The Rally Point

[stockwellpete]

But you like the idea of introducing a little bit more flexibility into the rule where armies have sizeable compulsory contingents of LF and LH then, Eric? I think we need to have a chat on the committee about it in the next day or so.

[ericdoman1]

As I am quite possibly the culprit or one of the culprits who uses a lot of lf, nope I have no problem with it.

In the past, rules have been changed as some player/s have found a chink in the armour so to speak.

I think change is always refreshing.

[stockwellpete]

As I am quite possibly the culprit or one of the culprits who uses a lot of lf, nope I have no problem with it.

In the past, rules have been changed as some player/s have found a chink in the armour so to speak.

I think change is always refreshing.

Ok, that's good.

I have just gone through the "Immortal Fire" book now and found the following armies with large numbers of compulsory LF and LH . . .

Later Thessalians - must pick 12xLF and 2xLH = 14
Thracians and Thracian Client - both must pick 7xLF and 4xLH = 11
Early Gatae and Later Gatae - both must pick 7xLF and 5xLH = 12

[Jonathan4290]

I like both Tom's idea of of only 10 voluntary LF/LH and Eric's compulsory + 50% rules. They combat what Pete and the committee have identified as an issue without being too restrictive.

As for the 50 BGs max rule, do we have any stats on just how many armies in the first season actually exceeded 50? This may give players a sense of how little/much this rule impacts them in combatting horde armies. The only case for my 27 games was using the Early Bulgars where I used 53 in one game.

[stockwellpete]

As for the 50 BGs max rule, do we have any stats on just how many armies in the first season actually exceeded 50? This may give players a sense of how little/much this rule impacts them in combatting horde armies. The only case for my 27 games was using the Early Bulgars where I used 53 in one game.

Not so much a stat as a list, Jonathan. We are not talking about many armies here . . .

Horde armies (over 50bp’s)

CA
chris6 (Spartacus Slave Revolt)
lydianed (Gallic Early Lowland)

EMA
Brenmusik (Early South Slavs, later)

HMA
Conaire (Medieval Irish)
ericdoman1 (Byzantine Morea)
Peterabb (Medieval Irish)

EE
None

[stockwellpete]

I have been right through the DAG lists this afternoon to identify all the armies that have large numbers of compulsory LF and LH. They are . . .

Rise of Rome
Numidian (Juba I), Numidian (Bogus) and Numidian (Juba II) - all must pick 8xLF and 8xLH = 16
Early Armenian, Early Armenian (Tigran) and Early Armenian Khosrov) - all must pick 4xLF and 6xLH = 10
Parthians, Parthians (Saka Campaign) and Suren Indo-Parthians - all must pick 9xLH = 9

Immortal Fire
Later Thessalians - must pick 12xLF and 2xLH = 14
Thracians and Thracian Client - both must pick 7xLF and 4xLH = 11
Early Gatae and Later Gatae - both must pick 7xLF and 5xLH = 12

That is all, apart from the two Moorish armies in "Decline and Fall" which are largely comprised of LF and LH.

If we were to use this simple scale . . .

Number of compulsory LF/LH ........... Maximum number of LF/LH allowed
..............6.............................................10
..............7.............................................10
..............8.............................................10
..............9.............................................15
..............10............................................15
..............11............................................15
..............12............................................15
..............13............................................15
..............14............................................20
..............15............................................20
..............16............................................20

. . . it would mean that the listed armies above could pick the following number of LF/LH as an exemption from the 50/10 rule . . .

Rise of Rome
Numidian (Juba I), Numidian (Bogus) and Numidian (Juba II) - all must pick 8xLF and 8xLH = 16, so they could pick 4 more LF/LH = 20
Early Armenian, Early Armenian (Tigran) and Early Armenian Khosrov) - all must pick 4xLF and 6xLH = 10, so they could pick 5 more LF/LH = 15
Parthians, Parthians (Saka Campaign) and Suren Indo-Parthians - all must pick 9xLH = 9, so they could pick 6 more LF/LH = 15

Immortal Fire
Later Thessalians - must pick 12xLF and 2xLH = 14, so they could pick 6 more LF/LH = 20
Thracians and Thracian Client - both must pick 7xLF and 4xLH = 11, so they could pick 4 more LF/LH = 15
Early Gatae and Later Gatae - both must pick 7xLF and 5xLH = 12, so they could pick 3 more LF/LH = 15

Anyone picking one of these armies could get a PM from the committee explaining the rules about LF/LH for that particular army. I think the two Moorish armies would have to be excluded from the FOG Digital League.

Any thoughts?

[zumHeuriger]

That addresses the main point I had...however the question of allies with compulsory light troops is still open. My though is if you choose a ally with compulsory light troops, they DO count against the number of light troops in the army.

