Field of Glory Ancients version 2

[lawrenceg]

A few things that spring to mind:

Conforming: ideally get rid, or at least clarify the wording.

Intercepts: I think it may be possible to take out the option for interceptors to wheel to avoid being flank charged. I'm fairly sure they can nearly always avoid being flank charge simply by not advancing so far. DEsirable to remove this option as the wording seems to have caused misunderstandings.

Replacing bases that have been removed: Wording needs refinement as many players assume that a front rank base must be replaced by the 2nd rank base immediately behind it if possible. Eliminating the words "shuffle up" would be a good start.

Charge direction: Mandate that this be declared earlier in the sequence. Also define it better, as a charge with a wheel has different directions before, during and after the wheel.

Impact phase: generally seems to provoke a lot of rules questions particularly to do with sequencing and interference of charging units with each other.

Running away: seems too easy and risk-free to avoid fighting by turning 90 pr 180 and moving away. MF outifts manouevre like Mongols. Moving troops away from threats ought to carry some cohesion risk to the troops doing it or to neighbours. At a distance this would look like a rout.

Army rout: Change criteria so the army routs at the start of its Benny Hill endgame. (THis could be addressed in tournament scoring instead of in rules).


Suggestion: look at the odds when tiny good BGs fight large weaker ones. I had 12 Ancient British MF routed by 2 elite Ottoman cavalry(through cohesion drops, not base losses). It didn't look right, but may have been a fluke. It may also be a side effect of the BG-level resolution in the game and not easily remedied.

(Just an observation - I find that large BGs (10-12 foot or 6 chariots) are more likely to break through loss of bases than small ones)

[stecal]

A few things that spring to mind:

Suggestion: look at the odds when tiny good BGs fight large weaker ones. I had 12 Ancient British MF routed by 2 elite Ottoman cavalry(through cohesion drops, not base losses). It didn't look right, but may have been a fluke. It may also be a side effect of the BG-level resolution in the game and not easily remedied.

(Just an observation - I find that large BGs (10-12 foot or 6 chariots) are more likely to break through loss of bases than small ones)

perhaps a +1 to Cohesion tests in melee if your BG is double the size or more than all enemy bases in contact?

[Eques]

With regard to the some list issues I am guessing that barbarian armies like Gauls and Ancient Brits would have their light and missile troops mixed in with the swordsmen rather than working in separate divisions.

[sphallen]

More specifically on evasion - you could have 2 tables, one for the evader, one for the charging unit. You could then tweak the ranges so that evaders are slightly more easy to be caught by the charging unit. Also, if it hasn't been mentioned, evading off the table causes 2 attrition.

Steve

[pbrandon]

I think skirmishers (i.e. LH/LF) are still too powerful in FoG. Some suggestions:

Reduce LH movement to 6MU.

Make skirmishers less useful by allowing movement to 4MU from skirmishers only (can't shoot if marched there).

Another possibility would be a -1 on the CT for bolstering skirmishers. Inhibits the shot at, go down, run away, bolster return, cycle.

Skirmishers - CT if charged by non-skirmishers.

Possibly too much - only a +1 on the dice roll for lost bases when shot at (possibly unrepresentative of the effect of shooting on loosely ordered troops, but if the aim is to get a top down right feel, it could work).

Apologies if these appear elsewhere - I haven't had a chance to read the full thread.

Paul

[hannibal]

My random thoughts and petty gripes. All relate to parts of the rules that encourage behaviour or situations that don't look or feel right to me:

- Rules currently encourage troops in rear support to be deployed in column rather than in lines. This doesn't feel historical. Allow only first 2 ranks to count as rear support. Also allow "Zama" behaviour where HF close ranks & prevent disruption by routers, but as a consequence routers are destroyed. Maybe also permit troops burst through by routers to prevent disruption in some circumstances (if routers are poorer quality?), or at least take a CT. This might encourage proper second lines.
- LF and MF move too far - Cav should be able to catch & ride down LF eventually and Knights MF because horses run faster than men. Reduce to 4 and 3 MU respectively. Consider different move rates for Heavily Armoured mounted and Armoured/ Heavily armoured foot vs lighter armoured?
- Double moves permitted to evaders (in both own & enemy bound) feels wrong & allows light troops to be far too slippery. Evaders should have their move restricted in their own turn, either can only turn (Rally) or their max move distance restricted (say to 3MU?)
- Why should having more mounted mean that you are more likely to get to choose whether a fixture is home or away in terms of terrain? Where the battle is fought is a separate thing to who has the battle initiative. I quite liked the DBM "aggression" with more historically aggressive armies having a better chance of fighting an away fixture, but failing that just have a separate roll with a 50:50 chance of the battle taking place in each player's home territory. Whoever wins the initiative can still choose the site of the battle, and hence the terrain type. This would stop steppe armies nearly always getting steppe terrain.
- Rivers and coast should narrow the Board, but shouldn't stop terrain being placed on that flank - so just form a new flank. Roads should be able to go through terrain & have terrain superimposed on them.

Marc

[petedalby]

Rivers are typically used to block the opponent from placing terrain on that flank - yet we all know that rivers flow through marshes, forests, etc etc.

Please allow most terrain features to be superimposed on Rivers?

[Blathergut]

best farmland is right along the river

[timmy1]

I agree with Pete. One simpler option is to add river to the list of things terrain can be abutted to (like coast). Doesn't mean better, just simpler.

[rogerg]

I used the Hussites again, this time at Britcon. This might be my last attempt with them. The battle wagons do not work. FoG has stopped them being the wooden tanks of another rule set. However, they are now of very limited use. At 23 points a time they are very expensive. However, the cost is not the real issue. The question is more what they are meant to do. My understanding is that they should function as a defensive barrier. This is difficult to simulate given the encounter type games that are common in FoG.

