Summary of Proposed Changes

[david53]

I dont think the autobreak level needs changing at all.

Its better having more distinction between average and superior that superior and elite. particularly if the points diff between avg and sup change

The problum once again is that according to the authors rules amendments for FOG 2 with regard to changes to the points are not coming in.

Was there supposed to be some punctuation in that sentence?

Points changes will be made if necessary, but will come later in the process.

There certainly was but having English as my second Language I do struggle

Did I miss the part that points would be changed if neccessary? Is there a link to the thread so I too could join in the fun.

[nikgaukroger]

There certainly was but having English as my second Language I do struggle

Suppose we shouldn't mock the afflicted - especially after Scotland's performance yesterday ...

Did I miss the part that points would be changed if neccessary? Is there a link to the thread so I too could join in the fun.

No thread on this, just a number of times it has been said that points would be changed if necessary.

[david53]

Suppose we shouldn't mock the afflicted - especially after Scotland's performance yesterday ...



.

Almost as good as Citys performance yesterday......

[shadowdragon]

Maybe a different approach would be to leave the autobreak levels (%) as is and up the -1 CT for 25% losses to -2 CT for 50% losses.

This would not effect average because they autobreak before 50% and help weaken 4 base superior BGs. Write it as -1 per 25% loss and it saves place on charts.

A quick calculation shows that, without any other CT modifiers, at 50% or more bases lost, the chance of a superior BG losing the CT increases from just over 40% to 60% and for an elite BG it would increase from just under 30% to just over 50%. However, there aren't that many elite BG's out there.

Agree with comments that the proposed change in autobreak level for superior BG to that of an average BG is going to be too harsh for knights and chariots. I'll play test the v1.0, v2.0 and a couple of the options list in this thread later this week.

[VMadeira]

Because knights' horses were bred for a fast charge, steppe ponies were bred for stamina.

Hey, it's not Hollywood!
Knight charges were made at canter, a move more or less equivalent to a trot and "en Haye" formation meaning "stirrup by stirrup". It's a slow charge but remember your math : approximately 900 Kg (horse+ Kn) at 25 Km/H (speed of the charge) impacting on 6cm² (point of the lance) is largely enough to destroy anything!
A "charger" was mounted only for the battle, it's generally an old horse (10 years) trained and vicious and he run only a few hundred meter.

VMadeira wrote:
Now, maybe it is intended that knights and chariots should have less staying power than troops that fight in 2 ranks (i.e. that's not a problem, it's a feature). With superior troops (which most knights and chariots are) in v1, the better autobreak mitigated the higher casualty rate, but note how popular average knights were.

They aren't popular because an autobreak at 50% is too cost ineffective as the new rule for the sup Kn.

What ???? I didn't said that ???????

[Polkovnik]

I was referring to, when a BG wants to turn 90º to face an opponent threatning his flank he will have to turn, then expand from one file to two or three files and only then will it be able to receive a charge without a penalty, or charge frontally an opponent, this he can do only in the third round, which is very slow.
Note that BG’s deployed in three or more ranks will make this kind of manoeuvres in only one round, so we can have Barbarians manoeuvring better, than drilled infantry deployed in two ranks, which is the usual formation for most infantry.

This is, as pointed out above, a major downfall for drilled foot. They will be in shallower formations than undrilled, as encouraged by the rear support rules, and then punished again if reacting to flank threats.

How about Turn 90 and expand by 1 file, on passing a CMT, for Drilled troops ?

[Polkovnik]

Agree with comments that the proposed change in autobreak level for superior BG to that of an average BG is going to be too harsh for knights and chariots. I'll play test the v1.0, v2.0 and a couple of the options list in this thread later this week.

I don't think it will actually make that much difference in practice. At present, a BG of 4 Superior knights can take two losses and fight on. But in practice, once a BG is down to two bases it is often also Disrupted or Fragmented. If it takes a single hit from shooting it will test at -2 or worse. It will probably still be fighting (or have broken off and will charge in again) against enemy who have beaten it twice and now double overlap it. The liklihood is that it will lose another base very quickly and autobreak, or break from shooting.
For anyone who thinks this will have a big impact on the effectiveness of superior knights - how many times have you had a BG of knights reduced to two bases and then actually done anything useful ? Normally when reduced to two bases they will die very quickly without doing any damage to any enemy. So the only effect of this change will be to make them break a turn or two sooner.

[VMadeira]

Agree with comments that the proposed change in autobreak level for superior BG to that of an average BG is going to be too harsh for knights and chariots. I'll play test the v1.0, v2.0 and a couple of the options list in this thread later this week.

