Skirmisher issues

[david53]

Graham isn't saying that

Feel free to explain then

I'll try

Say a middling player takes a heavy foot army to a competition. A big army full of chunky heavy foot spearmen. He's hoping for some decent games and a reasonable level of success.

He plays four equally middling players, each of whom has a grit and air style army (for the sake of argument, let's say Hungarian or similar with 3BGs of tough knights and the rest skirmishers). Our guy advances the shieldwall towards the enemy, protecting the flanks as best he can. The Hungarians all try and gang up in one area with the knights and delay elsewhere. If the knight charge works, they'll exploit. If not they'll run away.

The results are as follows:

Game 1. Knights ground down and destroyed for one BG lost in the shieldwall. But the spears can't catch the skirmishers. 14-6 to the spears.

Game 2. Knights destroyed but take out 3 BGs of shield wall. But the spears can't catch the skirmishers. 10-10 draw.

Game 3. Knights break through three BGs, losing a BG in the process and with the skirmishers are able to run don another 4 attrition points, but can't finish the army off. The remaining spears can't catch the skirmishers. 5-15 defeat.

Game 4. Knights break through again, losing a BG in the process, and exploit to break the spear army. 2-23 defeat.

So the spear player gets 31 points, his opponents 54. The spear player hasn't done that much wrong, and in half the games has slaughtered the cream of Hungarian nobility. However, he ends up towards the bottom of the results sheet. He's also had a bit of a depressing weekend; there hasn't really been action across the line, and he's spent a fair amount of time plodding to no effect. and all against players who are of a similar skill level.

Now, had he played four top players with Hungarians instead he might have fared slightly worse in the points tally. But not that much worse. Indeed, if a middling player knew in advance they were going to face for top players with Hungarian "grit and air" and wanted to maximise his score, he might be well advised to take a big tough spear army.

Okey then what would you do to stop this happening in a free army choseing event? unless you say only the top 10 can have a choice of all armies and those others can't have scoot and shoot ones

BTW I still disagree with you, but I've just a middling player.

I just can't figure out its okey for him(someone big in the game) to bring a run away army, but not someone in the middle, just can't get it, maybe cause I'm in the middle. Before people decidem to explain it again I get it but just disagree.

[david53]

Nice summation Graham.

Light horse issues:
1)Evaders returning immediately to gang up on the charger that rolled the large VMD.
2)Evade and go elsewhere in their turn, effectively a double move.
3) 1 AP for evade off table. This leads to the odd situation of forcing them to the edge them trying to shoot them down and not chase them off. 2AP for off table cleans this up.

I thought number 1 was what they did historically.

But its a game?

[david53]

Light horse issues:
1)Evaders returning immediately to gang up on the charger that rolled the large VMD.
2)Evade and go elsewhere in their turn, effectively a double move.
3) 1 AP for evade off table. This leads to the odd situation of forcing them to the edge them trying to shoot them down and not chase them off. 2AP for off table cleans this up.

agree with number 3 no worries there.

[lawrenceg]

I just can't figure out its okey for him(someone big in the game) to bring a run away army, but not someone in the middle, just can't get it, maybe cause I'm in the middle. Before people decidem to explain it again I get it but just disagree.

So the spear player gets 31 points, his opponents 54. The spear player hasn't done that much wrong, and in half the games has slaughtered the cream of Hungarian nobility. However, he ends up towards the bottom of the results sheet. He's also had a bit of a depressing weekend; there hasn't really been action across the line, and he's spent a fair amount of time plodding to no effect. and all against players who are of a similar skill level.

The point he is trying to make is not that only good players should be allowed armies that perform better than other armies.

It is that a run away army should perform the same as any other army.


Currently, a middling player with run away versus a middling player without might be able to win or draw. The player without might be able to draw or lose. In other words non run away armies are not a viable option for middling players.

IF run away is made a more risky option by rule changes it will make no difference to skilful players because they will still be able to avoid defeat by skill when things go wrong. But it will allow middling players with other armies an equal chance and an interesting instead of frustrating game when they play middling players with those armies. [/quote]

[david53]

Currently, a middling player with run away versus a middling player without might be able to win or draw. The player without might be able to draw or lose. In other words non run away armies are not a viable option for middling players.

[/quote]

Lets be honest here

People want to strip LH of there ability in FOG under the idea your doing it for the middling people?

Did'nt here all this shouting when the 19BG swarms were used by top players?

Still I'm sure the authors will do what they will.

[lawrenceg]

Currently, a middling player with run away versus a middling player without might be able to win or draw. The player without might be able to draw or lose. In other words non run away armies are not a viable option for middling players.

Lets be honest here

People want to strip LH of there ability in FOG under the idea your doing it for the middling people?

Did'nt here all this shouting when the 19BG swarms were used by top players?

Still I'm sure the authors will do what they will.[/quote]

"What shouting did you hear when the 19BG swarms were used by top players?"

"Morally bankrupt"

"Well, of course "Morally bankrupt", that goes without saying, but apart from that?"

...

"So, apart from "Morally bankrupt!", "change the army lists!", "change the score system!", "ban swarms from comps!", what shouting did you hear when the 19BG swarms were used by top players?"

