Unrestrained logic in wargames rules can lead to all sorts of strange effects. In one old set of ancients rules you required to score a 6 to hit fully armoured cataphracts. There was also a rule that cavalry became one point harder to hit if they dismounted. All very logical but it meant that if ...

Yes the rules could have had another exception for breaking off to include light foot but is the complexity really needed? The more exceptions the more players will forget them and breakoff is allready one that a lot of people miss anyway.

From my personally point of view the answer is yes, it's ...

Personally I'll generally be happy if an opponent attempts (will need to pass a test in the open of course) to stand with LF infront of most mounted. The LF fight with half the dice at impact and in melee even with overlaps they will be a double PoA down against most mounted (mind you I'd like to ...

I believe the reason is that LF fight with half the dice of other troops and that's enough of a disadvantage. Frankly, the chances of failing to rout an LF unit in melee with mounted are quite small and virtually inexistant with HF unless fragmented.

Julian

Well HF and MF have no real problem ...

Hi, maybe this has already been asked but......
...... why LF haven't any malus on CT if they loose an impact or melee against HF or mounted troops?

MF have such malus, why LF don't? Do LF become courageous once committed (or forced) to fight?

And why mounted troops have to break-off in front of ...

scusate se vi annoio con domande che ad alcuni possono sembrare triviali ma.....
quale formato suggerite per cominciare
ho un amico che vorrebbe iniziare col 6mm
è davvero più economico?
lo si può usare nei tornei?
e come si relaziona col 15 o altri formati? ci sono complicazioni?
grazie
Andrea ...

Just for curiosity: why haven't you considered some kind of temporary disorder arising from melee?

We did of course consider this - as we considered many other things that we did not ultimately adopt.

There are several reasons why we did not adopt it, including:
1) It would require another set ...

By desing the CT is the dominating factor as it was hsitorically but DR is critical in providing a balance for eventual exhastion of small elite troops. It is very very carfefully balanced and was subject to several 1000000s of simulations.
Si

Just for curiosity: why haven't you considered some ...

Well there isn't zero risk to the winner, just less risk than to the loser.

I can't think of that many games where both sides take similar penalties regardelss of winning or not. I suppose that the old WRG rules did mean you picked up gradual losses on winning forces through casualties but most ...

FWIW when I first started playtesting the game I missed the +2 on the death roll for winning or drawing in melee. The game still worked but it was dominated by death rolls not cohesion. If you feel that removing the +2 is a good idea by all means play that way but I don't expect it to become a ...

between "realism" and abstraction.
and playability

Yep, but the simple change on a dice modifier on the DR from +2 to 0 or +1 doesn't change the mechanics of the ruleset and IMHO gives more realism to the game increasing the probability that the winner of a melee loose some stand.

With the ...

One such situation happened in a game with a friend (my bad deployment for trying to take advantage of some terrain features) and when I tryed to change the formation I searched the book looking if I can simply shift the bases during normal movement, well there's no rule that allow you to do so, you ...

stopping a powerful BG is nearly impossible
And this is the game. Don't try and stop it. Pick off its supports, shoot it, skirmish it, slow it down, tempt it into a bad position. My heavily armoured, drilled, superior, knights don't fight elephants. My light foot do.

Yep, two possible choice ...

Hi,

After > 50 games (and 4 french tournaments), I can say that it is not true. Elite BG don't dominate the game at all.
Did you experiment this problem in real games ?


Regards
Lionel

I haven't played any tournament but in many games with my friends I've found that stopping a powerful BG is ...

Yes. As per links suggested.

Logic being they are behind the BG needing support and angled such that they could reasonably wheel to help them out. If they were slightly more angled away then they would fail to provide support.


I'm sorry but in the above situation if the BG named X fails its CT ...

I can guess you haven't played a lot, your opinion might change :wink: .......Just look at the army that won Britcon, which seemed to follow exactly the opposite strategy......

The only army that can really get a lot of elites so far seem to be the MRR and LRR, and general advice seems to be to ...

The two are simply abstractions to get 2 ways to be destroyed - one by attrition of losses and one by morale. CT pressure is the main mechanic for breaking opposing armies in FOG. In any FOG game most base casualties come from pursuits and actual base losses are a pretty small proportion of any ...

Well from my knowledge of military history the majority of casualties for the loosing side comes after the rout of the army and the subsequent pursue by the winning side not by the raw fighting.

In a single melee there are very little chances that one side is smashed and the other comes out fresh ...

IMHO one of the few (but big) problems of FoG is that in melee or impact the winning BG come out more or less untouched so with my fellow wargamers I've tryed a little change on the rules thas seems to better balance the game.

Simply remove the +2 bonus on death rolls for won or drew close combat ...

What I'm trying to say is from a player point of view, this isn't a problem as terrain hinders more than it helps (unless your Numidian perhaps); but it just seems unrealistic to set up like this

Unrealistic or only different from other tourament-like wargames? :wink:

I think that this system ...