Ok i have a major concern here. Clone wars happened before the galactic Civil war. CW era stuff should not be able to go toe to toe with GCW era stuff, or at least be at a disadvantage. From what i have seen so far Republic forces seem to be pretty good, but compared to Empire, their equipment should be obsolete.

(can opener opens can of worms)

Not necessarily. It's all a matter of money. The Republic pumped a lot of money into the Clone Wars and so had fairly top range stuff. Afterwards when the Empire rose they co-opted what they could but needed to expand to gather new resources and tax the Empire to finance the replacements. Whilst they slowly got better as research money was spent (Tarkin Initiative etc), a lot of this was pumped into the Death Star and Star Destroyers which was their vision of the future. As a result, troops and their weapons (Stormtrooper guns and the accuracy/quality debate) and Tie fighters (lack of shields etc) were more disposable.

In real life dips in miltary power/quality can happen too, for a long after the Roman Empire nothing warefare wise was technically better and if anything regressed.

Why? Star Wars strikes me as fairly static technology-wise. It's as if tech has pretty much plateaued.

If anything, tech was much more finessed in Clone Wars - it was after all, a more civilised age. 😀

Eh, I disagree, OP. Supposing your premise is true and the armies of the Clone Wars were strictly inferior? That would be reflected in the game with a reduced point cost, thus allowing them to bring a larger army and therefore go toe to toe regardless.

But do you really think stormies were ever superior to the clones?

Edit: Game Balance always trumps lore.

It would make sense that the clones would be better soldiers than the stormtroopers, since clones were literally bred and conditioned to be soldiers, right?

I'm currently reading the Ahsoka novel and she even points this out I think a few times, that the "new" stormtroopers were nothing compared to the clones in combat effectiveness, strategy, etc.

As @ClassicalMoser said, tho, game balance > lore, which can be unfortunate from an immersion standpoint, but alas

Game balance comes first. But even in lore, the clones were always superior to the later stormtroopers.

Infantry tech hasn’t significantly changed since the 1950s. The American primary rifle is based off a design 60+ years old.

Seems like in the high tech world of Star Wars, technology advances at an even slower rate. The weapons of the Clone Wars era are absolutely on par with the weapons of the GCW.

The Clone infantry were better trained and possibly better equipped than your standard storm trooper. Where the clone military tech is lessor comes in the form of capital ships. But pound for pound the infantry were much better. In terms of ground vehicles I am not sure, there have not been enough comparisons for me to comment outside of the clone wars episodes with the modified AT-TE evading the AT-ATs

The Rebels reused a ton of old clone wars tech (the AT-RT being a prime example). As others have mentioned, the Empire turned toward a military designed more for occupation and political control rather than combat. Stormtroopers were pulled and trained from the populace to enhance loyalty to the Empire, not specifically born and bred for battle.

Besides, we’re talking maybe 20 years of technological advancement during a period with a single galaxy-wide power.

It's a little funny how often I see people getting hung up on the "realism" aspect of legion. This kind of thing doesn't bother me in the slightest. I just want balanced and engaging gameplay.

But I don't come from a wargaming background, so to each their own I suppose.

Stuuf !

its a game - just play the game

2 factions for a game like this goes nowhere, multiple factions gives the game legs and lets us enjoy different play style and models

20 minutes ago, edmund_pevensie said:

It's a little funny how often I see people getting hung up on the "realism" aspect of legion. This kind of thing doesn't bother me in the slightest. I just want balanced and engaging gameplay.

But I don't come from a wargaming background, so to each their own I suppose.

I do come from a wargaming background and don't care about the "realism" aspect, since Star Wars is entirely Science Fantasy. I can understand it more for historical wargames since we have actual documentation on say the effectiveness of muskets VS rifles, but the rules of the real world don't apply in Star Wars else Lightsabers wouldn't really be possible, let alone the Force. The Clone wars tech doesn't seem significantly different than blasters and armour used in the GCW.

Balanced and engaging gameplay with multiple possible factions please over fantasy "realism" that can be changed by any author/director to fit a whim.

People wanting realism in this game need look no further than Snipers.

In actual warfare the only counter to Snipers is more Snipers.

That's certainly whats happening in-game currently.

7 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I do come from a wargaming background and don't care about the "realism" aspect, since Star Wars is entirely Science Fantasy. I can understand it more for historical wargames since we have actual documentation on say the effectiveness of muskets VS rifles, but the rules of the real world don't apply in Star Wars else Lightsabers wouldn't really be possible, let alone the Force. The Clone wars tech doesn't seem significantly different than blasters and armour used in the GCW.

Balanced and engaging gameplay with multiple possible factions please over fantasy "realism" that can be changed by any author/director to fit a whim.

Fair enough, and I'm sure there's probably a limit to my suspension of disbelief, but so far they haven't hit that. Maybe when they come out with the Ewok faction 😀

34 minutes ago, Indy_com said:

People wanting realism in this game need look no further than Snipers.

