Summary of Proposed Changes

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:24 pm

VMadeira wrote:- Superior BGs auto-breaking as average, will make disappear those troops that are good to use at 4, but too expensive to have 6, I am thinking of knights, ghilmen (no sense in have them in 6s anyway), and many groups of veteran / elite status that have a limit on the BG sise of 4. These troops were effective historically, why do you want to penalise them? The problem with swarm armies is with average troops, most superior ones are too expensive for swarms. These one is major set back in the v2 rules, and combined to the above changes may well lead players to maximise their BGs to 16 average groups, instead of including the colourful and more interesting BGs of veterans/nobles whatever.....

Or not. That's why we have play-testing.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:54 pm

VMadeira wrote:A few comments, on the proposed changes:

...
- In principle the minus for troops fighting in column is perfectly justifiable, but:

most BGs when turning 90º to face a flank charge will be in column, so at -1 POA (but when turning to face rear charges, they keep formation so no -1 POA).
Worst, if a BG wants to charge an enemy and has to make a 90º turn, will have to wait 3 turns to charge it properly assuming it passes all tests, one turn to make the turn , one to get back to normal formation from column, and only in the 3rd may he charge without a penalty in POA.
But it gets worst, exactly the kind of troops that shouldn’t manoeuvre so well, are those that will not be affected by this problem, namely big groups of cheap undrilled troops. So a barbarian BG 3 bases deep, will be able to turn and in the next turn charge an opponent in the flank, while a roman cohort 2 bases deep, will have to wait 3 turns to charge. Also pikes will be at great advantage as they now are innately the most manoeuvrable kind of troops in the game, safe skirmishers ....

I assume that the -POA for fighting in column will essentially have no effect when making or responding to a flank or rear charge since these are by definition fought at ++POA for the charger and --POA for the defender for the impact. After that most likely both chargers and the target will be able to bring up additional bases to fight and hence be out of column in most circumstances. So I don't think this is really likely to be an issue.

Chris

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:54 am

VMadeira wrote: - Superior BGs auto-breaking as average, will make disappear those troops that are good to use at 4, but too expensive to have 6, I am thinking of knights, ghilmen (no sense in have them in 6s anyway), and many groups of veteran / elite status that have a limit on the BG sise of 4. These troops were effective historically, why do you want to penalise them? The problem with swarm armies is with average troops, most superior ones are too expensive for swarms. These one is major set back in the v2 rules, and combined to the above changes may will lead players to maximise their BGs to 16 average groups, instead of including the colourful and more interesting BGs of veterans/nobles whatever....that make the game interesting.

I've played 5 games that included effects of changes to "auto-break" for superior troops and this seems like a very good rule change. Superior troops still get the re-roll bonus. However they will no longer get the benefit of rounding-off so that, with BG of less than 10 bases, they had the same auto-break level as elites. No wonder no one would take elite troops since superiors ended up with the auto-break level. We might see more elite units now.

Just for reference, the old rule was that average break at >40%, superiors >50% and elites >60%, but in practice for:

4 base BG of superiors would break at 75% (3 bases) - same as elites
6 base BG of superiors would break at 66.7% (4 bases) - same as elites
8 base BG of superiors would break at 62.5% (5 bases) - same as elites

In playing the above games, I like that players, instead of having the definitive BG size, actually have valid choices of smaller BG (e.g., a 4 base BG) if the BG's job is maneouvre or larger BG (e.g., 6 or 8 bases) if BG's job is the staying power for the main battle line. It may be that far from 4 base BG disappearing what we'll see is a mix.

A positive change from my play testing so far - but that's just my opinion.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:28 am

This weekend I will run the Spanish against the Romans and see. The superiors seem pricey for getting the reroll options.

Wise Ones out there: I received the email with the version 2 file on the weekend. Should I be able to get into the FoG2 beta forum or will that happen as I'm added to it?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:20 am

Blathergut wrote: Wise Ones out there: I received the email with the version 2 file on the weekend. Should I be able to get into the FoG2 beta forum or will that happen as I'm added to it?

