Game Balance

[peterrjohnston]

From http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9&start=40

LF, MF and LH lose 1MU movement.

Each single wheel can be no more than 90 degrees.

Drilled and Undrilled have the same manoeuvre options - the drilled benefit is passing on a 7 not an 8.

Turn 90 and move issue - probably none for infantry, reduce mounted to 2MU move or 3MU for LH.

I'm a bit wary of allowing mounted to turn and move, but not infantry. I realise that perhaps BGs can turn and move too easily, but solving it this way would make the movement disparity even worse than it is now.

Cannot wheel when forming column (Dave R mentioned it to me earlier).

Shall we move posts from this point onwards to the V2 sub-forum

I would also suggest:

Skirmishers have to pass a CMT the same as for drilled cavalry when turning 90 and making a simple advance. If the drilled pass remains at 7, then skirmishers on a 7 (ie treat as drilled).

Find a way to introduce determined foot!

[VMadeira]

I'm a bit wary of allowing mounted to turn and move, but not infantry. I realise that perhaps BGs can turn and move too easily, but solving it this way would make the movement disparity even worse than it is now.

I agree, it would be sad if "normal" foot armies would be penalised, to stop "swarm" techniques.

Also, don't really understand what is the historical support, for mounted to maneuvre better than drilled foot.

I FOG R, foot is very strong because of increased firepower and protection, so to make things more balanced cavalry maneuvre better, which given the historical foot formations is very acceptable, at least for me, but this doesn't happen in FOG AM.

[rogerg]

I'm nearly in agreement with Nick. The first three points are good. I would probably go further on the fourth and have no turn 90 degree turn and move for anyone. This repositioning should be done by wheels, which would force it to be done further from the enemy.

How about a fifth item:

Skirmishers that turn 180 degrees and move cannot shoot. This would prevent the evade and immediate return to swarm the chargers.

[philqw78]

Let undrilled do the same as drilled on a 9+, increase CMT to 8+ for drilled. For undrilled this includes being able to just turn if they fail to turn and move, and wheel within 6 MU of enemy for no CMT. Will remove a few paragraphs and some complication from the rules. (Difficult moves) Half move distance if turned and moved whether 90 or 180. Stops skirmishers turning back to shoot at the blokes that just charged them.

I would also allow Cavalry to shoot backwards if no target to front. At the moment they are pretty stuffed after evading just once.

[peterrjohnston]

I'm nearly in agreement with Nick. The first three points are good. I would probably go further on the fourth and have no turn 90 degree turn and move for anyone. This repositioning should be done by wheels, which would force it to be done further from the enemy.

Again I think this would penalise foot massively compared with mounted - especially as most foot BGs are at least 6 bases, and most mounted come in 4s. With a maximum 90 degree restriction, a BG of 4 cavalry in two ranks can wheel in 1 move. For a double ranked BG of 6 foot it would take more than 2 turns. I think you'd have a very dull game where foot just go straight forward.

Granted we don't have the pushbacks, but simulating Cannae would be odd for the African infantry turn on the flanks...

[peterrjohnston]

Let undrilled do the same as drilled on a 9+, increase CMT to 8+ for drilled. For undrilled this includes being able to just turn if they fail to turn and move, and wheel within 6 MU of enemy for no CMT. Will remove a few paragraphs and some complication from the rules. (Difficult moves)

A rather radical proposal would be to make CMTs 9 and 10 for drilled and undrilled respectively. Then make generals a +1, +2 and +3 on CMTs for TC, FC and IC respectively, with possibly +2, not the current +1, if the general is with the BG. Optionally reduce the command range for CMTs to 3, 6 and 8MUs (CT ranges staying the same - a standard on a battlefield being a lot easier to follow than a shouted order).

This would introduce a lot more friction in movement... players, as in the army C-in-C, would need to think a lot more carefully about where the generals are, and how good your generals are, and how they relate to the army design, and your plan of attack. Might also see more FCs, which are rare in 15mm, but perhaps makes then 60AP.

I suspect it would also make players a little more careful about their generals - how many times do we see 4 TCs all into thrown into combat on the grounds if you are very unlucky you might lose a couple, and who cares about the C-in-C as a TC?

[lawrenceg]

I'm nearly in agreement with Nick. The first three points are good. I would probably go further on the fourth and have no turn 90 degree turn and move for anyone. This repositioning should be done by wheels, which would force it to be done further from the enemy.

Again I think this would penalise foot massively compared with mounted - especially as most foot BGs are at least 6 bases, and most mounted come in 4s. With a maximum 90 degree restriction, a BG of 4 cavalry in two ranks can wheel in 1 move. For a double ranked BG of 6 foot it would take more than 2 turns. I think you'd have a very dull game where foot just go straight forward.