In actual warfare the only counter to Snipers is more Snipers.

That's certainly whats happening in-game currently.

Well, that or calling an air strike to level an area, although to be fair that’s also an option in game with the right commanders.

I think the OP is operating under a mistaken conception on the improvement of tech in Star Wars. For the most part, it does seem to have plateaued. While the Empire certainly does show an improvement in their spacefaring vessels, that advancement is probably due to having more experience with warships after 1000 years of peace than true technological advancement. Just looking at how the Washington and London Naval treaties slowed down real world Naval Advancement, it's easy to see how the Ruusan Reformations (assuming they're still canon) affected Naval designs.

In terms of ground combat, I dare say that the Republic is actually more advanced than the Empire in most ways. The AT-TE is infinitely more practical than the AT-AT, as is the Juggernaut, with the AT-AT's heavy armor being its real redeeming value. Clone Troopers are vastly superior to their replacements in every way, as are Republic gunships compared to the Empire's air assets.

1 hour ago, Indy_com said:

People wanting realism in this game need look no further than Snipers.

In actual warfare the only counter to Snipers is more Snipers.

That's certainly whats happening in-game currently.

Or artillery, mortars, airstrikes (as ScummyRebel said), designated marksmen, massed automatic weapons fire, tank fire support, etc. We've got a few of those, but not many.

2 hours ago, WAC47 said:

The Rebels reused a ton of old clone wars tech (the AT-RT being a prime example). As others have mentioned, the Empire turned toward a military designed more for occupation and political control rather than combat. Stormtroopers were pulled and trained from the populace to enhance loyalty to the Empire, not specifically born and bred for battle.

Besides, we’re talking maybe 20 years of technological advancement during a period with a single galaxy-wide power.

Exactly this. The Empire’s military was more for garrisoning the Empire. The Republic fought a war

Meh. We put up with it in historical games all the time. I play a Joan of Arc army (1429) and my friend collects a Charles the Bold Army (1474). Most people are ignorant of the very real changes in technology that happened in that time, but it looks fine and we both get to collect what we find interesting. The rules do indeed gloss over the changes to gunpowder and armor in the generation that separated the two. It's still the Burgundy vs Loyalist in the 15th century so we're pretty pleased with it.

Even bigger discrepancies are tolerated in the DBA series of games. Biblical Era to 1492, anything goes. The presumption being that if you WERE facing someone of your own era the weapons would be of similar performance, so we don't need to worry about what wee metal missile toting toys you chose to glue to a base. Your Imperial Roman army can happily fight my New Kingdom Egyptians even though there's a huge time difference.

I'd rather play against literally anything than an unpainted army. Wrong era clones. Home made experimental heroes or altered force organization rules. Star Wars guys crashed on a planet and get attacked by alien beasts culled from the toy dinosaur aisle of AC Moore and statted out by my friend.

As long as the armies looks as good or better than say, Britains Deetail toy soldiers, and the scenery looks at least good as a 6th graders school diorama project, I'm happy.

Something like 22 years separates the Clone Wars from the Galactic Civil War. It's a big galaxy. I don't think 22 years would create greater technological discrepancies than the standard deviation across star systems. If a data point is less than standard deviation within a group, it can't be used to make a more accurate prediction than random guessing... Sure there was no personal GPS but it's not like we were shooting muskets and using flags to communicate back in 1997. You'd have to go back before 1990/Gulf I to get into serious technological issue. Many countries' militaries still operate on a pre-1990 basis.

This is a classic fluff vs crunch but with a little work should be easy enough to explain. Vehicles yes should have a difficult time clone wars vs GCW however the small arms have remained pretty much the same.

War... war never changes.

Except in cases of extreme retcon.

3 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

Game balance comes first. But even in lore, the clones were always superior to the later stormtroopers.

Infantry tech hasn’t significantly changed since the 1950s. The American primary rifle is based off a design 60+ years old.

Seems like in the high tech world of Star Wars, technology advances at an even slower rate. The weapons of the Clone Wars era are absolutely on par with the weapons of the GCW.

That's NOT a good example. The M16 was a POS when it came out, and the M16A3 is a much better weapon, which is my point. the improvements in body armor alone make the 50s soldier lacking compared to today. the LAW is silly compared to the AT-4. Not to mention the quality of the ammunition from the 1950's to today. I 1950's to 1960's soldier is vastly inferior to a 2019 soldier.

And that's my point. i'll give you the whole bread for battle thing about the clones, but the fact is they were all breed from the same gene pool. I dont by into that making them better. Better in training, maybe, equipment no way. And the empire spends a lot on weapons development and research. Scout troopers, death trooper, dark troopers, shoretroopers.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

Something like 22 years separates the Clone Wars from the Galactic Civil War. It's a big galaxy. I don't think 22 years would create greater technological discrepancies than the standard deviation across star systems. If a data point is less than standard deviation within a group, it can't be used to make a more accurate prediction than random guessing... Sure there was no personal GPS but it's not like we were shooting muskets and using flags to communicate back in 1997. You'd have to go back before 1990/Gulf I to get into serious technological issue. Many countries' militaries still operate on a pre-1990 basis.