I don't think it will actually make that much difference in practice. At present, a BG of 4 Superior knights can take two losses and fight on. But in practice, once a BG is down to two bases it is often also Disrupted or Fragmented. If it takes a single hit from shooting it will test at -2 or worse. It will probably still be fighting (or have broken off and will charge in again) against enemy who have beaten it twice and now double overlap it. The liklihood is that it will lose another base very quickly and autobreak, or break from shooting.
For anyone who thinks this will have a big impact on the effectiveness of superior knights - how many times have you had a BG of knights reduced to two bases and then actually done anything useful ? Normally when reduced to two bases they will die very quickly without doing any damage to any enemy. So the only effect of this change will be to make them break a turn or two sooner.

The problem is that now you think twice before commiting to combat a Sup. Knights BG reduced to 2 elements, in v2 you think twice before commiting a Sup. Knights BG reduced to 3 elements. It does a huge difference. It has already been pointed out that these BG's can even autobreak in a single turn...or even in a single phase of impact, when 4 bases of superior knights with a general fight each other, it is common to have 7 or even 8 hits.

And by the way, last saturday, one group of 4 Superior Knights did reach autobreak at one base, without droping cohesion, fighting a group of 6 knights average, and one turn that a BG resists in the fight can make a big difference.

[Polkovnik]

And by the way, last saturday, one group of 4 Superior Knights did reach autobreak at one base, without droping cohesion, fighting a group of 6 knights average, .

This is precisely the point I am making. The Superior knights went down to two bases, and then what happened next ? They lost another base and broke. So the main effect of the rule change would be to tie the enemy BG up for one more round of combat. It didn't have any effect on the survivability of the superior knights.

[shadowdragon]

Agree with comments that the proposed change in autobreak level for superior BG to that of an average BG is going to be too harsh for knights and chariots. I'll play test the v1.0, v2.0 and a couple of the options list in this thread later this week.

I don't think it will actually make that much difference in practice. At present, a BG of 4 Superior knights can take two losses and fight on. But in practice, once a BG is down to two bases it is often also Disrupted or Fragmented. If it takes a single hit from shooting it will test at -2 or worse. It will probably still be fighting (or have broken off and will charge in again) against enemy who have beaten it twice and now double overlap it. The liklihood is that it will lose another base very quickly and autobreak, or break from shooting.
For anyone who thinks this will have a big impact on the effectiveness of superior knights - how many times have you had a BG of knights reduced to two bases and then actually done anything useful ? Normally when reduced to two bases they will die very quickly without doing any damage to any enemy. So the only effect of this change will be to make them break a turn or two sooner.

I play tested several Gauls versus Late Republican Romans when the v2.0 suggestions came out. With v2.0 the Gauls had a much better chance of winning and the single most significant factor was the change in the autobreak level of the Roman BG's. The one or two turns often made a huge in the outcomes of neighbouring combats. Of course, you are entirely welcome to dismiss those results, but they are what I observed to have happened in those games. Whether or not that's the case for battles with superior knights needs testing, but I have no reason at the moment to suspect that the change in autobreak level would not be significant.

[nikgaukroger]

I play tested several Gauls versus Late Republican Romans when the v2.0 suggestions came out.

Have they been reported in the v2 beta forum?

[shadowdragon]

I play tested several Gauls versus Late Republican Romans when the v2.0 suggestions came out.

Have they been reported in the v2 beta forum?

they were reported above. No can report in v2 beta forum...no have access.


Oooops! I do have access. Will do, sir.

[Polkovnik]

I play tested several Gauls versus Late Republican Romans when the v2.0 suggestions came out. With v2.0 the Gauls had a much better chance of winning and the single most significant factor was the change in the autobreak level of the Roman BG's. The one or two turns often made a huge in the outcomes of neighbouring combats. Of course, you are entirely welcome to dismiss those results, but they are what I observed to have happened in those games. Whether or not that's the case for battles with superior knights needs testing, but I have no reason at the moment to suspect that the change in autobreak level would not be significant.

I was talking specifically about knights. I certainly wouldn't dismiss your results, and I agree that the change to the autobreak level probably will have more impact on small superior foot BGs. Romans tend to fight in battlelines, and if one BG breaks that leaves others overlapped.
Knights don't tend to fight in the same way. In my experience they tend to fight one BG vs one BG, so a knight BG breaking one turn earlier often doesn't have such an impact.

