Medium Foot Rebalance Discussion

[stockwellpete]

Jewish revolt can spam superior medium foot, and because the big drawback for medium foot of CT loss in the open vs heavies is largely negated by the superior quality of zealots, they do seem to be a somewhat op list. Or, they require some non traditional tactics against them as you said (like loading up on ranged units because the zealots are poorly armored). If I were running a tournament I might just exclude lists like this, I dunno.

Prepare to be howled at if you do.

[Schweetness101]

Jewish revolt can spam superior medium foot, and because the big drawback for medium foot of CT loss in the open vs heavies is largely negated by the superior quality of zealots, they do seem to be a somewhat op list. Or, they require some non traditional tactics against them as you said (like loading up on ranged units because the zealots are poorly armored). If I were running a tournament I might just exclude lists like this, I dunno.

Prepare to be howled at if you do.

I've been psychologically bracing myself for some time...

[pompeytheflatulent]

Jewish revolt can spam superior medium foot, and because the big drawback for medium foot of CT loss in the open vs heavies is largely negated by the superior quality of zealots, they do seem to be a somewhat op list. Or, they require some non traditional tactics against them as you said (like loading up on ranged units because the zealots are poorly armored). If I were running a tournament I might just exclude lists like this, I dunno.

I have to double check, but if I remember correctly, according to Josephus, the Roman army that went in to put down the Jewish revolt was less than half legionnaires. A lot of troops supplied by allied client-kings, which were mostly archers and cavalry. Kind of hard to really recreated that army inside of the game.

Edit. Just checked, about 20,000 legionnaires & 14,000 foot auxilia vs about 10,000 cavalry between the auxilia and allied contingents. And if we assume that the allied foot soldiers were mostly archers, there's 11,0000 of them as well. No way to achieve that kind of force ratio in-game.

[Nosy_Rat]

Medium foot spam is mostly a Late Antiquity problem, I don't think it warrants a big change in an overall MF performance.

Outside LA there's like one strong MF list - Samnites and those guys were pretty tough after all.

[SnuggleBunnies]

4) Samnite. Is it wrong for them to be good? The Samnites were the early Republic's toughest opponent. Sure, the Romans won - but you could make a strong argument that this was only due to the sheer numbers that a more urbanized society could bring to bear against a numerically smaller, largely pastoral mountain society.

The Romans and Samnites during the 2 and 3rd Samnite wars essentially fought in identical fashion. There is really no reason why Romans Hastati/Princeps units are designated HF while Samnites are designated MF.

That's probably true. But to be honest, I'm not certain that Medium Foot really should exist as a separate category anyway? That's outside the scope of feasible changes, though. I mean, when it comes down to it, if we wanted to be true to the sources, there should probably be only HF, with armor and quality as the only statistics, and maybe something different for Pikemen... it's the messy details that can be hard to get right that gives the game its personality and flair.

So instead we need to look at incremental changes.

[TheGrayMouser]

4) Samnite. Is it wrong for them to be good? The Samnites were the early Republic's toughest opponent. Sure, the Romans won - but you could make a strong argument that this was only due to the sheer numbers that a more urbanized society could bring to bear against a numerically smaller, largely pastoral mountain society.

The Romans and Samnites during the 2 and 3rd Samnite wars essentially fought in identical fashion. There is really no reason why Romans Hastati/Princeps units are designated HF while Samnites are designated MF.

That's probably true. But to be honest, I'm not certain that Medium Foot really should exist as a separate category anyway? That's outside the scope of feasible changes, though. I mean, when it comes down to it, if we wanted to be true to the sources, there should probably be only HF, with armor and quality as the only statistics, and maybe something different for Pikemen... it's the messy details that can be hard to get right that gives the game its personality and flair.

So instead we need to look at incremental changes.