Granted we don't have the pushbacks, but simulating Cannae would be odd for the African infantry turn on the flanks...

Infantry would still be able to turn 90 in one move and then move or charge in their next turn.

As for foot just going straight forward, historically this is what they did 99% of the time.

I think it would be a bit harsh to limit skirmishers that turn 180 to half a move to prevent them returning after an evade and shooting up chargers. Historically this is what they did.

[peterrjohnston]

Infantry would still be able to turn 90 in one move and then move or charge in their next turn.

I think Roger was suggesting no 90 degrees turn, from the context of his following sentence, not no move after a 90 degree turn.

[rogerg]

Sorry, if I was a little unclear. I am suggesting that a turn of 90 is fine for all troops, but not a turn and move. The object is to avoid the shifting of a BG to the side, which seems inappropriate close to the combat area. Unless carried out at a distance from the enemy, there is likely to be a danger of a flank charge. I don't mind people redeploying behind skirmish screens or doing the manouver early. I just find it unreal to have fancy drill being done at the last minute before contact. It seems to be more like chess than a true war game. Entertaining as a game, but "ce n'est pas la guerre". I would prefer to play a game where it is difficult to get the troops to do this sort of thing. Deploying well and thinking ahead should be the measures of a good tactician.

My suggestion about skirmishers not being able to turn 180, move and shoot is to prevent the fire storm that comes down on a charger that rolls a large VMD. Naturally, skirmishers should return to shoot after evading. With the current rules, however, they return immediately and are too powerful.

[Strategos69]

I agree with Roger: sometimes FoG gives too much liberty to very unrealistic movements. Being more difficult to move does not mean impossible and it does not spoil the fun, but forces players to think more ahead of the combat. I already proposed in another thread that CMT should disappear and turn into CT with variable modifiers depeding on the type of movement, proximity to the enemy, drill and other conditions (I like the more power being given to the FC). First this would simplify the game (only one type of test) and second it would be more credible. If you tell your troops tu turn, they will likely try to do it, although if they are not experienced or the movement is done in the wrong conditions, you can end up with your troops more disordered. I can't understand how know you tell your troops to perform a complex move, fail, and then you are allowed to perform a simple move which could be completely different.

[hazelbark]

Another option would be to limit the turn and move to a higher number.

In effect two levels of passing a CMT.

One thing to remember in comparing FoG R vs FoG AM. The lesser manuver of FoGR foot is offset that it inflicts serious damage at a range.

[Jilu]

Let undrilled do the same as drilled on a 9+, increase CMT to 8+ for drilled. For undrilled this includes being able to just turn if they fail to turn and move, and wheel within 6 MU of enemy for no CMT. Will remove a few paragraphs and some complication from the rules. (Difficult moves)

A rather radical proposal would be to make CMTs 9 and 10 for drilled and undrilled respectively. Then make generals a +1, +2 and +3 on CMTs for TC, FC and IC respectively, with possibly +2, not the current +1, if the general is with the BG. Optionally reduce the command range for CMTs to 3, 6 and 8MUs (CT ranges staying the same - a standard on a battlefield being a lot easier to follow than a shouted order).

This would introduce a lot more friction in movement... players, as in the army C-in-C, would need to think a lot more carefully about where the generals are, and how good your generals are, and how they relate to the army design, and your plan of attack. Might also see more FCs, which are rare in 15mm, but perhaps makes then 60AP.

I suspect it would also make players a little more careful about their generals - how many times do we see 4 TCs all into thrown into combat on the grounds if you are very unlucky you might lose a couple, and who cares about the C-in-C as a TC?

ok but lets not forget it is a game so making all manouvres difficult will take the fun away.

Now again lol i think my ZOC expansion idea would resolve a lot of the problems as we would be less inclined to manouvre in strange ways.

ZOC = 6 MU to the front of the unit with 1 overlap each side and why not 3 MU directly on the side, and 0 MU on the back.

Would stop a lot of fancy manouvres

[spikemesq]

The current ZOC rules are pretty annoying IMO, so expanding the ZOC range seems ripe for crappy geometry.

I still cannot get used to FoG's ZOC which is more hampering than DBM's in some ways and less so in others.

OTOH, hindering certain move options when close to enemy (as I posted in another thread), may have potential.

[Jilu]

The current ZOC rules are pretty annoying IMO, so expanding the ZOC range seems ripe for crappy geometry.

I still cannot get used to FoG's ZOC which is more hampering than DBM's in some ways and less so in others.

OTOH, hindering certain move options when close to enemy (as I posted in another thread), may have potential.

well i see no other solution than a ZOC

[ethan]

well i see no other solution than a ZOC

You could make some moves only possibly more than 6MU from the enemy. It would be helpfulif you could only turn 90 and move at that distance for instance.

