Broken Rules

[shall]

I am off getting married on Saturday and away for 2 1/2 weeks thereafter so if I don't respond its not lack of interest ...

For now I will add a few wider consdierations to the debate based on a few posts. The issue as ever is careful management of the overall game balance. We palyed with lots of options in development so see the side effects quite well.

The good news bottom line is that in terms fo broken rules over 18 months it looks likewe have only 1 - which we will fix - see cheesy stream for current suggestion from Terry and I.

Si

[shall]

1) The only real problem with FoG is the super-long-interpenetration.

Authors agree and are on the case - see stream.

Other problems here mentioned do no seem too serious to us.
That is:
- Lh armies seem not too powerful and players have found ways to counter them.

What we want to keep at all costs is that all armies have the right feel. Many changes to LH armies will change that feel very much. Their knack in real life would be to run away and therefore be less at risk than a static army, but also to have less punch. In testing we found a large LH only army hard to catch and finish off - but also difficult to win with. This then becomes a player choice and a skill issue. I caught a Mongol with Ancient Britons and 24-1ed it. Terry killed off a Pecheneg of mine using ancient Greeks. Of course it isn't easy but that surely is part of the variety and fun.

- Swarm Romans have not been used here in tournament as yet. I have played some friendlies with them and verified that you need a very good player to handle them. Probably Graham E. would win even if using Ottomans or others.

Anytime a top player wins lots of tourneys with a single army there is a debate about whether it the army - and it usually isn't. If I used my Nubians and played 12 comps a year you might all be saying it about this army instead. Graham's army is very beatable but you have to put it under a lot of pressure and take the initiative away from him. What Terry and I have looked for is patterns below the very best players for armies that dominate. This is a better measure of army effect. Nothing materials strikes us so far.

- The road is an issue only from the point of view of realism. It would seem 'normal' to let roads go over any terrain placed before or after them. That is why roads existed for.

When we considered this we had two perspectives. 1. We all often think of roads as we see them today. Our sense was that in later periods when the engineering was good, roads went through and over terrain a lot; but in the early days (considering all roads not just a few roman exceptions) roads were likely to be created along easy terrain. This is why roads don't go down last and over things in the ancient rules but lijely will in later periods. 2. From a game balance point of view an option that costs you 2 pts and takes out 33% of terrain is quite a good one to have in. Sort of gives you a 33% steppes effect in other terrain options if of interest and reflects initiative winner finding a flatter than average place to do battle.

- The overall impression is that the game is balanced enough and doesn't need any further touch-up. I have personally a couple of ideas about things that could be improved without altering anything, but for the moment it's better to keep silent about them.

We have a list of about 15 minor improvements to consider for vs 2 one day but nothing significant enough that we feel a burning need to introduce them to vs 1.

[shall]

2. Evading off table loses 2AP. Again simples, removes a pointless annoyance and nothing more complex is needed.

Too much and we tried it extensively in development. Kills the feel and usefulness of LH armies. A stored idea for vs2.0 is a CMT to evade of table voluntarily. This creates a sort of 1.33AP effect.

3. Drilled foot turn and move option - the thing that really makes Dom Rom so effective, and aids HYW Englist/WotR as well. Not quite sure what to do here but the possibility that the move part of the move and turn should be limited to 1/2 normal move in the going they are in springs to mind. I have also ponderd whether all troops, Drilled and Undrilled, should need an 8 to pass a CMT; after all drilled get to do things that Undrilled can't so also passing on a lower score is something of a double bonus - double whammy's are avoided so why not double bonuses?

One could do it but aren't we taking away the skill from the game. I worry that options to stop Graham winning by deskilling is not the way to go. FWIW if I were to do anything at present it might be to put an upper limit of 16 BGs in a comp army.

4. I'd drop MF move to 3MU and LF to 4MU - with an option on LH dropping to 6MU as well. For those concerned about such things would impact on LH and swarm armies.

