Leeds issues: BG Size

[lawrenceg]

In the Support Shooting thread we have:

On BG size, BTW, I have the distinct impression from Leeds and other reports that players are pretty much taking minimum or near minimum sized BGs. Is there a reason for this and is it an issue?

If I run the Visogoths again I will definitely go for 8 or even 10 base BG's but I think that 8 is the minimum. To be honest if I had the option of 6 base BG's I wouldn't take it for Visigoth foot.

I am leaning towards 8's for LF BG's and 6's for LH so I think it is a learning curve. Minimum sized BG's are nippy but fragile and a 4 base BG really suffers once it has lost a base.

I went for minimum sized bgs so i could afford all the sooper doooper troops
next time I will be making sure I have decent sized BGs - 4 is far too risky

My thought after an initial read-through was that there was no point in taking a BG greater than minimum size.

Experience of others seems to be refuting that thought.

With hindsight after Leeds (where, due to designing the army before reading the rules, I used 8-10 base MF BGs and 6 base for chariots in 1 rank), I make the following comments:

I can see that a big BG gets the benefit of a general in close combat over a larger frontage.

Otherwise the disadvantages of small BGs are not obvious. Against shooting, 2x 4-base would seem better than a single 8-base: 4-base Needs 2 hits on a frontage of 2 to cause 1HP3B, 3 hits on a frontage of 2 to have any chance of losing a base. With the 8-base frontage of 4, twice as many shots still need only 3 hits to cause a CT and death roll.

My 10 base BG was stopped from contacting some unprotected MF Bow on in one game when 2 elephants charged forward and contacted one end. The bowmen proceeded to shoot at the unengaged end and I could do nothing about it.

Next time I would probably take smaller BG for the rear support line as then I could get more and push up the total BG count relative to the BGs risked in the front line.

I had a situation in one game where my skirmish BG was offset relative to target BGs, which meant that the shots from the end two elements were wasted. Within 6 MU I couldn't slide to line up (if I understood the rules correctly).

From the comments of other players, there are disadvantages to small BGs but they are not obvious from just reading the rules.

Is there a reason why BGs must contain an even number of bases?

LAwrence Greaves

[hammy]

With hindsight after Leeds (where, due to designing the army before reading the rules, I used 8-10 base MF BGs and 6 base for chariots in 1 rank), I make the following comments:

I can see that a big BG gets the benefit of a general in close combat over a larger frontage.

Otherwise the disadvantages of small BGs are not obvious. Against shooting, 2x 4-base would seem better than a single 8-base: 4-base Needs 2 hits on a frontage of 2 to cause 1HP3B, 3 hits on a frontage of 2 to have any chance of losing a base. With the 8-base frontage of 4, twice as many shots still need only 3 hits to cause a CT and death roll.

Larger BG's do alas die a bit quicker to shooting. It is a side effect of the way the shooting rules work. When I use 8 base BG's against shooters I tend to have frontage of 3 bases. If I was going to be on a frontage of 4 I would really want 10 bases. I suspect a 10 base BG advancing on shooters would be much more effective than two 4's.

Where you really do want 4 base BG's is for shoty cavalry or light chariots. The ability to switch from one rank to two ranks and vice versa in one move is really handy.

My 10 base BG was stopped from contacting some unprotected MF Bow on in one game when 2 elephants charged forward and contacted one end. The bowmen proceeded to shoot at the unengaged end and I could do nothing about it.

Next time I would probably take smaller BG for the rear support line as then I could get more and push up the total BG count relative to the BGs risked in the front line.

I had a situation in one game where my skirmish BG was offset relative to target BGs, which meant that the shots from the end two elements were wasted. Within 6 MU I couldn't slide to line up (if I understood the rules correctly).

From the comments of other players, there are disadvantages to small BGs but they are not obvious from just reading the rules.

The reall killer for small BG's or at least 4 base BG's is that when they lose one base they have taken 25% losses and will forever make CT's at -1. This makes it really hard to bolster or rally them. Also if they are average or worse they autobreak on two bases lost rather than three.

Is there a reason why BGs must contain an even number of bases?

To stop people trying to play the numbers game and go for 7 base BG's which would have almost all the benefits of an 8 base one at a lower cost.

