Medieval

[marty]

But FoG is reducing the effects of quality so another nice bit of the rules going.

Only very indirectly and in the most minor way. As I understand it the changes are -1 for each 25% losses (only really applies to superior and elite as average would have autobroken) and cant rally from rout if on 50% or more losses. In effect if a superior unit suffers another defeat after already been reduced to 50% strength it is slightly more likely to fail a CT.

Frankly these effects are so minor and, in a sense, overlapping (what chance would you have had to rally with at least a -5 on the test anyway) that their impact will be subtle to the point of non-existence. Played a 6 round V1 comp on the weekend and dont think a situation arose where either of these chages would have affected anything for either side in any of my games.

Superior will still be the default choice for pretty much all non-skirmishers when available. The only hope balance will be restored on the quality front is the hinted at future points changes. Personally I like the fact that superior troops really are good in FOG so I'm glad they didn't introduce changes that would have had much of an effect here.

The cost in points, however, should reflect the benefit and at the moment it does not. Of course if they actually do introduce a points system where cost more accurately reflects the importance of quality (it can be done, FOG R does a better job for instance) we will no doubt be submitted to a great deal of whining from the players whose superior packed armies just got a bit smaller.

Martin

[Eques]

Superior will still be the default choice for pretty much all non-skirmishers when available. The only hope balance will be restored on the quality front is the hinted at future points changes. Personally I like the fact that superior troops really are good in FOG so I'm glad they didn't introduce changes that would have had much of an effect here.

The cost in points, however, should reflect the benefit and at the moment it does not. Of course if they actually do introduce a points system where cost more accurately reflects the importance of quality (it can be done, FOG R does a better job for instance) we will no doubt be submitted to a great deal of whining from the players whose superior packed armies just got a bit smaller.

Martin

I've got no problem with amending points values if certain troops are over/under rated. In fact I would suggest that is the way to address imbalances in the game generally.

But as for complaining that Superior troops actually perform better than, er, Average ones do me a favour!! Very glad such voices were not listened to. They can go play checkers.

[Sarmaticus]

Marty's point is, I think, that there might be whining about the cost of that superiority; not as a response to the diminuion of it. Let's not get into compulsive puling here.

[Eques]

No I know what he was saying and agreeing with it. But his post implied that some people (not him) were complaining not about the points values but that Superior troops were, er, Superior to Average ones.

[Eques]

Maybe in the medieval period but certainly not in the classical (I have seen arguments on this forum that "composite bows" as used by the Persians should get their own category which I don't agree with). There was no classical Agincourt or Crecy. The Persians tried to make one at Marathon and Plataea but it didn't work out too well.

On the other hand persian bows conquered an enormous empire whereas english longbows won a couple of battles while they lost France.

Well I would say that was more to do with geography and the geopolitical situation than weaponry.
What I meant was there was no "Arrow Victory" in the way that there was "The Elephant Victory". There is no battle we can point to and say "This is the one in which the composite bow really came into its own". There are battles we can point to and say "It didn't do what it was supposed to do".

And we should remember the Persians also had excellent cavalry, and their infantry probably outclassed rivals' infantry as long as they were of a similar type or "weight".ie it wasn't just archery that contributed to their early success.

[kevinj]

Nobody has complained that Superior troops are better than Average ones. There has been a fair amount of debate about the approppriate level of differential and there is a widespread view that the the current premium that is paid for Superior status is insufficent for the benefits conferred. I agree with Marty that Fog R has a much better balance in this, Superior troops are good, but not the automatic choice that they are in Fog AM.

Unfortunately, I don't think any points rebalancing is going to happen soon, certainly not until all of the lists are available electronically.

[dave_r]

I think the issue phil is raising relates to autobreak levels.

I personally agree with him - its a mistake.

[ShrubMiK]

>On the other hand persian bows conquered an enormous empire whereas english longbows won a couple of battles while they lost France.

Yes, but the Romans had a missile weapon called the Pilum.

They conquered a similarly large empire with it.

Thus proving it also should be more effective at shooting in the game than the common or garden bow.