The move speeds at present are part of the reason for getting so many results. Reducing them really drags the game. We started with DBM speeds in development and deliberately increased them all and it increased the pace and fun enormously. Also critical to balance of slow vs fast moving armies and LH vs HF armies - all of which were tested for balance extensively.

5. Whilst it hasn't really bothered me quite a few people are clearly not happy with the pre-battle stage - I think I'd consider allowing the player who loses the initiative roll to pick terrain first. Mind you I'd also consider not have any initiative modifiers on the roll and leaving it as a straight dice roll - but not in conjunction with the other suggestion

Latter removes a fun items so even just on that count I would be inclined to keep it whatever. First bit may have some merit but I have never felt it necessary. The old DBx system had massive benefits to attacking and defending, whereas FOG seems to be very mild by comparison.

Si

[nikgaukroger]

Ive never seen the interpenetration abuse happen, so can really comment on that, but it sounds a bit of a bummer.

Oh it is

In fact I'd go as far as to say that if not tackled, and people start exploiting it rather than being gentlemanly about it, that it is going to drive people away from the game.

Niks FOGR solution does (I think) prevent HYW billmen passing through the LB. not that I have ever done that on purpose, so no big loss.

Depth of 2 ranks of Longbowmen is 40mm, 2 ranks of billmen is 30mm so a total of 70mm front to back, so with a HF move of (at least) 75mm in the open they can clear - I think

[nikgaukroger]

2. Evading off table loses 2AP. Again simples, removes a pointless annoyance and nothing more complex is needed.

Too much and we tried it extensively in development. Kills the feel and usefulness of LH armies.

Rubbish

I've made much use of LH armies and a 2AP for an evade off table will hardly affect them as if handled properly you hardly ever have it happen anyway.

IMO not making this change will just maintain an annoyance for zero gain - would smack of a Barker-esque refusal to admit something is wrong

3. Drilled foot turn and move option - the thing that really makes Dom Rom so effective, and aids HYW Englist/WotR as well. Not quite sure what to do here but the possibility that the move part of the move and turn should be limited to 1/2 normal move in the going they are in springs to mind. I have also ponderd whether all troops, Drilled and Undrilled, should need an 8 to pass a CMT; after all drilled get to do things that Undrilled can't so also passing on a lower score is something of a double bonus - double whammy's are avoided so why not double bonuses?

One could do it but aren't we taking away the skill from the game. I worry that options to stop Graham winning by deskilling is not the way to go. FWIW if I were to do anything at present it might be to put an upper limit of 16 BGs in a comp army.

If anything it will increase the need for skill as you couldn't just rely on the maths of more fighting BGs getting you the game (see Tim's Rome report for a view on how this works).

Drilled getting a double bonus here is, IMO, an issue.

[dave_r]

I've made much use of LH armies and a 2AP for an evade off table will hardly affect them as if handled properly you hardly ever have it happen anyway.

As the player who has probably used LH armies more than anybody - Nik is right. I very, very rarely run a BG of LH off table.

However, LF run off all the time - so perhaps 2AP for LH and 1 AP for LF?

I also agree on the Drilled Foot BG's - MF effectively have a 6" pinning zone per BG of four eminating in all directions - surely that is too much?

[spike]

Disagree Dave and Nik, as

I've made much use of LH armies and a 2AP for an evade off table will hardly affect them as if handled properly you hardly ever have it happen anyway.

As the player who has probably used LH armies more than anybody - Nik is right. I very, very rarely run a BG of LH off table.

However, LF run off all the time - so perhaps 2AP for LH and 1 AP for LF?

I see this solution as possibly still too advantageous for evaders, I suggest 1ap for players own base edge evade, otherwise 2ap- dont get your troops stuck against other edges.

I also agree on the Drilled Foot BG's - MF effectively have a 6" pinning zone per BG of four eminating in all directions - surely that is too much?