It is difficult to argue for an improvement to ones favourite army and be taken seriously. However, as the only person who was taking them to competitions I have never had any comments about the wagons being too effective. I have heard several about how little use they are. Here's my offering on potential changes

1) This is the most dramatic - the PoA should be + against foot and ++ against mounted:
Combined with the heavy weapon carried by the crew the wagons would have equal status with pikes and impact foot. As many of the latter are superior, they would still have an edge. Currently most foot regard the wagons as an easy target. The shooting is ineffective, so the foot just pile over them. Fighting the long side means the wagons get hit a lot and lose bases quickly, even with the +1. On the short side they are easily overlapped and rapidly beaten.

2) Remove the 'dice to move' rule:
The wagons have to move to position and turn to be effective. Being undrilled, this is a big handicap already.

3) Allow the wagons a restricted zone on the long edge. It just doesn't seem right that troops can walk past the wagon line at point blank range and just ignore it. The crossbow shooting is so ineffective against foot that they present little threat.

4) Had one suggestion that the wagons could be deployed at 15 MU as fortifications.

5) Allow the wagons to count as two bases in any formation. A block of four, two deep are fighting on a frontage of 4 bases but count as only four bases when taking hits. If they 'expand' to a line eight bases long, they take so many combat hits that the +1 on death rolls is little use. At least with a two by two formation, the first death would not give a whole in the barrier.

[paulcummins]

... also allow all foot to interpenetrate the Bwgs would be sensible

[AlanCutner]

Or be more radical. Remove battle wagons as a troop type. Instead let the crew fight as if they have PO's always deployed, regardless of how they move.

[hannibal]

Talked about this thread at the club last night. One more thing to add - it's an apparent anomaly that if a big BG fights 2 smaller BGs (say 1x12 vs 2x6), if the same troops type the big BG has a statistically greater chance of losing bases (average 6 hits on big BG - lose base 67% of the time, average 3 hits on each small BG, so base loss 33% of the time). The reason for this anomaly is the +2 death roll modifier. Death rolls currently take no account of unit size - seems to me that there should be a "unit size" modifier on death rolls?

Marc

[spikemesq]

I think skirmishers (i.e. LH/LF) are still too powerful in FoG. Some suggestions:

Reduce LH movement to 6MU.

Make skirmishers less useful by allowing movement to 4MU from skirmishers only (can't shoot if marched there).

Another possibility would be a -1 on the CT for bolstering skirmishers. Inhibits the shot at, go down, run away, bolster return, cycle.

Skirmishers - CT if charged by non-skirmishers.

Possibly too much - only a +1 on the dice roll for lost bases when shot at (possibly unrepresentative of the effect of shooting on loosely ordered troops, but if the aim is to get a top down right feel, it could work).

Apologies if these appear elsewhere - I haven't had a chance to read the full thread.

Paul

To temper the skirmisher dancers, why not change their maneuver table to limit their escape options. Something like:

retire with same facing =< 3MU = complex (per current rules)

180 facing change followed by simple advance = simple

simple advance followed by 180 facing change = complex

180 in place = simple

This splits the escape moves such that LH/LF can still run away, but cannot double back into shooting position so easily. If they wish to fire and retreat, they must do it slowly (3 MU) or split it across turns. Those that fail the CMT are stuck facing the other way unless they move closer. This way, when other troops press on towards skirmishers that have evaded or pulled back, the skirmishers must close or keep the distance to get back into the fight. They retain much of their agility, but have a harder time pestering enemy on their heels because they cannot start with enemy at their heels and move away from to shooting range and 180 to fire. This also forces the use of "rear shooting" factors, which seem pretty uncommon in current play.

Thoughts?

Spike

[ATXPaul]

Well, seems like I was totally wrong!

Still, from what it seems to me, skirmishers are too powerful. I always thought that skirmishing was done just as a prelude to the main contact of battle-lines, and it seems to me that this is generally true aside from a couple of (notable) exceptions. This isn't the way skirmishers feel in FoG; they OFTEN (as opposed to it being an exception) affect my battle plan because of the damage they do to impetuous foot.

[hannibal]

Isn't the main problem with skirmishers caused by the fact that they get essentially double the number of moves - they evade in opponents turn but then can make a normal move in their turn - theoretical maximum move of 16MU per turn. This enables them to keep coming back to surround the troops who are foolish enough to charge them. I had this situation in a game this week - once your lancers start to charge Light Horse in each enemy turn they're surrounded because the LH they have charged away end up teleported onto their flank. I've always thought this double move feels quite odd - why not restrict what a BG can do in their own turn if they have evaded in opponents previous turn? I'd suggest that movement is limited to a 90 or 180 degree turn?

Marc

[lionheartrjc]

I don't feel FoG quite gets the combat dice effects correct for disorder from terrain or elephants. Instead of losing dice for disorder and severe disorder; might a - POA or -- POA apply instead?

[lionheartrjc]

Not sure this will make the rules, but one to throw out for interest:

Stream - 1 MU wide - is good going when crossed (at 90 degrees to direction of flow) but impassable if trying to move along it. Limit the stream to a maximum of two turns of 90 degrees, at least 12 MU apart.

[lionheartrjc]

I am not convinced by the BG of skirmishers that can hold up half an army. I would like to see the range at which skirmishers prevent second moves by a BG or battle line including non-skirmishers reduced to 2MU.

[lionheartrjc]

There have been examples of players using fortifications merely to allow them to deploy 5MU further forward. (The extreme example was a BG of 8 Roman legionaries deployed in a 1 wide column behind fortifications), on the first turn they march out at no penalty.

This seems wrong to me.