"Nothing!"

[nikgaukroger]

Did'nt here all this shouting when the 19BG swarms were used by top players?

Really

Weren't you on the forum when the Dom Rom swarm was first wheeled out? It'd be about the only way you'd have missed the outcry.

[david53]

Currently, a middling player with run away versus a middling player without might be able to win or draw. The player without might be able to draw or lose. In other words non run away armies are not a viable option for middling players.

Lets be honest here

People want to strip LH of there ability in FOG under the idea your doing it for the middling people?

Did'nt here all this shouting when the 19BG swarms were used by top players?

Still I'm sure the authors will do what they will.

"What shouting did you hear when the 19BG swarms were used by top players?"

"Morally bankrupt"

"Well, of course "Morally bankrupt", that goes without saying, but apart from that?"

...

"So, apart from "Morally bankrupt!", "change the army lists!", "change the score system!", "ban swarms from comps!", what shouting did you hear when the 19BG swarms were used by top players?"

"Nothing!"[/quote]

BTW which of those changes were used again?

I had its said to me only good players can use them well. Then hay middling players started using them and those that did'nt found it hard to get 19 points in 3 and half hours. So you see I did raise it that when middling players clicked on that it was hard to lose using 19 BG they started to be seen on the tournement scene.
If two average players play each other one has say 14 BG and the other 19 BG which would you say would win, is'nt this just the same as LH armies.
Change one change all or is it something elese...

[grahambriggs]

Okey then what would you do to stop this happening in a free army choseing event? unless you say only the top 10 can have a choice of all armies and those others can't have scoot and shoot ones

BTW I still disagree with you, but I've just a middling player.

I just can't figure out its okey for him(someone big in the game) to bring a run away army, but not someone in the middle, just can't get it, maybe cause I'm in the middle. Before people decidem to explain it again I get it but just disagree.

My last try:

I'm saying that grit and air armies are a problem in general. and it is particularly unfair on middling players who bring solid armies who end up coming much lower down the results than similarly skilled players who bring grit and air armies.

These armies are good for doing well in comp but often don't have the punch to win it; so I doubt that many top players will use them.

[philqw78]

These armies are good for doing well in comp but often don't have the punch to win it; so I doubt that many top players will use them.

Bosphoran is doing very well! But these armies can make the game easier to draw.

[ValentinianVictor]

Graham isn't saying that

Feel free to explain then

I'll try

Say a middling player takes a heavy foot army to a competition. A big army full of chunky heavy foot spearmen. He's hoping for some decent games and a reasonable level of success.

He plays four equally middling players, each of whom has a grit and air style army (for the sake of argument, let's say Hungarian or similar with 3BGs of tough knights and the rest skirmishers). Our guy advances the shieldwall towards the enemy, protecting the flanks as best he can. The Hungarians all try and gang up in one area with the knights and delay elsewhere. If the knight charge works, they'll exploit. If not they'll run away.

The results are as follows:

Game 1. Knights ground down and destroyed for one BG lost in the shieldwall. But the spears can't catch the skirmishers. 14-6 to the spears.

Game 2. Knights destroyed but take out 3 BGs of shield wall. But the spears can't catch the skirmishers. 10-10 draw.

Game 3. Knights break through three BGs, losing a BG in the process and with the skirmishers are able to run don another 4 attrition points, but can't finish the army off. The remaining spears can't catch the skirmishers. 5-15 defeat.

Game 4. Knights break through again, losing a BG in the process, and exploit to break the spear army. 2-23 defeat.

So the spear player gets 31 points, his opponents 54. The spear player hasn't done that much wrong, and in half the games has slaughtered the cream of Hungarian nobility. However, he ends up towards the bottom of the results sheet. He's also had a bit of a depressing weekend; there hasn't really been action across the line, and he's spent a fair amount of time plodding to no effect. and all against players who are of a similar skill level.

Now, had he played four top players with Hungarians instead he might have fared slightly worse in the points tally. But not that much worse. Indeed, if a middling player knew in advance they were going to face for top players with Hungarian "grit and air" and wanted to maximise his score, he might be well advised to take a big tough spear army.

From a historical perspective, is this not what would have happened on the battlefield? The Heavy spear armed foot would have defensively huddled down whilst the opposing army would have probed for weaknesses and then either found one and exploited it, or after several hours of to-ing and fro-ing both sides would have retired to their respective camps. This article by Rance may be of some interest here- http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/F ... Rance2.pdf

Of course, if you want a set of rules that gives you a game whilst ignoring history, then this will be of no interest to you.

[grahambriggs]

From a historical perspective, is this not what would have happened on the battlefield? The Heavy spear armed foot would have defensively huddled down whilst the opposing army would have probed for weaknesses and then either found one and exploited it, or after several hours of to-ing and fro-ing both sides would have retired to their respective camps. This article by Rance may be of some interest here- http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/F ... Rance2.pdf

Of course, if you want a set of rules that gives you a game whilst ignoring history, then this will be of no interest to you.

