Superior Armoured Roman legionaries led by a General

[ars_belli]

In the games we play now everyone is migrating to better quality troops in general. The 'quality of quantity' seems to be a principle that is hard to apply in these rules.

Simon

Hmmm... moderate numbers of high-quality troops are more useful than huge masses of rabble. Well-trained Roman legionaries, undisrupted Macedonian pikemen and armoured medieval knights are tough to beat in close combat. Light horsemen and skirmishing foot are annoying and difficult to pin down. Elephant charges are terrifying. It all sounds quite historical to me!

One of the many things I enjoy about FoG is the way in which the authors have apparently worked very hard to get the game mechanics to support and encourage historical deployments and tactics. I suspect that this will become even more apparent with time and repeated play, as players have a chance to 'unlearn' some of the unhistorical and 'gamey' tactics encouraged by other competition-oriented rule sets.

Cheers,
Scott

[list_lurker]

Hmmm... small numbers of high-quality troops are more useful than masses of rabble. Well-trained Roman legionaries, undisrupted Macedonian pikemen and armoured medieval knights are tough to beat in close combat. Light horsemen and skirmishing foot are annoying and difficult to pin down. Elephant charges are terrifying. It all sounds quite historical to me!

This is all true, but for a game 'enjoyment 'longevity POV... its concerns me. Playing once a week now and I can feel the burn

[shall]

Well Terry and I will claim the award at Usk if no-ne else is - we're going as Gauls!

With the barbarians you need to play on 3 features:

1. Have enough depth that you can soak up fire and a few casualties
2. Get maximum value from your generals in combat
3. Use rear support well inthe zone where you are going to press matters

So my most recent theory for the Britons is in fact to go wide and deep at the same time as folllows:

3 x 12s that are deployed 5 wide to have a couple fo spares at the back - 2 alawys together, 1 usually off elsewhere in mor defensive duty
TCs enough to usually upgrade all 3 of these in the big charge
1 x 8 that sits behind 2 of them in column to give rear support
Spread the rest of the army out wide and press to try to pull the opposing army apart

This will often get you a 10 wide charge of IF all counting superior with a CT + for general and another + for rear support in the event they don't win the charge. So even if losing badly you need only a 7 to pass (62%). You can afford 2 losses before you start losing dice. 5-5-2 formation means you have to suffer 4 on 5 frontage to get 1HP3 vs 4 of a 6 frontage (so the odds shift a fair bit).

If you face lots of missile troops then all BGs go properly 3 deep to soak up some damage and you drop the rear support as you haven't the frontage to do it.

Hope that helps

Si

[miffedofreading]

Deleted

[ars_belli]

This is all true, but for a game 'enjoyment 'longevity POV... its concerns me. Playing once a week now and I can feel the burn

There seem to be two basic approaches that wargames rules writers have applied to the 'unfairness' of the fact that some historical armies had higher quality forces than others, in the interest of providing a fun and 'balanced' gaming experience. One has been to jury rig and skew the army compositions and points values for the sake of a 'fair' game, giving all armies a more-or-less 'equal' chance. As others have pointed out, this is not only fundamentally unhistorical, it also tends to create all sorts of unintended consequences in the form of 'killer' armies and 'cheesy' tactics. This in turn tends to lead to further attempts to 'rebalance' things in the next edition of the rules, which then creates a new and different set of unintended consequences. On and on it goes, with each new 'correction' taking the game further and further from actual historical tactics and generalship.

The second approach is to write the rules so that tabletop forces possess, as much as possible, the same kinds of battlefield strengths and weaknesses as their historical counterparts, so that player-generals are confronted with similar tactical issues and problems to those faced by ancient commanders. Ideally, players are then working through historically valid tactical situations as well as playing the rules.

