Disturbing Trend?

[TheGrayMouser]

How about those Bosporans. Suddenly, everyone is goifng for them and field masses of bow cav. I wonder why people want to play such a boring (for both sides) game? Is winning everything? Lots of shooty armies at TT tournamanents, lots of draws because they are timed.

Too bad there isn't a filter to deny shooty players to accept your challenge. I don't mind losing, I do mind frustration.

Deeter

I agree (I think) I don't mind losing in an action packed slugfest not a minuet. I can't dance so I get frustrated.

Wow, whats going to happen when expansions that feature a lot of middle eastern and or steppe armies come out?
I mean what do you guys consider "shooty armies" anyways? I dont think i have ever played a battle where it came down to trying to chase my opponent across the board and lasting 20 plus turns..
I have an issue w the Bosphorans as well, but not because its a shooty army, just way too many heavy lancers and those darn sword only cavalry that apparantly only they can field!

[MesaDon]

guess I just will not buy those expansions.

[TheGrayMouser]

Sorry if i came of as cheeky in my last post, should have changed the words or added a smiley

Maybe I have been lucky and not faced an opponent that has a pure light force, my own experiance is that when faced w an army that probobly should be a shooty army, it often has a lot of pikes or what not in the mix as well. Cheers

[MesaDon]

No offence taken. The type of army you mentioned is the kind that is frustrating. You really have no one to advance on because almost the whole army is missile units and with the bigger DAG maps using 400 points does not give you enough units to force a mobile force off the map. Occasionally a change of pace is fine but it seems that a shift on the types of units making up an army may be shifting. Maybe the limit allowed is to high on the 400 - 550 point armies as those limits are the same as 1000 point armies. Maybe the lack of the DAG system differenciating (excuse the spelling) army point size is to blame. Think I need a shrink now.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think you hit the nail on the head w your referance to the 400 point battles vs the larger one. I find the Seleucids always seem way over powered in the 400 point games as they can load up on alot of armoured lancers cats etc, all drilled to boot!.. Even though it seems they should be lacking somehwhere else, they really arnt... What happnes is cavalry becomes way more relavent to the outcome of the battle in the smaller games, way more so than seems historical..Now in the 600 point battles, due to the limit on cavalry it balances out out nicley. Perhaps lights should have some limit on them as well.
Of course there is the argumant that light foot shouldnt be able to evade cavalry etc etc just to confuse the issue.

The only shooty army I deploy is Early Amenians, they get no allies, no heavy foot at all.... I have never been able to atrrit my foe and evade indefinately w this army...one by one the lights get tagged and routed, the cats go off and do there own thing, I would hate to think that people think its boring to play me when I field them, perhaps I fear they might think it boring cause I always lose w those buggers (I cant stop using them though!)

[Xiccarph]

I see that I am 2 and 2 vs the Early Armenians. One of the battles was a close finish, two were comfortable wins by the victor and one was a spanking, with me doing the crying. The Bosporans on the other hand I have lost to four times, and I got whipped in three of them, offering at least some token resistance in one. I pirmarily play Pontics, but I give in to my love for circus animals and shiny armor fairly often and play Seleucids as well. I am wondering how other armies are faring against the Bosporan Menace.

[Paisley]

I've beaten the Bosporans once with my Macedonians in an bigger game (over 600 points) and come close to beating them a couple of times with other armies in smaller games. I beat them with Parthians once too. Playing as the the overpowered medium cavalry/light infantry spammers, I've been beaten twice, I think, and won over eight times.

Superior medium foot and light cavalry/cataphract armies seem the bane of the Bosporans. But in fairness, I think it's only their cavalry bows (who can usually skirmish as well as lights and charge home too if desired) that really overpowers them in small games.

Again, if missiles (bar lights) could only shoot with one dice if they moved, and if a CMT was required for any change of facing if coupled with movement (but drilled get a free change of one hexside), I think the Bosporans would be appropriately tamed.