You should have access - email Slitherine if you still don't.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:01 am

A positive change from my play testing so far - but that's just my opinion.

FWIW I agree with you. 4 bases for Superior is almost the default option in V1 allowing them to effectively fight to the last man. Hopefully this will introduce more variety in BG sizes.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:50 am

shadowdragon wrote: We might see more elite units now.

Where are we going to get them from? IIRC bases per army: Nikes, 10 bases; Komnenan, 8; EAP, 4; Mamluk, 8; Ottoman, 4; Aztec, 12; MRR, 6; Assyrian, 4; LRR 18; LAP, 6; Mongol, 4. So So no more than 13 (?) armies with elites, totalling nomore than 100 bases. That is elitist.

I always take them if the army has them now.

Mamluk is looking pretty goo for V2 though.

MatthewP · Post by **MatthewP** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:53 am

You forgot Ancient British 8 bases. But as these are the only elites that get habitually taken with an army anyway, they probably shouldnt be included in your list.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:10 am

MatthewP wrote:You forgot Ancient British 8 bases. But as these are the only elites that get habitually taken with an army anyway, they probably shouldnt be included in your list.

So Soldurii in the celts as well or are they just superior?. (I did say 13 but only named 10.)

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:18 am

philqw78 wrote: (I did say 13 but only named 10.)

I just assumed you couldn't count

You missed the single army in EotD that can have elites - all 2 bases of them

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:26 am

Red tiger guards or something? Can be either bow sword or lancers. Can't remember. D'oh.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:12 pm

Most of the comments I would have made have been made by others, but...

rbodleyscott wrote:Here is what is in the first beta version:

Please excuse the lack of formatting:
5. Evading troops leaving the table must take a CMT. If they pass they count as 1 attrition point, if they fail they count as 2.

I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a CT.

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:41 pm

philqw78 wrote:
shadowdragon wrote: We might see more elite units now.
Where are we going to get them from? IIRC bases per army: Nikes, 10 bases; Komnenan, 8; EAP, 4; Mamluk, 8; Ottoman, 4; Aztec, 12; MRR, 6; Assyrian, 4; LRR 18; LAP, 6; Mongol, 4. So So no more than 13 (?) armies with elites, totalling nomore than 100 bases. That is elitist.

I always take them if the army has them now.

Mamluk is looking pretty goo for V2 though.

"More" does not equal "a lot".

And...as it so happens I just happen to have a high % of the armies you listed - EAP, MRR, LRR, Assyrian. So I know where I will get them from...

I believe Alexandrian Macedonian has 4 bases of elites...

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:43 pm

Blathergut wrote:The superiors seem pricey for getting the reroll options.

The re-roll option is not a trivial one as it counts for shooting, impact, melee and cohesion tests - and it counts all the time. Better than "armour" in my view as "armour" only counts in melee.

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:45 pm

philqw78 wrote:That is elitist.

...which is as it should be.

Besides, superior cavalry armies are so....what's the word? Oh yes, superior cavalry armies are so common.

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:46 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
philqw78 wrote: (I did say 13 but only named 10.)

I just assumed you couldn't count

You missed the single army in EotD that can have elites - all 2 bases of them

Not all of us have 13 or more fingers, you know.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:53 pm

shadowdragon wrote: Not all of us have 13 or more fingers, you know.

You'll have to find somebody from Norfolk then ...

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:13 pm

shadowdragon wrote: Not all of us have 13 or more fingers, you know.

As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of number bases knows, with a full set of fingers, using knuckles as binary digits, you can count up to 2^30 -1, which should be more than enough for most people's needs.

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:15 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
shadowdragon wrote: Not all of us have 13 or more fingers, you know.
As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of number bases knows, with a full set of fingers, using knuckles as binary digits, you can count up to 2^30 -1, which should be more than enough for most people's needs.

Sure that's fine until someone surprises you and you slip a bit, then there go 256 bases of troops.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:33 pm

The only thing I would add so far from a rules abuse viewpoint is: if kinked columns cannot charge what is to stop people going into column with shock troops and deliberately kinking their columns?