Disappointed over Poa's

[TheGrayMouser]

Inspired by Stockwellpetes work on a Pavia scenario, have been playing with the sceanrio editor quite a bit and somewhat surprised in some of oddities in the poa's
Chiefly , mixed battle groups

Basically , if you make a mixed battle group of heavy infantry with medium foot support bows, it makes absolutely no differnce if they are pikes , offensive spears or defencive spear, all 3 types get 0 poa when recieving a charge or when charging.... really the only differnce is defensive spears wont anarchy

Coupled with this lack of variety, are some real odities: for example a cavalry unit with Light spears will be up a POA vs a mixed pike offensive/def spear heavy infantry unit(since mounted light spear gives a PoA if net) wheras a Knight lancer will be even??
Even odder ( see my post on light cavalry charging , which i think is a bug) a light spear armed LIGHT cavalry will be up a POA vs a pike mixed heavy battle group!

Perhaps these mixed Bg's should at least get a POA when recieving a charge?

[keithmartinsmith]

These are all features of the rules and there is not a lot we can do about it. We are committed to keeping to the POS's as defined by the authors. To discuss POA changes see the Field of Glory Forum further down the indux.

If you know of any that differ from the printed rules then I would be keen to know.

Sorry
Keith

[TheGrayMouser]

Alright, disappointing was not a good term to use but certainly an attention getter

Well, Im not making any claims the POA's are any differnt than the TT, although that game certainly plays out differntly so there likly is a differnce in effect if not the technical aspect. Just thought it striking that front ranks being pikes or spear makes no differnce is all, and especially spear cavalry fair better agianst such BG's than lancers!.

BTW this doesnt answer the question regarding LIGHT cavalry being able to charge formed troops frontally. Not only is it not part of the TT but the PC game manual says otherwise as well...

[Rosseau]

Generally, I think FoG needs a little more love. I could not justify buying the last two expansions. In particular when I heard the latest one is so difficult from the Ottoman side. Yes, I know, it's historically accurate...

Just me, but I don't care about TT. I would like to see logical suggestions like the Mouser's implemented, the ability to place real buildings, and other changes to make the game both more fun and realistic.

Even without the last two expansions, I have spent about $140 on this series. The patches we are getting are okay, but pretty minimalist.

[Rosseau]

I guess everyone else is perfectly happy with FoG and their $25 expansions.

On the other hand, I am buying Market Garden asap. It $15 and the game itself has evolved much more than FoG. I do appreciate the "Evade" option that was put in, though!

[TheGrayMouser]

I guess everyone else is perfectly happy with FoG and their $25 expansions.

On the other hand, I am buying Market Garden asap. It $15 and the game itself has evolved much more than FoG.

Hmm, I think its a great game and system, that potentialy could be even better with some tweaks. See the thread that Stockwellpete started, maybe we shall see some.
Price really shouldnt come up in a discussion like this. Battlefield Acedemy (oops, "Battle" Academy, lol) is a differnt genre with likly a much broader customer base and is a newer game to boot that will get more current attention/tweaks/improvements. After all, if you read the descrition of th ebase game, doesnt sound like too much. Its sad but ancient and medieval warfare is not that popular and many fans of one era of same dont necasarily like and thus support via purchases in another era AT ALL, whereas you could argue that fans of WW2 will by expansions from the East front , West front , Afrika, Pacific with equal relish. People just love blowing stuff up!
For me, I like everything pre rifled musket, but there sure is slim pickins out there...

[Punzer]

Inspired by Stockwellpetes work on a Pavia scenario, have been playing with the sceanrio editor quite a bit and somewhat surprised in some of oddities in the poa's
Chiefly , mixed battle groups

Basically , if you make a mixed battle group of heavy infantry with medium foot support bows, it makes absolutely no differnce if they are pikes , offensive spears or defencive spear, all 3 types get 0 poa when recieving a charge or when charging.... really the only differnce is defensive spears wont anarchy

Coupled with this lack of variety, are some real odities: for example a cavalry unit with Light spears will be up a POA vs a mixed pike offensive/def spear heavy infantry unit(since mounted light spear gives a PoA if net) wheras a Knight lancer will be even??
Even odder ( see my post on light cavalry charging , which i think is a bug) a light spear armed LIGHT cavalry will be up a POA vs a pike mixed heavy battle group!

Perhaps these mixed Bg's should at least get a POA when recieving a charge?

