Attrition Points for Evading off table

[philqw78]

Probably in the same vein as Steppe armies are too good, but what is the rationale behind only losing 1 AP if you voluntarily evade off table rather than standing and fighting. This means a Cav/LH/LF army can, in theory, never be beaten 25 - 0 if it can keep one BG on table. All the rest evading off.

[hammy]

Probably in the same vein as Steppe armies are too good, but what is the rationale behind only losing 1 AP if you voluntarily evade off table rather than standing and fighting. This means a Cav/LH/LF army can, in theory, never be beaten 25 - 0 if it can keep one BG on table. All the rest evading off.

As long as it doesn't lose its camp as well you are indeed correct.

[expendablecinc]

Probably in the same vein as Steppe armies are too good, but what is the rationale behind only losing 1 AP if you voluntarily evade off table rather than standing and fighting. This means a Cav/LH/LF army can, in theory, never be beaten 25 - 0 if it can keep one BG on table. All the rest evading off.

Nah its easy money. getting rid of BGs and shooting up a few with a camp cna pretty quickly grind down an army of evaders. An dif there are too many skirmishers in the army they end up with the same problem. How are they going to beat anyone themselves.

[philqw78]

It just seems a bit cheesy that players, myself included, choose to evade off table because it will save an attrition point. Rather than fighting and eventually, or quickly, losing 2.

[hammy]

It just seems a bit cheesy that players, myself included, choose to evade off table because it will save an attrition point. Rather than fighting and eventually, or quickly, losing 2.

I think you have a point to some degree. Perhaps 1.5 attrition points would be more appropriate but then you have the issue of fractions.

[nikgaukroger]

Why even 1.5, why not 2 like everything else?

They're gone, lost to your army for the duration of the game. If they could come back on table 1 whilst their off would seem OK as it is a temporary loss, but it is permenant.

No doubt the reasoning is that they would come back to the army some time after the battle so are not truly lost, but as the scoring is an artificial concept anyway I'm not convinced that cuts any ice really.

[philqw78]

I agree with 2AP for those that have evaded off, and 1AP for thoe that have not arrived from flank march, even if straggling.

[pbrandon]

FWIW I made this point to Simon during Britcon 2007 and he added it to his list of items to be discussed, so I imagine it was considered.

Paul

[philqw78]

Did he write it down? Not saying that he's forgetful. OK yes he is and yes I am.

[rbodleyscott]

Why even 1.5, why not 2 like everything else?

Because then they would have an incentive to engage in a severely disadvantaged fight (and maybe get lucky) because they would have nothing to lose. This would not be historically realistic behaviour for the troops concerned.

[nikgaukroger]

A fair comment IMO, however, conversely it does encourage exploiting the "edge of the world" which is also not historical.

[rbodleyscott]

A fair comment IMO, however, conversely it does encourage exploiting the "edge of the world" which is also not historical.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I hardly think that retreating in front of the enemy indefinitely is unhistorical for a shooty cavalry army.

What it unrealistic is that they can be forced off the "edge of the world" at all. If we wanted true realism we would add more table to allow them to retreat as far as they like without any attrition points lost at all! (We would also take into account ammunition supply, fatigue, thirst and many other aspects that have been glossed over for the sake of playability).

Far from being a compromise to allow shooty cavalry armies to escape their well-deserved drubbing, the present rules are a compromise to allow the foot armies a (totally unhistorical) chance to defeat them by driving them over the (non-existent) edge of the world.

In the final analysis, it is ludicrous to talk of one set of "edge of the world" rules being more historical than another. The "edge of the world" effect did not exist historically, so we can never represent it historically. The rules are designed to get a reasonably balanced game within the contraints of available space and time, with the unavoidable unhistorical compromises minimised and balanced as far as possible.

In our judgement 1 attrition point for an evade off table achieves the balance we want, within the prevailing contraints.

[nikgaukroger]

A fair comment IMO, however, conversely it does encourage exploiting the "edge of the world" which is also not historical.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I hardly think that retreating in front of the enemy indefinitely is unhistorical for a shooty cavalry army.

I don't think that anyone has suggested it is.

What it unrealistic is that they can be forced off the "edge of the world" at all.

That is what I was getting at - but by evading over the edge of the world the evader exploits it by halving the AP loss compared to a BG lost in rout.

If we wanted true realism we would add more table to allow them to retreat as far as they like without any attrition points lost at all! (We would also take into account ammunition supply, fatigue, thirst and many other aspects that have been glossed over for the sake of playability).

