Field of Glory Ancients version 2

[grahambriggs]

The system of commanders could do with a bit more complexity. 80% of army designs have either 4TCs or IC + 2TCs at present. Dull.

For example an IC is good at winning the initiative, moving a big battle line, providing missile protection, rallying troops, and having a 12MU range. you could break up those skills into different costs - e'g' Darius was good at winning the initiative against Alexander but seemed not to have the other attributes.

Some undrilled troops are poor value. Bowmen for example. Armoured knights are poor value. As are protected and unprotected cavalry who can't shoot. Unprotected combat foot are poor value unless they have heavy weapons.

A routing unit only affects friends within 3MU at the moment it breaks. This seems too localised suggest it is extended to include anyone within 3MU of the initial rout.

[grahambriggs]

Skirmishers seem too potent. The role of LF in the early battle seems to work OK - shielding the proper troops and goading the enemy. But they act as 2AP filler - that's too much, especially when poor. Partly it's because they can't easily be hurt - even if you do disrupt them and take a base off they just slip away. LH Bow are similar in that respect (but perhaps more understandable). They are comfortable troops to use as it doesn't really matter if you get a bad cohesion test - just pull them out then bolster them.

Skirmishers being able to shoot down formed foot bow later on in the game is a bit odd.

A suggestion to cut down on all this: make it possible for skirmishers to double drop cohesion levels when shot at. If this were a risk, then the skirmishers, particularly poor ones, would run a bit more risk and might need to be more cautious. It wouldn't change skimisher v skirmisher interaction much but would improve formed bow.

Allow non skimishers to make a second move closer to skirmishers. Quite what distance is a fine judgement - perhaps 3MU? At present it is all too easy to slow people up on the flanks with skirmishers rather than real troops. That doesn't feel historical.

[nikgaukroger]

Graham's comment on skirmishers above reminds me of a suggestion somebody made a while back that if testing for being shot at by Skirmishers you have +1 on the CT.

[Delbruck]

Currently we are getting a lot of ranom thoughts about version 2, some very good.

If we are really serious about getting player input about a new version, wouldn't it be better to set up a seperate area for the new version, and have individual threads for different topics.

[hammy]

Graham's comment on skirmishers above reminds me of a suggestion somebody made a while back that if testing for being shot at by Skirmishers you have +1 on the CT.

I suspect that was me.

The full idea was that non skirmishers shot at only by skirmishers got a +1 on their CT from shooting

[peterrjohnston]

Skirmishers seem too potent. The role of LF in the early battle seems to work OK - shielding the proper troops and goading the enemy. But they act as 2AP filler - that's too much, especially when poor. Partly it's because they can't easily be hurt - even if you do disrupt them and take a base off they just slip away. LH Bow are similar in that respect (but perhaps more understandable). They are comfortable troops to use as it doesn't really matter if you get a bad cohesion test - just pull them out then bolster them.

I think this is because there is no risk in skirmishers, they will always evade out of trouble unless put in a very bad position (which takes some doing). This is both because of the relative move distances, ie LH are virtually uncatchable, LF almost so, except by LH, and also because there is no "penalty" in trying to evade.

There's a nice idea in Impetus about skirmishers (LH/LF) being dispersed on failing to evade. This would be easy to introduce into FoG. To evade, skirmishers must pass a CMT. If they fail, they can either stand to receive, or are removed from the table as permanently dispersed with a 1 attrition point lose.

I can hear Dave whinging already

[philqw78]

There's a nice idea in Impetus about skirmishers (LH/LF) being dispersed on failing to evade. This would be easy to introduce into FoG. To evade, skirmishers must pass a CMT. If they fail, they can either stand to receive, or are removed from the table as permanently dispersed with a 1 attrition point lose.

I can hear Dave whinging already

Making skirmishers take a CT if charged by non-skirmishers would be easier to implement. As if they fail they go down a cohesion level. You may get them back, but probably not. Pass or fail they evade and could be caught and pulverised as now. Though they don't get pulverised very often. They would be withdrawn out of the way of battle troops a lot sooner in this case.

[nikgaukroger]

Moderator Stuff

Guys can I again ask that you just post your ideas for things that could be changed for the better in FoG v2 and not to start discussing possibilities. I have deleted a number of posts to day because of this.

If you think something justifies a discussion please start a new topic on it - this will keep this thread manageable.

Edit Peter has very sensibly asked that a new sub-forum be set up for V2 stuff so that there is both a place for a list of ideas for changes and a space for discussions of any individual points all under one roof, so to speak. Hopefully Slitherine will set this up.

[peterrjohnston]

Better armour: + : If net POA from all other factors is – or worse, unless enemy has Heavy Weapons.

I quite like this idea, as I agree, I think the armour POA distorts melee combat unreasonably and in my view is one of the major faults in the basic rules mechanisms. Perhaps also a POA if the armour class is two or more higher (eg, heavily armoured versus protected)?

[grahambriggs]

Structural thoughts:

A better index would be nice.

Some bits in the glossary are important rules. Move them into the relevant section.

Find a visual way to split out the 'interesting but not actual rules' words in the book.

An optional rules section would be interesting to cover:

- scenarios for games with uneven points. e.g. give one side set up or terrain selection/placement advantages in retuurn for fewer points

- assaults on fortifications/seiges

- natural factors (weather, time of day, hunger, thirst, tiredness, etc)

- basic campaign rules to tie the above together.

