Poor LF – why do they make an army harder to rout?

[waldo]

I’m prepared to come under attack from the usual suspects, but I can’t see the logic in these troops – the lowest of the low – increasing an army’s battle group total for army rout purposes.

Considering their point cost and historical lack of effectiveness, I think it would be better to have them count zero towards an army's battle group total but only 1 attrition point for a loss. The net position is the same if they are thrown away on suicidal missions, 1 attrition point, but they won’t be used as they are now, to make an army harder to rout at minimal cost.

Walter

[jlopez]

I’m prepared to come under attack from the usual suspects, but I can’t see the logic in these troops – the lowest of the low – increasing an army’s battle group total for army rout purposes.

Considering their point cost and historical lack of effectiveness, I think it would be better to have them count zero towards an army's battle group total but only 1 attrition point for a loss. The net position is the same if they are thrown away on suicidal missions, 1 attrition point, but they won’t be used as they are now, to make an army harder to rout at minimal cost.

Walter

I suspect the answer to that one will be that being poor they are vulnerable troops that can be run down...bla, bla, bla. It's something that does need fixing as there is no way the loss of a BG of 4 poor LF slingers should be equivalent to that of of a BG of 8 elite legionnaries.

I'd be more comfortable with a system based on the worth in points of a BG probably the same as the current one: once you've lost half of the army points (not including generals) in routed and fragmented (1/2 points) units. This would focus the fighting around the high-value BGs rather than the current tactic of going for the easy kills plus another BG or two.

[hammy]

The AP and army break system are at least simple as things stand.

A more complex system could improve things but it would need to be quite well thought out. Making poor light foot count as 0 to army size and 1 for break point may 'resolve' the issue you have with light foot but what about small BGs of poor medium foot etc.

I think the suggestion of a cap on the number of attrition points to break an army of say 1 AP per 50 points would do the job more than well enough without the need for extra complexity.

[jlopez]

Not quite sure if your answer covers my proposal too but if it does I really don't think it's too complicated to:

1. Add up the points value of all the BGs.
2. Make a note in the army list of half that value to indicate break point of the army.
3. Add up 100% of points of lost BGs and 50% of fragmented BGs to determine if the army has broken or not.

I realise the current system is very simple but surely most of us are able to count past ten without the use of an excel spreadsheet or calculator?

As an additional idea, dead generals could add to the total of broken/fragmented BGs without contributing to the overall army total. For example: An 800 point army with 4 TCs would have a break point of (800-140)/2 = 330. Might make players a bit more cautious about charging in with their leaders and a dead IC would have a significant impact on the army morale which it currently doesn't.

[grahambriggs]

I'm not sure it would be a good plan to count 'half points lost' as the break point. I'm often frazzled enough to struggle with the current system. And I can see the more retentive types spending 15 minutes with "right I've killed that lot for 258 points - or is it 260? Let me check...Now I need a further 142 points. That pike block, would be 48, so I could go for that and the knights. Or I could try for the cavalry wing. Hmm. How much is that worth?...." Zzzzzzzzzzzz

[madaxeman]

All skirmishers / poor troops are counted as 2AP when lost as a game mechanic to stop you, as a tabletop general, throwing them away like they were a folorn hope. Its nothing to do with whether the army would care less about them when lost

It is supposed to result in skirmishers doing their thing before the lines clash, and then leaving the main area of the field after some inconclusive, erm, skirmishing and delaying of the enemy battle line - kinda like what they apparently did in history.

Making them worth less APs means they will be sacrificed more often, which is arguably less realistic.

The real problem with skirmishers is that they are too difficult for main line of battle troops to catch and kill, so they tend to stick around long after the "skirmish" phase of the game has theoretically finished, and instead they are recycled and become highly maneuverable units capable of delivering massed shooting.

[kevinj]

Mr Axeman is correct, it is the fact that skirmishers are able to prolong their activities with little risk that causes the problem. I like the suggestion that has been made elsewhere that any evaders should take a CT, as this will result in the likelihood of skirmishers progressively dispersing following repeated evades.

I don't want to go back to counting army points either. That makes an 8 point Poor LF BG a real throwaway.

[philqw78]

Mr Axeman

You've gone up in the world Tim

I don't want to go back to counting army points either. That makes an 8 point Poor LF BG a real throwaway.

No, it makes a 12 base BG of poor Mob the perfect tool to stand in front of the enemies best units. When pursued they will only outrun HF, and will take ages to kill off, dragging a few hundred points out of the game for your 24.

[waldo]

All skirmishers / poor troops are counted as 2AP when lost as a game mechanic to stop you, as a tabletop general, throwing them away like they were a folorn hope. Its nothing to do with whether the army would care less about them when lost

It is supposed to result in skirmishers doing their thing before the lines clash, and then leaving the main area of the field after some inconclusive, erm, skirmishing and delaying of the enemy battle line - kinda like what they apparently did in history.

Making them worth less APs means they will be sacrificed more often, which is arguably less realistic.

The real problem with skirmishers is that they are too difficult for main line of battle troops to catch and kill, so they tend to stick around long after the "skirmish" phase of the game has theoretically finished, and instead they are recycled and become highly maneuverable units capable of delivering massed shooting.

I don’t think players are likely to throw away poor LF if they count as 1 AP. It might make players less likely to use them if they don’t add to an army’s battle group total.

At the moment, they do their skirmishing and then get to hang around and make it harder to break the actual fighting troops – so their skulking in some bushes trying not to get killed (or just hanging out behind the lines) makes the rest of the army fight longer.

