Slitherine

philqw78 wrote:The only thing I would add so far from a rules abuse viewpoint is: if kinked columns cannot charge what is to stop people going into column with shock troops and deliberately kinking their columns?

Best for us to say that these can still charge without orders then. The - PoA would kick in if they did hare off.

philqw78 wrote:The only thing I would add so far from a rules abuse viewpoint is: if kinked columns cannot charge what is to stop people going into column with shock troops and deliberately kinking their columns?

The threat of the enemy charging them while in column?

batesmotel wrote:

VMadeira wrote:A few comments, on the proposed changes:

...
- In principle the minus for troops fighting in column is perfectly justifiable, but:

most BGs when turning 90º to face a flank charge will be in column, so at -1 POA (but when turning to face rear charges, they keep formation so no -1 POA).
Worst, if a BG wants to charge an enemy and has to make a 90º turn, will have to wait 3 turns to charge it properly assuming it passes all tests, one turn to make the turn , one to get back to normal formation from column, and only in the 3rd may he charge without a penalty in POA.
But it gets worst, exactly the kind of troops that shouldn’t manoeuvre so well, are those that will not be affected by this problem, namely big groups of cheap undrilled troops. So a barbarian BG 3 bases deep, will be able to turn and in the next turn charge an opponent in the flank, while a roman cohort 2 bases deep, will have to wait 3 turns to charge. Also pikes will be at great advantage as they now are innately the most manoeuvrable kind of troops in the game, safe skirmishers ....

I assume that the -POA for fighting in column will essentially have no effect when making or responding to a flank or rear charge since these are by definition fought at ++POA for the charger and --POA for the defender for the impact. After that most likely both chargers and the target will be able to bring up additional bases to fight and hence be out of column in most circumstances. So I don't think this is really likely to be an issue.

Chris

I was referring to, when a BG wants to turn 90º to face an opponent threatning his flank he will have to turn, then expand from one file to two or three files and only then will it be able to receive a charge without a penalty, or charge frontally an opponent, this he can do only in the third round, which is very slow.
Note that BG’s deployed in three or more ranks will make this kind of manoeuvres in only one round, so we can have Barbarians manoeuvring better, than drilled infantry deployed in two ranks, which is the usual formation for most infantry.

My god, I find myself liking Nik's proposed rule.

VMadeira wrote:I was referring to, when a BG wants to turn 90º to face an opponent threatning his flank he will have to turn, then expand from one file to two or three files and only then will it be able to receive a charge without a penalty, or charge frontally an opponent, this he can do only in the third round, which is very slow.
Note that BG’s deployed in three or more ranks will make this kind of manoeuvres in only one round, so we can have Barbarians manoeuvring better, than drilled infantry deployed in two ranks, which is the usual formation for most infantry.

This is, as pointed out above, a major downfall for drilled foot. They will be in shallower formations than undrilled, as encouraged by the rear support rules, and then punished again if reacting to flank threats.

16. Elephants:
i. Get 3 dice in Impact phase. [Needs to also go in QRS].

I've nothing against this except that it will further unbalance combats of elephants vs light spear and impact foot.

My thoughts are that for drilled foot at least (eg Romans) there needs to be a revisiting of the situation (undrilled are perhaps differnet as these are warband types and I'm not sure they ever got used to fighting elephants).

i'll try and post something a bit fuller on this over the next week or two but at present it seems to me that Superior Legionaries and Auxilia are somewhat (and possibly substantially) worse off against elephants in combat than Poor Defensive Spearmen. Indeed given the AP difference its almost a dead certainty.

philqw78 wrote:

VMadeira wrote:I was referring to, when a BG wants to turn 90º to face an opponent threatning his flank he will have to turn, then expand from one file to two or three files and only then will it be able to receive a charge without a penalty, or charge frontally an opponent, this he can do only in the third round, which is very slow.
Note that BG’s deployed in three or more ranks will make this kind of manoeuvres in only one round, so we can have Barbarians manoeuvring better, than drilled infantry deployed in two ranks, which is the usual formation for most infantry.

This is, as pointed out above, a major downfall for drilled foot. They will be in shallower formations than undrilled, as encouraged by the rear support rules, and then punished again if reacting to flank threats.