Well, for historical fidelity, “Hellenic” drilled mediums (ie thurophori) would probably best be heavy foot, offensive spear and be lightly protected (as later protected hoplites certainly had better overall protection). However, they could be “dismountable” at deployment into light foot light spear javelins and sword? The problem is unit size and the effect of 480 sized lights! I don’t think the engine could support 2 Units hatching from 1, nor would the spam of xtra units be desirable. They could be represented as 240 men units perhaps?

This doesn’t help with the other types of mediums like the generic tribal light spears, or even later Roman auxilia ( and imperial auxilia as well). Unless they are given some shooting capability...

The simplest ( not so simple!!) option is make mediums heavy, but have the mal effects of fighting and moving in non clear terrain contingent on armor rating and weapon system ( ie pikes the most effected, impact foot next ( can’t ferociously charge in a swamp nor run and heave a pilum in the high ballistic arc needed to clear tree branches!) offensive spears etc etc..)

[stockwellpete]

That's probably true. But to be honest, I'm not certain that Medium Foot really should exist as a separate category anyway? That's outside the scope of feasible changes, though. I mean, when it comes down to it, if we wanted to be true to the sources, there should probably be only HF, with armor and quality as the only statistics, and maybe something different for Pikemen... it's the messy details that can be hard to get right that gives the game its personality and flair.

I have thought this as well, but perhaps we are talking about FOG 3.0 here (it depends on Richard's view on this issue). I always think of the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066 where the Vikings were caught unawares without their armour and were destroyed. Really, in FOG2 terms, they should be portrayed as medium foot in that battle solely because of their lack of armour. So armour/equipment is the key determining factor really.

[stockwellpete]

Well, for historical fidelity, “Hellenic” drilled mediums (ie thurophori) would probably best be heavy foot, offensive spear and be lightly protected (as later protected hoplites certainly had better overall protection). However, they could be “dismountable” at deployment into light foot light spear javelins and sword? The problem is unit size and the effect of 480 sized lights! I don’t think the engine could support 2 Units hatching from 1, nor would the spam of xtra units be desirable. They could be represented as 240 men units perhaps?

This doesn’t help with the other types of mediums like the generic tribal light spears, or even later Roman auxilia ( and imperial auxilia as well). Unless they are given some shooting capability...

The simplest ( not so simple!!) option is make mediums heavy, but have the mal effects of fighting and moving in non clear terrain contingent on armor rating and weapon system ( ie pikes the most effected, impact foot next ( can’t ferociously charge in a swamp nor run and heave a pilum in the high ballistic arc needed to clear tree branches!) offensive spears etc etc..)

Yes, I agree with this. I had an old John Tiller Renaissance Wars game and you could break certain categories of units up into skirmishers and then re-assemble them again later on. I forget the actual numbers involved, but I think you could break up a unit completely into 3 or 4 skirmishers, or you could just detach 25% of the total (maybe to clear a wood or something).

I do think not having the very formal division we have right now between heavy and medium is probably the way to go in future (of course there will be lots of issues) and a mod along these lines would be fascinating to look at. You could even just make a single scenario using this idea by altering the squads files.

[SimonLancaster]

Also, to be clear, that list has not been updated with the latest Digital League stats. If I look at seasons 1-7 combined army statistics then the numbers are different..

Perhaps it is for seasons 1-5 or something. Updates and patches have since changed elements of the game!

[stockwellpete]

Also, to be clear, that list has not been updated with the latest Digital League stats. If I look at seasons 1-7 combined army statistics then the numbers are different..

Perhaps it is for seasons 1-5 or something. Updates and patches have since changed elements of the game!

Lebo's table does not have the Season 7 data included in it.

[melm]

1. HF/MF/LF's heavy, medium and light categorizes the tightness of the formation, not their armour rating. You can have armoured light foot or unprotected heavy foot in FOGII. Such category may not have the same meaning when used by historians out of the ring of tabletop games. The invention of the MF category in the ring of wargames may not be seen in history books, which usually only heavy or light are used.