I've never had a game that felt gamey with 600 points or more (and most have been really good) but the smale battles don't feel right to me. I think the post that said cavalry become too important at low points is about right.

[quote]What about those battles of 800-1000 points where there are no wide flanking moves - you have to beat the opposing units on the flank to get past? If you introduce CMT's how will that effect such battles.
[/quote

I think it would enhance them also... no dodgy retreating whole blocks of infantry without penalty.

[SRW1962]

How about those Bosporans. Suddenly, everyone is goifng for them and field masses of bow cav. I wonder why people want to play such a boring (for both sides) game? Is winning everything? Lots of shooty armies at TT tournamanents, lots of draws because they are timed.

Too bad there isn't a filter to deny shooty players to accept your challenge. I don't mind losing, I do mind frustration.

Deeter

I think thats the problem, a sort of competition wargames approach to 'one off' games. When you are playing against someone you know, its different, people want a 'good' game, but when its a sort of competition game with an otherwise unknown player the worst aspects of gamers mentality creeps in with gimmicky armies and a win at all costs mentality.

Maybe, an idea would be to have paired games, two armies one picked by each player and then you play as BOTH armies over two games to get a result. It may reduce the gimmick choices if players knew they would be facing their own creation. Or maybe thats too hard to set up, I don't know, all I do know is that I avaoid competition style games like the plague and prefer instead to play with friends. I know that this isn't possible for some people out there, so perhaps there is another answer to this.

[pcaravel]

I think the whole frustration comes from the fact that light troops evade so easily.
This has been addressed again in this forum, if I recall correctly.

Maybe, there should be some limitations in evading (e.g. light foot can't evade light horse, light horse can't evade similar light horse etc),
or, maybe, evading units should get one cohesion level down when evading.
I haven't thought this through, but you get the point.

[IainMcNeil]

We'll have to look at the way this is handled. Maybe we rate each army in some way and allow you to select the types of armies you want to play. E.g. Foot Armies, Cavalry armies, etc. Allowing you to exclude challenges for specific lists is going to be too clunky once all the armies are available.

I think all skirmisher armies can be caught but if you dont enjoy playing them that's not the point.

We need to work out a way for you guys to get what you want. Bear with us - we'll see what we can come up with.

[Morbio]

I can't help but agree with most of the sentiments here. I too detest the wasp-like armies (e.g. Pontics) and get frustrated by them. I too employ the tactics listed by SRW1962 and either pin them with other lights and destroy them (a cheap source of break-points) or ignore them if I can close quickly enough with either my Cavalry or my line.

That said, I do have 2 Pontic armies because I like a little variation, and their cavalry isn't bad, and I also believe that to know your enemy makes you a better general (didn't Sun Tzu say something like that?).

The bit I disagree with is the complaints about cavalry flanking. I'm a big fan of cavalry and tend to pick those armies that have good reliable cavalry (Drilled, Superior, Armoured is a minimum). I like the challenge of trying to get behind the enemies line, and dancing with my main line until I can bring the 2 elements to attack together. Often I'm successful, sometimes I'm not.

Interestingly enough my 700 point Pontic army was absolutely destroyed by iversonjm's Roman army last night. His deployment and use of terrain was great and his use of weak lights to pin my LF and LH skirmishers and destroy them was excellent. By the half-way stage I found I was trying to hide most of my skirmishers because he was killing them so effectively. Then the real legions closed with my imitations and they were like boys against men - about 2 turns to rout a unit At the end I'd just managed to get my cavalry behind his flank defence when the game ended and I was still only about 60% to my objective

[TheGrayMouser]

Clearly there is a wide range of opinions on what makes good game play. I can completely understand that some players just don’t like to play vs certain style armies, whether its due to a game mechanic(ie lights evading) or just don’t like armies that can maneuver around and shoot (style of play).

On the flip side, without the variable of fighting armies like the Bosphorans or other light armies, the great variety of tactical situations the game offers is greatly reduced. After all it’s Field of Glory, not Field of the Phalanx.

