Request of opinion about a rule change

[marioslaz]

Hi all.
After last game we made some considerations about the games played and we concord about some points:

• game system is easy and smooth
• the mechanism of play is good and historically acceptable for movement and battle
• the army moral is a bit incongruous because BGs fight without loss of enthusiasm up to the moment when army breaks

In particular, when an army is near to break point, often game crumbles in a lot of isolated melees.
This of course is only our opinion. We are all experienced players, with a good knowledge of history, but we are slow players, so in this 6 months we played 10-15 games. This could mean we have a narrow vision of this system, but anyway this feelings was shared by all.

So we thought a corrective very simple.

• At the end of each turn we will calculate the attrition points accumulated by each army
• if an army has a number of attrition points equal or greater than 50% of points needed for army rout, next turn all CT will have a -1 modifier
• if an army has a number of attrition points equal or greater than 80%, next turn all CT will have a -2 modifier

It's possible to recover, if you get to rally a BG, but you always make the calculation of attrition points at end of turn and apply result all next turn long.

We planned to make a test game next Thursday (our weekly game). We are slow player, so we will have needing of a lot of weeks to get an adequate number of test games to know if this can work or if play would result too unbalanced. So this is my question: has someone already experimented similar changes and want to share his results? I appreciate every comments, also from who thinks this change wouldn't get the desired result.

[sergiomonteleone]

Ciao Mario,
I played a lot of times FoG (since beta testing) using different kinds of armies and played (unfortunately only) 2 tournaments in Italy.

MY FIRST CONSIDERATION IS TO SUGGEST TO LOOSING 1 POINT WHEN A COMMANDER DIES.

I agree with your first and second consideration.
In particularly, compared to DBM armies and rules are more historical.

Regarding “the army moral is a bit incongruous because BGs fight without loss of enthusiasm”, it depends on the kind of troops.
For example: yesterday I lost impact with CT against CV armoured sup bow, but I didn’t lost my enthusiasm because CT are better than Cv in melee. In fact I won the melee.

Your proposed changes could be an idea to test, but in my opinion current rules are very good and very simple (I don’t know if you has tried DBMM).

I also think yours consideration regarding attrition point is already included in Coeshion Levels BG’ lost in previous bounds.
I mean if a BG is disrupted or fragmented has already a modifier.
Why penalize all the CT? This is not historical, for example not only times in an army BG’ with problems against enemy could be seen from other BG’s.

Sergio

[grahambriggs]

Hi all.
After last game we made some considerations about the games played and we concord about some points:

• game system is easy and smooth
• the mechanism of play is good and historically acceptable for movement and battle
• the army moral is a bit incongruous because BGs fight without loss of enthusiasm up to the moment when army breaks

In particular, when an army is near to break point, often game crumbles in a lot of isolated melees.
This of course is only our opinion. We are all experienced players, with a good knowledge of history, but we are slow players, so in this 6 months we played 10-15 games. This could mean we have a narrow vision of this system, but anyway this feelings was shared by all.

So we thought a corrective very simple.

• At the end of each turn we will calculate the attrition points accumulated by each army
• if an army has a number of attrition points equal or greater than 50% of points needed for army rout, next turn all CT will have a -1 modifier
• if an army has a number of attrition points equal or greater than 80%, next turn all CT will have a -2 modifier

It's possible to recover, if you get to rally a BG, but you always make the calculation of attrition points at end of turn and apply result all next turn long.

We planned to make a test game next Thursday (our weekly game). We are slow player, so we will have needing of a lot of weeks to get an adequate number of test games to know if this can work or if play would result too unbalanced. So this is my question: has someone already experimented similar changes and want to share his results? I appreciate every comments, also from who thinks this change wouldn't get the desired result.

I do think there's an issue with the game in that in some games it can take a long time to get the last 2-3 attriton point to break an army. Usually this is because it is difficult to catch Battle Groups who are steady or disrupted but moving away from the enemy. Your suggestion with CTs is interesting. However, it will help armies with lots of missile fire.

