendly units and killed generals or lost melee and impact rounds. All these things add up to higher quality units being a bit more expensive for their raw combat power. Often just holding the line is as important as actually winning in the end.76mm wrote:In the meantime, I'll run some tests and post results and the relevant files here for anyone to review/comment on.
It simply is harder for Warbands to capitalize on their success and easier for the opponent to counter them.
-
- Private First Class - Opel Blitz
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 12:49 pm
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
Comment redux, so after playing a bit last night and testing some new tactics ( for me), superior warbands are not invincible, if you whittle down there numbers and morale before any melee they are beatable....
Cheers
Cheers
Re: Warbands need a rebalance???
Well I don't think warbands need a rebalance, I was up against Romans in the Pontic campaign so I thought maybe warbands can hold back the juggernaught - but no, every warband hit by Roman units got shattered on first contact except for the experienced (superior) one, which got shattered the second round of combat. this was only on level II difficulty. Lucky for me I was relying on a good plan, the light troops, pikes and cavalry!