Poor Battle Troops

[Polkovnik]

What is the general opinion on Poor Battle troops (i.e. not skirmishers, as poor LF are about the best value troops in the game) ?
My experience is that Poor Pike are OK (as the generally fight on a +POA or better and are 2/3 the cost of normal pike) , but most other poor troops are not worth the points and so are rarely seen in games.

If they are hardly ever used, then it is an indication they they should cost less points, or their performance should be boosted slightly. In the thread "Making the impact count" it was suggested that quality re-rolls are not used at impact - this would be one way of boosting the performance of poor troops. Another would be that poor troops don't re-roll 6s in combat whilst they are steady.

[philqw78]

In a competition environment they are rubbish. But if there were more average troops on the table they would be more worthwhile. However with competition players the best troops from the army are maxed out and the lesser troops sidelined. So perhaps the problem is with the number and power of superior and elite troops.

But the superior and elite troops tended to win the battles for most armies. Whilst the rest cheered them on from the rear.

We could continue down this rout for lots of troops. You don't see many Mongol or Hun armies in comps and they can be all superior. perhaps superior cost too much. Perhaps mounted bow cost too much.

Nothing can be looked at in isolation

[Strategos69]

I guess this thread is connected with the question about making numbers count. In the case of the pikes, their numbers count as their extra bases go for an extra PoA. This is not the case for other troups and maybe the key to fix the issue is there. Maybe poor BG should be allowed bigger BG's and some benefits could be obtained from that. Recalling some examples I have read about the subject here:

+1 for CT for every rank after the second rank (except in column)
+PoA when in 4 ranks if you are - or -- PoA down (unless charged in flank or rear)
+PoA to solve ties if you have a depeer formation than the enemy
-1 to enemy CT if you outnumber them by at least 2 to 1

In my opinion more options of what a player can do in a game improve it. I think it was madaxeman who proposed more conditional PoA's and this kind of subject could fall in that category.

[rpayne]

Generally I will only take poor skirmishers, or perhaps a single poor unit of Cav to break a PBI threshold. The medieval Hobilars are pretty good for that, buy them as poor Cav for initiative and then dismount them as average Spear for rear support!

If troops were able to give rear support to units one grade higher, you would definitely see a lot more Poor on the table.

[hazelbark]

I would like to see poor troops more viable in game terms.

However history has MANY examples of small quality troops destroying hoardes of rubbish troops. So I do think the rules are pretty decent.

I don't like reducing points of poor troops as that will just attract more filler. So a point reduction would need to be matched with some other reduction. IE making them 1 AP per BG might do it.

Then you can have a some poor troops that you can risk fighting while you try to win elsewhere with your army.

[Strategos69]

I would like to see poor troops more viable in game terms.

However history has MANY examples of small quality troops destroying hoardes of rubbish troops. So I do think the rules are pretty decent.

I don't like reducing points of poor troops as that will just attract more filler. So a point reduction would need to be matched with some other reduction. IE making them 1 AP per BG might do it.

Then you can have a some poor troops that you can risk fighting while you try to win elsewhere with your army.

I think you are right and that is why I think giving some kind of formations more resistance could be good. If we give "defensive" PoA or plus for the CT, the odds do not change and they are likely to keep losing, which I think is right as the rules are. The only thing is that they will last some more time that could be used to support them with troops from elsewhere. That is why I am not completely convinced of taking out rerolls from impact. It would make some one line gambler BG's an interesting option, but if deeper formations gave some + to the CT, then you can use your mass of poor (or even average) troops to contain the enemy for a while.

[lawrenceg]

I would like to see poor troops more viable in game terms.

However history has MANY examples of small quality troops destroying hoardes of rubbish troops. So I do think the rules are pretty decent.

I don't like reducing points of poor troops as that will just attract more filler. So a point reduction would need to be matched with some other reduction. IE making them 1 AP per BG might do it.

Then you can have a some poor troops that you can risk fighting while you try to win elsewhere with your army.

That risks poor troops becoming the expendable fighters while proper troops become the filler, or at least being used sacrificially in a (usually) non-historical way.

A key issue with poor troops is that the impact of poorness depends on POA. If you compare the hit probability of poor troops with that of average, (expressed as ratio poor/average) you get:

needing 2s 0.97
needing 3s 0.92
needing 4s 0.83
needing 5s 0.67
needing 6s 0.17

So if poor bows shoot at heavily armoured foot, you need six bases to have the same effect as one base of average.
But if poor bows shoot at 2 ranks of unprotected cavalry, you have almost identical effect to average shooters.

Being poor really starts hurting when you need a 5 or more to hit. This means poor troops are good value if they will often be attacking at evens, e.g. longbowmen, cataphracts, most skirmishers. Troops that are often on a - are not so good, e.g. protected swordsmen, crossbowmen.

