an alternative to limiting nos of BGs...

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Mon May 04, 2009 8:18 pm

....is to come up with a strategy that gives them a good kicking.

speaking as an evolutionary biologist (is there any other type of biologist?)

Large nos of BGs is not going to be the only viable option in an evolutionary stable strategy, but it is a valid aproach.

The key is to find the (simple) way to really mess up that sort of army.

we have been through this several times already in FOG

Roman Legions are unstopable (unless you dont fight them, wreck the rest of the army then close in on the cowering remanants)
Superior pike are unbeatable (ditto)
Shooty cavalry is too good (unless you are armoured foot or decent shock mounted)
Knights are impossible to beat (unless you are spears)
LH armies are too good on the Steppe (so shoot them)
MF are too good (until they fight mounted )
lots of BGs is too good (?????)

so rather than trying to limit the big armies with rule changes - can we come up with a good antidote.

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Mon May 04, 2009 8:35 pm

lots of BG armies
- roman suxilia of one type or another (Romans, Thracians, Spanish)
- skirmishers (middle hungarian, lots of others)

Skirmisher types cant cope with armoured or shooty foot (so EAP Immortals are totally lethal to them)

the problems with fighting Roman lots of BG armies (LBGs from now because we all need new TLAs)

- too many BGs to break in the time available
- the little buggers get on your flanks (if they cant do that, they really cant win)

Its the time one thats really difficult to solve. how can you kill and break enough of them in 3 hours or so.
shooting looks like a good choice (HYW English seemed to give Graham pause for thought at the Challenge)

In fact a bloody great wall of spear would probably do a damn good job.
make it armoured adn the shooty versions become useless as well.

thefrenchjester · Post by **thefrenchjester** » Mon May 04, 2009 8:39 pm

Hi Paul ,

use your "sup " pikes against the legions
use your shoooty cav against LH in steppe
use yor armoured spears against the knights
use your scissors against paper
use your paper against the rock

now you know that you are SUN TZU

Best Regards

thefrenchjester " who plays what he like even he don't win anything apart having pleasure in playing "

ps : not a so bad result isn't it

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Mon May 04, 2009 8:43 pm

I think that was my point - we have quickly solved how to deal with the unbeatable armies.

so lets apply the same aproach to too many BGs

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon May 04, 2009 11:00 pm

I agree that the evolution tends to catch up. And player skill is not a small factor.

But the abilty to deny a victory or have a closer fight seem imblanced is an issue.

Another option would be to limit the number of BGs for scoring in tournament if there is a draw to say 15. So the LBGs who lose 8 AP versus a 12 BG who loses 8 AP is closer on points.

That would mean the LBGs can't try to win with winning draws and still need to win the old fashioned way.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon May 04, 2009 11:01 pm

Personally the evolution that I enjoy the most is having fun with new armies. Lots and lots still to play.

Hepius · Post by **Hepius** » Tue May 05, 2009 1:11 am

IF it turns out (over the long haul) that 19 BG Roman armies are truly unfairly advantaged, couldn't you have a fairly simple solution such as requiring MF to be a minimum of six stands per battle group? Six BG of four stands would drop to four BG of six stands. It takes two highly maneuverable units out of the army and drops the total BG down to 17.

I've never faced one of the swarms so don't know what it's like first hand. I'm just suggesting a simple fix if it turns out to be a true problem.

stefoid · Post by **stefoid** » Tue May 05, 2009 6:00 am

Whats the downside to more BGs on the table?

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Tue May 05, 2009 8:15 am

Come up with a pip-based system to graft command and control onto the basic game mechanics so large armies made up of many independant units become intrinsically harder for their generals to control ?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue May 05, 2009 8:50 am

stefoid wrote:Whats the downside to more BGs on the table?

More BGs on the table mean that the BGs you have will by definition be smaller. Smaller BGs (paticularly average ones) are very brittle as they break on 2 bases lost, if they have to take a test from shooting it will always be at -1 etc.

If your BGs are smaller and you have to engage the enemy frontally then you need to comit 2 BGs to most combats otherwise you are going to be badly out diced.

With more BGs your commanders have less influence especially once you get into combat.

Would you for example rather have 4 BGs of 4 superior undrilled protected lancer cavalry or 3 BGs of 4 armoured etc. ?

