Poor Poors

[acl]

One of the best things about Fog is that the point system accurately reflects the value of troops. Giving it a marked advantage over other sets in which players hunt out superior troops. Because these are not only better in a one-to-one fight, but also better value overall.

The whole point of a point system of course being that tho superiors should be superior individually X points spent on then shd have roughly the same effect against a range of enemies as X points spent on inferiors.

I've a slight suspicion that Superiors are on average maybe a smidgeon too powerful for their points in Fog. But I could easily be wrong in this as people often choose Average troops even when they have the option to make them Superior.

My one concern is that I have never seen any Poor troops on the table, apart from the odd mob taken purely for bulking purposes, and LF (who do seem to be reasonable value).

Do you or anyone you know ever field an army built mostly from Poor quality fighting troops? Do they win?

Have you ever even taken even one Poor fighting BG when there's an option to make them Average instead?

I realise that cheap units help to bulk-up an army (making it harder to take over the half-way line) and that they are useful for filling-up early deployment tranches. So that their pure fighting value should maybe be a bit less than an equivalent spend on other troops.

But my worry is that at the moment most Poor troops (apart from LF) just don't seem to be reasonable value for money.

Under an earlier popular set of rules, DBM, inferior troops were often good value for the points. Sometimes they were too good. But this did make a whole range of so-so armies viable and so widened the range of potential opponents, while also adding to the range of light and shade within a game.

It would be a shame if Fog narrowed that range of choice and battlefield performance.

Prove me wrong.

Alan

[timmy1]

Can't answer as misses the 4th answer, which I would use, 'They are correctly valued, just I don't want to use them as I want just to use uber-troops because of some deepseated need to feel superior/personality defect' or some variation thereof.

[carlos]

To be honest there aren't that many armies that are both popular and that can use a lot of poor troops. In my dominate romans I have all my LH and LF as poor as I don't expect them to get into contact with the enemy and in terms of shooting/raiding camp/harassing routers the difference is not that big or negligible.

[gozerius]

I will sometimes take my compulsary foot as poor to maximize the points in the mounted troops which are the core of the army. Similarly, if I know that I'm facing an army that has a lot of knights, chariots or elephants, or heavy weapon armed troops I will buy only protected infantry.

[babyshark]

I suspect that the day of the poor troops will come. We are still quite early on the learning curve for FoG, and people are running a lot of superior, drilled, armored troops because they are much more forgiving than the alternatives. As the FoG community builds up a knowledge base I expect to see some "poor troops" theorists emerge. Already we are seeing something of the sort, as the development of the "Roman swarm" army has demonstrated.

That was, IIRC, more or less how it happened in DBM as well. Setting aside the example of inferiors (as they were helped a lot by a rule shift between versions), warwagon theory developed rather late in the day.

Oh, and I love this sort of thing. Shifting theories of army design keep things interesting.

Marc

[acl]

I suspect that the day of the poor troops will come. We are still quite early on the learning curve for FoG, and people are running a lot of superior, drilled, armored troops because they are much more forgiving than the alternatives. As the FoG community builds up a knowledge base I expect to see some "poor troops" theorists emerge. Already we are seeing something of the sort, as the development of the "Roman swarm" army has demonstrated.

That was, IIRC, more or less how it happened in DBM as well. Setting aside the example of inferiors (as they were helped a lot by a rule shift between versions), warwagon theory developed rather late in the day.

Oh, and I love this sort of thing. Shifting theories of army design keep things interesting.

Marc

Thanks. You and all who have contributed to this have interesting things to say. Timmy1's point about superiors having a mystique that draws us in is a good one. Often, it is reading about these that has made us interested in an army. Poor troops, almost by definition, aren't given good press by the chroniclers. So the shortage of Poor troops on the table doesn't necessarily mean that they are poor value for money.

It is good to see that Carlos is using Poor LH as well as LF - that he is finding them good enough if not seriously engaged. Even tho the relative discount for Poor LH is much less than that given to Poor LF. Also interesting to see that Gozerias is using them as a way of fulfilling his army's minimum quotas when he wants to concentrate on other troop types.