If poor troops are not being used, then I think points cost is the first thing to look at, and this needs to be specific to the troop types that are not being used. Poor LF, for example, are popular and poor MF longbow have been shown to be effective in competition so do not need a points reduction. Remember that spending points on cheaper poor troops instead of on good quality troops will decrease the amount of good quality troops in the army (not just increase its breakpoint) and this will make it easier to get to the poor troops and kill them.

[petedalby]

Poor LF, for example, are popular and poor MF longbow have been shown to be effective in competition so do not need a points reduction.

If anything I would suggest that Poor LF should cost more - say 1 AP more - than they do now. Given the choice it seems that most players field Poor LF in preference to Avg LF because they are almost as effective - as Lawrence's stats show.

Doesn't feel right to me.

[spikemesq]

I really wish there was another mechanism for the superior/poor grading instead of re-rolls. At some vague level, the substantial boost of re-rolling ones and penalty of re-rolling sixes strike me as too severe. Much like the older versions of (I/O/S) in DBM, re-rolls seem to make the gradations hard to value and make Poor and Average troops really crappy values and probably makes a lot of Superior troops too cost-efficient.

Unfortunately, the value gaps are (a) pretty vast; but (b) not uniformly so across troop types. So, Poor skirmishers are not so bad, but Poor battle troops are horrible. Even if they were discounted, Poor battle troops would still suck. They are like the Reg Cv(I) of old -- worthless at any price.

In the original FoG development, were any mechanisms other than re-rolls tested for quality ratings? Admittedly, I struggle to imagine another way to effect troop quality but wonder if there isn't some more granular approach. The only thing that comes to mind is having Poor/Superior roll dice in pairs and drop the high/low respectively. That might even be worse than re-rolls though. It would also get pretty cumbersome.

[ethan]

Unfortunately, the value gaps are (a) pretty vast; but (b) not uniformly so across troop types. So, Poor skirmishers are not so bad, but Poor battle troops are horrible. Even if they were discounted, Poor battle troops would still suck. They are like the Reg Cv(I) of old -- worthless at any price.

I don't think this is true, rather I think Poor troops are just generally too expensive atm (and poor skirmishers too cheap) and it is largely a function of the cost of the underlying troops. The base cost of skirmishers is very low so the Poor "discount" is a huge in percentage terms. For formed troops the base cost is higher so the discount isn't as impressive.

So we have poor LF bows @ 3AP each so 18 for a BG of 6 whish is something like 83% as effective as paying 30 for a BG of 6 average...If the poor cost 83% as much as the average, about 24 AP, then the choice between Poor and Average would be much more meaningful. The simple fix is to make poor LF only get a 1 AP discount instead of 2.

Now if I could get cheap enough Poor formed troops, I probably would consider using them - I think weak formed troops can be useful. Especially if they can be bought in large enough BGs economically that they can be resistant to shooting. Right now you can't really do that. You can get something like a 6 of poor, protected, offensive spear HF relatively chealy (30AP IIRC) but it really is useless. Extremely vulnerable to shooting, can't maneuver, can't run away and almost anything will beat it in melee/Impact. But if I could get say 10 of these for 30-40 AP in a single BG...then it might be interesting. They would be relatively hard to shoot apart so would make decent arrow-catchers, charging them with a small BG of "real" troops would be at least risky and they still would be ok as filler.

That is really the key, if you have a cheap BG (< 30-40AP - the typical cost of a LH battle group) that can have some role then it is useful. Poor LF can still skrimish and throw the occasional arrow at somebody. LH can alway skirmish and shoot, but poor formed troops aren't solid enough see off even minor opposition so are basically worthless.

[gozerius]

The poor unprotected LF vs poor unprotected MF shooter balance is even more skewed in favor of the LF. Costs the same, but the MF are horribly burdened with POA penalties and can't evade.

[hazelbark]

The poor unprotected LF vs poor unprotected MF shooter balance is even more skewed in favor of the LF. Costs the same, but the MF are horribly burdened with POA penalties and can't evade.

Oh they evade. Its just costs you 2 AP and the need a general to help them pass a -3 CT test to stop.

[spikemesq]

Unfortunately, the value gaps are (a) pretty vast; but (b) not uniformly so across troop types. So, Poor skirmishers are not so bad, but Poor battle troops are horrible. Even if they were discounted, Poor battle troops would still suck. They are like the Reg Cv(I) of old -- worthless at any price.

I don't think this is true, rather I think Poor troops are just generally too expensive atm (and poor skirmishers too cheap) and it is largely a function of the cost of the underlying troops. The base cost of skirmishers is very low so the Poor "discount" is a huge in percentage terms. For formed troops the base cost is higher so the discount isn't as impressive.

