Rules for Review.

[robertthebruce]

Please use this thread to comment any issues or unclear rules for future revision.

For keep some organization, bold type to point the head of the rule for posible revision before comments.


Thanks

[dave_g]

Issue: Skirmish armies, evading until they disappear off table.
This is a problem, but this variety of army did exist and should be a valid choice.

The problem as I see it is that evading does not have enough of a down side.

Proposed solution:
I would like to suggest a rule change.
Whenever a BG evades it should take a cohesion test, unless it already needs to take one for being charged while fragmented.

The rationale for this is that when a unit turns and runs from a charging enemy, even deliberately, there must be some temptation to just keep going, especially for poor quality, fragmented, or unsupported troops.

In game terms this would not have much effect on skirmishers in front of a main battle line, or those evading only once in the game, where the worst that could happen would be a fall to disrupted.

But for entire armies of skirmishers, required to evade repeatedly, the effect would be BGs dropping through disrupted to fragmented as they continue to evade, and eventually running the risk of being routed off table.

[Pikeaddict]

Good idea !
Delaying is the main job for skirmishers but this must be involved in a larger plan and can suffer some loss of cohesion.
A full army dedicated to delay is a non-sense as no combat will occur an no battle will be fought :
this new rule would help to discourage such non combat army.

[spikemesq]

This swings the pendulum too far in the other direction IMO.

Although skirmishers are frustratingly slippery, the RAW place several limits on their offensive capabilities. Their tactical posture is based on the ability to avoid engagement. This rule change turns that into a general inability to fight, making them some kind of speedy levy troops, like Mobs. If they are constantly testing when they evade (a maneuver they have to make unless they CMT), they will behave like (or worse than) the chained conscripts of the Mongol army.

If we are to introduce some sting to evades, that change should be tempered with a greater chance to bolster. Perhaps skirmishers could bolster without a general in contact if one is inside command range. Otherwise, skirmishing armies will never have enough generals to undo failed CTs from evades. Another possibility would be to limit cohesion drops for evades to Disrupted only. That way, evades cannot fragment the skirmishers, denying them the ability to move closer to enemy.

In any event, imposing more pressure on their morale does not strike me as the best "fix" for skirmishing (if one is even needed).

If the problem is difficulty catching evaders, perhaps the fix lies in their evade distances. Why not change evade distances to reference the charger instead of the charged? Make the variable move equal to the charge range +/- 1-2 MU. Then HF will have a better chance of catching skirmishers.

Spike

The slippery one.

[philqw78]

Good idea !
Delaying is the main job for skirmishers but this must be involved in a larger plan and can suffer some loss of cohesion.
A full army dedicated to delay is a non-sense as no combat will occur an no battle will be fought :
this new rule would help to discourage such non combat army.

Bow armed cavalry armies would be utterly destroyed.

[dave_g]

Good idea !
Delaying is the main job for skirmishers but this must be involved in a larger plan and can suffer some loss of cohesion.
A full army dedicated to delay is a non-sense as no combat will occur an no battle will be fought :
this new rule would help to discourage such non combat army.

Bow armed cavalry armies would be utterly destroyed.

I don't think they would be utterly destroyed - just more difficult to use.
The tactic of masking part of the army with skirmishers while hammering the rest is perfectly valid, but should carry some risk for the skirmishers.
As should that of a continuous withdrawal in the face of an advancing enemy - a difficult trick to pull off even with the best of troops.

So deployment and movement may need more consideration.
In the game there should be few, if any, minuses on the test.
By setting up with a supporting unit, and a general in range, to give pluses on the dice only 1 in 6 tests would be a fail for average troops.
An inspired commander or superior skirmishers would drop that to 1 in 12.

Any supporting units could then "take over" from the degraded troops if necessary while the general bolsters them, or they could counterpunch overrash chargers.

