|
|
Post by Commiades on Oct 19, 2016 20:39:55 GMT
Mark, the Gauls have two aggression values, the higher earlier and the lower later, from memory its zero after Telemon. Sorry, misread what you'd said. I was talking about the Polybians; you're right about the Gauls. I guess the concept of non-aggressive Poybians used to rile me and clouded my reading! |
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Oct 20, 2016 5:40:13 GMT
In versions 2.0 and 2.2, the II/11 Gallic 400BC to 50BC army list had aggression factor of 3 until 225BC, then an aggression factor of 0. The II/33 Polybian Roman 275BC to 105BC army list had an aggression factor of 1 before 202BC, then an aggression factor of 4. The Polybian Roman army list seems to cover from the aftermath of the Pyrrhic War until the reforms of Marius. It is not for me to speak for the authors, but I do get the impression that Rome was a bit less into invading until very late in the Second Punic War. In fact, Hannibal invaded Roman territory in Italy. I think that an aggression factor of 1 means that they did a bit of invading, but not as much as that a state with a higher aggression factor did. I would be interested to hear whether the aggression factors had been altered in version 3.  |
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Oct 20, 2016 9:42:58 GMT
In versions 2.0 and 2.2, the II/11 Gallic 400BC to 50BC army list had aggression factor of 3 until 225BC, then an aggression factor of 0. The II/33 Polybian Roman 275BC to 105BC army list had an aggression factor of 1 before 202BC, then an aggression factor of 4. The Polybian Roman army list seems to cover from the aftermath of the Pyrrhic War until the reforms of Marius. It is not for me to speak for the authors, but I do get the impression that Rome was a bit less into invading until very late in the Second Punic War. In fact, Hannibal invaded Roman territory in Italy. I think that an aggression factor of 1 means that they did a bit of invading, but not as much as that a state with a higher aggression factor did. I would be interested to hear whether the aggression factors had been altered in version 3. The aggression factor has changed in 3.0. It's always 3, which is more reasonable. The Romans had a political system built around annual warfare; they found someone to fight each year. The fact that some of the people they attacked tried to take the war to them and failed doesn't make them less aggressive; it just shows that their aggression provoked a reaction -- the Tarantines asking Pyrrhus for help, and the Carthaginians trying to preempt another Roman grab of their possessions, as they'd done of Sardinia and Corsica. |
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Oct 20, 2016 10:58:30 GMT
Thank you. Your explanation makes sense. When I was ploughing through (a translation) of Livy, I didn't notice that many years with no warfare involving Rome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Oct 22, 2016 2:48:14 GMT
That's why Augustus made such a big deal of closing the doors of the temple of Janus. It just about never happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antoine on Nov 1, 2016 10:53:03 GMT
My Gauls are all 3Wb, they indeed recoil on ties with solid inf but they are faster and can make a better use of bad/rough going. I still don't have the sucess the german had  |
|
|
|
Post by Commiades on Nov 1, 2016 21:23:53 GMT
My Gauls are all 3Wb, they indeed recoil on ties with solid inf but they are faster and can make a better use of bad/rough going. I still don't have the sucess the german had I'd like to have stuck with that, but I wanted to use my Gauls as mercenaries for Carthaginians and Syracusans, which only allow 4Wb. Now I can't field an Ancient British army from these figures. |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Nov 1, 2016 21:50:11 GMT
The advantage of a 4Wb is of course in a tie against the Romans the next group in combat will not be outflanked. That said Im frequently drawn to use a couple of Gasetai
|
|
|
|
Post by Antoine on Nov 2, 2016 0:39:50 GMT
I played two games today (polybians vs gauls).
Well, both were hard fought, one victory for each side (4-3 both battles).
I usually play a Cv general for the Gauls and go for the full Cv option and it doesn't work that well... Today I opted for a 3Wb general and two 3Wb instead of Cv, and I really enjoyed it !!
A Wb general have combat factor against foot of 4 and 5 with rear support, and a QK on Bd/Sp/Pk which is pretty efficient.
Even knowing that my 3Wb recoil on ties with solid inf and do not force Cv to recoil on ties, I still prefer 3Wb and their 3BW movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Nov 2, 2016 7:21:27 GMT
Antoine,
Out of curiosity, how have the Gallic (3Wb) played against the Celtiberians (3Bd)? |
|
|
|
Post by Antoine on Nov 2, 2016 10:31:35 GMT
It' s been a while since my Gauls fought Celtiberians. I'll try that today and report the outcome  |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Nov 2, 2016 11:57:07 GMT
It' s been a while since my Gauls fought Celtiberians. I'll try that today and report the outcome It should be an interesting review as neither will recoil on even combat scores. Historically, the Celtiberians did fight in southern Gaul at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antoine on Nov 3, 2016 18:13:48 GMT
2 battles against the Celtiberians this morning: 1 victory each, both hard won (3-4, both times)!
Fast blades are fast (indeed) and reliable, but being fast they do not recoil 3Wb on ties, and suffer from the QK of Wb. Battles are hard for both sides...
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Sept 23, 2017 8:28:04 GMT
Most of this discussion has been about armies with a majority mass of Wb, but what about armies with only 1-2 Wb? Where and how do they fit in?Or do players opt for alternative elements if there is a choice?
I have never opted to include wb in my armies purely because they are week against mounted.I have considered building Wb armies but have been put off by this weakness.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 23, 2017 11:07:20 GMT
Most of this discussion has been about armies with a majority mass of Wb, but what about armies with only 1-2 Wb? Where and how do they fit in?Or do players opt for alternative elements if there is a choice? I have never opted to include wb in my armies purely because they are week against mounted.I have considered building Wb armies but have been put off by this weakness. The Mutatawwiá (3Wb) were present at every Abbasid historical match up. I do not recall any spectacular performance by them, but they did their duty by keeping a flank clear of enemy skirmishers. Most of the battles they spent time occupying bad or rough going terrain ‘threatening’ enemy cavalry. The Battle of Zab, there were two elements grouped from the two commands present. These performed well by turning the Umayyad left flank. |
|
