Good Ancients Match-Ups

[steve_holmes_11]

So here's the problem.

There are some 700 years of history for which it's difficult to avoid realistic match ups without involving the Romans on one side.
I've been away form Ancients for some 2 decades, but recently tried Hail Caesar (Not quite right for various reasons) and then looked at To The Strongest.

The TTS lists contain a lot of interesting looking armies, but I wish to avoid a problem with many rules which I shall term "Romans can't lose".

If this needs explaining, read on.
Roman armies were historically very effective.
They remain so in many realistic sets of rules.
This is great for re-creating history, but can make for a dull game as the Legionaries pilum and gladius their way through serried ranks of their enemies.
I don't wist to go painting 2000 figures to play a handful of foregone conclusions.

Perhaps worse, Roman Armies (Marian excepted) tend to be balanced forces of different troop types.
Their enemies are often a monolithic horde, so not only will this player take a beating, but they'll have no interesting tactical options to exercise while getting slaughtererd.


So fine forumites.
The Rules are To the Strongest (I understand that Pikes and Missile troops are regarded as somewhat under-strength - legionaries are tough and auxilia are above average.
Can you suggest well matched and "interesting" (See above) opponents for any of Marian Roman, Early Imperial through to Later Western Romans?

If there are no great match-ups, can you sell me a different slice of history where I can enjoy fun games.
(No Chariots please, they're too flippin deep to fit in the grid).

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Parthian and Sassanian both won historically and Gauls and Germans did on occasion. EWhat was wrong with Hail Ceaser ?

[FierceKitty]

So far I find rather later imperials always have a hard fight against Huns and Persians, and I have hopes of the Dacians I'm beginning.

[Ithoriel]

Marius vs Sulla, The Triumvirate vs The Liberators, Caesar vs Pompey, Octavian vs Mark Anthony, Galba/ Otho/ Vitellius/ Vespasian vs each other,  Septimius Severus vs Pescennius Niger vs Clodius Albinus, Macrinus vs Elegabalus, Constantius II vs Magnentius .............

Is it heretical to suggest the best opponent for a Roman army is another Roman army?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Not at all, in fact it was their most frequent opponent!

Other opponents
Selucids
Ptolemaics
Numidian
Gaul

Any number of North eastern tribes

[hammurabi70]

So here's the problem.

There are some 700 years of history for which it's difficult to avoid realistic match ups without involving the Romans on one side.
I've been away form Ancients for some 2 decades, but recently tried Hail Caesar (Not quite right for various reasons) and then looked at To The Strongest.

So 105BC to 493AD? 
You wish to avoid the earlier periods when they lost many battles?
No reference to other areas such as India or China.

If this needs explaining, read on.
Roman armies were historically very effective.
They remain so in many realistic sets of rules.
This is great for re-creating history, but can make for a dull game as the Legionaries pilum and gladius their way through serried ranks of their enemies.
I don't wist to go painting 2000 figures to play a handful of foregone conclusions.

Perhaps worse, Roman Armies (Marian excepted) tend to be balanced forces of different troop types.
Their enemies are often a monolithic horde, so not only will this player take a beating, but they'll have no interesting tactical options to exercise while getting slaughtererd.


So fine forumites.
The Rules are To the Strongest (I understand that Pikes and Missile troops are regarded as somewhat under-strength - legionaries are tough and auxilia are above average.

You could chose a different set of rules if you think Romans have a high win rate.  However, I doubt it is as one sided as this and if there are point systems for army creation why should they not be more equal?

.
Can you suggest well matched and "interesting" (See above) opponents for any of Marian Roman, Early Imperial through to Later Western Romans?

The tricky bit is defining interesting. Possible opponents:

French Gallic or British Celtic
Germans
Burgundian or Frankish
Illyrian or Thracian
Dacian
Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan, Huns
Parthians, Persians

Evidently the Roman army is going to shift in composition over the period and it will not be a simple single army that you build; it will need adjusting according to period and enemy.  So pick your enemies according to interest.