In case somebody in this thread misses it, that's sarcasm

[Vespasian28]

I always thought the arguments about this bow is better than that bow a bit spurious. Surely all a bow does is store the energy from a human drawing it then release it. The composite/recurve ones do it more efficiently in a handier size than the "cruder" longbow for much the same effect and in wargaming terms not sufficiently to have even more classes of missile weapons.

[ShrubMiK]

"And even the crude English longbow has elements of being composite, using different types to wood..."...errr I forget te exact details of the quote but yes this stuff has been hashed over many times in many different rulesets.

Personally I think the big difference in game terms between English medieval longbows and earlier bows is the heavier ammunition, plus (allegedly) the archers who have trained since boyhood and have (ellegedly) shoulders like something suitably large and powerful to act as a suitable metaphor inthis case.

What Eastern composite bows were like in the medieval period I don't know, so whether they should be treated more like "bows" or "longbows" I can't say.

The game is necessarily a simplification of different characteristics of bows built at different times using different technology and drawn by different people...of course two types bow is not enough if you want low-level realism in your ruleset, but that's not what FoG is about.

[Eques]

The main crossbow/foot bow change considered was the 2nd rank -POA at impact shooting is dropped.

.

Well I think the 2nd rank should get a - PoA. They can't see their target and are under the stress of having just received a jolting charge.

IMO 2nd rank impact shooting should be a nuisance but not decisive. Ie what it is at the moment.

[philqw78]

IMO 2nd rank impact shooting should be a nuisance but not decisive. Ie what it is at the moment.

But at the moment shooter foot massively under perform

[hazelbark]

Well I think the 2nd rank should get a - PoA. They can't see their target and are under the stress of having just received a jolting charge.
IMO 2nd rank impact shooting should be a nuisance but not decisive. Ie what it is at the moment.

I think what drove it was the ineffectiveness of foot bows. That generally they are underpowered in game terms versus history. Many other options were suggested. But the authors decided this small change to give the foot bows a 6% better chance at impact achieved a small change rather than altering the game system which were the more radical changes.

So in one sense the overhead fire that you and everyone visually felt in v1 was creating a situation where the top down battlefield effectiveness was too weak. Plus the authors did not want to risk greater changes for fear of breaking the system. So they opted for a subtle change.

Practically it means that the bow have a slightly better chance of damaging an attack, butif that attack strikes home the bow will still be slaughtered. Also the idea is they haven't "just received a jolting charge" when they fire. If they roll well and the chargers roll poorly it means the attack probably suffered due to heavy fire and loss of morale.

[marty]

I think the issue phil is raising relates to autobreak levels.

There is nothing in the list of changes that made it in to V2 that suggests there is any change to this. I realise various changes to this were proposed during the beta but it looks like they didn't make it through. As far as we can tell at this point it will be business as usual on the troop quality front (ie no poor battle troops and as many superiors as your list will usefully allow) until points changes happen.

On the other hand the changes to armour will, I think, pose some really interesting questions about how to field troops allowed a range of armour levels. The previously pretty much automatic upgrade to armoured will now be a decision to think about. That is as it should be and the sign of a points system that has something right.

Martin

[Eques]

Well I think the 2nd rank should get a - PoA. They can't see their target and are under the stress of having just received a jolting charge.
IMO 2nd rank impact shooting should be a nuisance but not decisive. Ie what it is at the moment.

I think what drove it was the ineffectiveness of foot bows.

I have to again (respectfully) disagree. I feel that V1 was bang on the money in terms of shooting effectiveness generally

I have seen plenty of cohesion drops caused by shooting in the games I have played. I think it would be very unrealistic to have missile units rampaging around the field and routing everything in sight.

"Softening up" is what the historical missile function is often referred to and I think V1 captures that perfectly.

I think bows should only be able to cause real carnage if there is a lot of them shooting into a smaller enemy all at the same time.