Hello. I'm very new here, so new that while I'm just days away from it, I don't yet even have the game to play. I have been reading the Wiki in eager anticipation of my acquisition and, like you, I've noticed that unit to unit relationships and modifiers are not finely articulated. Which I figure is to be expected of a computerized version of a tabletop miniatures game. The important thing to remember here, I think, is that this is not a simulation at all unless you want to call it a (somewhat loose) simulation of the TT rules. It's really a strategy game. It doesn't "model" anything beyond itself, near as I can tell. For myself, I'd welcome what you're championing. The more it feels believable/real, the more fun I think it'd be for me. Still, I can't wait to get my greedy hands on the game and finally play it. I really want to see what I can do with some phalanxes.

[batesmotel]

Alright, disappointing was not a good term to use but certainly an attention getter

Well, Im not making any claims the POA's are any differnt than the TT, although that game certainly plays out differntly so there likly is a differnce in effect if not the technical aspect. Just thought it striking that front ranks being pikes or spear makes no differnce is all, and especially spear cavalry fair better agianst such BG's than lancers!.

BTW this doesnt answer the question regarding LIGHT cavalry being able to charge formed troops frontally. Not only is it not part of the TT but the PC game manual says otherwise as well...

I think the effect for spear armed cavalry versus mixed spear/MF Bow BGs is about the same for TT as for PC. The LH should still loose with two dice rolling for 4s versus 6 dice rolling for 5s. Light spear armed cavalry do better in impact with 4 dice for 4s versus 6 for 5s, but won't get their swords in melee if the foot BG remains steady so still not a great threat.

If there are any mixed pike/MF Bow BGs in the game, I believe this is an error and that they're not classified that way in the TT lists. (Burgundian mixed pikes and longbow are classified as defensive spear in the TT lists.) The only Offensive spear/MF bow BGs I know of are the Later Achaemenid Guards. Everything else should be defensive spear/bow as far as I can recall.

Chris

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Hey Chris, I dont own the TT book for SOA but you are correct , i was refering to the mixed Burgundian Pike/Longbow units in the DAG. So you are saying that the list is wrong? Thats odd because I thought the Bugundian Ordance army actually did in history mix pikes and longbows....
Either way i just thought it odd lancers fair worse vs mixed BG's than Light spear cavalry, that was my main "shocking discovery"

[batesmotel]

Hey Chris, I dont own the TT book for SOA but you are correct , i was refering to the mixed Burgundian Pike/Longbow units in the DAG. So you are saying that the list is wrong? Thats odd because I thought the Bugundian Ordance army actually did in history mix pikes and longbows....
Either way i just thought it odd lancers fair worse vs mixed BG's than Light spear cavalry, that was my main "shocking discovery"

Charles the Bold did mix (or at least may have mixed depending on the source) pikes and longbows. The authors of the list decided that categorizing the mixed units as HF defensive spear + MF longbow gave a better overall resultin simulating this than HF pike + MF longbow despite the fact that the spears used in the mixed formation were pikes in length just to avoid the problem of having the mixed group classified as shock troops.

I believe the thought behind spears/pikes negating the lance PoA is that you need to impact with the momentum of the horse charge in order to get the lance effect. With light spears, the cavalry has the option to either throw the light spear at very close range or possibly maneuver to avoid the pike/spear points and be able to thrust with the spear since light spear counts less on the horse's momentum for effect than the lance does.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Yes, but you can still thrust with a lance (hell even throw it) Im pretty sure the Norman knights whom fought at Hastings are classified as Knightly lancers in the TT, and the Bayou Tapestry certainly shows them thrusting over hand, throwing , and in some cases charging in the couched method. Quite flexible.
Any way, a wishie listie thing would to have an interum poa / impact weapon for cavalry" Maybe a "light lance" to fill in the gaps between truly weak cavalry like the Roman Equites and early greeks, vs the better Gauls and Alexanders Elites, and then 15th century gendarmes with lance rest on 2 ton horses....
2 impact weapons only for mounted seems not enough (well 3 if you count the lack of such)

[stockwellpete]

I like this thread. The first words are "Inspired by stockwellpete". Not a sequence of words that you hear too often!

[Rosseau]

They were just buttering you up for your future work, Stockwellpete

I say (to the devs) forget all the minutae for a minute and get us a campaign option. Then release campaign expansions.

It's true though--a few of the guys I played MP with--didn't even own another computer wargame. So you are appealing to a TT/grognard audience. If you get enough sales from that segment, fine. Meanwhile, I will continue to take my $25 elsewhere (on Matrix, Slitherine, BF, of course).