[nikgaukroger]

I play tested several Gauls versus Late Republican Romans when the v2.0 suggestions came out.

Have they been reported in the v2 beta forum?

they were reported above. No can report in v2 beta forum...no have access.


Oooops! I do have access. Will do, sir.

Muchly appreciated - we really need all the reporting in the one forum otherwise we will no doubt miss some gems of useful information.

[shadowdragon]

I play tested several Gauls versus Late Republican Romans when the v2.0 suggestions came out. With v2.0 the Gauls had a much better chance of winning and the single most significant factor was the change in the autobreak level of the Roman BG's. The one or two turns often made a huge in the outcomes of neighbouring combats. Of course, you are entirely welcome to dismiss those results, but they are what I observed to have happened in those games. Whether or not that's the case for battles with superior knights needs testing, but I have no reason at the moment to suspect that the change in autobreak level would not be significant.

I was talking specifically about knights. I certainly wouldn't dismiss your results, and I agree that the change to the autobreak level probably will have more impact on small superior foot BGs. Romans tend to fight in battlelines, and if one BG breaks that leaves others overlapped.
Knights don't tend to fight in the same way. In my experience they tend to fight one BG vs one BG, so a knight BG breaking one turn earlier often doesn't have such an impact.

Thanks, that was not clear to me. That makes sense.

[footslogger]

I don't see anything like this on the list and don't know whether it's been discussed. If it has, I'm sorry to bring it up again.

I'm wondering whether it would make sense to reduce the cost of 2nd rank bow cav in formations that are lance cav in front, bow cav in back. They lose one of their really great advantages when in a group like this, that is, the ability to evade. It seems like they should not be charged the points value of that ability if they can't use it.

Of course, I don't know how much you'd have to reduce the points value to see armies with that formation on the table much.

[ShrubMiK]

The way I prefer to look at the mixed lance/bow formations is not as emasculated bowmen with a bit of extra close combat cpability, but as a lancer unit with added shooting capability and no* detriment to their fighting ability

* ok, technically not true...if they charge into impact in one rank the bowmen are a disadvatnage. If they lose a base in a combat, break their opponents (or less likely: are themselves broken and rallied), and then charge into another impact, the bowman promoted to the front rank is a disadvantage.

Whether an extra 1 pt per base if you consider it averaged across the whole BG is sufficiently cheap to make sometimes getting an effective shot in against opposing battle troops, and more frequently getting the chance to fight back against skirmishers that insist on evading you, I don't know. but it doesn't sound like a disastrously bad deal to me, and in any case couldn't be made any cheaper without being free!

Looked at in this way, I think it immediately suggests that the idea of reducing the cost of the back rank to compensate for the disadvantages you see has an immediate limit - if you reduce them by a point each it might be fine; if you reduce them by 2 points each I think the benefits of the 2nd rank bow obviously outweigh the rarer disadvantages

* IMO, obviously!

[rbodleyscott]

I don't see anything like this on the list and don't know whether it's been discussed. If it has, I'm sorry to bring it up again.

I'm wondering whether it would make sense to reduce the cost of 2nd rank bow cav in formations that are lance cav in front, bow cav in back. They lose one of their really great advantages when in a group like this, that is, the ability to evade. It seems like they should not be charged the points value of that ability if they can't use it.

Of course, I don't know how much you'd have to reduce the points value to see armies with that formation on the table much.

The way I prefer to look at the mixed lance/bow formations is not as emasculated bowmen with a bit of extra close combat cpability, but as a lancer unit with added shooting capability and no detriment to their fighting ability

We agree. That is essentially how the Strategikon sees them.

The current plan is to grade the whole BG as Bow*, Lancers, Swordsmen and reduce the cost of mounted Bow* to 1 point.

The revised lists will also allow a propotion to be fielded separately as Koursores with the option of being LH or Cavalry Bow, Swordsmen.

[zocco]

We agree. That is essentially how the Strategikon sees them.

The current plan is to grade the whole BG as Bow*, Lancers, Swordsmen and reduce the cost of mounted Bow* to 1 point.

The revised lists will also allow a propotion to be fielded separately as Koursores with the option of being LH or Cavalry Bow, Swordsmen.

Just to clarify - so Early Byzantine Bucellari (currently 1/2 Lancers 1/2 Bow) will become all Lancers/Bw* then?

[nikgaukroger]

Just to clarify - so Early Byzantine Bucellari (currently 1/2 Lancers 1/2 Bow) will become all Lancers/Bw* then?

In their case it might be Light Spear, Bow*, Swordsmen.