So if you find yourself fielding an army with masses of poor quality troops, you may have to be a bit more creative in your use of terrain, stratagems and tactics than someone who has the luxury of possessing historically high-quality troops, and so isn't required to be as tactically innovative. Surely as a a player-general this would be more challenging and rewarding, as well as more historically accurate, than attempting to artificially 'balance' the troop types in 'rock, paper, scissors' fashion.

Cheers,
Scott

[shall]

So far the viability of different armies has seemed very balanced. I have used perhasp 40 armies under th current points system and I don't at this stage feel many bragains or wastes of points per se.

As you say the real acid test is a few years of hard use by the competition core who will be optimising their armies continuously during their sleep for maximum effect per point. It is comforting that so far thre have been 3 or 4 fashions theorised by players which then seem to have vanished - it was Elephnats first, mounted cav next, knights, not sure what is the latest. The fact that these havn't stuck prhaps suggests the system isn't bad in vs1.0. It has been very hard to judge.

One thing I do find in FOG is that the army design depends a lot more on how I am proposing to use it that the value of particualr troops. Value for money of bases is not so clean cut a concept as it is in some other game systems.

Certainly in DBx if I saw an army with 6 Irr Ax(S) I would put them in first as they were just a good deal at 4pts whereas in FOG that isn't so clear cut as they can be a complete waste if they don't work well with the rest of the army. If that makes any sense .....

Si

[ars_belli]

Scott, Nothing wrong with good troops being better than poor troops..... IF the rules reflect this accurately in the points value of the higher quality troops. Even a minor mistake in the costing of troops types is likely to be exploited ruthlessly by competition gamers.

I would be VERY dissapointed if I discovered my favourite army was rubbish, not because of my poor generalship but because of unbalanced points values.

I think balancing a points value system is very difficult. I very much hope the team have got it right. It is surprising how small an issue can totally ruin an otherwise perfectly good set of rules.

Andy

Andy,

I guess a lot depends on how you define the terms 'balanced' and 'rubbish.' I would define 'balanced' as meaning that every listed army has a chance at victory under favorable conditions, and utilizing historically valid tactics for their type. I would define 'rubbish' as a listed army that has absolutely no chance of winning, even under optimal conditions and using the best possible historical tactics.

I would consider a points system to be 'unbalanced' only if it was impossible for certain armies to win, even under the best possible generalship, or impossible for certain armies to lose, no matter how poorly led. I would not consider a point system to be 'unbalanced' because it didn't reward the same 'mini-maxing' strategies as other popular systems.

Cheers,
Scott

[miffedofreading]

Deleted

[jlopez]

I think well-trained, well-equipped armies are easier to use than larger, average ones but I don't feel they are better. A beginner will do better with a Late Republican army than a Gallic army but once you've got a hang of the game, things even out nicely. So far I've used Latin Greece (Knights + LF, bow) and Parthians (Cataphracts + LH,bow) in competitions and I can honestly say that the armies that caused me most anxiety were the large ones (Medieval Irish, Ming) and Carthaginian.

Julian

[miffedofreading]

Deleted

[terrys]

the armies that caused me most anxiety were the large ones (Medieval Irish, Ming) and Carthaginian.

I'd add Medieval Scots and ancient British to that. (those pesky chariots!)

One of the most enjoyable games I've had was with Palmyran. Not very big, but seeing a block of 20 cataphracts charge 10 wide 2 deep is awesome. They rode over a line of so-called uber-hard Legionaries. (alright - it took 3 attempts, and I finally had to hit them in the flank!!)

[miffedofreading]

Julian,

It is very good to hear that you have found the game well balanced.

So far I have heard very few comments about the game being unbalanced. Looking forward to it

Andy

[miffedofreading]

Game sounds really good.

I don't think my posts on this thread were adding any value at all, so i deleted them...

Can't find an actual delete button?? Just had to remove the text. Am I doing something wrong?

Andy

[list_lurker]

I've had was with Palmyran. Not very big, but seeing a block of 20 cataphracts charge 10 wide 2 deep is awesome. They rode over a line of so-called uber-hard Legionaries.

