these rules need fixing

gazxtrix · Post by **gazxtrix** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:02 pm

i've been playing this long enough....

what needs fixing

1) rear charges, can someone please explain how an evader turns around and defeats a pursuer, must be the only set of rules it happens in. and please dont say it rarely happens.
2) breakoff cavalry can exceed their normal move, can breakoff from combat you are normally destroyed in.????

3) bowfire ......nuff said

4) i'm frag i'm at 50% casualities you can only fail 10% of the time ....what you've done it again 10% chance of victory but casualties exceed mine by what!!!

get real if...only a better system was available ... my patience is at an end

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:15 pm

All I can say is im not sure what you mean by any of these points

Well maybe the ist. Are you saying that troops running away(evading) but are hit in the rear should be treated different than troops that are just sitting there hit in the rear? I imagine there are/could be arguments for yes or no .....

I would say though that I would like to see a penalty for troops that are set NEVER evade but fail the CMT and evade, they should drop a cohesion level automatically for losing their courage, and then a second if actually contacted in the rear, and then go thru combat . I really dont like the "sacrifice" of light foot or horse set never evade by a player and placed to shield another more valuable BG from a rear hit from a charge of cataphracts, for example.

gazxtrix · Post by **gazxtrix** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:17 pm

absolutely troops running away and caught , have given up the right to fight in 90% of rulesets, they've usually had the benefit of firing and evading whereas the chargers have had to put up with not being able to fire while trying to get at them. so they should be treated like routers no combat ensues just cut down..or at least no bad result to the pursuers.

Rear charges in general - it is way to easy to suffer a bad result after charging someone in the rear. Also the fudge where you can get a demoralising rear charge when starting outside the rear arc needs fixing.

Perhaps I'm just sick of the die rolls having way too much control. i'd like too see the troop type/situation have more influence and the die provide a small variation not the other way round.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:31 am

On the "bowfire", Gary - what is the issue? Is it the overlap in the casualty charts (where 1 hit can often cause more damage than 2 hits) or is it that you feel bowfire is just too weak in the game. I certainly feel this about the longbow.

Also I think there is an issue with regards to "mass firing" of archers (e.g. longbowmen, Ottoman janissaries). If you put three archer units in a line and then put another two archer units immediately in front of them - then the archer unit in the middle of the back row definitely has no shot (unless shooting uphill) and the other two units in the back row may not get a shot either (it depends on the direction the attackers are coming from). I would like to see mass firing at longer range (not point blank range) so that all the archer units could fire. At long distance, longbowmen tried to hit areas rather than individual targets. Would this also be something that you agree with?

gazxtrix · Post by **gazxtrix** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:47 am

i'd go with your points on bowfire. in general i find it too random and on the weak side. the problem arises from the TT rules and and its prejudices against bowfire.

again I would prefer an average casualty rate with variation provided by the dice.

I think my problem is I come from an era when units caused casualties and combat result were derived from that. not the other way round .

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:28 am

gazxtrix wrote:i'd go with your points on bowfire. in general i find it too random and on the weak side. the problem arises from the TT rules and and its prejudices against bowfire.

again I would prefer an average casualty rate with variation provided by the dice.

I think my problem is I come from an era when units caused casualties and combat result were derived from that. not the other way round .

Yes, good ideas, I think. I expect you have seen that myself and TGM have collected all the player requests together and we have just sent a priority list to Slitherine. The development team will be meeting to discuss this in the new year, so some of your frustrations with the game may be addressed then. We will also be sending more detailed sheets to Slitherine that includes everything players have asked for for them to look at. On missile fire we have this . . .

"increase the rate of missile-casualties (to make massed arrows more effective)"

Also, on the priority list, there is a request for "greater customisation of units in the scenario editor".

So I think it might be worth checking the outcome of that developers meeting before you decide to stop playing. I may be wrong but I think next year might be quite an exciting one for us FOG-addicts.

FedeM · Post by **FedeM** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:24 am

Hi, other thing I would like to see is that when you shoot with archers armoured or protected cavalry (armed with light spears in this case) you get the same chances of causing a hit. 50%. The quality of the armor is not been taking into consideration.

tks

gazxtrix · Post by **gazxtrix** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:10 am

excellent i hope its a foggy New Year then (:-o)