1) It is not in all directions (you can't turn 180 and move)

2) There would be a reduction in all other comparitive movement rates for all troops- conversly this actualy "improves" the effectiveness of LH movement rates over other troop types.
i.e. If MF were reduced from 4 to 3 Mu and LH from 7 to 6 Mu, the LH are comparitively faster after the changes.
- Also It would mean games are slower as the table area would be increased in comparison to ground scale, which would make it more difficult to finish games in 3 to 3 1/2 hours.

3) There would be too many rule changes at the same time, which would be fine for FoG 2.0 (which I anticipate would be significantly different to FoG in certain areas), but would lead to another period of playtesting to see if they work together. An organic 1 change at a time approach may be better- Lets fix "Interpenetration" first, before moving on to the next problem.

Spike



Spike

[dave_r]

1) It is not in all directions (you can't turn 180 and move)

Yes - but if they turn 90 degrees and end up as single element wide column then it is very easy to wheel 90 degrees and end up behind them...

[spike]

1) It is not in all directions (you can't turn 180 and move)

Yes - but if they turn 90 degrees and end up as single element wide column then it is very easy to wheel 90 degrees and end up behind them...

But it's not 6" is it!

[madaxeman]

I've made much use of LH armies and a 2AP for an evade off table will hardly affect them as if handled properly you hardly ever have it happen anyway.

As the player who has probably used LH armies more than anybody - Nik is right. I very, very rarely run a BG of LH off table.
However, LF run off all the time - so perhaps 2AP for LH and 1 AP for LF?
I also agree on the Drilled Foot BG's - MF effectively have a 6" pinning zone per BG of four eminating in all directions - surely that is too much?

Agreed. There is not even a sniff of a problem whereby walls of foot regularly run all-mounted or LH-heavy armies off the table. Making evaders 2APs for leaving the table simply gives armies some chance of beating skirmish forces in a tabletop game - its not a campaign or scenario.

LF or not - well there are synergistic effects here to think about - LF are bought to add cheap bulk in big LH armies so by making them all 2AP if fleeing off table it would encourage "all mounted" mounted forces and decrease the use of cheap foot bought with no tactical purpose other than as filler in an otherwise mounted army? Conversely making LF 1AP and LH 2 could mean swarms of lurking psiloi at the back of the board behind a load of LH?

[nikgaukroger]

I see this solution as possibly still too advantageous for evaders, I suggest 1ap for players own base edge evade, otherwise 2ap- dont get your troops stuck against other edges.

Typical wargamer making it more complex than necessary 2AP for leaving the table regardless of edge is all that is needed for this issue.

2) There would be a reduction in all other comparitive movement rates for all troops- conversly this actualy "improves" the effectiveness of LH movement rates over other troop types.
i.e. If MF were reduced from 4 to 3 Mu and LH from 7 to 6 Mu, the LH are comparitively faster after the changes.
- Also It would mean games are slower as the table area would be increased in comparison to ground scale, which would make it more difficult to finish games in 3 to 3 1/2 hours.

Plenty of games with troops who move 3MU (with or without mounted moving at 4 or 5MU) finish in time - if you can't time to up your tempo a bit

3) There would be too many rule changes at the same time,

Time to buy more memory then

An update of about half a dozen material changes is easy to assimilate - in fact the more major they are the easier it is as they are more noticable, it is the subtle ones that cause problems.

[spike]

I see this solution as possibly still too advantageous for evaders, I suggest 1ap for players own base edge evade, otherwise 2ap- don’t get your troops stuck against other edges.

Typical wargamer making it more complex than necessary 2AP for leaving the table regardless of edge is all that is needed for this issue.

If you want simple- play ludo
The rationalisation for that is the players base edge is closer to home, and therefore the evade off table could be classified as "a retreat in good order". Side edge and opponents edge would probably result in the BG's elimination of the unit at some other point.