A fix for this would be to allow a BG turning 90 that would be 1 wide to be 2 wide if it wants to. I don't think this would be unrealistic as the turn 90 is generally a change of fighting front, with old front rank subunits (bases) becoming the new front rank. It's not just everyone turns 90 on the spot. A frontage of 2 bases is already much bigger than the actual depth space occupied by 3 ranks of infantry, so allowing 2 ranks the same frontage is minimal extra distortion .

nikgaukroger wrote:You missed the single army in EotD that can have elites - all 2 bases of them

There are 6 bases of elite in E0tD Nik, one of the armies I did name, and to excuse myself for the other I've just bought a BG of them. Unfortunately I have 2 bases spare.

can something be done in v2 to prevent the toenail of death.

ie someone moving jsut the very front or rear corner of a LF BG behind enemy engaged MTD to prevent a breakoff. It givesskirmishers way too much effect on heavies duking it out. worse in a way that the buttocks of death from DBM as it drops a whole BG a level per bound.

suggestion

Mounted who cannot break off more than one inch <without> drop one cohesion level.

Just for reference, the old rule was that average break at >40%, superiors >50% and elites >60%, but in practice for:

4 base BG of superiors would break at 75% (3 bases) - same as elites
6 base BG of superiors would break at 66.7% (4 bases) - same as elites
8 base BG of superiors would break at 62.5% (5 bases) - same as elites

Surely superior troops would have better staying power so treating them as average seems a bit harsh? Looking at the other end you also have a 4 base BG of average and poor both breaking at 2 bases.
Using percentages you are always going to get funny results sometimes working in one types favour and sometimes not with the smaller BG. Couldn't you use the percentages as a guide and make a different break point decision than is currently expressed on the QRF autobreak table.

For instance:
4BG Elite breaks on 1;Superior on 2;Average on 2;Poor on 3
6BG Elite breaks on 2;Superior on 2;Average on3;Poor on 4
8BG Elite breaks on 2;Superior on 3;Average on 4;Poor on 5

Still have anomalies but you just weight it whichever way you think best.

Vespasian28 wrote:

Just for reference, the old rule was that average break at >40%, superiors >50% and elites >60%, but in practice for:

4 base BG of superiors would break at 75% (3 bases) - same as elites
6 base BG of superiors would break at 66.7% (4 bases) - same as elites
8 base BG of superiors would break at 62.5% (5 bases) - same as elites

Surely superior troops would have better staying power so treating them as average seems a bit harsh? Looking at the other end you also have a 4 base BG of average and poor both breaking at 2 bases.
Using percentages you are always going to get funny results sometimes working in one types favour and sometimes not with the smaller BG. Couldn't you use the percentages as a guide and make a different break point decision than is currently expressed on the QRF autobreak table.

For instance:
4BG Elite breaks on 1;Superior on 2;Average on 2;Poor on 3
6BG Elite breaks on 2;Superior on 2;Average on3;Poor on 4
8BG Elite breaks on 2;Superior on 3;Average on 4;Poor on 5

Still have anomalies but you just weight it whichever way you think best.

Agreed there's always a problem with rounding off, but it's not an anomaly when there's a consistent bias. True, you can use a different break point, but that's not the proposal presented in v2.0. Given a choice between the old and the new, I prefer the new. I might have chosen your suggestion but it's not one of the ones offered.

With the new rule I still find superior troops good value with good overall staying power because of the re-rolls (more likely to win or draw combats and therefore get the benefit of the +2 for death rolls - not to mention the re-roll for CT). I do not find the change harsh at all as FoG:AM is more a CT game than an attrition game. Maybe I would feel different if I had a superior lancer army, but I still have a lot of superior troops in my armies and I find them to be "over the top" killing machines. This is just my opinion and others will have theirs but the ones that count are the authors.

True, you can use a different break point, but that's not the proposal presented in v2.0. Given a choice between the old and the new, I prefer the new. I might have chosen your suggestion but it's not one of the ones offered.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought we were commenting on the proposals and offering suggestions rather than just choosing between new and old.

Vespasian28 wrote:Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought we were commenting on the proposals and offering suggestions rather than just choosing between new and old.

I thought we were as well. The proposals outlined at the start of this thread are just what is in test so far. Not the end of the line. And I like the idea of not sticking rigidly with percentages, looks nice and makes slight differences. Lets face it, its not carved in stone, if it works better bend the rules that way.

Vespasian28 wrote:

True, you can use a different break point, but that's not the proposal presented in v2.0. Given a choice between the old and the new, I prefer the new. I might have chosen your suggestion but it's not one of the ones offered.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought we were commenting on the proposals and offering suggestions rather than just choosing between new and old.