Hammy

[garyb]

What's wrong with playing with the numbers for optimal list design? Is this purely an aesthetic thing? There's nothing about having to field BGs of 8 in two ranks IIRC so they can have a ragged 3rd rank just as easily as a BG of 7.

[rbodleyscott]

What's wrong with playing with the numbers for optimal list design? Is this purely an aesthetic thing? There's nothing about having to field BGs of 8 in two ranks IIRC so they can have a ragged 3rd rank just as easily as a BG of 7.

We are trying to get away from the DBM 3xN+0.5 syndrome. It doesn't simulate the challenges facing real generals very well.

[garyb]

people will always try and play the system though, so they'll just be making decisions on whether 4 or 6 or 8 gives them the best balance of resilience and effectiveness rather than choosing between 4,5,6,7 and 8.

I'm not overly fussed either way, I don't see it as a big plus for the rules that I don't see 3n+0.5 (squeezing higher break points out without sacrificing too much strength was always an enjoyable part of army design and people like tinkering with lists) but I'm also only mildy irritated that I can't spend my last 11 points because I'm forced to choose 2 of something.

[paulcummins]

I agree with Gary here

when of the fun things is squeezing the best list out of the points

the always in twos rule (hearafter known as the Noah doctrine ) messes that up a bit - It tends to be 'go and start again' rather than adjust a unit here and there.

[lawrenceg]

What's wrong with playing with the numbers for optimal list design? Is this purely an aesthetic thing? There's nothing about having to field BGs of 8 in two ranks IIRC so they can have a ragged 3rd rank just as easily as a BG of 7.

We are trying to get away from the DBM 3xN+0.5 syndrome. It doesn't simulate the challenges facing real generals very well.

I agree with RBS on this one. Play with the numbers for optimal design, but the optimum should be driven by your tactical use of the army, not by accountancy.

For those with accountant tendencies, I've had a look at the sums to see how much benefit different size BG get from the rounding errors in 25% lost, 1HP3B and Autobreak (all lumped together).

The conclusions were:

Elite: Usually more benefit from rounding than other grades. Exceptional advantage at size 10. 4 and 12 not bad either.

Superior: All even numbers benefit equally and more than odd numbers, except 2 is rubbish.

Average: These benefit least from rounding errors. Best size is 10 with 8 not bad. 2 and 12 worst, 4 not very good either.

Poor: Best size is 10, closely followed by 4. 6 is the worst.

On the whole there was nothing to be gained by using an odd number that you could not gain by using the right even number.

Lawrence Greaves

[nikgaukroger]

Elite: Usually more benefit from rounding than other grades. Exceptional advantage at size 10. 4 and 12 not bad either.

Well as nobody gets Elite troops who can be in 10 or 12's that only leaves 4's that benefit. I suspect 4's will be common for Elites

[garyb]

Not knowing exactly how you did your maths I can't comment on the outcome, however that's only part of what I was talking about. If I have enough points left to add a single base to a BG somewhere, then that's only going to help that BG (even if it just means it has an extra base it can lose). Surely?

Or are you saying that 7 is in no way better than 6? or 9 in no way better than 8? (1 hit required per 3 bases alone would mean 9 is better?)

Cheers,
Gary

[lawrenceg]

Not knowing exactly how you did your maths I can't comment on the outcome, however that's only part of what I was talking about. If I have enough points left to add a single base to a BG somewhere, then that's only going to help that BG (even if it just means it has an extra base it can lose). Surely?

Or are you saying that 7 is in no way better than 6? or 9 in no way better than 8? (1 hit required per 3 bases alone would mean 9 is better?)

Cheers,
Gary

That is a good point, if you have enough points for only one base, shouldn't you be allowed to use them?

A couple of examples:

Code: Select all

bases     25%     1/3     >60%   >50%   >40%   >30%

4         1        2       3       3       2       2
5         2        2       4       3       3       2
6         2        2       4       4       3       2

If you are elite or average, then adding a 5th element to a BG of 4 will improve your 25% and Autobreak. Adding a 6th will not improve anything. Forcing all increments to be 2 bases gets rid of some of these "lumps".