So we have poor LF bows @ 3AP each so 18 for a BG of 6 whish is something like 83% as effective as paying 30 for a BG of 6 average...If the poor cost 83% as much as the average, about 24 AP, then the choice between Poor and Average would be much more meaningful. The simple fix is to make poor LF only get a 1 AP discount instead of 2.

Now if I could get cheap enough Poor formed troops, I probably would consider using them - I think weak formed troops can be useful. Especially if they can be bought in large enough BGs economically that they can be resistant to shooting. Right now you can't really do that. You can get something like a 6 of poor, protected, offensive spear HF relatively chealy (30AP IIRC) but it really is useless. Extremely vulnerable to shooting, can't maneuver, can't run away and almost anything will beat it in melee/Impact. But if I could get say 10 of these for 30-40 AP in a single BG...then it might be interesting. They would be relatively hard to shoot apart so would make decent arrow-catchers, charging them with a small BG of "real" troops would be at least risky and they still would be ok as filler.

That is really the key, if you have a cheap BG (< 30-40AP - the typical cost of a LH battle group) that can have some role then it is useful. Poor LF can still skrimish and throw the occasional arrow at somebody. LH can alway skirmish and shoot, but poor formed troops aren't solid enough see off even minor opposition so are basically worthless.

Hmmm, if only there were a method of pricing troops by BG instead of bases . . . .

[ethan]

Hmmm, if only there were a method of pricing troops by BG instead of bases . . . .

Maybe, but what is really needed is to move away from the blanket pricing we have now. Right now all unprotected poor foot BGs have the same base cost with additions for various abilities which just isn't granular enough.

[Strategos69]

Hmmm, if only there were a method of pricing troops by BG instead of bases . . . .

Maybe, but what is really needed is to move away from the blanket pricing we have now. Right now all unprotected poor foot BGs have the same base cost with additions for various abilities which just isn't granular enough.

Indeed the same BG could be of different value depending on the army and the allowed size of the BG. It has already been pointed out the advantage for some armies of having large proportions of small BG (4's). In the other hand, some armies are too flat (like Illirians) and can't have any superior nor poor troops. It can be imagined that at a certain point in their whole history there were some veterans and raw levies in their files (not that this can be documented, though).

[philqw78]

In the other hand, some armies are too flat (like Illirians) and can't have any superior nor poor troops. It can be imagined that at a certain point in their whole history there were some veterans and raw levies in their files (not that this can be documented, though).

I wholeheartedly agree. Some armies are ridiculously boring, and therefore rubbish. Whereas some armies are given a huge variety to pick from and therefore become really good.


I prefer armies with only one or 2 troop types though. Means you have to remember less.

[DavidT]

I have used a BG of 8 poor undriled protected def sp in my Early Republican Roman army.
They do have their uses, particularly with a general in the front rank for combat.
However, the fact that they can be deployed as an 8 strong BG makes them much more useful than poor troops in 6s - they are much less vulnerable to shooting.
If they draw or win, they are good, but when they lose, it can go horribly wrong very quickly.
A friend uses 6 poor unprotecetd undrilled MF LB in his French Ordonnance army - they are a complete liability.
Therefore pricing troops per BG would be a great idea as the impact of variation in size could be taken into account.

[rogerg]

As suggested elsewhere, don't use the re-rolls in combat. So long as troops are not losing, they are as good as anyone else. The test of quality is that when something bad happens, the troops will still hold. I concede this doesn't take into account that 'superior' may mean better weapon training. However, the converse is true, good weapon training may not imply motivation to fight.

[ShrubMiK]

I am very willing to take significant amounts (e.g. 16 or 24 bases) of poor HF, even with the usually-frowned upon light spear/sword combo, and put them down as a challenge to the virility of my opponent. The intention obvously being to use the points saved to win elsewhere whilst a significant portion of his best troops are tied up taking out something I have chosen to regard as expendable.

I personally feel that the points costs of poor, average, superior are quite well balanced, and that the fact that most wargamers will never take poor, and always upgrade to superior if there is the option, is more about some combination prejudice/fashion/personal preference than true reflection of their merits.

Of course, poor troops are incontrovertibly less cost effective than their betters in one important category - real world cost in time and money of fielding an army of wonderfully painted figures.

[philqw78]

So long as troops are not losing, they are as good as anyone else. The test of quality is that when something bad happens, the troops will still hold. I concede this doesn't take into account that 'superior' may mean better weapon training. However, the converse is true, good weapon training may not imply motivation to fight.

Arse! Roll 5s and they are brilliiant.