I agree that some way to finish off the game would be good. Perhaps it might be better to end the game at 40% attrition points lost?

Regars

graham

[Polkovnik]

Replying to Graham's comment really - in our last few games we've been playing a house rule that a destroyed BG (removed from table due to autobreak or not able to rout) is worth 3 attrition points. This has worked well and has meant we've finished games in a much better timeframe. It also means its more worthwhile pursuing a broken BG as you only get 2 attition points if it routs off table.

[MadBanker]

MY FIRST CONSIDERATION IS TO SUGGEST TO LOOSING 1 POINT WHEN A COMMANDER DIES.

I agree to a degree.

I think the death of the CiC should be 2 attrition points as it is likely to be really harmful to the cohesion of the army, and is the kind of bad news that spreads around like fire in a dry wood ( "The king is dead?!? The day is lost then! Run for your lives!").
As for the other commanders, I think the cohesion test for seeing them die is enough. Their death is much less likely to have such a massive effect on the cohesion of the army as the death of CiC.

[Andy1972]

Though at the when the Visigoth King was killed, (Catalonian Fields/Campus Marcus or what ever)the Visigoths got mad and fought harder and won the day.

[marioslaz]

I wish to thank you all, but I need to explain better some points.

First, my idea is an house rule which we want to use in historical campaign, not a propose for a change of the rules; in particular, this is not intended to be used in a tournament.

Second, we observed in near all games since here played by us, some BGs resist isolated while other friendly BGs near are fled. This could happen in real world, but it was a quite rare case. Normally, in such cases all troops fled, with a domino like effect. We don't want to force too much the game, but we feel there is the needing to adjust the game to get a more gradual ending, not only more fast. Instead to have a sudden death, your army would be at first wavering, than shocked and at last routed.

[SirGarnet]

I think battles need to play out to a credible resolution, which may mean one side takes the defensive or even attempts to withdraw rather than be broken. Lowering or increasing the AP percentage victory condition would change army balance and tactics.

CT modifiers are something for scenario games. In a small enough battle, everything crumbles together. In a big one each side can be enthused and victorious in a different sector. Routing of troops expected to run need not cause concern. FoG already has domino effects in some cases.

I the goal is simply to have short short competitive games with quicker army break resolutions, play a cage match starting up close on a small table, possibly with fewer points - or try a fast play set.

For a one-size-fits-all template, the current system seems to work.

Mike
_______________________________________________________________
My troops assure me they would fight harder if I was dead.

[expendablecinc]

Replying to Graham's comment really - in our last few games we've been playing a house rule that a destroyed BG (removed from table due to autobreak or not able to rout) is worth 3 attrition points. This has worked well and has meant we've finished games in a much better timeframe. It also means its more worthwhile pursuing a broken BG as you only get 2 attition points if it routs off table.

The problem with this one as an overall is that you'll see even more LH CAV armies evading off table as the reduced cost to to the army of a unit evading off table rather than breaking is even more extreme.

[hazelbark]

For scenario games that is fine.

Another option is when time is called add 4 additional Attrition points if one side breaks and not the other than that army loses. If both break then reset and it is a bloody draw and figure accordingly.

[carlos]

That rule adds even more slippery slope to the game, ie those who are losing will tend to find it harder to recover. Therefore it's a bad rule in terms of game enjoyment. I do agree however w/ some of the changes mentioned before like AP for CiC or all generals (2 for CiC and 1 for others maybe) and also full AP for skirmishers who've fled off the table. Funnily enough neither of those hurt the chances of the losing player to fight back because they have no impact on the units on the table. APs should contribute to the winning position being reached, but not have any impact on the game as it is being played. Basic game theory really.

[marioslaz]

That rule adds even more slippery slope to the game,

Yes, this is our goal, because our opinion is this would be more historical. As I said since my first post, we planned to use this change only in campaign games, not in tournament games.

