BG's and breakpoints

[voskarp]

Why is it that, for example a routing poor velites BG affects the morale of the army as much as a routing elite legion? Shouldn't the elite legion being defeated put considerably more fear in the hearts of the soldiers?

Also, this leads to players wanting to put their best troops in front and keep the unexperienced (cheap) ones behind the line, just as a BG bulk. As I understand it, in reality it was the other way around. It is of course because you want to keep as many of the experienced warriors alive, to serve in the next battle while fresh recruits is easier to replace. And in the game it's just one battle so it doesn't matter what you have left. In a recent game I had a lot of light foot archers, and I won the game, but almost all the "real" troops were routed or hacked to pieces; what a Pyrrhic victory. If there would have been another battle I'd just have skirmishers left!

Shouldn't it be better to use a troop quality multiplier for the breakpoints, like average troops=2, poor=1, superior=3, elite=4 and skirmishers maybe just 0.5 breakpoints? Or the game being won according to how many points of BG cost you have left.

This has probably been discussed before, but I'd like to know how the designers thought making the system like it is. Also it would be fun encouraging more realistic play.

[TheGrayMouser]

I beleive the point of a system where BG's are treated the same for overall "morale" is to encourage the realistic use of low quality troops by not slaughtering them with out any regard at all After all, if low quality skirmishers, for example, were only worth a half or a 1/4 BP, then they would be used in extremely silly ways.. Ie, set them to never evade and hold up an entire armie at choke points etc, after all for a 1/4 BP it worth losing them if it screws up your opponents maneuverability.

Basically it prevents crud troops from being forced to act like super troops or do suicidal things because the game allows it...

Same is true if an eLite BG was worth double or triple the BPS', players likly would hide them in some corner of the map or use as baggage train guards, not very realistic either.

I would love to see the editor be opens up though to allow varying BPs per BG

Btw I totally agree with you re multiple battle lines in ancient combat, where lower quality more expendable troops were oten used to "soak up " the enmies enrergy before the main lines collided...
There really is no cannon fodder as every BP counts currently

So it comes down to realism vs gameplay I suppose, a vicsous circle. If you give the realism, gameplay will suffer as players can take advantage and make it really unrealistic!

Possibly a solution would to have real formations, battle lines, "corps" , whatever ,of maybe 2-10 BGS each where "the break point" from losses is for each formation individually vs the army as a whole....

[voskarp]

...

Basically it prevents crud troops from being forced to act like super troops or do suicidal things because the game allows it...

...

This could be countered by BGs anarchy, without support they may retreat when faced with overpowering forces.

...

Same is true if an eLite BG was worth double or triple the BPS', players likly would hide them in some corner of the map or use as baggage train guards, not very realistic either.

...

Hmm... true.

...

Possibly a solution would to have real formations, battle lines, "corps" , whatever ,of maybe 2-10 BGS each where "the break point" from losses is for each formation individually vs the army as a whole....

I didn't quite get this. Could you please elaborate?

[TheGrayMouser]

Elaberation:

Instead of having one overall "moral" for the entire army (ie BP's) where once a threshold is reached its all over, one could have maybe 3 lines battles or "wings" (or more , depends)

So as an example, left Wing has 10 BGS' , center wing 20, right wing 12.
42 BG's, and 42 Bps need to be reached to rout the army currently

What i am envioning is say if 10 BPs' are inflicted on the "left wing" ALL the BG's in that left wing now auto rout.
However, the center and right wings would fight on....
(the Anient Battles series by HPS has such a model) , I believe some of the Old GMT board games have something similar.

[stockwellpete]

Elaberation:

Instead of having one overall "moral" for the entire army (ie BP's) where once a threshold is reached its all over, one could have maybe 3 lines battles or "wings" (or more , depends)

So as an example, left Wing has 10 BGS' , center wing 20, right wing 12.
42 BG's, and 42 Bps need to be reached to rout the army currently

What i am envioning is say if 10 BPs' are inflicted on the "left wing" ALL the BG's in that left wing now auto rout.
However, the center and right wings would fight on....
(the Anient Battles series by HPS has such a model) , I believe some of the Old GMT board games have something similar.

It would be really good if that could be represented in the game - but it would also need to include the possibility that the winning side would pursue the defeated enemy off the battlefield too. I am thinking, for example, of the Battle of Lewes 1264 when Prince Edward's troops pursued part of de Montfort's army for miles but when he returned to the battlefield the rest of the royal army had been defeated by de Montfort.

[Jonathan4290]

I think a simpler idea would just be to add a negative modifier to adjacent units' cohesion tests when a superior or elite unit routs. So when those elite cataphracts go down, all adjacent units suffer a -1 to their cohesion test. Or even expand the range of cohesion tests to units within 2 hexes. You could thus make superior/elite units cheaper and help overcome hordes.

[JocaRamiro]

I have also been wondering about the distortions inherent in all units having the same value. So;
1. The idea of grouping and having separate morale checks seems good.
2. It the elite units had more value, I think they would still be used - they are the ones that can do the damage.