Topic: For the Romans

I have been toying with working out For the Masses stats for Rome lately... I have not gotten far, but one thing I was wondering is if anyone has any favorite scenarios that they would like to see. Right now the scale seems to fit nicely in modeling a full legion quite manageably.

I would love some feedback on what battles would be fun.


[I for one and hoping to try some crazy "what-if" things with fantasy creatures and the Romans, once I feel like I have them nailed down pretty well (or am I the only one that wants to see a legion take on Saruman's Uruk-Hai?).]

Re: For the Romans

Taltos wrote:

I have been toying with working out For the Masses stats for Rome lately... I have not gotten far, but one thing I was wondering is if anyone has any favorite scenarios that they would like to see. Right now the scale seems to fit nicely in modeling a full legion quite manageably.

Jim mentioned that you are thinking about including "formations"...

I'm wondering what you hand in mind?

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: For the Romans

Not sure yet, to be honest.

I am trying to come up with a mechanic that functions as special ability but is not "always on".

Like for the legions - Testudo as a special, so they can declare the special is active and gain the ability and negatives until it is deactivated.

Not sure it will work simple enough to be worth the effort.

An alternative is to add a new order type... but that risks breaking the mechanic we have today.

I will ponder it on my upcoming trip.

You have any thoughts?

Re: For the Romans

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kevinsmith67206 [mailto:ksmith19@cox.net]

> You have any thoughts?
> ==========
>
> Most definitely...

And they are.... wink

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: For the Romans

I was thinking of something like the following:

Testudo
=====
Some units have carefully drilled and practiced an ability to arrange themselves and their shields in such a way to provide extra defense against ranged attacks. Historically, the Roman Legionaries were noted for this capability.

Activating a Testudo formation for a unit with this special ability is a special reform order.
The unit is arranged in a double column formation, with the two elements side-by-side in the front, and each successive element in a rear hex-side of the element in its front hex-side. The other front hex of the unit should be facing to the side, out from the main body of the Testudo.

It takes a reform order to deactivate Testudo.

Once a unit enters Testudo, it must remain in the formation for the remainder of the Turn that it activated the formation.  Units that begin a Turn in Testudo, may deactivate the formation at any time during that Turn.

Units declare they are in Testudo formation for that turn are considered to have +2 ranged attack defense, but cannot move more than 1 hex per turn. The only valid order to a unit while active Testudo formation is to Move - they can neither declare a melee or ranged attacks, nor may they Reform - accept to deactivate the formation.
=====

Thoughts?

Re: For the Romans

There was some feedback on this regarding testudo that I liked, and want to continue the discussion (but don't have my email right now to get this quite right...)

My work to incorporate Testudo was to avoid the howl of Roman fans who would want it. Yes, it probably fit more in a situation when the unit could not reach the enemy - another tactic was to just run behind the shields at the enemy archers as fast as possible...

Regarding the functional unit size of the unit carrying it out... probably was smaller - century size (I think). This means it would be dependant on the defined scale of the battle you were fighting. Not preferable.

You could argue that applying the ability to an FtM unit (cohort, legion, whatever the scale) represents the smaller elements of the unit carrying out the action according to their drill as a whole.

A simpler option to be considered is to just give units with the Testudo ability a bonus defense against ranged fire. The unit has the ability, as needed, to react to ranged attacks and use their shields to defend. Would that be better?

Re: For the Romans

Taltos wrote:

A simpler option to be considered is to just give units with the Testudo ability a bonus defense against ranged fire. The unit has the ability, as needed, to react to ranged attacks and use their shields to defend. Would that be better?

That would work for me, as an abstraction.

As another option, could it be a hexstand-by-hexstand option?  A formation of three stands could opt for none, some, or all of its stands to "turtle up" each time it takes a reform action.

--Rich Spainhour

Re: For the Romans

elrics wrote:

As another option, could it be a hexstand-by-hexstand option?  A formation of three stands could opt for none, some, or all of its stands to "turtle up" each time it takes a reform action.

--Rich Spainhour

I had not thought of it that way.

Just thinking about it quickly here, it may be hard to indicate the status of individual elements, and unit cohesion would limit the ability of the unit to move with some elements turtled.

Needs some thought, but may be possible.

Re: For the Romans

A simpler option to be considered is to just give units with the
Testudo ability a bonus defense against ranged fire. The unit has the
ability, as needed, to react to ranged attacks and use their shields
to defend. Would that be better?

I don't like this at all.
It leaves the unit much too maneuverable when in the testudo.
There definitely needs to be some restriction on how many movement
points a unit can spend when in the formation. Maybe one movement
point per command.
And the shielding should probably help only on missile fire coming in
through the front hexsides.
And I would also make it a purchased ability.
Kevin

It will definitely be a purchased ability, regardless of how it ends up. So no fear there.

Nice catch, the wording would need to specify direction of the protection. Not sure it should be restricted only to the front, though. The flanks should also get a bonus.

I am not sure how to handle the movement restriction. Easy to deal with when directly trying to model the action - as with the first suggestion. Harder to deal with when more abstracted, as with the last. Will probably have to compromise on something, and movement may be it.