Tho these also sort of conceede the point that it's not cost-effect to throw Poor troops into the fight.

Under an earlier set which many will remember, DBM, putting troops like inferior spears or inferior bow into the front line was quite viable. Their individual weakness could be overcome by using them in bulk. Some felt that other cheap troops (like warband O) were almost too powerful for their points.

The circle may well turn, but I'm not seeing these sort of 3 pt wonders (troops costing about 6 pts in Fog) featuring in many write-ups.

As you say, it is early days. Theories of army design do shift - bringing new types into prominence - and this is a great part of the hobby.

However, as you also say, it took a shift in the DBM rules to bring inferior troops onto the table. Think there's a tendency for any new rule set to emphasise top troops at the start. Remember how DBM used to be dominated by superior cav until those rules were corrected. It will be good if new tactics are developed to make Poor troops more viable. But if a poll taken in six months gives a result similar to that shown at the moment by the one above, then this is maybe something that will need looking at.

Alan

[rbodleyscott]

There is no reason why Poor troops should be cost effective when "thrown into the fight", if having them provides sufficient benefits to justify their points cost without throwing them into the fight.

For example, they could be deployed in an impregnable position, but one where they enemy cannot ignore them because they could successfully intervene if ignored. Or they could act as bait for the enemy encouraging him to overextend himself and come unstuck as a result. Or they could simply provide sufficient benefit by bulking up the number of BGs in the army cheaply.

Making them cost-effective "when thrown into the fight" would lead to unhistorical tactics, and would dumb down the skill of using them effectively.

What matters (for the points system to be correct) is their overall effectiveness.

[acl]

There is no reason why Poor troops should be cost effective when "thrown into the fight", if having them provides sufficient benefits to justify their points cost without throwing them into the fight.

For example, they could be deployed in an impregnable position, but one where they enemy cannot ignore them because they could successfully intervene if ignored. Or they could act as bait for the enemy encouraging him to overextend himself and come unstuck as a result. Or they could simply provide sufficient benefit by bulking up the number of BGs in the army cheaply.

Making them cost-effective "when thrown into the fight" would lead to unhistorical tactics, and would dumb down the skill of using them effectively.

What matters (for the points system to be correct) is their overall effectiveness.

Up to a point. Tho some armies did rely on a bulk of relatively low-quality troops.

I did say in my original post that allowance shd be made for the potential advantage gained by using Poor troops to bulk-up an army. Also for the way they can be used to fill the first deployment slots (Poor LF are sometimes used for this).

However, saying " if having them provides sufficient benefits to justify their points cost without throwing them into the fight" rather begs the question. Do you find Poor troops have sufficient benefits to justify their points cost? Do you field many of them (apart from LF) in your own armies? Do you encounter many of them? The poll above rather suggests that most people don't.

As I said at the outset cost and effectiveness are better balanced in Fog than they are in most sets. It's one of its great attractions. It is not the end of the world if Poor troops are not much fielded. But it adds to the quality of the game if people are using the full range of troops. At the moment they are not.

Alan

[lawrenceg]

I usually find that the only troops that are cost effective are those my opponent is using

[hammy]

Up to a point. Tho some armies did rely on a bulk of relatively low-quality troops.

I did say in my original post that allowance shd be made for the potential advantage gained by using Poor troops to bulk-up an army. Also for the way they can be used to fill the first deployment slots (Poor LF are sometimes used for this).

However, saying " if having them provides sufficient benefits to justify their points cost without throwing them into the fight" rather begs the question. Do you find Poor troops have sufficient benefits to justify their points cost? Do you field many of them (apart from LF) in your own armies? Do you encounter many of them? The poll above rather suggests that most people don't.

As I said at the outset cost and effectiveness are better balanced in Fog than they are in most sets. It's one of its great attractions. It is not the end of the world if Poor troops are not much fielded. But it adds to the quality of the game if people are using the full range of troops. At the moment they are not.

