free company 2nd place in comp last weekend

[rbodleyscott]

One of the challenges of games design is to spot when the intuitive way of doing things doesn't produce the best results.

What you say about the relative morale importance of light foot and noble knights (for example) is certainly true, and of course we considered writing the rules to reflect that. However, we could see that, as has been remarked upon above, the effect of such a rule would be to lead to game play being less historical, not more.

Hence the final system adopted, which may seem counterintuitive. However, as well as incentivising historical use of troops, it has the additional virtue of simplicity.

[nikgaukroger]

You know, nik, with all due respect, that's not really a very nice thing to say.

I think you have read something into my post which isn't there. Believe me, if I want to tell somebody to bugger off I'll do so directly.

So just in case, and to be clear, let me say that I'm not saying Lance should bugger off as he has a different view from me - he is quite entitled to it, to express it here and to play in the way he prefers with his gaming friends just like anyone else

[BrianC]

I just thought I would say something on this topic being still a newbie and thinking the same way initially. When I was first reading the rules and only played a few games I was getting hung up on LF having the same impact as HF. I play Roman a lot and could not justify why a velite BG should have the same impact on attrition as say a superior Hastati/Principe BG or Triarii. And it bothered me and I questioned the logic etc.

But having played a number of games and re-reading the rules over and over I find myself focusing on how to best beat my enemy with the troops I have, I don't focus on attrition and BG costs. The LF are used to slow down, annoy the heavies and skirmishing. I will only engage other LF with my LF in close combat and even then it depends on what else my opponent has in the area. Its far better to run away and possibly drag an enemy BG with you, or to simply come back to fight later. The fact that they cost the same attrition wise is in the back of my mind but is not really a factor to me. We have very few LF getting killed in our games from non LF battles. I lost one once when I came within 2 MUs of a cavalry BG, he charged I evaded. I rolled 1 he rolled 6, things went downhill from there.

Maybe this is more of an issue with armies that have more light troops but I have only played Roman, Carthaginian and Gaul. I now like how FOG handles this as they are not throw away BGs otherwise whats wrong with throwing them into a melee with heavier BGs from the flank or rear if they cost a lot less? I also stopped focusing on the bottom up stuff, I am now looking at things from an overall position and seeing the result. In the end all games are abstractions of reality and who is to say what is the best approach. I think FOG has a good balance and it has been playtested in depth and seems to work. Who knows what problems will be brought into the game if things were changed where LF had less of a value towards attrition, I fear more cheese might be introduced.

Respectfully from one of the converted

Brian

[OhReally]

So far there is little evidence that having more BGs makes a significant impact on an armies performance. I posted some stats in another thread on the average size of BG in the tournaments at Britcon. Granted if you look at the 15mm comp then the largest army in terms of BGs won but looked at another way a player who has won the Britcon DBM tournament 5 times in the last 6 years won so what does that say. In the 25mm comp the army with the least BGs of any of the armies in the period won so on that basis small numbers of really hard BGs are best.

It is still early days but I can assure you that if there was a system where by sacrificing a BG of 6 poor medium foot light spear (or 12 points out of your 800) you could pull your opponents best BG into a possition where you could destroy it that we would see this 'tactic' all over the tournament tables.

Whether it helps people or not isn't really the point you and I are playfully fencing with. The point is that it is ahistoric, makes no logical sense and only works because of how FoG does it's army break rules which are also ahistoric and make no logical sense.

Well again I didn't really put a great deal of thought into it, but honestly isn't point values fairly ahistorical, as are fair and equal forces.

Of course they're complete cock in terms of historicality, they are just tools to allow us to have a certain type of game. However, should that mean that the game should not have incentives to use troops historically? I suggest not.

Did you just call me a cock (just kidding)! If you admit that they are not historically backed up, which is the arguement you used against my ideas which is why I'm railing on it now, then why not support a system that is more historically accurate?

It's not really historical to go "well if I go break those garbage units all those elite trained men at arms will run away in fear of how we defeated a peasant boy with a speedo and some rocks."

All back to the incentives point - if somebody allows you to do that they are not using their troops properly or historically in all probabiliy and so suffer for it. Again I suggest that this is reasonable.

I suspect we are not going to agree on this. I'm more or less happy with the way FoG deals with this - you, of course, can use a different system with like minded people so we can both be happy [/quote]


I don't think there is anything wrong with no agreeing as long as we are being civil and trying to consider the other persons view.

