Summary of Proposed Changes

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat May 14, 2011 4:21 pm

Falling back is fine in theory but the moment you try to implement it in a complex melee where BG are fighting more than one BG it starts to get really rather messy. There was a 'push back' mechaism in the early betas for FoG 1 but it was difficult to work and really did not make much difference in the end.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun May 15, 2011 3:07 pm

madaxeman wrote:You could have an optional "fall back" mechanism though based on losing margin.

So the loser of the melee could opt to fall back just enough to position his enemy for a flank charge, and get a + to his CT whilst doing so.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Sun May 15, 2011 9:05 pm

philqw78 wrote:
madaxeman wrote:You could have an optional "fall back" mechanism though based on losing margin.
So the loser of the melee could opt to fall back just enough to position his enemy for a flank charge, and get a + to his CT whilst doing so.

I thought I suggested that it would be optional for the winner to follow up....?

madaxeman wrote: - enemy units in contact can choose to follow up immediately, by moving or by having bases step forward. If they don't follow up, they might then be able to charge in again in the next turn

Oh, I did !

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun May 15, 2011 9:31 pm

It has been tested previously and found not to work.

Time to stop flogging the horse

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Sun May 15, 2011 10:17 pm

dave_r wrote:It has been tested previously and found not to work.

Time to stop flogging the horse

That'll be the same horse that breaks off in both FoG Ancients and Renaissance without the rules falling over and failing to work then?

Or the infantrymen who also fall back after losing in FoGR without those rules then stopping working either ?

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun May 15, 2011 10:29 pm

madaxeman wrote:
dave_r wrote:It has been tested previously and found not to work.

Time to stop flogging the horse
That'll be the same horse that breaks off in both FoG Ancients and Renaissance without the rules falling over and failing to work then?

Or the infantrymen who also fall back after losing in FoGR without those rules then stopping working either ?

Why would you try to compare breaking off with pushing back?

Apples and Oranges?

wildone · Post by **wildone** » Mon May 16, 2011 7:34 am

why not limit the falling back to medium BG's in the open that lose a combat against HF. HF look to be getting a faster move so this might compensate the mediums.

regards
wildone

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon May 16, 2011 7:43 am

madaxeman wrote:
philqw78 wrote:
madaxeman wrote:You could have an optional "fall back" mechanism though based on losing margin.
So the loser of the melee could opt to fall back just enough to position his enemy for a flank charge, and get a + to his CT whilst doing so.
I thought I suggested that it would be optional for the winner to follow up....?

madaxeman wrote: - enemy units in contact can choose to follow up immediately, by moving or by having bases step forward. If they don't follow up, they might then be able to charge in again in the next turn
Oh, I did !

Yes you did, but the effect is that a winning combat cannot be continued, as the winner dare not follow up as he will be pulled into the enemy and possibly flanked either side. I seem to recall a battle a bit like that. Though the loser took the foolish choice?

MatteoPasi · Post by **MatteoPasi** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:39 pm

The baggage value in term of break point has to be increased.
2 pt are a low value and their incidence can change with the dimention of the army (the larger army the smaller problem to loose baggage where it was the opposite: the larger army the larger baggage the biggest problem to loose all stuff).

My proposal is that the value of the baggage must be a proportion of the whole army break point or somehow linket:

every 2 BG a baggage element (4x4cm) so larger army has BIGGEST baggage on the table
evert 2 element of lost baggage 1 attition point

Army n. of BG N. of element Attrition Point if lost
8 4 2
9-10 5 2
11-12 6 3
13-14 7 4
15-16 8 5

and so on

david53 · Post by **david53** » Wed May 18, 2011 3:44 pm

MatteoPasi wrote:The baggage value in term of break point has to be increased.
2 pt are a low value and their incidence can change with the dimention of the army (the larger army the smaller problem to loose baggage where it was the opposite: the larger army the larger baggage the biggest problem to loose all stuff).