Incidently the possibility of degrading evaders should help to decoy units into rash charges that can then be exploited. This sounds very Hun/Mongol to me.

Allowing a general to bolster skirmishers by being within command distance, or alternatively allowing bolstering in the same move that they evaded sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.

[dave_r]

I don't think they would be utterly destroyed - just more difficult to use.

No, this would completely destroy any army that relies on evading.

The tactic of masking part of the army with skirmishers while hammering the rest is perfectly valid, but should carry some risk for the skirmishers.

Why? What risk did it carry historically?

[dave_g]

I don't think they would be utterly destroyed - just more difficult to use.

No, this would completely destroy any army that relies on evading.

The tactic of masking part of the army with skirmishers while hammering the rest is perfectly valid, but should carry some risk for the skirmishers.

Why? What risk did it carry historically?

Troops who were chased across the battle field had a nasty habit of not stopping, even when the chasers did. This was especially true of poor quality troops, or if there were no supporting troops to rally on.

[david53]

But for entire armies of skirmishers, required to evade repeatedly, the effect would be BGs dropping through disrupted to fragmented as they continue to evade, and eventually running the risk of being routed off table.

Did not the Mongols evade from their Russian attackers for 150 miles then turned round and defeated them, that was some evade.

Why hamper a troop type from doing what they did in real life.

A CMT for every evade and what if they fail stand against proper troops, now who would play this in a comp then?

[david53]

I don't think they would be utterly destroyed - just more difficult to use.

No, this would completely destroy any army that relies on evading.

The tactic of masking part of the army with skirmishers while hammering the rest is perfectly valid, but should carry some risk for the skirmishers.

Why? What risk did it carry historically?

Troops who were chased across the battle field had a nasty habit of not stopping, even when the chasers did. This was especially true of poor quality troops, or if there were no supporting troops to rally on.

Lets take the Skythians how would you play this 800 point army with only three proper BG's supported by skirmshing LH or LF?

[david53]

Should Medium foot move at the same speed as HF and suffer the same penlty for moving through rough terrain.

Whats the difference between armoured Medium foot and armoured Heavy foot? I know the difference in the rules but why was it made like this. Too me an armoured Spearman is an armoured spearman why the difference. They both would move at roughly the same speed or would they not?

Discuss?

[Ghaznavid]

Should Medium foot move at the same speed as HF and suffer the same penlty for moving through rough terrain.

Whats the difference between armoured Medium foot and armoured Heavy foot? I know the difference in the rules but why was it made like this. Too me an armoured Spearman is an armoured spearman why the difference. They both would move at roughly the same speed or would they not?

Discuss?

Actually I think it should be mostly the other way round. HF should move as fast as MF and suffer the same from Terrain (pikes excepted). Of course that would require some compensation for MF (probably becoming cheaper or the HF more expensive) as MF then would not have any advantages any longer to offset their increased susceptibility to mounted and HF in the open.

[philqw78]

So deployment and movement may need more consideration.
In the game there should be few, if any, minuses on the test.
By setting up with a supporting unit, and a general in range, to give pluses on the dice only 1 in 6 tests would be a fail for average troops.

So plus one for a general and +1 for rear support. So the BG needs to score 5+. Noting that it will then usually to burst through its rear support during the evade.

An inspired commander or superior skirmishers would drop that to 1 in 12.

Any supporting units could then "take over" from the degraded troops if necessary while the general bolsters them, or they could counterpunch overrash chargers.

Those same supports that have just been burst through? Possibly multiple times.

Incidently the possibility of degrading evaders should help to decoy units into rash charges that can then be exploited. This sounds very Hun/Mongol to me.

I, being a lancer player, would love this rule. Who needs to bother with the test not to charge your shock troops, there is more chance of the shooters being disrupted by being charged than their disrupting the enemy with shooting.

Allowing a general to bolster skirmishers by being within command distance, or alternatively allowing bolstering in the same move that they evaded sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.

