The balance problem between units is not a problem of this game, it's a direct consequence of being too faithfull to the tabletop game. Personally I think that big armored units - titans are OP as a sales strategy of GW, sadly that translated to this game.

Gargants and titan should be EXTREMELY ...

with the new elephant rules in V 2.0 monsters would work even better.

You should be thinking in UNITS instead of bases.

A 2 base width unit has a frontage of 120 mm. So you can fit 3 cavalry models there (with your current basing system) And between 5 and 6 infantry (with 25mm or 20 mm basing). SO if you limit yourself and your opponents to 2 or 4 base width units ...

Thanks Mike for reading the post in detail. I appreciate your comments. But I decided to test another set of rules for my fantasy games, because of the problems that arise from having to introduce that amount of special rules to FoG.

Maybe i will wait for FoG 2 and give it another try.

If eventually lower quality troops provider rear support then the existence of MOB will be welcome, but with the current rules they are just some ignored troop type. Maybe we should wait for the lesson taken from FoG-R and then decide what should get into FoG 2

I´m just saying that there is this troop types that nobody uses becuse it has no particular rule plus a handicap.

I think my point is not clear.

Historically they were ineffective but " volunteer" troops (maybe fanatical). So we can represent that by making them constituvely disordered (have a -1 to CT and fight with less dice), but to compensate and given their "voluteer" status they should have a price ...

i am not proposing a base change. Making them fight like LF is maybe too much, but making them fight as permanently disordered maybe be in the middle. If you think that mobs are not necesarely fanatical then maybe they could have a price reduction or get quality improvement for free. (poor mobs then ...

The base price is the same, the quality and grade of protections are the same, same with the options to weapons, so, besides the aesthetical factor there are no other difference.

I was thinking that maybe MOBs could be treated as being permanently disordered with a cost reduction or keeping the ...

Recently in a topic in the "Fantasy" section i posted a list where i classified some troops (chaos beast men from Warhmyouknowwhat) as MOB. Somebody said there that I should clasified them as MF but i argue that if a herd of beastmen is not by its nature the very definition of MOB i do not think ...

Well, this certainly looks like trolling ;p. I am kidding. Just that I do not think there is nothing wrong with movement in FoG.

I’ve had a fascination with the apparent avalanche of flaws to FoG that need fixing.

I must confess that I have a suspicion that a large chunk of the recent avalanche is actually trolling :?

I don´t think there is an avalanche neither trolling. There have been several discussions about ...

NO bonus for poor, big BG because it makes games slower.

NO negative bonus for small superior-elite BG because it makes the game faster.

Maybe FoG2 should be: the player who can deploy more Knight-superior-hvyarmor-lance or hvy inf, superior, armored, impact foot - SSw automatically wins.

I think that tougher but more "inestable" elephants could be a nice ademdum for historical battles but i can see tounament players not liking this idea at all because it introduces complexity and randomness in the games.

If you make them less likely to dye you should also consider than more than often they tended to panic and trample their own troos. I game terms i would have preferred a tougher elephant too (although i dont run any army with them) but also the possibility of panicking them and disordering their own ...

I think there is a change going in this direction in FoG-R. Correct me if i am mistaken.

You have responded yourself Dave. You havent seen a 12 bases BG in ages because they are too fragile and not worth taken. If the change improves variety in the army lists seen it is good to the game and at a minimal cost.

Sometimes i feel reading responses about propossed changesabout improving ...

I think there is a depth bonus implicit in this suggested change as DavidT said:

While on this topic, currently we have:
-1 for 1HP2B from shooting
-1 for 1HP3B from hand to hand

I would like this to be changed to:
-1 for 1HP2B from both shooting and hand to hand.

This is consistent and also ...

I think you are missing a point Nick. The failure can be due to other factors, as the enemy overlapping or flanking the deeper formations, the disorder in extra deep formations preventing it from gaining it´s suposed advantage and simply bad luck. All of this factor already exist in FoG, why don´t ...

Interesting. But you know that noone in a reenacment of this battle would deploy his cavalry in front of the hoplites or grade his spartans as average. So the only just way to obtain an historical result without help of the dice is giving deeper formations some kind of bonus.