My proposal is that the value of the baggage must be a proportion of the whole army break point or somehow linket:

every 2 BG a baggage element (4x4cm) so larger army has BIGGEST baggage on the table
evert 2 element of lost baggage 1 attition point

Army n. of BG N. of element Attrition Point if lost
8 4 2
9-10 5 2
11-12 6 3
13-14 7 4
15-16 8 5

and so on

Is'nt this done by DBMM?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed May 18, 2011 10:36 pm

david53 wrote:
MatteoPasi wrote:My proposal is that the value of the baggage must be a proportion of the whole army break point or somehow linket:

every 2 BG a baggage element (4x4cm) so larger army has BIGGEST baggage on the table
evert 2 element of lost baggage 1 attition point
Is'nt this done by DBMM?

No. But if you fully understand the DBMM baggage rules you are a better man than I am.

When I played MM baggage was worth a fixed amount but that amount varied depending on how the baggage was allocated to commands. Either way the size of the army was not directly linked to the value of the baggage. More commands meant you could have more baggage and as baggage is some of the best filler about quite a lot of players use it. There is however no requirement to have any baggage in MM (or at least i think that is the case at present).

MatteoPasi · Post by **MatteoPasi** » Thu May 19, 2011 8:18 am

david53 wrote:
MatteoPasi wrote:The baggage value in term of break point has to be increased.
2 pt are a low value and their incidence can change with the dimention of the army (the larger army the smaller problem to loose baggage where it was the opposite: the larger army the larger baggage the biggest problem to loose all stuff).

Is'nt this done by DBMM?

No, the only think copied by DBMM is the possibility to have different size af baggage istead of standard 12x8cm ones

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu May 19, 2011 8:35 am

But the change in worth of baggage and the complication included in this is now practically obsolete due to the proposed change to army maximum attrition points, regardless of number of BG.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Thu May 19, 2011 4:16 pm

philqw78 wrote:But the change in worth of baggage and the complication included in this is now practically obsolete due to the proposed change to army maximum attrition points, regardless of number of BG.

Since there is a link to baggage/camp here, should you still lose 2 points for a camp that has dropped in points value by 50%, should'nt you also only lose 1 point for it being sacked?

MatteoPasi · Post by **MatteoPasi** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:57 am

philqw78 wrote:But the change in worth of baggage and the complication included in this is now practically obsolete due to the proposed change to army maximum attrition points, regardless of number of BG.

The problem will become less important but there is till the necessity to increase the baggage value for bigger army or reduce for smaller (HIMO)

MatteoPasi · Post by **MatteoPasi** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:59 am

About artillery:
catapult (and maybe even ballistas) must have to option to shoot overhead of friendly troops (better at long range only).
Maybe someone will buy some of them

MatteoPasi · Post by **MatteoPasi** » Sat May 21, 2011 12:04 pm

About death of commanders:
I've seen tha now commander's death give 1 attrition point, I propose that IC give 2 point.

I suggest tha the radius for testing when seeing a desth of a commander is increased to reach the commander radius of command (so 4" for TC, 8" for FC and 12" for IC).

To see Cesar death is not the same than to see Crasso (I can just imagine that, I've never seen none of them dying)

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Sun May 22, 2011 1:46 am

MatteoPasi wrote:About death of commanders:
I suggest tha the radius for testing when seeing a desth of a commander is increased to reach the commander radius of command (so 4" for TC, 8" for FC and 12" for IC).

I don't agree with this. To my way of thinking an increase in command radius of a FC/IC is his ability to control his staff, not his larger than life presence. I agree that his loss should be larger than a TC, but not that his radius of effect should increase.

The fact that Alexander falling would filter through the troops is not in doubt (hence the increase in demoralization) but the shock of seeing his head come off his shoulders should only be those who can see him, which would be the same for any commander.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:31 am

I would prefer a Domino effect, as it was how things usually worked. Thus you first check with the unit in which he was. If you fail, you check for the closer unit within a radius (3 MU) and if they fail you keep checking for other units closer to the one that fail until the spread of panic ceases. It could be potentially devastating or have no effect. I agree that the lost of a inspired CinC should have an additional effect, like a -1 to the CMT.

MatteoPasi · Post by **MatteoPasi** » Tue May 24, 2011 2:00 pm

I've seen that in 2.0 units loosign hand to hand will automatically loose morale, nice but if this modify will be confermed I suggest that winner unit doesn't have the -2 at the death roll any more.

-2 was given in order to make more difficolt to winners to have mora damage than losers, now they already know that losers will reduce morale so a double advantage can be give too much (HIMO).

Opinions ?