Propose change poor LF cost to 3 points

davouthojo · Post by **davouthojo** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:15 am

Poor Unprotected troops currently cost 2 points, making poor LF some of the best value in the game even if they can't hit the side of a barn door.

In the game, Light Foot are most valuable for their ability to constrain the enemy - block lines of fire, incite anarchy, draw into uncontrolled pursuits, prevent rearward moves, preventing double moves. Hits from firing are just icing on the cake - especially javelins, and they should never get into combat. Currently 2pt poor LF are even more valuable than 4pt average LF in this role (though they will be equal after S&S allows evade settings).

Poor LF provide the same very cheap BP buffer as 2 pt Levy/Mobs and are 10 times more useful - very manoevrable and very hard to catch.

In general I think the points system of FOG is well balanced - this is one of the few areas where it could be improved, and be a partial solution to the "horde" issue. Would tone down some of the very strong armies - Bosphorans, Seleucid, Medieval Irish, Grenadine.

For better balance, I would increase poor unprotected LF with javelins or slings from 2 to 3 points, bows and xbows from 3 to 4 points, keep poor unprotected MF or HF mobs at 2 points.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:57 am

I think this is a good idea, or if not increasing AP's capping the # of the bargain price "poor" lights you can buy in any given list.

Xiggy · Post by **Xiggy** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:36 pm

I think a better solution might be that the poor troops have a much higher chance of getting caught, then the higher moral LF. Currently the poor troops are better then the superior troops.

ianiow · Post by **ianiow** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:44 pm

Xiggy wrote:I think a better solution might be that the poor troops have a much higher chance of getting caught, then the higher moral LF. Currently the poor troops are better then the superior troops.

Nice idea. Make them more indecisive when it comes to evading. "Rabbit caught in Headlights" syndrome.

Xiggy · Post by **Xiggy** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:29 pm

I know the new evade options in the next patch may help this, but if you are skirmishing with LF, there is no reason to get cretans who are superior, or even average LF. I was wondering, as far as missle fire goes do poor troops get less dice? Do they have a lesser chance of a hit?

deeter · Post by **deeter** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:44 pm

Poor troops re-roll 6's. Otherwise, they get the same number of dice, etc.

Deeter

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:59 pm

Xiggy wrote:I know the new evade options in the next patch may help this, but if you are skirmishing with LF, there is no reason to get cretans who are superior, or even average LF. I was wondering, as far as missle fire goes do poor troops get less dice? Do they have a lesser chance of a hit?

Poor LF have to re-roll 6's so hit less often, especially against targets where they are shooting at a - POA or worse. Superior LF re-roll 1's so hit more often.

Chris

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:27 pm

As a player who realised early the advantages of poor LF (being able to pin other LF to destroy with other troops), I'm slowly changing my mind and moving more to the better LF. The evade options will almost certainly mean that I will use poor LF very sparingly in the future.

The reason for this change of heart is simple...

Against the better players, who don't send their skirmishers out without support, there is nothing to gain and a lot to lose. They don't give the opportunity to pin without the high probability of your skirmisher being destroyed before your troops can attack, and when it comes to a missile battle, the poor are... well, poor! The rarely hit for any significant damage and break much sooner. Often I find I'm having to hide them to stop them being hit so they don't auto rout. As a screen for my pikes they are of limited use, after a few turns they are so brittle that I have to hide them and so my screen has gone.

So, I'm not convinced that they should cost more. The only time the poor are good are against opponents who play their skirmishers badly and I find this happens less and less. I'm sure the level of tactics and general play is improving and this is making the benefits of poor skirmishers diminish.

My vote is to keep the points as they are.

claymore58 · Post by **claymore58** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:56 am

ianiow wrote:
Xiggy wrote:I think a better solution might be that the poor troops have a much higher chance of getting caught, then the higher moral LF. Currently the poor troops are better then the superior troops.
Nice idea. Make them more indecisive when it comes to evading. "Rabbit caught in Headlights" syndrome.

Rather than being caught .... wouldn't a more realistic option be for the "poor" LF to become a disorganized rabble and "evade" off the board?

ChrisH · Post by **ChrisH** » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:05 pm

One thing that would help to weaken swarms of poor quality troops would be extending the distance at which battle groups have to make cohesion tests in response to adverse events. Currenlty battle groups in adjacent hexes have to test but why not extend this to battle groups within two or three hexes?

This change would bring the digital version more in line with the table top game where an army is typically made of 10 to 20 battle groups so that these cohesion tests are much more of a problem for poor quality troops.