Very probably it is. And reflecting that history on the table is good. What isn't so good is a scoring system that allows the more mobile player to score more points than the less mobile one if both show the same degree of skill.

What would be better is rules mechanics that give historical outcomes and scoring systems that reflect how well players do against historical expectation.

It was also historical for the foot army to refuse battle, stay in their fortified towns and wait for the mounted army to withdraw if they felt they didn't have a chance of a win. Perhaps we should allow the foot player to opt for a 10-10 draw at the outset? I'm joking of course.

[grahambriggs]

These armies are good for doing well in comp but often don't have the punch to win it; so I doubt that many top players will use them.

Bosphoran is doing very well! But these armies can make the game easier to draw.

Most Bosporans seem to be a bit more thatn 3 BGs of strike troops plus skirmishers though?

[philqw78]

5 lancers and 10 BG of run away stuff is IMO much more grit than mist. All the lancers can die.

[ValentinianVictor]

From a historical perspective, is this not what would have happened on the battlefield? The Heavy spear armed foot would have defensively huddled down whilst the opposing army would have probed for weaknesses and then either found one and exploited it, or after several hours of to-ing and fro-ing both sides would have retired to their respective camps. This article by Rance may be of some interest here- http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/F ... Rance2.pdf

Of course, if you want a set of rules that gives you a game whilst ignoring history, then this will be of no interest to you.

Very probably it is. And reflecting that history on the table is good. What isn't so good is a scoring system that allows the more mobile player to score more points than the less mobile one if both show the same degree of skill.

What would be better is rules mechanics that give historical outcomes and scoring systems that reflect how well players do against historical expectation.

It was also historical for the foot army to refuse battle, stay in their fortified towns and wait for the mounted army to withdraw if they felt they didn't have a chance of a win. Perhaps we should allow the foot player to opt for a 10-10 draw at the outset? I'm joking of course.

I know where your coming from Graham.

It's all down to the fact that do players want FOG to be a good representation of historical battles, or do they want a set of ancients rules that give a good game, as we have to respect the fact that some players actually have no interest in history at all, but are interested in gaming.

[shall]

Middline, top, bottom seems a bit of a red-herring to me.

What all are saying is that heavy skimisher armies have too little risk. People choose them for different purposes, but armies that are too low risk are perhaps not good for game fun and balance. Full stop really.

Personally I like going for high risk armies with high odds of winning ... but look where that got me at Derby!

Si

[dave_r]

Middline, top, bottom seems a bit of a red-herring to me.

What all are saying is that heavy skimisher armies have too little risk. People choose them for different purposes, but armies that are too low risk are perhaps not good for game fun and balance. Full stop really.

Personally I like going for high risk armies with high odds of winning ... but look where that got me at Derby!

Si

Which is fair enough, but you do needto consider those players who use Light Horse very aggressively and not punish them as well as those who run away at first instance and then never come back.

If there was an easy solution, somebody would have found it by now. RBS mentioned capping armies at 15BG's at 800 pts. That might work. However, given that at Britcon there was only six armies above 15 BG's is it really a problem anymore?

Most Bosporans are five or six BG's of lancers and they can only have six BG's of LH. The millions of LF can be in real trouble if you target them properly.

[expendablecinc]

Middline, top, bottom seems a bit of a red-herring to me.

What all are saying is that heavy skimisher armies have too little risk. People choose them for different purposes, but armies that are too low risk are perhaps not good for game fun and balance. Full stop really.

Personally I like going for high risk armies with high odds of winning ... but look where that got me at Derby!

Si

Which is fair enough, but you do needto consider those players who use Light Horse very aggressively and not punish them as well as those who run away at first instance and then never come back.

If there was an easy solution, somebody would have found it by now. ....

There is and they have. Some combination of
- 2 ap for an evade off table
- Can evade off side edges as well
- CMT to turn 90 and move
- CT at the end of any evade move (running out of puff, ammunition, chutzpah)

BG size is a different but oftem compounded issue. The above is specifically to address skirmisher armies.

Swarm (aka large numbers of BGs) suggestions:
- capping maximum AP based on army points (ie extra BGs just give more options and spread rather than boosting army break)
- capping maximum BG size
- Army list ammendments to standardise BG sizes

[david53]

There is and they have. Some combination of
- 2 ap for an evade off table
- Can evade off side edges as well
- CMT to turn 90 and move
- CT at the end of any evade move (running out of puff, ammunition, chutzpah)

As Dave says you'll punish those that use LH aggressively by doing the above!

[expendablecinc]

There is and they have. Some combination of
- 2 ap for an evade off table
- Can evade off side edges as well
- CMT to turn 90 and move
- CT at the end of any evade move (running out of puff, ammunition, chutzpah)

As Dave says you'll punish those that use LH aggressively by doing the above!

I agree that the 4th suggestion punishes the aggressive LH play but the first three should only affect in the situations after multiple evades and would require determined pursuit on behalf of the opponent.

Point 2 would make it easier for Cav to chase LH off the side edge but at the same time I would also advise changing to avoid charge shepherding. FogR has a nice once for this by forcing any wheel before a charge to be at the start of the move only, to clearly define the direction of the charge and evaders choose thier response type after this.