No, you only misunderstood my most recent post, which maybe wasn't too clear. I wasn't suggesting that other proposals couldn't or shouldn't be made, but that given the choice of the old versus what's above in v2.0 I preferred the new. My point had been that I was commenting in earlier posts on that choice and not on proposals which had not yet been made....and that if your proposal had been made earlier I might have preferred your suggestion over v1.0 or the original v2.0. The only negative I can think of for your proposal is that you always have to refer to the table until you have it memorized. Not a big deal to me, but maybe to some others.

My sentence should have read "I might have chosen your suggestion but it WAS not one of the ones offered" (i.e., not offered until just now). Choice here refers to preference not to any suggestion of voting. Please be so kind as to point out the sentence where I suggested new proposals should not be made or that it must the original v2.0 suggestion is the end of the line. I do suggest that in the end it's up to the authors, which is what it is as far as I know. I certainly know that I don't have a vote.

I certainly prefer a distiction between the breakpoint of superior vs average BGs, than a distinction between elite vs superior. Elites are an exception, most lists do not have them and to be honest they're classification feels a bit arbitrary.
Spartiates for example are classified as superior, so they will break at 50%, OTOH the E. A. Persians have a cavalry BG that may be Elite, so will fight to the last stand, I may be wrong but this does not seem right or historical.
And why Knights will never fight to the last, while some cavalry will (there are elite cavalry but no elite knights)? Is there any justification for this?

lawrenceg wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

VMadeira wrote:I was referring to, when a BG wants to turn 90º to face an opponent threatning his flank he will have to turn, then expand from one file to two or three files and only then will it be able to receive a charge without a penalty, or charge frontally an opponent, this he can do only in the third round, which is very slow.
Note that BG’s deployed in three or more ranks will make this kind of manoeuvres in only one round, so we can have Barbarians manoeuvring better, than drilled infantry deployed in two ranks, which is the usual formation for most infantry.

This is, as pointed out above, a major downfall for drilled foot. They will be in shallower formations than undrilled, as encouraged by the rear support rules, and then punished again if reacting to flank threats.

A fix for this would be to allow a BG turning 90 that would be 1 wide to be 2 wide if it wants to. I don't think this would be unrealistic as the turn 90 is generally a change of fighting front, with old front rank subunits (bases) becoming the new front rank. It's not just everyone turns 90 on the spot. A frontage of 2 bases is already much bigger than the actual depth space occupied by 3 ranks of infantry, so allowing 2 ranks the same frontage is minimal extra distortion .

That is a good fix. Certainly something should be done regarding that. Once that is done, you can forbid columns from charging

VMadeira wrote:I certainly prefer a distiction between the breakpoint of superior vs average BGs, than a distinction between elite vs superior. Elites are an exception, most lists do not have them and to be honest they're classification feels a bit arbitrary.
Spartiates for example are classified as superior, so they will break at 50%, OTOH the E. A. Persians have a cavalry BG that may be Elite, so will fight to the last stand, I may be wrong but this does not seem right or historical.
And why Knights will never fight to the last, while some cavalry will (there are elite cavalry but no elite knights)? Is there any justification for this?

I recommend you to try it. It is easier to remember half+1, half-1 or half than percentages. The rule works well because it punishes small BG's whereas it has almost no impact in big superior BG's. I think that making some cavalry BG's more brittle works well in their interaction against average.

I recommend you to try it. It is easier to remember half+1, half-1 or half than percentages. The rule works well because it punishes small BG's whereas it has almost no impact in big superior BG's. I think that making some cavalry BG's more brittle works well in their interaction against average.

No, the rule don't work well, I have just tested a BG of 4 KN against an another. Impact at 8 dices general on line reroll 1,2. Five hit against 7. Winner lose a base, and the loser lose 2 autobreak at impact!
Test a second time: Draw 5 hit each one BG lose one, the other none, at the next melee phase the 4 BG win against the 3 and kill an another base: end of fight
In all historical text I read about knightly combat, all spoke about grimly match up and extended fight,not a road kill for one opponent.

Why should small BGs be punished? Historically small units of good quality troops were efficient.

Strategos69 wrote: I recommend you to try it. It is easier to remember half+1, half-1 or half than percentages. The rule works well because it punishes small BG's whereas it has almost no impact in big superior BG's. I think that making some cavalry BG's more brittle works well in their interaction against average.

What your saying about BGs don't add up.

A BG of 6 Superior Knights break on 3 a BG of 8 armoured average spears break on 4 its still 50% and since 6 Knights cost 23 points a base thats 138 points a BG and the spears cost 9 points a base thats 72 points a BG. The breakpoint will effect the knights as most will be run out in 4's not 6's due to cost and the limiting factor of the number of BGs in the army.