Danes vs. Scots

[Old_Warrior]

How is it that 77 groups beats 45 groups (of Danes) in most of the melees?

This is what frustrates me with most of these lopsided battles (one side having tons more groups). Logic says that if the group costs more it should be winning in melees more. Knights in this series for instance vs. Avg unprotected HI losing? This makes no sense. But most of the time my Dane knights are losing to his infantry. Why are the cavalry so expensive then if they are going to lost 80 percent of the melees they are in.

It is flat terrain, no terrain advantages. Better morale, better armor, etc.

I guess like most I am going to have to start arranging my battles and pass on the "open" method of MP games.

[TheGrayMouser]

How is it that 77 groups beats 45 groups (of Danes) in most of the melees?

This is what frustrates me with most of these lopsided battles (one side having tons more groups). Logic says that if the group costs more it should be winning in melees more. Knights in this series for instance vs. Avg unprotected HI losing? This makes no sense. But most of the time my Dane knights are losing to his infantry. Why are the cavalry so expensive then if they are going to lost 80 percent of the melees they are in.

It is flat terrain, no terrain advantages. Better morale, better armor, etc.

I guess like most I am going to have to start arranging my battles and pass on the "open" method of MP games.

Not to get overly long and convoluted in the following , but a lot of issues imho re game balance come from things that wernt /couldnt be enacted in the PC game like in the TT.
There are multiple threads that touch this : horde army thread and % men killed thread, which I think primarily DO cause the imbalance
In the TT you certainly DONT have 35 plus BG's of very maneuverable medium foot running around like Mongal army of light horse Adittionaly the TT doesnt have the slow gradual (or very quick ) atrittion that is guaranteed to occur to your units, regardless of them winning vs enemy BG's that cost 1/3 less ap's . Win every combat with a knight, it will eventually succomb to % attrition and generally you arnt getting back in AP to enemy Bg's routed in trade off. In one of thse threads i posted a wish list idea that % men killed for melee and impact be nixed altogther and replaced by a fixed % casualty loss if you fail a death roll , similar to the TT. Units that win would get a significant boost to pass said death roll....

[Old_Warrior]

I am going to take both armies and toss them into a game I play against myself just to test some things out. In my playtest game I will not attack with the Danes - will not leave my deployment area and will just let them come to me. The attacker seems to lose quit a few of the Impact contests so may it is my aggressive nature in these games. Not sure.

[deeter]

Sadly, horde armies are heavily favored in FoG PC because all BG are the same small size. If these same armies were on the TT, you would have much larger units for the barbarian types that usually are horde armies. They wouldn't be able to swarm around better troops and they would be more succeptible to bad morale checks.

There has been plenty of discussion about how to fix this, but nothing has been done. There seems to be two types of FoG PC gamers, competitive and historical. If you're a competitive player, go for hordes. If you're trying to replicate history, set up a private game with a like-minded opponent.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm browsing thru the BETA plans for FOG table top version 2, there appears to be a change that likly could help out with this issue in the PC game. Basically the gist is the army BP is capped. So a 500 ap army would have a divisor ( which of course would have to be well thought out for balance) , the bp cap= ap/x

so , maybe a good place to start would be x = 12 so the BP cap would be 42 (rounded), regardless of how many BG's you chose to purchase.

[stockwellpete]

Hmm browsing thru the BETA plans for FOG table top version 2, there appears to be a change that likly could help out with this issue in the PC game. Basically the gist is the army BP is capped. So a 500 ap army would have a divisor ( which of course would have to be well thought out for balance) , the bp cap= ap/x

so , maybe a good place to start would be x = 12 so the BP cap would be 42 (rounded), regardless of how many BG's you chose to purchase.

That's interesting TGM. What is the time-scale involved in introducing TTv2? Do you know? Presumably the new TT version will provide the basic template for any subsequent development of the PC game? Any sign of weather rules, buildings and castles, supply trains, , stamina levels, modified longbow rules? Cough once for "yes", cough twice for "no".

[TheGrayMouser]

heres the linK:
http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 79&start=0


below is the list in the TT forum ( at least as of February ) obviously many of these have no basis for the PC version:


SUBSTANTIVE RULES CHANGES (SO FAR) INCORPORATED IN FOG 2.0 BETA

1. All Roman troops which currently have Skilled Swordsman capability instead have Swordsmen capability and cost 1 point less.
2. Maximum army break point of total points/50. [This could be 60 if 50 is not thought stringent enough, but 50 is an easier calculation]
3. Lost C-in-C counts as 1 Attrition Point towards army break point.
4. Evading troops cannot turn at any table edge to avoid evading off the table. [Note, however, that they can still shift up to 1 base width or drop back bases if that allows them to avoid leaving the table].
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.
6. Teleport interpenetrations and leapfrog interpenetrations removed.
7. No wheel or double wheel can exceed a total of 90 degrees.
8. Wheel in a charge must be at the start of the charge and is declared before any charge responses are declared.
9. Armoured knights move 5 MUs in open. [Needs to also go in QRS]
10. HF move 4 MUs in open when more than 6 MUs from enemy. [Needs to also go in QRS]
11. The player winning the pre-battle initiative roll can choose whether to keep the initiative or pass it over to his opponent. (Thus getting to move first).
12. Roads placed last during terrain set-up so that they cannot be used to block other terrain placement.
13. Flank and rear charges separately defined.
14. Autobreak points changed: Superior now break on same losses as Average. [Major play-testing required. Ready reckoner may still be useful]
15. Columns:
i. Kinked columns cannot charge or intercept.
ii. All columns suffer a -1 POA in close combat. [Needs to also go in QRS].
iii. However, 2 base cavalry and cataphract BGs, and 4 base pikes BGs, do not count as columns.
16. Elephants:
i. Get 3 dice in Impact phase. [Needs to also go in QRS].
ii. Commanders cannot affect their re-rolls (likewise scythed chariots and, probably, artillery)
17. First three Cohesion Test modifiers altered to: [Needs to also go in QRS].

Battle group suffered at least 1 HP2B from shooting* or close combat** -1
Battle group testing for losing impact phase combat** -1
Battle group testing for losing melee phase combat in which it received at least 2 more hits than it inflicted** -1

[Note: The first change is intended to encourage larger battle groups – eg. 6 cavalry instead of 4, and so on, and benefit deeper foot formations. The second is to make the impact phase somewhat more decisive].
15. 90 degree turn and move: Advance limited to up to half normal move distance (rounded up). [Needs to also go in QRS].
16. 180 degree turn, move and turn again with a CMT, move reduced to 2MUs. It can be performed by single base deep non-shock cavalry and chariots as well as skirmishers. [Needs to also go in QRS].
17. 180 degree turn and move without a second turn: Advance limited to up to half normal move distance (rounded up). Single base deep non-shock cavalry and chariots can also do this if they pass a CMT. [Needs to also go in QRS].
18. Foot defending field fortifications need not pursue broken enemy. [Note that this means that foot behind portable defences will pursue enemy foot]
19. Shooting POAs changed: [Need to also go in QRS].
i. Shooting POA vs Unprotected Cavalry not in 1 rank reduced to +
ii. Shooting POA vs Protected Cavalry not in 1 rank removed.
iii. Shooting POA vs Armoured Cavalry not in 1 rank, and Armoured knights removed. [Note that it would be illogical to keep this for longbows if losing the + POA for bows vs Protected Cavalry. They had it before because of armour-piercing capability, not because of superior rate of fire over other bows.]
20. Cohesion Test: Battle troops get +1 modifier when testing for being shot at if shot at only by skirmishers. [This will need careful play-testing to make sure it does alter the balance too far against skirmishers.]. [Needs to also go in QRS].
21. Rear Support:
i. More than half an extra rank of bases beyond those that can normally contribute to melee combat (by dice or creating a POA) counts as rear support for Undrilled troops only.
ii. Bases from other BGs do not have to all be directly behind the supported BG – bases in edge contact with such bases also count.
22. Rout moves. After the initial rout, routers can
i. Shift up to 2 base widths to avoid friends etc.
ii. Pass through friendly drilled troops as a permitted interpenetration. [Hence they don’t drop cohesion].
[The above changes to rear support and rout moves should allow drilled armies to have proper second lines, as long as these are adequately separated, and avoid the need to put support troops in unhistorical columns]
23. Rallying routed troops. Routers can be rallied within 6 MUs of enemy if they have passed through steady friends who are now between them and the enemy. [There’s a bit more to the detailed wording, but this, together with the other changes above, should allow battles like Zama to be reproduced ]
24. 1 extra Brush added to Steppe territory. [We might add some more stuff later][Needs also to go in QRS]
25. Anti-Benny-Hilling: manoeuvre phase movement reduced by 1 MU if enemy in intercept range of flank/rear or within shooting range from behind.

[stockwellpete]

That looks like a lot of fine-tuning there, TGM. Important I know, but not particularly radical in terms of development, I would say. Do you know if they have things like buildings and weather rules in the TT game?

[TheGrayMouser]

That looks like a lot of fine-tuning there, TGM. Important I know, but not particularly radical in terms of development, I would say. Do you know if they have things like buildings and weather rules in the TT game?

No they do not. Basically there arent too many differnces in the core rules

[deeter]

Romans losing +Swordsman capability is pretty big. Hope the PC version goes this way.

Deeter