BG sizes

donm · Post by **donm** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:48 am

Saw a posting about this the other day, but could not find it again so sorry if I have missed any replies. Hopefully this will encourage more.

I think that troops who fight more efficently in one rank should be allowed to be 2/3/4/5 or 6 in size. The way I thought about it was frontage, BG's of 2/4/6 etc increase their frontage by one element (assuming they act in their best formation, 2 ranks). Where others are forced to increase ther frontage from 2 to 4 or 6.

This makes them more difficult to manouvere if you field them at thier maximum size. If these are your armies best troops you will want to use the maximum you can.

From an army list point of view it also forces some armies to have only one BG of this type of troop. I am curently using my 25mm Sassanids for play testing and if I decide to use the elephants or the cataphrates I can only have one BG of each type. They are listed as bases per BG 2 to 4, total bases 0 - 6. Why should I not be allowed to have 2 BG's of 3 bases of Cataphrants or elephants?

Having just played my first game I found these already small BG's disadvantaged in combat as the enemy get to much larger BG's on the same frontage. This allows them to absorb losses better and also increases the chances of one of the enemies BG's getting a draw result in melee.

First game write up to follow shortly, when those usual Saturday jobs are done. Daughters taxi and food shopping.

Don M

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:11 pm

I made the same point recently. Elephants, Chariots, Artillery etc would all benefit by being in a BG of 3.

Fielding Ele's in a BG of 2 is highly risky and doesn't last long.

Pete

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:18 pm

Theer is, of course, a good argument that elephant units should be flaky.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:59 am

Theer is, of course, a good argument that elephant units should be flaky.

True - but some Elephants can be fielded in a BG of 4 bases. My query is why not allow 3 bases as well?

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:04 pm

We have the idea of 3 base units on the discussion list but not dealt with yet. Rest assured we'll take a view on it soon but we wantto think it through carefully in terms of how it affects the calibration. It's a question of whther it would make them too resilient.

At present the 2 base BGs is part of the calibration that makes the Bgs of elephants etc a bit brittle - something quite attractive perhaps. Certainly I am happy from a personal standpoint for people to try 3 BG groups and 2 BG groups and see what they think as part of thinking through the issues. You may find the 3 BG groups too strong in pracrtice and they may dominate the battle a bit too much.

I tried the Ghaznavid with 3x2 El and this was tought enough. My sense was that 2x3 would have left me feeling a bit too comfortable wth their invincibilty. However we could always raise the BG size and lower the + on the Death Roll, or fidn another way to bring back the vulnerability.

Seems to me the issue is really for El, Art, WWg. Is that it?

Si

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:11 pm

Anyone else who doesn't get a benefit from a rear rank?

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:30 pm

shall wrote:We have the idea of 3 base units on the discussion list but not dealt with yet. Rest assured we'll take a view on it soon but we wantto think it through carefully in terms of how it affects the calibration. It's a question of whther it would make them too resilient.

At present the 2 base BGs is part of the calibration that makes the Bgs of elephants etc a bit brittle - something quite attractive perhaps. Certainly I am happy from a personal standpoint for people to try 3 BG groups and 2 BG groups and see what they think as part of thinking through the issues. You may find the 3 BG groups too strong in pracrtice and they may dominate the battle a bit too much.

I tried the Ghaznavid with 3x2 El and this was tought enough. My sense was that 2x3 would have left me feeling a bit too comfortable wth their invincibilty. However we could always raise the BG size and lower the + on the Death Roll, or fidn another way to bring back the vulnerability.

Seems to me the issue is really for El, Art, WWg. Is that it?

Si

Letting El fight on at 1 base strength might be an answer.

Currently they lose 1 base and are off - instantly, on the 50% rule AND the 1 base left rule.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:30 pm

madaxeman wrote:Currently they lose 1 base and are off - instantly, on the 50% rule AND the 1 base left rule.

The authors currently regard that as a good thing. They are powerful but brittle. Seems pretty realistic to us.