'cos that's not expensive at .. what ~46pts per file! ... There are >50% of your points invested in 40cm

Were the Romans caught in the headlights?

I'd really like the big barbarian armies to work, as they are my favourite, I just don't see it at the moment. But I'm prepared to be re-educated at Usk!

[ars_belli]

As your arguement appears to make no sense to me, I suspect I have misunderstood your arguement. Assuming this to be the case could you please explain it again from a different angle?

Andy,

Rest assured that no offense was taken. Perhaps I am not expressing myself very clearly. So with everyone's indulgence, I will take another shot at it.

My first example was, to be perfectly candid, modeled on DBM. The points system appears to be seriously 'skewed' to me, to the extent that historically powerful armies such as Alexander's Macedonians and Caesar's Romans have been notoriously unpopular in tournament play over the years. And the rules and points values actually encouraged players who did field these armies to load up on cavalry and skirmishers, and minimize the use of legionaries or pikemen. That seems fundamentally wrong to me, at least for a rule set that claims to be historically based.

As I hope is clear by now, I do think that wargaming rules and army lists should, as much as practically possible, reward historical tactics and discourage 'cheese.' IMHO, DBM has done a less than optimal job in that regard over the years. I also think that all 'official' armies should have some chance at victory, although they may not all have an equal chance at victory.

Again, I do think that a points system should accurately reflect the historical strengths and weaknesses of various troop types and combinations. This in turns means that it will indeed be somewhat easier to win with those armies that were historically successful than with those that weren't. I see nothing wrong with this, provided that 1) it is not impossible for any particular army to win, even under optimal circumstances, and 2) that those who do win, tend do so because the players make skillful use of historically valid tactics, and not because of rules-specific 'cheese.'

Does that make sense to you? Do we agree, or are our respective definitions of 'balanced' armies really as far apart as you seem to think they are? In any case, thanks for a thoughtful and stimulating conversation. I hope that you did not delete your post because of me, and that we can converse more in the future.

Cheers,
Scott

[terrys]

Were the Romans caught in the headlights?

Well they stood there and let me charge them 3 times.
I actually broke one of the flank BGs in early on - with overlaps. In the time it took for the rest to bounce off twice I'd turned to face the flank (regular cataphracts!). The 3rd time I charged - by now both of us somewhat whittled, I was in the flank/rear as well. I was of course struggling elswhere - but it was fun!

I'd really like the big barbarian armies to work, as they are my favourite, I just don't see it at the moment. But I'm prepared to be re-educated at Usk!

Simon and I will show you how it's done!! (or die trying!)

[shall]

After that promise from Terry I am not sure whether to bring my dice or a shovel!!

In all truth the large barbarian armies are entirely viable. Armies relying on size rather than quality are always more vulnerable as if you get anything wrong they don't have the resilience of a nice bunch of Sup Arm troops, which tend to be very forgiving by comparison. I think it will take everyone time to see how best to make use of armies precisely because FOG is fairly cheese free so much depends on army design, terrain, deployment, grand strategy and timing.

As for the viability for armies in general. I sort of agree with Scott that DBM did a poor job of getting historically strong armies to the fore. But I think that is more to do with the game mechanics than it is to do with the points systems to be honest. What we have tried to do is first get the mechanics feel correct and one of the reasons quality armies work well is that flanks are not so vulnerbale in FOG. In DBM my wall of Later Pre-islamic Arab (that all conquering army of historical fame) used to get round flanks with all sorts of junk. In FOG this is useful too, but not so instantly and dramatically as in DBM. This means that there is a better balance, IMHO, of width and quality, which then leads to the quslaisation of armies. The point system has then been used to broadly balance armies of different types.

Looking at USK which uses rise of Rome armies, I can honestly say that I feel any of them could win the comp.

So much so that I would have been happy to be given any of them and asked to play with it. May I alter regret downing such a guantlet I wonder??