FoG is at risk of being self selecting towards the 'gaming' end of the spectrum. a lot of people who might like the play of the set are put off by the lack of enough historical feel. Optional rules could broaden the appeal without forcing the 'gamers' to adopt them.

[nikgaukroger]

A thought on Skilled Swordsmen - I don't think it needs to be removed, although it should be taken from Romans and Roman Argyraspides to get the interactions with barbarians correct, however, I think I'd suggest that it has a ++ PoA in the melee phase (the troops who would remain with it only have Swordsmen as a capability).

[azrael86]

Agree that battlelines should have more benefit, to stop the "starburst" effect.

Also BG sizes need to be looked at. The embargo on odd-numbered BG's, whilst correct for some, isn't so for a lot of the more expensive troops, for instance Kn or BWg. The effect of this has been to dramatically increase (usually) or completely abolish (rarely) the presence of these troops either in the list or in the army as eventually picked.

A simple example is that 4 BWg have a depth of 320mm in 15mm, this effectively means that a BG of 4 has to start two wide (and therefore doesn't cover the whole flank). Also BWg should probably be allowed to form irregularly, i.e. 2-1-1, for the same reason.

Camps should be more valuable to incentivise their protection.

[spikemesq]

Impact Phase: The impact phase rules need substantial clarification. I won't rehash some of the extensive chatter we have had on this. Many of the conventional wisdom doctrines regarding "outliers" and charge targets should be specified in the next version. I still believe that outliers (skirmishers that are beyond charge range but within charge range with VMD bump) should not be permitted to evade. In any event, whatever the rule is should be clear.

Flank Shooting: I also think that flank shooting should offer more than frontal shooting. Yes, this benefits skirmishers that many feel are too powerful/useful. OTOH, it seems odd that troops that are vertically distant from the shooting victims (e.g., rear ranks beyond 3) do not help the target BG but troops horizontally distant (the other end of a wide BG) still count against tests caused by flank shooters. Something based on the "first three ranks" rule could be:

A BG being shot entirely from the flank, counts only those bases in the nearest three files or front three ranks (whichever is less).

Thus, flank shooting would only add dice to frontal shooting. But shooters purely on the flank would have greater effect than those shooters to the front.

Shooting into the rear should also have better results than frontal shooting. Perhaps any hits from rear shooting could provoke a test? Or rear shooting could factor into the POA calculations?

Swarms: The easiest "fix" for swarms is in the army books IMO, but the utility of penny-packet armies is certainly out of whack. If there is a rule angle, perhaps broken units could continue to cause or impose a modifier on cohesion tests as they rout past friendly troops? This may cause too much of a domino effect, but it could carve back the utility of loading up on small cheap BGs because filler kept in reserve could face problems from routing BGs.

Field Commanders: The points and/or rules for FCs could use some attention. Except for flank marches and allies, they hold too little value for their cost. Perhaps they could have a +2 modifier and 6" range? Or split their modifier into +2 for some tasks, +1 for others to make them more like ICs. For instance, and FC could have 8" command, +1 initiative, +1 cohesion tests, +2 CMTs.

[timmy1]

Phil's post on skirmishers matches almost exactly what I was going to suggest.

Adding colour, skirmishers properly supported and led will get away with the CT more often than not. Isolated and left on their own on the flanks and moving like a helicopter yet still not able to be caught does not seem either historical OR condusive to a fun game. This change makes that tactic risky.

Only difference between Phil's proposal and mine is that I would say EVERY BG that evades has to take a CT not just skirmishers.

Tim

[madaxeman]

Actually rather than spell more stuff out here, how about all these suggestions?

[stecal]

Camps should be more valuable to incentivise their protection.

Simple fix here and also to penalize taking the maximum # of commanders everytime is to make the camp worth 1 pt per general taken including allied generals

[expendablecinc]

Camps should be more valuable to incentivise their protection

I dont think thier value shoudl be based on generals or simply increased in value across the board. they shoudl have an impact on the army as a whole regardless of size (currently the value of a camp decreases in value inversely proportional to the number of BGs.

Proposal:

A camp is equal to the number of BGs in the army / 4 (rounded up) (not counting scythed chariots)
8 BG camp value = 2 AP
9-12 BG = 3 AP
13-16 BG = 4 AP
17+ BG = 5 AP

[stecal]

Another option is that losing the camp changes the army breakpoint to 75% of BG count.

[hazelbark]

Flank Shooting: I also think that flank shooting should offer more than frontal shooting. Yes, this benefits skirmishers that many feel are too powerful/useful. OTOH, it seems odd that troops that are vertically distant from the shooting victims (e.g., rear ranks beyond 3) do not help the target BG but troops horizontally distant (the other end of a wide BG) still count against tests caused by flank shooters. Something based on the "first three ranks" rule could be:

While you make good points, another set of napoleonic rules explained why they don't have flank fire. Historically it was very rare. Gamers because of base sizes do it far too much by comparison. At these scales it would be very hard. Even one base over you really are not raking the deck or crossing the T. You would be shooting into the line from an angle.

[philqw78]

I think this is a bigger issue than the authors realize. Also putting this in probalby justifies the second edition and answers the critics who will howl are we building another castle in scotland by selling us a new edition so quickly.

Yes, but you could sell a terraced house in Manchester and buy a castle in scotland.

I do though think the extras should be there. Siege, campaign, and scenario. Siege could go on a couple of pages, as I would think so could the others.