After thinking about this to some degree, I wonder if it’s the open nature of the DAG battles that result in possibly unfun situations for some players. After all, the nature of the DAG is a random battle between 2 random opponent w equal size point armies, without any sense to a historical reference ie Why are they fighting in the ist place?, what is the objective of each army? FOG only has one objective and that is break the other army via the break point system.

I wonder if match ups could be more interesting if some type of bid system or the ability to have one side declare itself a defender or attacker could help? Players could place a bid in victory conditions ie cant consider themselves a victor if they lose say over 60% of their army…. Or perhaps in some lineups the attacker simply loses, always, if he doesn’t break the other army before the game turn limit ends… This would certainly put some pressure on a light army to “get on with it” as opposed to simply running off lobbing missles ad infinitum….
Just some thoughts…. Cheers

[Morbio]

I agree that the variation is what makes it a great game (in most circumstances). I also agree that it has to be a balance of historical accuracy and playability.

The main thing about skirmishers that annoys me is when it is almost impossible to catch them, which is think is probably neither historically accurate nor giving playability. IMO if there is a way for LH, other cavalry or other LF to catch them now and again (even if not all the time). It would mean that they can't be used with impunity.

In the example I gave above, which I give full credit to my opponent for his play, the skirmishers he was using were worse (percentwise) than anything I had, so it was very difficult to remove the threat against me, yet whenever my LF or LH got too close to his line they attacked, pinned the unit and the cavalry or legions destroyed them.

I know we have covered this lots of times, but there has to be a chance of Cavalry (LH as a minimum) to catch LF.

[Paisley]

Personally I don't mind playing against any army. The issues I have are mainly that some (actually just Bosporans at the moment) seem to me to be somewhat overpowered (mainly due to the auto-about face for missile armed non-lights) and that in the small games (ie <600 points) fracturing a mobile army so it can swarm round a less mobile foe is too easy. This is exacerbated by the ease with which disciplined medium and heavy foot can withdraw, meaning many 400-500 point battles end up as two or more wholly separate fights. It seems to me cavalry and lights are relatively more powerful in the small games. In the bigger points battles, it's easier to hold a reserve to deal with flankers, it's harder to turn a flank because there's not miles of space to either side of the armies (there is still space enough to turn a flank but it must be worked at a bit) and the battles tend to remain more cohesive affairs.

I'd like to see non light bowmen restricted to only a single dice if they move and shoot and, as I say, a CMT imposed on any non light unit that attempts to move and change facing (bar a free one hexside change for regulars) in a single turn.

Something also needs done about the fact that having better skirmishers than your enemy is generally more of a handicap than a help as his evade yours but yours are pinned by his - thus making the poorer and cheaper skirmishers generally more of an asset. this is silly.

But it is my opinion that the maps for 400-500 point games are relatively too big, meaning games feel more gamey and less battle-like. They can still be fun but they're less satisfying than 600+ point games (I've never felt disappointed in any 600+ point games, whereas I've had very few memorable 500 or less games).

[TheGrayMouser]

I too like diversity in the armies I field and face, at one point not long ago I regulary fought against Gauls, Spaniards and Cartho's, Now its mostly Seulucids, Bosphorans and now Pontics...

I couldnt agree more withis this stmt from Paisley:

"Something also needs done about the fact that having better skirmishers than your enemy is generally more of a handicap than a help as his evade yours but yours are pinned by his - thus making the poorer and cheaper skirmishers generally more of an asset. this is silly. "

Overall i think FOG is very well balance and generally doesnt allow a game mechanic/oversite to become a gamey feature that is often a huge problem in other pbem games (example in the Campaign Series games, players using truck transports as recon or as opportunity fire triggers)

However the above game mechanic w ultra light troops being used as anti light unit hunter killer teams IS gamey, as it is unhistorical , although I dont blame the players who do so as it is certainly effective and maybe the only viable solution they have w some armies.