So all generals can do this to any troops for any reason. Or is this a special rule for skirmishers?

[paulcummins]

ummm havent we done the beta test?

Isnt this thread to raise issues with the rules, not come up with wholesale chnages of the system to beat up on armies you dont like.

get a grip guys

[robertthebruce]

I agree with Paul, I don´t think that this is a thread to discuss the desing philosophy, there is not a perfect rules set, some things will like to some people and not to others, this is imposible to avoid.

We have find one issue with the rules (LF Interpenetration), and now we have an opportunity to talk about similar issues in the rules for fix them in future editions.



David

[timmy1]

If the LH are broken, rather than change loads, lets see if we can fix it. If the issue is units evading off table only lose 1 AP, how about this. A unit evading off table takes a CMT. If it passes, the army loses 1 AP, if it fails the army loses 2 AP. This represents the difference between a controlled evade designed to pull an opposing force out of shape as part of a plan (1AP loss), against a BG fleeing from mortal danger (2AP). It seems to fix the problem but at the cost of a little extra record keeping.

How does that seem?

[mbsparta]

Light Horse in FoG

I don't feel this is a problem within the rules. FoG handles Light Cavalry very well. Every ancient game I have played has this same issue; LH armies vs Foot armies; a fun and manuverable game for the LH; a dull and frustrating game for the HF. I don't have much experience with DBM, but with all the other games I have played in a tournament-setting, this is always the case.

The real litimus test for LH armies vs HF armies is how well the rules simulate the problems and advantages faced by historic opponents. In the case of Carrhae, the Romans had a frustrating battle while I would think Surenas and the Parthians had a great time. FoG, as it is, should model this type of historic encounter very well and offer a real challange for the Romans to win. It would have been interesting to see how Caesar would have fared against the Parthians. Antony, not so good.

Nik suggested that LH evading off the table count as 2 VP. I think this is the best solution, if any is needed.

One other thought; If you are using a LH army in a tournament then maybe you might want to max-out on the Cataphracts, other HC or infantry options in order to offer a better game to your opponent. A Parthian army, for example, can have quite a number of Cataphracts in lieu of LH BGs not to mention some foot. Was is Lucullus that did in a Cataphract-heavy Parthian army?

Mike B

[david53]

If the LH are broken, rather than change loads, lets see if we can fix it. If the issue is units evading off table only lose 1 AP, how about this. A unit evading off table takes a CMT. If it passes, the army loses 1 AP, if it fails the army loses 2 AP. This represents the difference between a controlled evade designed to pull an opposing force out of shape as part of a plan (1AP loss), against a BG fleeing from mortal danger (2AP). It seems to fix the problem but at the cost of a little extra record keeping.

How does that seem?

I have played LH armies for the last 13 months well at least 99% of all games.

In that time I have not evaded of table in more than a hand full of times.

I know Dave R thinks along with Nic that this would allow people the advantage of chasing LH to get the 2AP.

I don't think this will happen, but would be willing to go with this but as I have stated widely I don't think this is the problum some people have with LH. You'd give them this and then they'd come back and still say they can't catch them.

It goes with the fact that they annoy people with foot armies, and until there is a chance for them to be caught with foot armies this discussion will go on running.

There does seem to be a bit of a pick on the LH recently, while certain other troop types seem to move about with little notice taken off them.

[david53]

ummm havent we done the beta test?

Isnt this thread to raise issues with the rules, not come up with wholesale chnages of the system to beat up on armies you dont like.

get a grip guys

Does'nt this LH rule changing number of threads also count as wholesale changes to beat up of armies then don't like such as LH?

[timmy1]

Dave

I have Parthian and Skythian, so LH 'Benny Phase' is no problem to me - except that I am not good enough to avoid my LH getting caught by the HF. However I am trying to establish a precident for when it becomes a problem in FoGR, where it can get REAL cheesy and I think needs fixing.

Regards
Tim