WW1 ended 1917 WW2 began 1939. What do you know exactly 22 years later and ever aspect of warfare from tactics to infantry weapons to tanks and airplanes changed dramatically.

37 minutes ago, Katarn said:

War... war never changes.

Except in cases of extreme retcon.

War ALWAYS changes. As a student of military history, that's one thing anyone with a basic understanding of warfare knows.

Firstly, applying real world stuff to Fantasy/Science Fantasy is typically a bad idea since the answer is often "an author didn't think of it" or "it isn't necessary for the story." That's why there's something like 3-4 variations of the AT-AT, because a script or book called for them to be a different size.

Secondly, things changed significantly between those two wars due to significant changes in military technology. Tanks and aircraft were new in WW1, so further development of those technologies led to a very different style of warfare at the outbreak of WW2.

Thirdly, it's a game, not a simulation. I've seen the rulebooks for simulation "games," many of them are the size of textbooks with large lookup tables for shooting, taking into account weather, air pressure, whether or not the soldier had a good breakfast that morning, etc, etc.

47 minutes ago, Thalandar said:

War ALWAYS changes. As a student of military history, that's one thing anyone with a basic understanding of warfare knows.

You're studying too hard: play some Fallout 😉

1 hour ago, Thalandar said:

And that's my point. i'll give you the whole bread for battle thing about the clones, but the fact is they were all breed from the same gene pool. I dont by into that making them better.

Bread for battle is very important. If I give one side in a simulation an endless supply of food and the other side an endless supply of weapons, the one with the food will usually win.

Quote

That's NOT a good example. The M16 was a POS when it came out, and the M16A3 is a much better weapon, which is my point. the improvements in body armor alone make the 50s soldier lacking compared to today. the LAW is silly compared to the AT-4. Not to mention the quality of the ammunition from the 1950's to today. I 1950's to 1960's soldier is vastly inferior to a 2019 soldier.... Better in training, maybe, equipment no way. And the empire spends a lot on weapons development and research. Scout troopers, death trooper, dark troopers, shoretroopers.

In a game you can either arbitrarily fiat that kind of stuff as being too granular of a detail for most games to track. Or you can fiat it on the grounds that the assorted pros and cons of the training vs equipment cancel out, and dispense with the extra note taking. I do wish FFG was making more of an attempt at a simulation within what we know about an established game universe, but that's never gonna happen in this particular game of Space Knights.

A 50 year discrepancy in ammo quality, that will affect your grouping but probably not by enough to matter when people are shooting at each other under stress and in the rain and whatever else. Or, let's make up a theoretical model of gun that had a 1/10,000 chance of blowing up when fired. That would be rightly looked on as horribly unsafe and would be quickly replaced, but, in a game of Legion we don't have dice and other mechanics useful for tracking that kind of chance. At the end of the day in a 40 man wargame, that represents only a few abstracted minutes of combat, the weaknesses of the original M-16 wouldn't be worth tracking vs a modern weapon. I personally think among us gamers, relative weaknesses and strengths in weapons get way overblown, it's not like one side would have single shot .22's or something. Not that anyone would ever even want to get shot at by one of those for an experiment...

1 hour ago, Thalandar said:

War ALWAYS changes. As a student of military history, that's one thing anyone with a basic understanding of warfare knows.

The relative strengths of various details change. In 1765 the reliable way to take a fortified position was a bayonet charge, that was virtual suicide by 1865. Far bigger things than the tools for any given boots-on-the-ground job transcend time, place, and numbers. That's why they still teach ancient Greek battles at war colleges.

Course radios, field telephones, and cheaper timekeeping devices were a bigger game changer for WWI than all the rifling and breech loading and everything else that had accumulated over the preceding century of warfare. Nobody ever talks about that. It changed the nature of artillery fire by allowing for indirect fire to be commonplace, and allowed for coordinating infantry assaults with artillery support on undreamt of scales. And it was the radio that finally allowed whole armies, not just skirmishers and the like, to be hidden from the enemy behind trees wearing earth-tones, without being lost to their own commanders.

1 hour ago, Thalandar said:

WW1 ended 1917 WW2 began 1939. What do you know exactly 22 years later and ever aspect of warfare from tactics to infantry weapons to tanks and airplanes changed dramatically.

Many countries began WWII with WWI tactics and technology. There's 3rd world countries right now that would love to have the 1940's American navy. If you average these kind of things out across the vastness of the SW universe I doubt 22 years would mean that much in terms of overall quality. As I say too often, more man-hours of history unfold in one year of the Empire, than have in all of Terran recorded history so far.

PS: I think it ended in 1918, with 21 years between them, but I'm not getting into counting the months so I could be wrong.