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:31 pm

We're also trying to avoid allowing the rules create the 'ideal' BG size.
The BG size obviously depends on what you want to do with it, but the ideal sizes at the moment are:

3 - Because it removes the auto-break on 1 casualty
5 - because it negates the -1 for 25% casualties
7 - because it means you need 3 for 1HP3
9 - because you need to take 3 casualties for 25%
etc

There are advantages AND disadvantages to all the even number BG sizes, but not with the odd ones.
We want to avoid the '18.5 elements per command' syndrome.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:48 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
madaxeman wrote:Currently they lose 1 base and are off - instantly, on the 50% rule AND the 1 base left rule.
The authors currently regard that as a good thing. They are powerful but brittle. Seems pretty realistic to us.

Maybe I was just unlucky to lose them then

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:02 pm

Maybe if you have small numbers of nellies you should use them like Pyrrhos did

shall · Post by **shall** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:45 am

Tim,

I expect you did do this but just to double check. You did apply the +s on the Death Roll for El. Generally you need 4 hits to much chance of killing one and this is pretty hard to achieve. I've only lost 1 El in 12 used so far so maybe if you did you were...as you say...a bit unlucky.

Si

donm · Post by **donm** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:20 pm

I don't think that Tim is alone in this. Another point for me to look out for in my second game.

Don M

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:20 am

donm wrote:I don't think that Tim is alone in this. Another point for me to look out for in my second game.

Don M

We did apply the roll modifier - again, maybe unlucky (and I charged them into something they should not have fought!!) but they exploded and were gone instantly. No rout, just removed on a poor dice roll . Felt painful.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:37 am

madaxeman wrote:
donm wrote:I don't think that Tim is alone in this. Another point for me to look out for in my second game.

Don M
We did apply the roll modifier - again, maybe unlucky (and I charged them into something they should not have fought!!) but they exploded and were gone instantly. No rout, just removed on a poor dice roll . Felt painful.

We may remove the rule that says that BGs reduced to 1 element should be removed. This will make BGs of 2 Elite troops more viable.

Of course the elephants (being average) will still (auto)break when they lose 1 base, but you can then have the fun of them bursting through your support troops!

jre · Post by **jre** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:30 am

I like it for the proportionality. Despite the complaints, 2 2 base Elephant BGs are not much worse than a 4 base, as it just takes 2 base losses to take all the Elephants out. However with elite cataphracts, 2 2 BGs was 2 bases, while a 4 BG was 3 bases. The tendency is that the bigger the BG, the less bases you need to lose for total break (2 4 legionnaries BG require 6 bases for total loss, while a 8 legionnaires BG requires 5; 3x8 average pikes need 12, while 2x12 BGs require 10). This balances out with more attrition points when lost and partial losses along the way. Clearly the existing debate on what sizes are better is a good thing.

My own rule of thumb (after only three games, however) is to get BGs that will be at a high risk of big hits as big as possible, while those little at risk as small as possible. So Heavily Armored foot or Light Horse go well in small BGs, while Unprotected medium foot should be three deep or deeper in bunches as big as possible. Depending on role and the enemy, as well, but that is harder to plan ahead in a tournament environment.

Jos?©

donm · Post by **donm** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:24 pm

Of course the elephants (being average) will still (auto)break when they lose 1 base, but you can then have the fun of them bursting through your support troops!

Older players will be reaching for their STANDING ORDERS that force their own archers to kill their own stampeding elephants. Can't remeber if it was 4 th or 5 th edition. (Sorry for the senior moment)

Don M

shall · Post by **shall** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:50 am

Quote:
Of course the elephants (being average) will still (auto)break when they lose 1 base, but you can then have the fun of them bursting through your support troops!

Older players will be reaching for their STANDING ORDERS that force their own archers to kill their own stampeding elephants. Can't remeber if it was 4 th or 5 th edition. (Sorry for the senior moment)

Don M

4th IIRC correctly. The first set I played. Not sure if RBS suggestion above was a concession or a threat.....

I find things pretty positive when there are several views of what is good an bad. Makes the game interesting. In a way what we want is for it to be hard to find a signle answer to such questions.

Si