[madaxeman]

I have to again (respectfully) disagree. I feel that V1 was bang on the money in terms of shooting effectiveness generally

Might I quite respectfully suggest that this possibly might be because the only full strength army you have told us that you own, the EAP, are, well, basically THE ONLY* army in ANY of the 17 & 3/4 currently published pre-medieval army list books that have enough decent-quality bow (which co-incidentally are also Superior, and Armoured, and armed with some other sharp edged toys as well) armed foot archers to make them into a viable competent-at-shooting troop type?

I might also point out that the experience of a large number of far more experienced players than I have long since concluded that EAP plus the handful of "English Longbow" armies are the only armies where using any sort of missile-weapon-equipped MF is even remotely viable as a core troop type. And even that would be exceptionally iffy if it was not for the oddly a-historical fact that drilled MF can just turn and walk away from Knights and other MF or HF with pointy sticks and other sharp implements whenever they want, with no penalty or realistic risk of failure. Which, co-incidentally, is being toned down in V2.0 too...

Just a thought....

* Yes that cheesy one from Ethiopia that slipped through the net also might count. But let's face it, you still need to be channelling the spirit of the b--tard offspring of Simon Hall, Genghis Khan and Field Marshal Montgomery to make a decent fist of it. And that rules most of us out.

[philqw78]

II have to again (respectfully) disagree. I feel that V1 was bang on the money in terms of shooting effectiveness generally

Not even close. MF bow are terrible. I must, for shame, agree with Tim. The only ones that work are Massed Longbow, Immortals and Jannissaries. Mounted bow are not much better. Once a player has had a bit of practice lancers are massively better, and cheaper.

[ShrubMiK]

Indeed.

I'll point out that I do disagree that MF bow bow are totally useless. I find them quite useful. A couple of BGs of 4 unprotected MF bowmen often make it into my Foederate Roman army. They are handy for rear-support of troops that can actually do something more constructive! The bowmen would be even more useful in this role if I could save somepoints by getting them to leave their bows back in camp.

And I'm sure this is a perfectly historical representation of how bows were used in battle!

Eques, I fail to follow your reasoning here*. As far as I can tell, you are worried that a change to shooting PoAs at IMPACT will result in bowmen running around the field and destroying everything in sight by SHOOTING? Does not compute. Have I missed something?

If it turns out that bowmen are too devastating in impact and therefore repeatedly win melees against troops that should usually beat them once they have braved the approach firing and got close enough to charge, then there may be a problem. But a bit of experience with V2 and/or analysis might be helpful here.

* except in so far as it is beginning to seem like it might be something like:
10 Start at beginning of list of V2 changes
20 Make a post questioning asking (suggesting) that this change is going to completely ruin the perfect game that is FoG v1
30 Have loads of arguments
40 Move onto next in list of V2 changes
50 Goto 20

[grahambriggs]

Well it was a very broad parallel of heavily armed troops losing out to massed missile troops.

what, like at Carrhae?

[zocco]

I'll point out that I do disagree that MF bow bow are totally useless. I find them quite useful. A couple of BGs of 4 unprotected MF bowmen often make it into my Foederate Roman army.

Hold on - have I missed something - I thought Foederates only got 0-6 MF archers ?

And I'm sure this is a perfectly historical representation of how bows were used in battle!

I wish I did know how they were used Vegetius mentions them deploying behind the first 2 lines (of infantry) along with skirmishers but whether they moved to the front when required or shot overhead would be nice to know. I admit I'd like to see some type of overhead shooting rule (ie MF archers shooting over friendly foot who are on the same level ground - perhaps with a -POA. Could also apply to artillery as in Arrians setup).

If it turns out that bowmen are too devastating in impact and therefore repeatedly win melees against troops that should usually beat them once they have braved the approach firing and got close enough to charge, then there may be a problem. But a bit of experience with V2 and/or analysis might be helpful here.

Since I saw the proposed V2 changes I've been thinking about this one. I'm in a conundrum here - MF archers (and xbow) are not great in small numbers but do get a bit better in larger groups. Also it depends on any additional kit they have (eg sword, light spear etc) and lets not forget some of the Dragon 1/2 and 1/2 concoctions - they are going to get nastier (1/2 HW backed by bow can get quite unpleasant (as I know only too well) - I think they are getting a big boost.