Si

[miffedofreading]

As your arguement appears to make no sense to me, I suspect I have misunderstood your arguement. Assuming this to be the case could you please explain it again from a different angle?

Andy,

Rest assured that no offense was taken. Perhaps I am not expressing myself very clearly. So with everyone's indulgence, I will take another shot at it.

My first example was, to be perfectly candid, modeled on DBM. The points system appears to be seriously 'skewed' to me, to the extent that historically powerful armies such as Alexander's Macedonians and Caesar's Romans have been notoriously unpopular in tournament play over the years. And the rules and points values actually encouraged players who did field these armies to load up on cavalry and skirmishers, and minimize the use of legionaries or pikemen. That seems fundamentally wrong to me, at least for a rule set that claims to be historically based.

As I hope is clear by now, I do think that wargaming rules and army lists should, as much as practically possible, reward historical tactics and discourage 'cheese.' IMHO, DBM has done a less than optimal job in that regard over the years. I also think that all 'official' armies should have some chance at victory, although they may not all have an equal chance at victory.

Again, I do think that a points system should accurately reflect the historical strengths and weaknesses of various troop types and combinations. This in turns means that it will indeed be somewhat easier to win with those armies that were historically successful than with those that weren't. I see nothing wrong with this, provided that 1) it is not impossible for any particular army to win, even under optimal circumstances, and 2) that those who do win, tend do so because the players make skillful use of historically valid tactics, and not because of rules-specific 'cheese.'

Does that make sense to you? Do we agree, or are our respective definitions of 'balanced' armies really as far apart as you seem to think they are? In any case, thanks for a thoughtful and stimulating conversation. I hope that you did not delete your post because of me, and that we can converse more in the future.

Cheers,
Scott

Scott,
I think you explained yourself better this time
I think I agree totally with at least 90% of what you said
I do hate it when you end up with a roman army with no legionaries because they are too expensive! I am all in favour of armies comprised of the type of troops they should have.
I am also totally in favour of different armies working best if used in different ways, that suit their makeup.
Being British I like to give the underdog a chance so would hate to see anyone too heavily penalised because their army had a lot of rubbish in it.

From the other comments on this thread that really does not seem to be the case.

I thought my comments could easily be seen as provocative, which they weren't meant to be, and really did not help anybodies enjoyment of the game so decided to just delete them.

I have a small medical issue at the moment that tends to make me over react and jump down peoples throat, I am trying to compensate and stop myself doing this. Sometimes I can't work out whether I am being reasonable or not so decided to swing to the side of caution

Really am looking forward to playing this game when it comes out.

I don't know if I will have the time to come to competitions, and I really feel uneasy at them anyway, but as I am a member of the reading Warfare club, I deffinitely will be at the show and would like to come along and meet a few of you guys there. (In between your games)

[pezhetairoi]

I'm enjoying this discussion, really looking forward to the rule set I ordered.
I would like to add, that it isn't really necessary in my opinion, that all armies are balanced and fair.
If we were going to play a completely fair game, we'd stick to chess.

Some armies were excellent, and some were crap... as long as they correspond to history properly. From playing other rule sets I've come to despise the historically "crappy" army as a very competitive tournament force. It tells me something is wrong with the rules.
We all choose our armies for different reasons, and if you want to win tournaments pick an army on that basis. There are quite a few super-armies in history that conquered their parts of the world. If you are looking for something else, like fun to paint, ancestral relations, favorite period, you can. A player should be able to "get what they were" as far as your army goes. From what I'm hearing, FoG seems to have barbarian/roman interactions about right. The Gauls are going to need a good plan or lots of luck to crack the legions. Sounds like history to me. Ask Boudicca or Vercingetorix (sp?).

Noel.

[stevoid]

If we were going to play a completely fair game, we'd stick to chess.
Noel.

Ignoring the terrible imbalance of white always going first. I mean, where's the historical justification for that?

Steve