Or do you really think that one unit of average LF javelinmen instead of two units of poor LF javelinmen makes it less likely the rest of the army will stick around?

It seems that poor LF units are being used to make the rest of the army harder to break at a bargain cost. That doesn’t strike me as realistic.


Walter

[hammy]

I don’t think players are likely to throw away poor LF if they count as 1 AP. It might make players less likely to use them if they don’t add to an army’s battle group total.

At the moment, they do their skirmishing and then get to hang around and make it harder to break the actual fighting troops – so their skulking in some bushes trying not to get killed (or just hanging out behind the lines) makes the rest of the army fight longer.

Or do you really think that one unit of average LF javelinmen instead of two units of poor LF javelinmen makes it less likely the rest of the army will stick around?

It seems that poor LF units are being used to make the rest of the army harder to break at a bargain cost. That doesn’t strike me as realistic.

Your suggestion of 0 AP added to the army and 1AP for losing them would not mean people throwing them away but you would have to draw the line somehwere. If the rules are changed so poor light foot only count that way then people would take BGs of 4 average ligth foot and it would have pretty much exactly the same effect as things do now.

There is probably a problem at the extremes of the range with the current system but fixing that problem without adding a significant degree of complexity or just slightly relocating the problem is not an easy thing to do.

[BeansNFranks]

I don't know the answer to this, but some change to how army break point is determined would be welcome.

[azrael86]

I think the suggestion of a cap on the number of attrition points to break an army of say 1 AP per 50 points would do the job more than well enough without the need for extra complexity.

All that does is reset the optimum in favour of armies with slightly more expensive troops. In fact it is arguably worse, as LH are a bigger problem than LF, and cheap LH typically cost 32/40 pts per unit...

In effect penalise the massed barbarian armies (those are so good, aren't they?), and don't impact the drilled swarms or the LH/Cav/steppe armies.

[hammy]

There is a proposal to cap the number of AP required to break an army at 1 for every 50 AP in the army so an 800 point army would be defeated after it suffered 16 AP. Not a huge change but it will slightly cut the extremes.

The last time I played an army with poor LF filler I charged them with my lights so they evaded through their supports then I kept the supports busy and hunted down all the poor lights in the rear to break the army.

[hazelbark]

There is a proposal to cap the number of AP required to break an army at 1 for every 50 AP in the army so an 800 point army would be defeated after it suffered 16 AP. Not a huge change but it will slightly cut the extremes.

The last time I played an army with poor LF filler I charged them with my lights so they evaded through their supports then I kept the supports busy and hunted down all the poor lights in the rear to break the army.

The problem with the army size is also a function of time. In Lisbon I face a 21 BG army. 1/3 were poor skirmishers. I killed one drove off the others. And thery were irrelevatn to the game other than making it practically hard to end the game in time. Yea I have drive off the board lots in other game.

A simply solution would also to make poor LF add only 1 to the army break point.

[hammy]

A simply solution would also to make poor LF add only 1 to the army break point.

Then you would get people complaining about 4 base BGs of average slingers which only cost 16 points......

[hazelbark]

A simply solution would also to make poor LF add only 1 to the army break point.

Then you would get people complaining about 4 base BGs of average slingers which only cost 16 points......

So you prefer to do nothing. I at least support modest reforms.

[hammy]

A simply solution would also to make poor LF add only 1 to the army break point.

Then you would get people complaining about 4 base BGs of average slingers which only cost 16 points......

So you prefer to do nothing. I at least support modest reforms.

Not at all, I just don't think that making one particular troop type count differently for AP is not the right way to solve it.

If you want complication look at the way DBMM manages its breakpoints where troops count as being worth 0, 1/2, 1 or 2 elements and the camp counts as another amount and then troops can be either destroyed or spent. Lots of complexity but I am not sure that it is any better than the initial DBM system.

I simply think that capping the number of AP and making BGs that evade off table count as full losses would be more than enough.

[DavidT]

People take BGs of poor LF because they help bulk out the army BG count and are cheap. Point for point they are much more effective than average LF. 2 BGs of 8 poor LF slingers cost the same as 1 BG of 8 average LF slingers. I would take the 2 BGs of poor every time. Even re-rolling 6s to shoot, they still have 66% more firepower than the the average BG. BGs of 8 are also less prone to having to take CTs and therefore being poor is less of a problem. As LF are not really expected to fight, being poor is not an issue for combat (and average LF will get slaughtered by real troops just as quickly as the poor ones).

A simple fix, which doesn't impact upon the army list books is one suggested by others previously to address the swarm issue. Introduce a fixed command cost for each BG of say 10 points. Then a BG of 8 poor LF slingers will cost you 26 points, a BG of 8 average slingers will cost you 42 points. Therefore you would need to go for two BGs of 6 poor slingers (at a total of 44 points) to equate to the cost (roughly) of the 8 average slingers. 6s are more vulnerable to shooting and will take more CTs, therefore 8 average may become an option again.

[philqw78]

I am completely convinced that a an extra point cost per BG fielded is a better way. The army list books do not need any amendments, and its a single line extra in the main rule book.
10AP per BG. 950pt instead of 800pt armies in future comps.

[Delbruck]

I am completely convinced that a an extra point cost per BG fielded is a better way. The army list books do not need any amendments, and its a single line extra in the main rule book.
10AP per BG. 950pt instead of 800pt armies in future comps.

I agree, although perhaps 1000 points may be a better number. Nice and even, introducing only slightly larger armies.