For ex. THe Parthians have their 9 LH (and could choose up to 6 more as above). They choose the Saka allies which has 3 LH compulsory. Those three would count towards the total, so the Parthians could take 3 more Parthian LH/LF or Saka LH/LF.

Hope that is clear.

Tom

[stockwellpete]

That addresses the main point I had...however the question of allies with compulsory light troops is still open. My though is if you choose a ally with compulsory light troops, they DO count against the number of light troops in the army.

For ex. THe Parthians have their 9 LH (and could choose up to 6 more as above). They choose the Saka allies which has 3 LH compulsory. Those three would count towards the total, so the Parthians could take 3 more Parthian LH/LF or Saka LH/LF.

Hope that is clear.

Tom

Yes, compulsory LF/LH of any allies chosen do count towards your total number of skirmishers allowed.

[ericdoman1]

So the Hatrans must have 20 lf or mf bow and 6 lh bow as compulsories.

If they took the Parthian ally, they would also have 3 lh bow as compulsory. I would take the Parthians just for extra cats. Surprisingly the cat camels also counts for initiative points. I'd use all of them so nnow you have your +2 for init.

How would you work that one out? As I suggested you ignore compluslories which could include cav or lh and mf or lf.

The downside for the Hatrans is that out of the 20 compulosry mf or lf, they could only choose 4 lf and if they used the Parthians only 1 lf.

Have just been looking at a number of other lists as well and it will most certainly reduce a number of armies to low 30s. I would try and go for a mid 30 to 50 range with armies at 400pts. I still have no problems but it will certainly reduce army options.

[macsen]

Most of the proposed changes I'm OK with. My only comment is that I think the 10 limit on lf/lh is a bit low. Many armies rely on boosting their numbers with cheap troops, it's what I often use them for. I've checked the lists I've used and I often exceed this number and I've never heard of complaints about it. I presume this rule is to stop players turning up with an army you have to chase around the field, in which case limiting lights to 10 is going a little to far. Besides, who doesn't enjoy watching a cataphract chasing a horse archer around the map or into trouble, historically it's often what they were used for.

Cheers

macsen

[voskarp]

How about limiting skirmishers to maximum 1/3 or even 1/2 of the army BGs, so if at least every non-light BG is routed the army will break.

[stockwellpete]

My only comment is that I think the 10 limit on lf/lh is a bit low. Many armies rely on boosting their numbers with cheap troops, it's what I often use them for.

One of the main ideas behind this 10 skirmisher units suggestion is that it will force players to use skirmishers as skirmishers and not to use them to boost their army size. In many of the lists the LF are actually bracketed with various types of MF missile troops which can be chosen instead - and in other armies where they are not there are options for "poor" HF or "Mob" that can be used to bulk out armies when required.

Personally, I don't think it at all realistic to have one-third or one-half of an army comprised of skirmishers. By allowing 10 skirmisher units (except for those armies that are exempted) in an army of 50 units (the maximum size) means that skirmishers will still comprise 20% of its total - if the army is smaller than 50 units then the skirmisher contingent may approach 25 or 30% of the total. This is quite sufficient, in my opinion.

[batesmotel]

Are LH really a problem? They're not really cheap enough to be useful buying just to bulk up an army and in general FoG. PC players generally seem to rate them as a bit overpriced and not terribly effective. If the real issue is limiting the use of cheap. LF to bulk up an army, just put the limit on LF or even just poor LF.

Chris

[stockwellpete]

Are LH really a problem? They're not really cheap enough to be useful buying just to bulk up an army and in general FoG. PC players generally seem to rate them as a bit overpriced and not terribly effective. If the real issue is limiting the use of cheap. LF to bulk up an army, just put the limit on LF or even just poor LF.

Yes, I think you make a fair point here, Chris. I will have a look at this tomorrow in more detail and have a chat with fellow committee members. Most of the LH skirmishers are "average" and cost around 8-10pts whereas a lot of LF that are causing the problem cost only 2, 3 or 4pts.

[stockwellpete]

So the Hatrans must have 20 lf or mf bow and 6 lh bow as compulsories.

If they took the Parthian ally, they would also have 3 lh bow as compulsory. I would take the Parthians just for extra cats. Surprisingly the cat camels also counts for initiative points. I'd use all of them so nnow you have your +2 for init.

How would you work that one out? As I suggested you ignore compluslories which could include cav or lh and mf or lf.

The downside for the Hatrans is that out of the 20 compulosry mf or lf, they could only choose 4 lf and if they used the Parthians only 1 lf.

Have just been looking at a number of other lists as well and it will most certainly reduce a number of armies to low 30s. I would try and go for a mid 30 to 50 range with armies at 400pts. I still have no problems but it will certainly reduce army options.