2) There would be a reduction in all other comparative movement rates for all troops- conversely this actually "improves" the effectiveness of LH movement rates over other troop types.
I.e. If MF were reduced from 4 to 3 Mu and LH from 7 to 6 Mu, the LH are comparatively faster after the changes.
- Also It would mean games are slower as the table area would be increased in comparison to ground scale, which would make it more difficult to finish games in 3 to 3 1/2 hours.

Plenty of games with troops who move 3MU (with or without mounted moving at 4 or 5MU) finish in time - if you can't time to up your tempo a bit

Unfortunately players having lots of BG's, slows the game down - and requires the cooperation of your opponent to also play at a high tempo. I think you will find there is a correlation where the more BG there are on table, the less likely the game will end with one or the other broken.
I for one would rather have larger movement allowances, not less!

3) There would be too many rule changes at the same time,

Time to buy more memory then

An update of about half a dozen material changes is easy to assimilate - in fact the more major they are the easier it is as they are more noticeable, it is the subtle ones that cause problems.

There are 2 camps Dave "I love LH and want their babies" Ruddock and Tim "LH- they should all be castrated at birth" Porter
It is accepted that one thinks there is no problem - and he's wrong, and the other wants a raft of changes which would make some armies impotent or useless- which is also wrong!

Major changes is probably not the way to sort this out, and you are right- it will probably take upto 1/2 dozen subtle changes to fully sort out the interpenetration problem, such that neither is Dave or Tim is happy at all but everyone else will be happier to some degree.

Spike

[shall]

As the player who has probably used LH armies more than anybody - Nik is right. I very, very rarely run a BG of LH off table.

Alas the analysis is over simplistic as you rarely do it in a world were it is worth only 1 AP and therefore not worth too much effort to chase it and make it happen, and you are well abov average as a LH player.

When we tested it out 2AP radically changed the behaviour of the opposing army and we were being fled off table all the time as now it is an easy way to win the game. Made LH armies almost unplayable between us .... but maybe it wouldn't in general and it was just us as comp pros of old. Willing to be convinced, but my testing so far would suggest 2AP would lead to major breakages in the feel factor once behaviour of the two sides settled down. I would personally never field LH armies if this were the case, which worries me as today I happily field them.

The question is to predict what changes in the behaviour of both sides if you insert a 2AP for fleeing off table - not to view the games as they are at present and see what they would look like with the score change. The score change creates behaviour change ... if that is a good behaviour change then great.

As this is the key point could we kick that part of it around a bit. Good questions are:

Facing Mongols with a MF foot army how would plans and results change
Facing Mongol with HF army how would plans and results change
Facing all LH with mounted impact troops ...
Facing all LH with a Kn army ...
Facing all LH with a Bow army ...

We would need to assess if all game bahaviour changes make sense from both sides from a game balance point of view and from a historical feel point of view. I have a view from the testing phase ... but willing to be convinced.

Si

[madaxeman]

There are 2 camps Dave "I love LH and want their babies" Ruddock and Tim "LH- they should all be castrated at birth" Porter
It is accepted that one thinks there is no problem - and he's wrong, and the other wants a raft of changes which would make some armies impotent or useless- which is also wrong! Spike

I'd actually categorise my view as LH armies find it a bit too easy to get away from their enemies at the moment and there are seemingly loads of odd little LH-friendly rules shoehorned into the rulebook all over the place which work together to help create this situation. OK, we want LH to be viable but surely game balance would be better served if one or two of these odd rules were looked at again?

[madaxeman]

As this is the key point could we kick that part of it around a bit. Good questions are:
Facing Mongols with a MF foot army how would plans and results change
Facing Mongol with HF army how would plans and results change
Facing all LH with mounted impact troops ...
Facing all LH with a Kn army ...
Facing all LH with a Bow army ...
Si

In all these situations I'd take an IC to protect me from shooting and give me a half-chance of getting some terrain on the flanks, take as many "armoured" troops as possible and try and fill the empty bits of the table with 40-odd elements width of troops and advance to try shove the LH player off the back edge of the table. When they redeployed their strike troops my single-ranked line of men would consolidate down to some double-ranked units to try and match up their strike force and hope (in vain) that the LH didnt then get thru the resulting gaps and loot my baggage!