My comments are coming from the fact that I think FoG is a great game, but it has some things that I think should be looked at more closely whenever a reprint or a second revision of the rules is looked at.

Honestly what would make me happy is having a list of "official" victory conditions that can be used outside of army break point. The current army break point thing probably works great for tournaments, but isn't very elegant for other things IMO.

As far as the "use a different system if you don't like it," that is a bad approach for developers to take. DBM took that stance and look at how many people are playing it now. Besides what is the point of having a discussion forum that the developers read if they don't want any feedback from their players?

The more we as players of FoG share our insights I think the better the game will be in the future.

[nikgaukroger]

Honestly what would make me happy is having a list of "official" victory conditions that can be used outside of army break point. The current army break point thing probably works great for tournaments, but isn't very elegant for other things IMO.

As fra as I'm concerned it is only really there for tournaments - or games played under the same sort of criteria. I'd certainly agree that for other games other ways of dealing with victory and loss would be appropriate.

Unfortunatley we do tend to end up talking about competition type games as they provide a common denominator

As far as the "use a different system if you don't like it," that is a bad approach for developers to take. DBM took that stance and look at how many people are playing it now.

Not playing it now maybe as, IMO, it has run its course and people want to play different things. Four or five years ago, however, it was played by way more people.

Besides what is the point of having a discussion forum that the developers read if they don't want any feedback from their players?

The more we as players of FoG share our insights I think the better the game will be in the future.

You get an "amen" from me on that

[hammy]

One of the fundamental issues with any wargame is that there has to be a point at which one side wins and one loses.

Once that principle is established you have to decide how to go about calculating that point. In practice armies sometimes ran after limited losses and on other occasions fought long and hard. Often it seems that an army decided among itslef that all was lost and they just turned and ran.

You could have a chance of the army running every time a BG routs and base that chance on the 'importance' of the BG. If you did that though then in a Carthaginian army perhaps the Numidian horse would be less important than the Poeni horse even though they may have similar point values. Mercenaries might not bother anyone by their loss. Troops pulling back in good order may be considered as broken by mistake and so on.

I for one would be rather grumpy if I 'lost' a game because when the first BG in my force broke I failed a 10,000 to one chance and lost my whole army but in practice things like this happend in real battles.

There is a line between simulation and game and if you put too much simulation into some areas you end up with a game that bears less resemblance to history as a result.

By all means try playing FoG with point values as the decider for army break but If your opponent is a cynical gamer they will find the cheapest BG they can and use it to trip up your best from time to time knowing that they are losing 12 points and you are losing 100 plus.

I spent a long time on another list arguing against variable weighting for morale, my comments were ignored and I think that the game in question suffered because of it. That is however just my opinion and mainly my opinion as a gamer.

[timmy1]

Possum, as you seem to think Nik should be above all this, how me telling you 'If you don't like it, bugger off'? That feel better?

[timmy1]

James, I agree on variable morale values. When I play DBR I look to keep my French Knights out of the battle as they lose me 2 morale points and so they stay at the back while the lower quality and morale point cost troops do the fighting. The skirmishers are totally expendable, so stay in the open shooting at people and leading kamakazi charges - totally historically accurate, of course!

[carlos]

I think my idea, with some testing and polish, fits better with the idea of the point system, and my half thought out idea makes more sense with FoG math than everything being the same value for attrition. The whole idea of the point system is to create a fair and balanced battle, all troops being worth the same when fragmented and destroyed doesn't really make sense with this model IMO.

No.

[OhReally]

I think my idea, with some testing and polish, fits better with the idea of the point system, and my half thought out idea makes more sense with FoG math than everything being the same value for attrition. The whole idea of the point system is to create a fair and balanced battle, all troops being worth the same when fragmented and destroyed doesn't really make sense with this model IMO.

No.

Your comment shows a mastery of FoG, game design mechanics and the English language that I'm sure inspires us all. Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion...

[Redpossum]

Possum, as you seem to think Nik should be above all this, how me telling you 'If you don't like it, bugger off'? That feel better?

Hey, it's all good Perhaps I did speak out of turn, in which case I freely apologise to all concerned

Lance-

QFT, man, QFT!

[babyshark]

I think my idea, with some testing and polish, fits better with the idea of the point system, and my half thought out idea makes more sense with FoG math than everything being the same value for attrition. The whole idea of the point system is to create a fair and balanced battle, all troops being worth the same when fragmented and destroyed doesn't really make sense with this model IMO.

No.