[hazelbark]

That rule adds even more slippery slope to the game,

Yes, this is our goal, because our opinion is this would be more historical. As I said since my first post, we planned to use this change only in campaign games, not in tournament games.

It will speed them up and have a big momentum effect i should imagine.

There was a set of rules a few years back that people said was great history but a lousy game. Be careful.

[shall]

So we thought a corrective very simple.

At the end of each turn we will calculate the attrition points accumulated by each army

if an army has a number of attrition points equal or greater than 50% of points needed for army rout, next turn all CT will have a -1 modifier

if an army has a number of attrition points equal or greater than 80%, next turn all CT will have a -2 modifier

Much good discussion going on here so keep the ideas coming. As and wheb we get a version 1.2 we might change a few things. As GB observes there are times when an army that has lost badly stays alive in a "cat and mouse game" to get the last BGs.

My only caution is that - as many have said - the side effects of small changes to the overall game balance can be quite dramatic. They change individual BG results, but more important to predict is the change in player behaviour that results.

FWIW I wouldn't want the above in the main rules (but sure use for a campaign if you prefer) for three reasons:

1. Too complex. We have avoided anything requiring much calculation or memory.
2. It is too extreme in its effect - a global CT modifier of -1 is massive. One of the things we like about FOG is that you have to fight on a decent frontage and finish the job. The more you put modifiers of this type into the game the more you get back to a focused punch being a better winning tactic and you favour a small quantity of super troops. The "quantity has a quality of its own" often cited wold disappear.
3. The break point is too coarse for the concept really. See how fair it seems if you are at 55% APs and your opponet is at 45%. You are pretty much drawing but a -1 on your CTs will pretty much guarantee this now turns into a big win for them.

On the APs I have tried 3 for a rout and 2 for evade off table. Also tried increasing the rout effect range. What I want though is a game that rewards skill and the latter makes it more luck driven rather than rewarding players who can exploit a gap. The former gave me some army breaks too early (eg Hussites breaking on 3 BGs down) but had perhaps a better balance for armies inclined to evade off table to save themselves.

In general the safest fixes are in bits that only affect one thing and that do not affect the smoothness of current profile.

Si

[SirGarnet]

Start the -1 CT only where the breakpoint is now and I'd be happy.

[shall]

Start the -1 CT only where the breakpoint is now and I'd be happy.

If I understood what you meant I might have a comment ... help

Si

[philqw78]

Change nothing Simon

If I understood what you meant I might have a comment ... help

[shall]

yes that's where I have ended up so far in my messing about too

there are other useful methods for sorting out the catr and mouse game that sometimes happens ....

Si

[SirGarnet]

Start the -1 CT only where the breakpoint is now and I'd be happy.

If I understood what you meant I might have a comment ... help

Si

Sorry, I was suggesting Mario's -1 CT idea kick in when all APs are used up rather than the army breaking. Some battles are not truly over when the army breakpoint kicks in, though less so than DBM.

[marioslaz]

On the APs I have tried 3 for a rout and 2 for evade off table. Also tried increasing the rout effect range. What I want though is a game that rewards skill and the latter makes it more luck driven rather than rewarding players who can exploit a gap. The former gave me some army breaks too early (eg Hussites breaking on 3 BGs down) but had perhaps a better balance for armies inclined to evade off table to save themselves.

I don't agree with this idea, because this would only make games faster, and this is not our goal. Our goal is to achieve a more gradual end. Now you fight without problem up to break point, when your fight is over. We would want you start to see some effect before break point, when you still have the chance to re-equilibrate the battle, but things become harder. This IMHO would be more historical. Again, a such rule (better, house rule) would be only for campaign games. As you point out, my proposal isn't a perfect solution, because there are some side effect (one of most important it's your example of a near even game, when one side reach 40% and the other is still to 35%). This is the more simply we thought, and at present the better (or the less worse ) between those I read here to achieve our goal. Tomorrow evening we meet to play and we try it. I cannot assure the day after I will can tell you how things are, because we are pretty slow to play, and likely in this first evening we will not get at the point to see some effect.