Far from being a compromise to allow shooty cavalry armies to escape their well-deserved drubbing, the present rules are a compromise to allow the foot armies a (totally unhistorical) chance to defeat them by driving them over the (non-existent) edge of the world.

Hence there is an argument that to achieve that a full 2AP should be lost and that by it being only 1AP the foot armies are still disadvataged within the game - historicality having been (correctly IMO) suspended here for the sake of the game.

In the final analysis, it is ludicrous to talk of one set of "edge of the world" rules being more historical than another. The "edge of the world" effect did not exist historically, so we can never represent it historically. The rules are designed to get a reasonably balanced game within the contraints of available space and time, with the unavoidable unhistorical compromises minimised and balanced as far as possible.

In our judgement 1 attrition point for an evade off table achieves the balance we want, within the prevailing contraints.

Others, of course, disagree

[lawrenceg]

A fair comment IMO, however, conversely it does encourage exploiting the "edge of the world" which is also not historical.

If my opponent wants to exploit the edge of the world to eliminate one of his BGs and give me an AP, then he is welcome to do so.

If it's 1 AP the evading player can exploit the edge of the world, if it's 2 AP the attacking player can exploit it. The ability to evade and avoid getting broken is included in the point values of troops. IMO the 1 AP compensates the BG for the edge of the world effect, when in reality it could just keep going all day.

I don't believe having an opponent who can't lose 25-0 is a big issue, unless you are a tournament tiger and think you are entitled by divine right to your 25 points when playing a bunny.

In any case, you can still break BGs by shooting them with no possibility of evasion and you can sack the camp, so it is possible to win 25-0.

You might just as well say "If an opponent can keep over half his BGs steady and on the table somewhere then he can't lose at all." Then lobby for each broken unit to be worth 3 AP.

[rbodleyscott]

What it unrealistic is that they can be forced off the "edge of the world" at all.

That is what I was getting at - but by evading over the edge of the world the evader exploits it by halving the AP loss compared to a BG lost in rout.

But my point is that this would only be exploitative if the enemy would have caught the evading battle group if it wasn't for the "edge of the world" - which will not be so in most cases.

If the evading battle group would have escaped but for the edge of world - and could evade again next time it is charged, ad infinitum - then it should not really be losing any attrition points at all.

The 1 attrition point it does suffer is an (unhistorical) concession to the foot army, not an exploit!

[philqw78]

concession to the foot army, not an exploit!

But they can also not exploit the rule when chased off the table by LH or cavalry

[nikgaukroger]

If my opponent wants to exploit the edge of the world to eliminate one of his BGs and give me an AP, then he is welcome to do so.

As opposed to standing there and losing 2? Which would you chose?

If it's 1 AP the evading player can exploit the edge of the world, if it's 2 AP the attacking player can exploit it. The ability to evade and avoid getting broken is included in the point values of troops. IMO the 1 AP compensates the BG for the edge of the world effect, when in reality it could just keep going all day.

I don't believe having an opponent who can't lose 25-0 is a big issue, unless you are a tournament tiger and think you are entitled by divine right to your 25 points when playing a bunny.

An argument put forward by those not really thinking it through. If the opponent is a bunny you'll get the points anyway.

[rbodleyscott]

concession to the foot army, not an exploit!

But they can also not exploit the rule when chased off the table by LH or cavalry

But the only time that is likely to happen is if they get trapped against the table edge by those LH or cavalry.

The same table edge that does not in reality exist.

If it wasn't for the table edge they could continue to retreat.

[philqw78]

If it wasn't for the table edge they could continue to retreat.

Or have a good chance of getting caught by a couple of BG of LH. But then I suppose your own light horse doesn't follow Columbus after them.

Anyway the question was another argument for those wishing to curtail the power of LH and perhaps redress the balance a little. Glad it encouraged so much thought. I personally use to much LH to take this suggestion seriously.

.....................Except when someone elses LH gets away from an obvious shoeing.

[nikgaukroger]

The 1 attrition point it does suffer is an (unhistorical) concession to the foot army, not an exploit!

Its about whether that 1 point is a suitable balance or not as it is just a game mechanism - as you say unhistorical.

Now I am not convinced that it is the correct balance and that 2 would be better. As a shooty horse boy army user I think the pedestrians are being short changed here, you also like them and disagree.

Mind you I also think there is a slight inherant bias to horse armies in FoG and I know you disgaree with that as well - so time to agree to disagree methinks