2. Should the armies not shining in history books triumphs in FOGII games? Personally, I don't want to bind myself in believing strong armies in history should be strong in the game. One reason is that commanders in history can choose their battlefield while we can't if the map is Pot Luck. I can say "oh, I didn't expect this battlefield is so hilly or so rough or full of woods, but the commanders won't say so in their time. They pick their battlefield. Thus, army with rich types is better ‘in expectation’ but it may not win a certain game. Plus, I doubt we played enough matches to make the statitics converges to average.

3. I also doubt we need such haste to nerf Sub-Roman foot because they already got nerfed by losing +1 CT Modifier as below average foot. The current nerf looks like double-nerf combined with the patch not long ago.

4. I thought about the effect of rough ground to the foot. Even posted a thread to ask what rough ground is in real world. Will rough ground affect the Roman centurions combat ability? In microscrope, sword-shield in 1v1 or small group fighting seems not be greatly hampered by rough ground(unlike pike or phalanx). However, in macroscope, or use RBS' term, top-down design logic, it may be different and debatable.

[Nosy_Rat]

Also, to be clear, that list has not been updated with the latest Digital League stats. If I look at seasons 1-7 combined army statistics then the numbers are different..

Perhaps it is for seasons 1-5 or something. Updates and patches have since changed elements of the game!

Lebo's table does not have the Season 7 data included in it.

I quickly made an updated table, looks like nothing has changed much.



Note: Only armies with more than 100 matches are shown.

[Paul59]

2. Should the armies not shining in history books triumphs in FOGII games? Personally, I don't want to bind myself in believing strong armies in history should be strong in the game. One reason is that commanders in history can choose their battlefield while we can't if the map is Pot Luck. I can say "oh, I didn't expect this battlefield is so hilly or so rough or full of woods, but the commanders won't say so in their time. They pick their battlefield. Thus, army with rich types is better ‘in expectation’ but it may not win a certain game. Plus, I doubt we played enough matches to make the statitics converges to average.

Of course in real life armies did not fight battles with equal points armies! I don't think Julius Caesar would turn up to a battle, check how powerful his enemy was, and then send some of his legions home to give a fair fight.

[Morbio]

Pikes, Arab Conquest are the best choices for their respective periods at the moment. Pikes in particular since the change in the push back mechanic have been 100% dominant. Rome 199BC has never been bad, just RNG reliant at times with terrain and Impact rolls. Discussion on this topic, the intelligent portions at least, are not being coloured by favourtism.

You're misunderstanding. I'd be one of those people who would stop complaining if the historically successful armies were more successful in multiplayer. When I play the losing side in a historical match up, I want to play as the underdog, not the other way around. Right now the quantity vs quality equation is tilted so far in favor of quantity that the historical losers do really well while the historical conquerors struggle to break 50% win rate. 5th century Roman lists could throw out more limitanei than the Huns have arrows, Pre-Islamic Arab city able to park a 36 point lancer in front of every single unit of veteran Arab spearmen in the Arab conquest list and still have plenty left to overwhelm their cavalry and turn the flanks, etc.

yes, I agree with pompey here. The historically dominant armies doing well and the historically weak armies doing relatively poorly (but not always losing) would be a good litmus test for game balance and the historical accuracy of the simulation. I may not be sure exactly what the solution is, or even how to articulate the precise problem, but something is wrong if Scots-Irish and Samnites are at the top, and the Romans aren't.

It might not be a medium foot problem exactly, but as pompey said, a quantity over quality problem, and it just so happens that most (but not all) quantity heavy spam lists do it with cheap mediums. IE correlation does not equal causation, the medium foot balance is not entirely responsible for the issue, but instead cheap non light infantry spam in general (although I still think massed mediums are probably better than massed limitanei or abid al shira per cost for reasons already given). This could perhaps be solved by simply lowering the max unit cap on cheap units for some lists, or increasing unit costs by a certain base across the board as has been suggested, for example.