Code: Select all

bases     25%     1/3     >60%   >50%   >40%   >30%
10       3       4       7       6       5       4
11       3       4       7       6       5       4
12       3       4       8       7       5       4

Adding an 11th element to a 10 base makes no difference at all. Adding a 12th makes no difference unless you are elite or superior.

Of course, adding extra bases will always give you extra combat dice, but the value for points varies quite a bit depending on the size of your group because of the impact (or not) on survivability.

This whole BG size issue is more complicated than just this kind of calculation. The ability of a 4 to change from column to line in a single move has already been mentioned, as has the brittleness of 4's. If you use a 5 fighting normally 2 deep, the 5th element gives you one extra dice, but usually allows the enemy 2 extra dice.

While the aim of avoiding the 3n+0.5 syndrome is admirable, I suspect this game is complex enough that the syndrome would not exist anyway. So I am slightly in favour of allowing us to spend our last few points on a single element.

[garyb]

I agree that the value of an extra base goes beyond these calculations, though they are a good indicator of value, as different troop types will benefit from size in different ways.

Forcing it to be even just seems a little nanny-ish and removes an option to allow the player to decide where to spend his points.

In one of the examples above there's no difference going from 5 to 6 elements, other than the fact that you can have an extra element that can be in combat giving you dice.

[nikgaukroger]

Forcing it to be even just seems a little nanny-ish and removes an option to allow the player to decide where to spend his points.

I think you're being a bit silly here. You have plenty of opportunity to decide where to spend your points as it stands. If you come in below the limit then you can go back and play around with BGs of different types to see if you can use them all up - then decide which is the best army.

[garyb]

I think you're being a bit silly here. You have plenty of opportunity to decide where to spend your points as it stands. If you come in below the limit then you can go back and play around with BGs of different types to see if you can use them all up - then decide which is the best army.

Maybe I put that across wrong, no intention of being silly (or were you just being polite:).

What I meant to say was that the restriction on BG size feels like there's no reason for it other than the authors would like to enforce that view (in fact some BGs are specifically allowed to break it). "nanny-ish" was meant to convey a "nanny knows how you should do it better than you do yourself" impression, sorry if that didn't come across.

Of course there's plenty of choice as the where to spend points, I'm just trying to say that being able to add bases to BGs to spend my last few would (in my view) be an improvement.

As I stated near the start, not being able to spend those last few points is only mildly irritating, but I thought it worth conveying as I imagine lots of players will find the same. I'm sure I'm not the only one who probably spends more time tinkering with lists than actually at the table.

[shall]

I fully encourage the use of higher mathematics if it makes anyone happy .... each to their own.

My sense, for what it is worth, is that it is very ahrd to choose between 4/6/8/10/12 sizes. There are +s and -ps so the answer depends more on how you use them wit the rest of the army than "accountancy".

4s are common quality mounted troops for their manouvrabilty, but as much becuase affording 6 is rather difficult. 12 and 10s work nice of Ancient Britiash warband. a single 6 of knights work s great as a srtrike force if you are prepsare to sticka general with it from the outset, but less attractive otherwise. There are some general "rules" and these in the mian help balance the system. Elites come in 4 s and 2s at times - but then again they should rarely lose a combat....so rarely test and even if they do they don't care. So they cannot be 6s as they need to fail the odd death roll here and there...

So its pretty hard to choose I find...which makes the fun of desingnng and army all the more as you need to build up your tactical plan at the same time as your army design more than in the past.

By the way odd numbers in BGS give some funny results for 1hp3 that we would rather avoid. 7s are too obviously good and too odd looking on the table - buy 8 instead you cheapos and make it look nice!

Si

[lawrenceg]

Code: Select all

     % losses or hits to get:	
bases	25%	1HP3B
2		 50		50
3	 	33		33
4		 25		50	
5		 40		40
6		 33		33
7		 29		43
8		 25		38
9		 33		33
10		30		40
11		27		36
12		25		33

Given the artificial survivability advantages that 5's and 7's have, which are an unintended consequence of the game mechanisms, I'm leaning towards keeping them banned. Given the brittleness issues of 2's and 4's, it looks as though 10's is the way to go. However, as Simon says, you also need to take into account how you are going to use the units.