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:07 am

madaxeman wrote:Come up with a pip-based system to graft command and control onto the basic game mechanics so large armies made up of many independant units become intrinsically harder for their generals to control ?

They already are.

Once you disrupt one, you need to have a general there to bolster it. If you disrupt 3, you need 3 generals, or do them one at a time etc etc.

I haven't come across this problem yet, and probably will eventually, but that would have been my initial though.

Ian

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:10 am

hammy wrote:With more BGs your commanders have less influence especially once you get into combat.

Would you for example rather have 4 BGs of 4 superior undrilled protected lancer cavalry or 3 BGs of 4 armoured etc. ?

Another thing along this line which is probably what you said, but I'm not sure:

If you have smaller BG's your 'General in the front rank' is limited. If you have a BG of 12 (in two ranks) then your general in the front rank modifies 12 dice. If you have BG of 4 with a general in the front rank your general only influences 4.

Ian

stefoid · Post by **stefoid** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:55 am

So every negative thing about small BGs applies to combat related matters.

So if you are 'swarmed' you have to engage the enemy as quickly and comprehensively as possible to force these issues to a head?

Fulgrim · Post by **Fulgrim** » Tue May 05, 2009 10:29 am

well, as a system ecologist, i do have to see this in a bigger picture

Discliamer: I have not met a "true swarm", at most 15-16 BGs in a game. Ive met 15-16 BG:s with 10 BGs and won (Me: later hungarians, opponent L. Ottoman)

Why not "turn the table" or similar technuiqes?. Limit the space for the swarm and it must behave as a (brittle) wall. As said it needs to get to your flanks to win, deny it that and move over it in combat on your turms.

That said i do see a problem in the pointssystem that gives advantages to larger armies.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue May 05, 2009 10:29 am

I'd suggest that the answer to swarm armies is firstly to find ways not to lose to them. These armies tend to use their manouverability and numbers to pick on isolated parts of the opposing army by ganging up shooting/flank charges, etc. A solid line with secure flanks should do that.

Beating them is harder as you'll need to kill 9 BGs or similar. So that's probably going to require a major breakthrough in one of two places. Tricky to do with the skirmisher swarms unless you can pin them against something. It should be possible though against swarms that stand and fight - once one BG goes that means two others are overlapped. However I've yet to achieve it in practice

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Tue May 05, 2009 2:01 pm

BGs of 8 Armoured, Suprior, Bow, Light Spear MF should do a good job of wrecking most swarms. Give them something solid to protect their flanks (sadly Off Spear dont really do the job as the flank attack is particularly lethal to them)
With lots of super shooty cav to exploit a break through - EAP is almost the perfect anti swarm army.

stecal · Post by **stecal** » Tue May 05, 2009 2:10 pm

One idea would be to scale the value of the camp to the total # of BGs. Kinda like how you had to have 2 baggage per general in DBM.

Maybe 1 pt in camp value per 4 BGs so that 16+ BG Roman Camp is worth 4 pts if sacked.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue May 05, 2009 3:07 pm

stecal wrote:One idea would be to scale the value of the camp to the total # of BGs. Kinda like how you had to have 2 baggage per general in DBM.

Maybe 1 pt in camp value per 4 BGs so that 16+ BG Roman Camp is worth 4 pts if sacked.

That's not a bad idea.

I still remain to be convinced that there is a problem but this would be an elegant solution. Possibly the camp is worth the number of BGs you deploy in your initial quarter minus 1.

zeitoun · Post by **zeitoun** » Tue May 05, 2009 3:54 pm

I still remain to be convinced that there is a problem but this would be an elegant solution. Possibly the camp is worth the number of BGs you deploy in your initial quarter minus 1.

I think is a very good idea. NO more bagage without protection...

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Tue May 05, 2009 5:24 pm

Would you for example rather have 4 BGs of 4 superior undrilled protected lancer cavalry or 3 BGs of 4 armoured

Without any hesitation 4 BG of 4 superior undrilled protected lancer!

Maybe 1 pt in camp value per 4 BGs so that 16+ BG Roman Camp is worth 4 pts if sacked.

With this change an army with 9 BG or 13 BG have less value than an army of 8 or 12 BG

And it's more easy to protect a camp with 18 BG than with 9 BG !