I have used Warmaster Ancents quite happilly for some time. But  in a couple of  recent games have made my Early Imperial Romans have totally tharshed the opposition. 

The Legionaries when supported are almost unbeatable in close combat due to the self supporting rule in the first round of each  new combat.  This gives them an extra 3 support points when working out the combat result. This usually means they win the combat and force thier opponents back.  They then get persute bonus  and often destroy the opposing unit.

The following move they get charged by the unit that supported the  destroyed unit and get the support bonus again, which more than compensates for the opponents extra three dice for charging.

Has anyone else found this , or am I applying the rules incorrectly?

Also any recomendations for a more balanced ruleset that I don't have to rebase my units for?

You could try basic Impetus  no set base size as lonf as the width of the base is twice the depth

So 4 bases will give you 80x40...Its the same for all troop types

http://www.dadiepiombo.com/basic2.html

I always found the trick to beating Republican Romans to be in the timing of the charge (make sure you're the one with the extra 3 dice), that and having a longer line than them. Also a unit of Elephants with a unit of heavy cavalry on either side makes a very effective battering ram against a line of Legio.

Carthage vs Rome

Played 3 time
Carthage won 3 times

Enough said for that, but I do think that EIR have no serious opposition historically they're always up against hairy barbarian armies, who iffen theyre sensible will try to put off the horrible moment of shield walls crashing together and concentrate on winning the battle on the flanks. Nothing says I hate you better than cavalry hitting you in the back as the infantry come together.

Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 04 February 2014, 06:04:55 PM
Has anyone else found this , or am I applying the rules incorrectly?

Also any recomendations for a more balanced ruleset that I don't have to rebase my units for?

In a straightforward frontal brawl the legionaries will tend to win - as they did historically.

Break up formations with missile fire/ use superior cavalry to outflank and surround them/ keep them busy with skirmishers/ lure them into unfavourable terrain ... or welcome your Roman overlords and become a client state

WMA is still the best (or possibly the least worst) set of ancients rules I've come across.

I await the latest DBx with interest, though I'm beginning to wonder if I'll live long enough to see it produced!

Parthians. 

I know WMA got a bit strange for a while with some cheesy tactics being used...fun game though

I have Imperial Romans, and yes, if you charge them head on you die.

OBVIOUSLY

These are Imperial Romans. That's what they did.

There is a story about a Greek General talking to a Roman General.  He comments on how short the gladius is

"How do you fight with such short swords?"

"We take a step forward."

There is your answer - you can't win a meat grinder.

The problem with Imperial Romans is they are expensive interms of points so the armies tend to end up being small, the small size is compounded if you back up legionaries to take advantage of the extra support that's 125 points on a 12cm wide frontage, they can be outflanked and because there cheapest commander is 80 points they can be out manouvered on the table.

Also don't forget that they still only have an armour save of 5+ and will take casualties.

When I play with with Imperial Romans I get stuck in as soon as possible, when I play against them I use skirmish to break up the legionary line and chuck cheap sacrificial units against them to knock off odd stands, this is especially useful if you're playing barbarian armies with lots of warband units.  They won't win unless you are very lucky but will disrupt his formations, disrupt his command and control and leave him open to heavier attacks at opportune moments.

It wasinteresting that when there was the WMA games days at Nottingham and later Mansfield Rick always brought Early Imperial Romans and always lost, often winning the 'Strongest Man' award i.e. he was at the bottom holding up the rest of the results table.  He seemed to loose against just about every army in the books, I definately beat him with Bronze Age Heroic Greeks and Arab Conquest, neither of which are renound for their fighting abailities.

I agree with most of the comments here and would add that ALL wargames throw up quirks, so called uber armies and the "uneatable" formation.

BUT...

As tactics evolved in history, so they evolve on the gaming table.  I have used tactics which have won for a while and then fail spectularly when my opponent tries soemthing new.  It's part of the fun.   Being mainly a fantasy player, I used undead for a considerable time but gave them up because they kept winning.  Months later we played and I decided to use them again, result: CARANGE!  I was utterly blown away: my tactics had remained stagnant; my opponent's hadn't.

I would also add that, if it does become a problem, either leave the army alone for a while, put in some house rules or play scenario based games for a while.

Enjoy

I have beaten them with Sassinids, but it's hard. The best thing to do is try and take out the cavalry, and ignore the legionary units.

IanS

Quote from: get2grips on 07 February 2014, 02:33:09 PM
Months later we played and I decided to use them again, result: CARANGE!  I was utterly blown away: my tactics had remained stagnant; my opponent's hadn't.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 04 February 2014, 06:04:55 PM
Also any recomendations for a more balanced ruleset that I don't have to rebase my units for?

Hail Caesar also works with flexible basing - we are doing it in 6mm with standard units on an 80mm base. Ultimately based on WMA as I understand it but without the cheese.

Quote from: Last Hussar on 04 February 2014, 08:43:10 PM
There is a story about a Greek General talking to a Roman General.  He comments on how short the gladius is
"How do you fight with such short swords?"
"We take a step forward."

Romans, Spartans, what's the difference eh? The query I believe is about the short length of a xiphos rather than a gladius.

Generally the wargaming ability for Romans to win a battle is over-emphasised. Historically Romans won because they were logistically ace and could replace their lost units and armies faster than the other guy. They didn't necessarily beat everyone every time.

Early Imperial Romans in particular tended to be better equipped, trained, supplied and disciplined than the opposition. The organisation that let them replace troops quickly applied to the rest too.

For their enemies, part of the problem seems to have been that the Romans just didn't understand when they were beaten.

I'm pretty sure plenty of Roman centurions would have understood the exchange at Arnhem where a German officer announced,"You are surrounded. I'm here to discuss terms of surrender" or something similar and the Brit replied that he was sorry but they couldn't accept the German surrender because they didn't have facilities for that many prisoners!

Quote from: Leon on 07 February 2014, 04:14:51 PM
Sorry, couldn't resist...