[Jilu]

well i see no other solution than a ZOC

You could make some moves only possibly more than 6MU from the enemy. It would be helpfulif you could only turn 90 and move at that distance for instance.

thats the point of an extended ZOC.

[david53]

Let undrilled do the same as drilled on a 9+, increase CMT to 8+ for drilled. For undrilled this includes being able to just turn if they fail to turn and move, and wheel within 6 MU of enemy for no CMT. Will remove a few paragraphs and some complication from the rules. (Difficult moves)

A rather radical proposal would be to make CMTs 9 and 10 for drilled and undrilled respectively. Then make generals a +1, +2 and +3 on CMTs for TC, FC and IC respectively, with possibly +2, not the current +1, if the general is with the BG. Optionally reduce the command range for CMTs to 3, 6 and 8MUs (CT ranges staying the same - a standard on a battlefield being a lot easier to follow than a shouted order).

This would introduce a lot more friction in movement... players, as in the army C-in-C, would need to think a lot more carefully about where the generals are, and how good your generals are, and how they relate to the army design, and your plan of attack. Might also see more FCs, which are rare in 15mm, but perhaps makes then 60AP.

I suspect it would also make players a little more careful about their generals - how many times do we see 4 TCs all into thrown into combat on the grounds if you are very unlucky you might lose a couple, and who cares about the C-in-C as a TC?

Would'nt this just kill of the use of undrilled foot armies completely from the table?

[david53]

My suggestion about skirmishers not being able to turn 180, move and shoot is to prevent the fire storm that comes down on a charger that rolls a large VMD. Naturally, skirmishers should return to shoot after evading. With the current rules, however, they return immediately and are too powerful.

Did'nt they do this in real life, you charge them they evade they come back. I'm sure the Mongols did this to the Hungairans,Poles,Germans,Cumans ect ect.

Right how would it work then?

[david53]

ok but lets not forget it is a game so making all manouvres difficult will take the fun away.

Taking the manouvre away from FOG, will IMO kill of one of the best best aspects of the game, and bring it down to the movement levels of other games?

What I would hate to see in FOG is two sides set up, x distance from the table centre and both trundle forward, no manourve.

The skill of moving your troops were you want them is for me one of the best bits of FOG, take it away or make it near impossible will IMO damage the rules.

Before such fundimental changes are brought can I ask that we do some play testing and not just change without trying to see how it works on the table top.

[marty]

I have been following this FOG 2.0 forum with real interest and have a few observations to make

First some suggestions that have been made I think would cause more problems

1) Making CMT's more difficult would essentially massively adavantage those troops who almost never have to make them (ie LF and LH). These troops (particulalrly the LH) already operate in a paradise of virtual invulnerability (except to each other) in FOG. Making it more difficult for other troops to manouver in response to them would IMHO be a mistake.
2) Making MF move 3" would have a very similair effect. IE one of the few troop types that can actually damage LH (ie mf archers) becomes much worse. Its already a bit of a worry that so little HF is seen in open competition. Do we want to see any foot at all?

Some changes I think would have a positive effect:

1) Give HF a 4' move. After all we are rapidly becoming an ancients wargaming community where only the romantic use Legions, Hoplites, german warbands, etc. As has been mentioned elsewhere by those more knowledgeable than myself the historical basis for a "Faster" MF class is fairly shakey. I would perhaps take this further and give almost all non skirmisher, non MF troops an extra inch of movement. ie HF and MF move 4", Knights, elephants, cataphracts, H/CH move 5" and cav, L/Ch move 6". This would make a wider range of armies decisive enough to be used in comp and create some chance that LH might occasionally get caught or chased off the table. I realise it would have a profound effect on the interaction between shooting and movement (how many close range shots do I get before those lancers hit me?) but it could be argued that at the the moment the rules err a little on the side of shooting been too good a bet.
2) Remove the use of a road as a sort of "super open space". This has already been done in FOG R.
3) Allow LF to contribute to the initiative bonus. I assume this bonus is intended to some extent to represent scouting. dont LF do this too. Perhaps LF could count as 1/2 an element for reaching the 10 and 24 element mark to get initaitive bonus'. This would give armies without an effective LH arm a chance to get some terain on the table. Do we really believe that some horsey army struggling through the home forest (or hills, marshes, whatever) of some horseless tribal people are going to get the drop on them every time? I realise this is not entirely what Initiative is intended to represent but isnt it part of it? It is very easy at the moment to fight on a virtually featureless plain if you want to.
4) The suggested scoring system used in virtually all comps needs to be reconsidered. There is enough of a gameplay advantage in having lots of units without it giving you an edge in the scoting as well. Alternatively perhaps a small "command Cost" per unit could to be introduced.

I dont want to overstate any of these points. I enjoy playing FOG as it is but I do feel if there is going to be FOG 2.0 some of these are areas that could be adressed.

Martin