Well the other weekend Martin Wilkinson and I won the Luncarty doubles (Rise of Rome) with an army of relatively low quality troops, it is just that the vast majority were poorly equiped average troops rather than well equipped poor ones.

I have been looking at some of the lists that are on the way and I think there are several places where poor troops can be of real value to an army simply because they will be good enough to do particular jobs.

[philqw78]

The question is a bit unfair as I can't think of many armies that have as many Poor fighting troops as those of better quality.
They are good value for bulking out though

[hammy]

The question is a bit unfair as I can't think of many armies that have as many Poor fighting troops as those of better quality.
They are good value for bulking out though

One example of really useful poor troops are IMO the poor protected drilled lancer cavalry you get in some Byzantine lists. They are very cheap (32 points for 4) and are still drilled and move 5MU In the right place it really doesn't matter that they are poor and if they hit you in the flank it is almost as bad as being hit by knights.

[acl]

The question is a bit unfair as I can't think of many armies that have as many Poor fighting troops as those of better quality.
They are good value for bulking out though

One example of really useful poor troops are IMO the poor protected drilled lancer cavalry you get in some Byzantine lists. They are very cheap (32 points for 4) and are still drilled and move 5MU In the right place it really doesn't matter that they are poor and if they hit you in the flank it is almost as bad as being hit by knights.

Phil, I hope the question wasn't unfair, tho it might have been better phrased. I wasn't really expecting people to field as many Poor troops as they were of all of the other grades put together. I was interested rather in whether they were using as many of them as they were troops of each of the other grades. My feeling was that, apart from LF and the odd mob thrown in for bulk, they weren't. Irealise that not all lists have them. Just as some lack Superiors, but most allow for some Poor troops and some have them as an option for line troops. My worry was that we were not seeing them because they were bad value for the points. That given the choice of Average or Poor fighting troops players would tend to go for Averages.

Hammy, yr post is really encouraging - Poor cav with a fighting role. Good also to hear of you winning a tournament with an army inc Poor troops. Maybe, as Marc suggested earlier, it's a matter of waiting for the tactics that give these troops a useful role to trickle down. They haven't got down to my level as yet. Be interesting to try another survey in six months or so to see how things have changed.

With thanks,

Alan

[hammy]

Hammy, yr post is really encouraging - Poor cav with a fighting role. Good also to hear of you winning a tournament with an army inc Poor troops. Maybe, as Marc suggested earlier, it's a matter of waiting for the tactics that give these troops a useful role to trickle down. They haven't got down to my level as yet. Be interesting to try another survey in six months or so to see how things have changed.

We had IIRC 24 bases of poor LF troops in 3 BGs of 8, 5 BGs of average unprotected mob in BGs of 10,10,10,8 and 8, 4 BGs of 8 average protected impact foot, 4 BGs of average armoured impact foot, one BG of average protected cavalry and tada 2 BGs of 4 superior armoured impact foot skilled swordsmen.

While the bulk of the army wasn't poor it was certainly not a rolls royce army by any means. We won three out of 4 games and got the beter of the fourth against various Macedonians, Seleucids and Romans.

[acl]

Hammy, yr post is really encouraging - Poor cav with a fighting role. Good also to hear of you winning a tournament with an army inc Poor troops. Maybe, as Marc suggested earlier, it's a matter of waiting for the tactics that give these troops a useful role to trickle down. They haven't got down to my level as yet. Be interesting to try another survey in six months or so to see how things have changed.

We had IIRC 24 bases of poor LF troops in 3 BGs of 8, 5 BGs of average unprotected mob in BGs of 10,10,10,8 and 8, 4 BGs of 8 average protected impact foot, 4 BGs of average armoured impact foot, one BG of average protected cavalry and tada 2 BGs of 4 superior armoured impact foot skilled swordsmen.

While the bulk of the army wasn't poor it was certainly not a rolls royce army by any means. We won three out of 4 games and got the beter of the fourth against various Macedonians, Seleucids and Romans.