Not thru just this thread but others as well i have come to the conclusion hat the biggest issue many have w the game is the treatment of light troops...

I imagine if they couldnt evade from cavalry players certainly wouldnt be able to advance masses of light troops on the flank when there is enemy cavalry lurking, as is historical, they would really be confined to their role in atritting the main battle lines before they clash, and of course preventing the enemy from doing the same.
Light troops being able to pin other light troops? Maybe just make the pass of the Command test that much harder for them to charge home.
These are just things that have been posted before in multiple threads

[deeter]

Light troops and evades should be treated as they are on the TT. YOU chose if you will evade, the evader rolls and could move short, the attacker rolls and could go long. It is possible for horse to catch LF in the rear that got too close. I think FoG TT has some of the best skirmish mechanisms out there, but they are thrown away on the PC.

Rope-a-dope attacks against better light troops are a common gimmick, as are crazy evades off the table by heavy cavalry. Even worse is ability of missile troops to get a free facing change just because they can shoot. Drilled infantry can face, move and face again--something only light troops can do on the TT, and even they must pass a CMT to do so. These and wacky route moves are the glaring problems with FoG PC.

As for shooty armies, I don't think they're much fun, but I'll face them and occaisionally play them. But the Bosporans benefit to an unreal degree from the above problems. I grow weary of seeing a wall of bow/sword cav that are effectively as nimble and as cheap as skirmishers, asnd I've only faced them a few times.

Finally, when I issue a challenge it's never a password game and I always say who I'm bringing. I do this so I can meet new players and in the hope they will bring an appropriate army that will give a fun game. It's a risk that they'll bring a shooty army to face my heavy foot army, but what can you do? It might be better if, when you post an unspecified challenge, the computer picks the nationalities for both sides and you play what you get.

Deeter

[Paisley]

How about:

average and poor bow and sling armed light infantry and poor quality javelin armed light infantry may only charge steady javelin armed light infantry in flank or rear? This means high quality lights can safely see off their markedly weaker brethern without being rope-a-doped.

plus a CMT is required for any non light to change face and move, if the CMT is failed, the desired move still happens, but one level of cohesion is lost. If two changes of face are made (the 'classic' about-face, move, about-face gimmick), two CMTs must be passed. This means the tactic is not banned but is risky unless closely supervised by a good general.

plus if non light bows move and fire they roll only one dice to determine casualties.

plus if light infantry are charged by any mounted except cataphracts, their evade move is reduced to two hexes (plus any extra required to pass through friends). This would mean they keep close to friendly forces when cavalry are close.

plus evades are not possible through enemy zoc (this may be true now... not sure)

plus if charging mounted fail a CMT when their mounted foe evades, they follow up to end one hex short of the enemy rather than stopping in the vacated hex as at present (making it chancy to charge lights if they are closely supported).

[petergarnett]

So not when the opponent is frag'd as current?

[RyanDG]

I really, really do think that deeter just hit the nail on the head on two aspects...

#1 - We should be given the option to assert more control over evades - ie, flag specific units to evade with different behaviors (I've said this quite a bit, but I'll say it more and more each time it comes up).

It could be really simply -

A) Evade always
B) Never Evade
C) Evade if combat % is less than ____

#2 - The rolls for evade distance... Something needs to be considered here.

[TheGrayMouser]

Deeter wrote
"Light troops and evades should be treated as they are on the TT. YOU chose if you will evade, the evader rolls and could move short, the attacker rolls and could go long. It is possible for horse to catch LF in the rear that got too close. I think FoG TT has some of the best skirmish mechanisms out there, but they are thrown away on the PC."

I really like the mechanism of that, the "rolling short rolling long" The only issue I see is having the player choose when to evade, would hate to see the game slowed down by having to send multiple impulses back and forth just to complete a turn... perhaps it could accomplished by what others have suggested, the ability to set differnet stances for your units, but then again some feel that this gives to much control...