"Roman Vs. German/barbarian challenges?" Topic

The ancient games that I see tend to be Early Imperial Romans vs. some type of barbarian. The Romans form a line and wait for the barbarians to smash themselves against it. Is this a fairly accurate representation of Rome vs. the barbarian world or not? Thanks.

I am sure its the way the Romans wanted it, rather like British Colonial armies. Not much has changed in real terms over the centuries, just the names!

The deeper you read into the history, as with any other period, the more you find tactical finesse. No, it was not just line crashing into line. It was individual weapons handling, small unit tactics and larger unit tactics. The Romans would learn from their opposition and adapt their tactics to be better the next time. "Romans At War" by Simon Elliot is a great single volume from which to learn it, if you are interested. The ancient games that are merely line versus line smashing has to do more with the level at which you playing the game than the history. When I finally read more ancients, that is when I gained an appreciation for the art of war it was.

Often but not always true – for example the Teutoburg Wald where the Germans demonstrated considerable tactical acumen versus XVII, XVIII, and XIX legions

And here when you said challenges I was envisioning like when the Germans sang some of the Zulu adrenaline songs before mixing it up with the Romans at the beginning of Gladiator.

I think you'll find that there is not even a great deal of consensus among modern historians about what these battles even looked like, in terms of how fighting was actually carried out. Should we picture entire battle lines surging toward each other? Smaller units of men advancing to contact and falling back when they fail to achieve a local advantage? How long can men stand face to face exchanging blows with their enemies before they are utterly exhausted? Everyone has their own opinion, because it's not a situation we can recreate.

Add to those problems the fact that we have no accounts of battle from the "barbarians" in question, and the Roman accounts we have are mostly not from combatants, and the problems just get murkier.

Also the concept of the mad barbarian charge is not the entire story. The Germans could keep good order and advance in a slow steady manner. They were also willing to hold a defensive position.

Their most famous victory at the Teutoberger involved holding a defensive position behind palisades on the Roman flanks.

On first impressions, a battle like Strasbourg in 357AD looks like two lines meeting.
The difference between the two sides seems to be the Roman ability to respond to breakthroughs. Some of this would be within units, and may be represented by a set of rules as a function of the unit or troop type used. Other responses are by the rear line and neighbouring units, which is likely to be represented by the commmand and control aspects of rules.
We don't have an Alamanni account to know what their response was of course, so we are reliant on Roman sources. They are at least very current and probably based in part on Julian's own records. His role is doubtless magnified but the Romans are not presented as being perfect, with the actions of some units being criticised.
Reading the accounts in Ammianus, Libanius and the slightly later Zosimus are worth doing if you are interested in this sort of thing – though like any source, a critical eye is required.