Your comment shows a mastery of FoG, game design mechanics and the English language that I'm sure inspires us all. Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion...

Steady, kids, steady.

Marc

[carlos]

I think my idea, with some testing and polish, fits better with the idea of the point system, and my half thought out idea makes more sense with FoG math than everything being the same value for attrition. The whole idea of the point system is to create a fair and balanced battle, all troops being worth the same when fragmented and destroyed doesn't really make sense with this model IMO.

No.

Your comment shows a mastery of FoG, game design mechanics and the English language that I'm sure inspires us all. Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion...

That's all such arrogance "and my half thought out idea makes more sense" deserves as a reply. You've been sat down by the game's designers and other players and you still keep on. So "no" is the only answer you need.

[jhs]

Hey, folks, be nice. Lance taught me the game last week (unless there is another Lance from Atlanta), so I can attest to the fact that he is a terrific member of the community. We all just have different ways of voicing our opinions, I am sure no ill will is meant. No discouraging the newbies by having little infights before the game is a year old! Shame.

One thought on the discussion--there is a greater cost to losing a 100 point BG then a 12 pt BG--your remaining army is substantially weaker. Admittedly, this means little on the last turn, but it means a lot half way through the game. As far as I can tell, all timing/tournament related scoring issues are wacky, and result in people gaming the system which damages the game, whatever the game is. If you like a game, you just bite your tongue and accept it. And, ideally, don't get too hung up on winning and losing tournaments, and play to the death with your friends!

Jim.

[Hepius]

At first the idea that one unit of cheap peons equaled a unit of stone cold killers bugged me. However:

1) As previously stated it forces some amount of historical play. Players are better off evading their cheap skirmishers off table rather than throw them at everything.

2) Buying cheap peons allows the purchase of multiple other units. The loss of that unit is more like losing 1/2 to 1/4 of a unit because of the other filler it allowed you to buy.

In DBM you would never lead with your poor troops. It was awful strategy. However, in history, there are many examples of generals putting their poor and average units out front to wear down the enemy while the elite guard stood in reserve. The purpose was to wear out the enemy so the elites could crush them. In DBM there was no wearing down the enemy with your weak troops. Your peons just died under their hooves to no positive effect.

I am not yet experienced enough with FoG to know if this strategy would work. Can weak average and poor units earn their pay by disrupting or causing the loss of a stand (or two) of more expensive units, before being destroyed themselves?

[BrianC]

So what was this thread orignally about? A classic case of a hijacked thread .

[OhReally]

No.

Your comment shows a mastery of FoG, game design mechanics and the English language that I'm sure inspires us all. Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion...

That's all such arrogance "and my half thought out idea makes more sense" deserves as a reply. You've been sat down by the game's designers and other players and you still keep on. So "no" is the only answer you need.

Are you coming down to any of the Atlanta or Birmingham tournaments? I would love to see if your tone changes any in person.

As far as arrogance my friend I would look to your own behavior, and stop wasting time pointing fingers at others.

I have every right to share my opinions about aspects of FoG that I think are less than perfect, and I did so here in a more than respectful manner. Your obvious trolling here shows your "arrogance" as you just had to jump in with nothing to contribute to the conversation. If you don't agree with my ideas I'm fine with that, but it would be more productive to perhaps state why and add your own opinions.

There will always be those who love FoG the way it is or don't want to go through the energy to change it, then there are those who love the game but have small issues that they would like to share with the developers, then there are people who will play FoG even though they hate it and complain it's not as good as xyz game. I fall in the middle camp. I think FoG is a great game, but it's far from perfect and no game is in it's first print version.

We all know that there will be reprints and new versions of the game as time goes on, and I'm sure the developers already have some things they plan on changing and I think it would benefit us all to share areas that we feel the game is weak or not perfect so they can have player feedback that could lead to positive changes in the game.

I guess you would be happy if we were all "High Stepping To the Oldies," and lived in a world where an individuals opinion had no merit and could not be expressed.

I don't think you and I should continue this little beef on a public message board, I again extend an invitation to bring your E-warrior self down to Atlanta or Birmingham and see if you talk as much smack in person.

[hammy]

[Engage moderator mode]
Gentlemen, I think that we had better call this thread a day.

I suspect that had this discussion been face to face over a beer it would have been far more congenial.
[Moderator mode off]

Lance, if you want to continue this discussion via e-mail contact me on james@urgentdawn.freeserve.co.uk

As for playing in Atlanta I would love to but it is a long way to go.