[mmcv]

There's some good active discussions over on the TtS! forum itself, currently an ongoing discussion on how to rework the earlier Polybian Romans, as well as a number of new scenarios for the Punic Wars in production. Obviously, this is pre-Marian, but can you ever have too many Romans?

I'm currently working on a few TtS! oriented projects outside the Classical Mediterranean sphere. Aztecs/Mesoamerica, Warring States/Early Han China, Trojan War. I'm also hoping to play a TtS! game with my Crusades forces soon. That provides an interesting matchup - the solid heavy Crusaders vs the swirly wurly light horse armies of the Saracens and Turks. Similar to some of the answers previously around Romans vs Kingdoms of the East, such as the Partians, Sassanids, etc. Two unique playing styles compared to the grinding matches infantry heavy battles tend to be.

I'm surprised about you saying the chariots are too deep to fit the grid - are you working in 10mm? I've been doing some 4 horse chariots and they fit comfortably on a 40mm depth and I plan to use them on grids likely ranging from 70-100mm.

[steve_holmes_11]

Parthian and Sassanian both won historically and Gauls and Germans did on occasion. EWhat was wrong with Hail Ceaser ?

I didn't care for the fiddly handling of foot skirmishers - very 1970s.
The real spoiler was the predictability of close infantry combat.

[steve_holmes_11]

There's some good active discussions over on the TtS! forum itself, currently an ongoing discussion on how to rework the earlier Polybian Romans, as well as a number of new scenarios for the Punic Wars in production. Obviously, this is pre-Marian, but can you ever have too many Romans?

I'm currently working on a few TtS! oriented projects outside the Classical Mediterranean sphere. Aztecs/Mesoamerica, Warring States/Early Han China, Trojan War. I'm also hoping to play a TtS! game with my Crusades forces soon. That provides an interesting matchup - the solid heavy Crusaders vs the swirly wurly light horse armies of the Saracens and Turks. Similar to some of the answers previously around Romans vs Kingdoms of the East, such as the Partians, Sassanids, etc. Two unique playing styles compared to the grinding matches infantry heavy battles tend to be.

I'm surprised about you saying the chariots are too deep to fit the grid - are you working in 10mm? I've been doing some 4 horse chariots and they fit comfortably on a 40mm depth and I plan to use them on grids likely ranging from 70-100mm.

When your skirmishing unit is "Light Chariots" then depth becomes a problem.

[steve_holmes_11]

You wish to avoid the earlier periods when they lost many battles?
No reference to other areas such as India or China.


I most certainly do..

[mmcv]

When your skirmishing unit is "Light Chariots" then depth becomes a problem.

Fair enough, though as only two units can share a box at a time it works surely only be an issue if your grid was fairly small? What grid size are you planning on using? I'll likely be using 80-100mm grids for armies with chariots.

[Last Hussar]

I don't see the problem. As long as I can be the Romans.

Alternatively play Sunjester and his Magic Dice.

[FierceKitty]

Not at all, in fact it was their most frequent opponent!

Other opponents
Selucids
Ptolemaics
Numidian
Gaul

Some of these are of no interest to later Romans, alas.

[sunjester]

My match pair of Ancient armies are Late Romans and Sassanid Persians. Mind you I haven't player To The Strongest, so I don't know how the rules handle them.

[steve_holmes_11]

My match pair of Ancient armies are Late Romans and Sassanid Persians. Mind you I haven't player To The Strongest, so I don't know how the rules handle them.

That certainly looks like one of the better balanced match-ups.
Both teams fielding a variety of units and having different strengths.

My early impressions of To The Strongest is that the typical horse archer armies are quite severely nerfed.
Ammunition limits, and rather generous missile saves for legionaries mean there's relatively little risk if the Romans (or other foot sloggers) can wait out the arrow storm and not break ranks.

The typical horse archer bunch have a lot of light horse archers, and too few shock cavalry to make an impact.
Parthians have more shock types, but still look set to struggle.
By the Sassanid era, the horse archers are mostly armoured and a significant number also carry lances.