The great armies succeeding needs to be taken in context. For example, Alexander the Great's army shouldn't necessarily dominate against other armies from later periods or different geographies. In principle armies became better with time so earlier armies should perhaps struggle more with later armies. Remember these armies, particularly the Roman armies, were optimised for the enemies they had to fight. Put them up against something different and they may not do so well. The league stats are based upon varied, often anachronistic, matches and so there is no reason why the great armies should be on top. However, having said that then I'd be surprised if the great empire armies were at the bottom.

[melm]

2. Should the armies not shining in history books triumphs in FOGII games? Personally, I don't want to bind myself in believing strong armies in history should be strong in the game. One reason is that commanders in history can choose their battlefield while we can't if the map is Pot Luck. I can say "oh, I didn't expect this battlefield is so hilly or so rough or full of woods, but the commanders won't say so in their time. They pick their battlefield. Thus, army with rich types is better ‘in expectation’ but it may not win a certain game. Plus, I doubt we played enough matches to make the statitics converges to average.

Of course in real life armies did not fight battles with equal points armies! I don't think Julius Caesar would turn up to a battle, check how powerful his enemy was, and then send some of his legions home to give a fair fight.

Yes. Equal points for both sides is another point. We need to be careful when talking about the army in history and in game.

[pompeytheflatulent]

The great armies succeeding needs to be taken in context. For example, Alexander the Great's army shouldn't necessarily dominate against other armies from later periods or different geographies. In principle armies became better with time so earlier armies should perhaps struggle more with later armies. Remember these armies, particularly the Roman armies, were optimised for the enemies they had to fight. Put them up against something different and they may not do so well. The league stats are based upon varied, often anachronistic, matches and so there is no reason why the great armies should be on top. However, having said that then I'd be surprised if the great empire armies were at the bottom.

I'm not even talking about anachronistic matchups. Here's two of my recent mirrored games with Macedonians vs Persians and Gauls vs Romans:

Me playing as the Persians:

Screen_00000010.jpg (700.3 KiB) Viewed 2122 times

Me playing as the Macedonians:

Screen_00000011.jpg (780.05 KiB) Viewed 2122 times

[pompeytheflatulent]

Me playing as the Gauls:

Screen_00000012.jpg (790.66 KiB) Viewed 2121 times

Me playing as the Romans:

Screen_00000013.jpg (784.13 KiB) Viewed 2121 times

[stockwellpete]

This Gallic v Roman map has 4 of the "rough ground" blocks of terrain that I have been talking about. My feeling is that they need to be broken up a bit and this will make things a bit harder for MF armies. When there are discussions about "rebalancing" it usually focuses on changing the points cost of various units, but rarely have we approached the issue from a terrain re-balancing point of view. In addition, breaking up these areas will help to reduce the number of sterile games where HF armies stick to open terrain while MF armies seek out more difficult terrain that really penalises HF armies.

[pompeytheflatulent]

This Gallic v Roman map has 4 of the "rough ground" blocks of terrain that I have been talking about. My feeling is that they need to be broken up a bit and this will make things a bit harder for MF armies. When there are discussions about "rebalancing" it usually focuses on changing the points cost of various units, but rarely have we approached the issue from a terrain re-balancing point of view. In addition, breaking up these areas will help to reduce the number of sterile games where HF armies stick to open terrain while MF armies seek out more difficult terrain that really penalises HF armies.

None of the fighting was done in the 2 big patches of rough ground in either game. The Romans simply have no effective way to deal with swarms of cheap 44 point cavalry and cheap 36 point chariots. Not when their options are limited to 2 average cavalry and 2 skirmisher that can shoot past range 1.

[stockwellpete]

None of the fighting was done in the rough ground in either game. The Romans simply have no effective way to deal with swarms of cheap 44 point cavalry and cheap 36 point chariots.

Nevertheless, the two central areas of rough ground would have affected the movement of both armies, particularly as the river has cut off a big part of the map. In some map configurations this would cause stalemates.

I think the main reason for the relative poor showing of the Romans in the stats tables is indeed their army size and the fact that they are often outnumbered.