The only change with 2 AP for an off table LH unit would be that this strategy might actually work!

[nikgaukroger]

The question is to predict what changes in the behaviour of both sides if you insert a 2AP for fleeing off table - not to view the games as they are at present and see what they would look like with the score change. The score change creates behaviour change ... if that is a good behaviour change then great.

Players already defend even that 1AP as much as they can so I doubt there would be a material change by the LH player - what it would, IMO, do is make the great effort needed to chase down LH and, maybe, force the evade of table, worth the effort as many people (some good players included) don't think it worth the effort at the moment. Much better situation I think.

[shall]

Thanks for the And your analysis proves what in your opinion? Doesn't support your case much IMHO at all - in fact goes against it.

May I suggest a dozen of you test it out properly and report back honestly what happens rather than speculate very roughly on such a big change. We tried it out specifically quite a lot and it would be good to compare notes afterwards. Maybe our results of real game tests with 2AP off table flees were wrong, but your first analysis here Tim suggests to me they were probably right, as what you generally suggest is what tends to happen as it converges. This is why I think LH armies would disappear from the game in such a scoring system.

FWIW I agree you want it to be able to work some of the time - although I must say this is my personal experience. My sense is we want to shift the pattern a bit but not throw the baby out with the bath water. Moving to 2AP makes it work most of the time even if run by a novice, unless our testing was wrong. Hence my preference for a 1.33AP considered solution for the future. The other tweaks I would add would be more about making it a little harder for LH to get away when RAed.

Another factor is army design. I know some LH armies may appear so I have a plan for them in most armies. If you choose an army without such an option then you will not find them easy to beat. But you get your payback elsewhere one assumes with perhaps more slow foot punch.

It's an interesting one ... as many are ... as the effects of changes are much more subtle than one might first imagine once you take into account how behaviour changes in the games.

I think we agreeing that putting the 1AP up would be useful in balance ... but a leap to 2AP is much too much and there are far better solutions IMHO.

Si

[shall]

Rubbish

I've made much use of LH armies and a 2AP for an evade off table will hardly affect them as if handled properly you hardly ever have it happen anyway.

IMO not making this change will just maintain an annoyance for zero gain - would smack of a Barker-esque refusal to admit something is wrong

Alas you are looking at how you will change the use of your LH army ... but alas this is not at all the behaviour change that matters. Tim's is more along the lines that cause the big problems if our testing is anything to go by.

Si

[david53]

The question is to predict what changes in the behaviour of both sides if you insert a 2AP for fleeing off table - not to view the games as they are at present and see what they would look like with the score change. The score change creates behaviour change ... if that is a good behaviour change then great.

Players already defend even that 1AP as much as they can so I doubt there would be a material change by the LH player - what it would, IMO, do is make the great effort needed to chase down LH and, maybe, force the evade of table, worth the effort as many people (some good players included) don't think it worth the effort at the moment. Much better situation I think.

If your considering making it harder for LH armies by adding a 1AP per battle group for an evade are you then going to look at a change to the effect that their shooting has against foot.
As one of the writers has said the effect of shooting is in relation to the ability of the LH to stand up to foot armies. Therefore by making it cost more to evade you should allow them to have an effect on armoured foot dropping the five to four to hit otherwise all you'll have is table wide armies moving over the table pushing LH armies off the edge.

[madaxeman]

As one of the writers has said the effect of shooting is in relation to the ability of the LH to stand up to foot armies. Therefore by making it cost more to evade you should allow them to have an effect on armoured foot dropping the five to four to hit otherwise all you'll have is table wide armies moving over the table pushing LH armies off the edge.

I agree and see the logic to an extent, but having tried to push LH off the edge with a table-wide IC-led mostly armoured army, I still haven't even ever come close to achieving it. So I suspect the game balance may not need redressing