Well done. It's good to see that cheap (in points, not pence, of course) armies can win when led by top players.

On the other hand, the two types of Poor troops you mentioned - LF and mobs are sort of the two exceptions mentioned in the premise. Poor LF can cost as little as half as much as Average LF. Even I recognise that as fair value, and have fielded them and fought against them. The use of mobs as bulking agents was also acknowledged. Tho maybe in an army like the Slave Revolt you could use them as fighting troops - it's interesting that you took them in more than min BGs - perhaps with that in mind? If so, how did they do?

I was esp interested in the example you gave earlier of using Poor Byzantine lancers to hit flanks - which does seem to be a case of someone finding a fighting use for Poor troops.

Alan

[philqw78]

I was esp interested in the example you gave earlier of using Poor Byzantine lancers

Hammy came up with this idea after looking at my list for Britcon. I didn't use any but may as well have. The second time a BG of them (but average armoured) got into combat they broke at impact. Shot to disruption, charged, lost impact and CT'd a very poor roll against some Sassanid cav.

[Fulgrim]

I choose not to vote. I do not like poor/inferior/filler/wathever troops. No matter what game (exept perhaps russians in Crossfire - but then again i use mostly SMG troops and tanks, and those are hardly poor). I just dont like them. I do not use them to bulk either. I have used 1 BG of poor LF sometimes just to be able to use up the last points.

I have toyed with the idea to use poor pike allies with my romans - to be able to face knights in an open tournament.

[will05]

Poor armies take a lot more time to paint than well equipped and drilled superior ones. Though I would like to try the weight of numbers of a light swarm army if I could ever bother to paint such a thing.

[hammy]

On the other hand, the two types of Poor troops you mentioned - LF and mobs are sort of the two exceptions mentioned in the premise. Poor LF can cost as little as half as much as Average LF. Even I recognise that as fair value, and have fielded them and fought against them. The use of mobs as bulking agents was also acknowledged. Tho maybe in an army like the Slave Revolt you could use them as fighting troops - it's interesting that you took them in more than min BGs - perhaps with that in mind? If so, how did they do?

I was esp interested in the example you gave earlier of using Poor Byzantine lancers to hit flanks - which does seem to be a case of someone finding a fighting use for Poor troops.

Alas the Mob in the Slave revolt army are average. OK, they are unprotected and only have light spear but they are average. I think that if you could have them as poor they would still have a lot of the same effects though. Large BGs in the right places often don't have to take cohesion tests.

The real issue for poor troops is that when they need a 5 to hit and have to reroll 6s they only hit 8 times in 36 rather than the 12 in 36 of average troops so are 33% worse when fighting at - or --. If you can get to 0 or + to hit the penalty is less as poor troops needing a 4 hit 15 in 36 rather than the 18 in 36 of average.

The idea of the small BG of poor drilled lancers is that by having more BGs (because they are really cheap) you have a better chance of getting them in the right place and poor drilled will pass a CMT 62% of the time (assuming a general nearby) so you have a pretty decent shout to get them where you want them at the right time.

I think that large BGs of poor medium foot have a place too in that once you get to 10 bases it needs 4 hits to make them test against shooting and with a 4MU charge it is likely that any pesky skirmishers will be able to be swept away. This is what the large Mob BGs did for the slave army in more than one game although there was one glorious game where a BG of 10 Mob routed a BG of 4 Superior armoured drilled impact foot skilled swordsmen

[marty]

I love (and have done quite well out of) the bactrian foot in the achaemenid Persian army. MF Poor undrilled unprotected lightspear bow. Only 3 points a base. They do a fine job in terrain against the right sort of army or at chasing/shooting up light cav. I always field them in this army (along with some poor lights)

I personally suspect that poor defensive spearmen would be a good buy. Defensive spearmen are good value if the other player attacks them and this is more likely if they are rated poor. I intend to run teutonic in 15mm with all the subject foot available

martin