Just back from work, Eric, and I have had a look at the Hatrans. The upper limit of LF/LH would present some difficulties in their selection, but not insurmountable ones. Personally, I don't think I would pick the Parthian allies and I would just go with an entirely Hatran army (the Hatrans must pick 20 archer units, can all be MF, or LF, or a mixture, according to the DAG) . . .

Inspired leader (cavalry)
2x cats
2x cavalry
3x cat camels
6x horse archers (compulsory LH)
2x caravan guards
6x swordsmen
5x javelinmen
12x MF archers (average)
4x MF archers (poor)
4x LF archers (average)

So that makes 46 units for the army (4 below the proposed maximum) and it has 10 skirmishers (the maximum for this army, 4xLF and 6xLH). The army has a good chance of winning the pre-battle initiative roll too. There is room to tweak it a bit - maybe swap cavalry for some of the cats and have more javelinmen and lose the "poor" archers.

[ericdoman1]

5 cats not enough punch. Having lots of mf, nope not good. It is one of those armies that would not be used.

I have used it quite a lot at 400 to 600pts.

I think you need to pm other players and get more feedback rather than just a handful.

[stockwellpete]

5 cats not enough punch. Having lots of mf, nope not good. It is one of those armies that would not be used.

Well, if you want to use Parthian allies to get the extra cats, you can go . . .

Hatrans
field commander (cats)
5x cats
6x LH archers (compulsory)
5x MF javelinmen (compulsory)
9x average MF archers (compulsory)
11x poor MF archers (compulsory)
Parthian allies troop commander (cats)
4x cats (2 are compulsory)
4xLH (3 are compulsory)

So that would give you 44 units and 10 skirmishers (all LH) and you would have 9x cats to give the "punch" you require. You would be less likely to win the pre-battle initiative roll. But the 50/10 rule would work OK for this army.

If you look at the various suggestions made by Chris (batesmotel) this evening as they might be applied to this army - if LH were excluded from the 50/10 rule then maybe the 9x average MF archers would be replaced by 9x average LF archers so there would be 19 skirmishers out of 44 units (9LF and 10LH) in the army, which is too high a proportion in my opinion. Putting restrictions on just "poor" skirmishers would have no impact on this army and a player could then pick 15 or 20 LF archers, which again would be too high a proportion of the army. So it seems to me that if we were to consider exempting LH from the restriction on skirmishers, the maximum number of LF skirmishers would have to be lower than 10, maybe it would have to be set at 6 with exemptions given for those armies in the DAG where compulsory LF selections is greater than 6.

I think you need to pm other players and get more feedback rather than just a handful.

Nope, the debate is here for people who want to join in - and it has been advertised in advance. In actual fact, the committee is quite capable of making a decision like this on its own, but we feel it is more sensible to provide a space for a discussion so that as wide a range of suggestions as possible can be considered. There is plenty of time for this, another 2 weeks to be precise.

[ericdoman1]

Yep Chris has made a good point it is the poor lf that bulks up some armies.

LH in the digital game aren't that good compared to the TT game

The Hatrans with too many mf bow, not good.

Spartans and Romans should not be classed as super armies, to my knowledge they have never won any division.

Haven't looked but there was a table that showed % wins of armies. PB chose armies that had a terrible % win ratio and either won with them or came 2nd or 3rd. I am not in his league but I made the point of trying some different armies this time, it seems that my choices have not gone down to well though:). If PB, hidde, Sharkall, davouthojo, CheAhn and miversson were involved in all divisions. I would have been very fortunate to have won one.

I think players who are more experienced and or quick learners will see the benefits of using larger armies. It is part of the game. I would not expect anybody to win with a 25 to 29 bp army. Stats have proven that the larger army (30% +) will win most games and if you have also won initiative with a larger army that increases your chances dramatically.

The horde armies can be beaten quite easily. You do not spread out across the board, you line up 3 to 4 deep or more and press forward, preferably on a flank and hope your opponent hasn't found a hill to nestle on:). Although the alternate horde army, ie ones with lots of poor lf will be difficult to beat, unless you can match it with roughly the same number of bps.

Cav bow armies rely on lf, in particular poor lf to bolster the size of the army. Reducing it to 10 again in my view would reduce the number of armies. The Huns are a very good example. If they could have 10 poor lf bow or 10 any lf, it would make them a lot more effective.

The more I think about it and having investigated it a bit more the max of 10 lf/lh is not good. Based on the fact that it will reduce the numbers of armies. Maybe push it to 15 or possibly 20. Voskarp suggested 1/3 to 1/2 of army. I think that is a good idea.

I do agree completely that lf, historically were a very small part of an army. I would imagine when there were skirmishes before a battle you would probably deploy your best troops from various commands who were good at skirmishing and then they go back to their mf, cav etc unit. However we are not using a true historical game here. For the game to have certain changes made you will need to change it's software and that is not possible for this version of the game.

Either or I enjoy playing so I do not mind if the majority wishes to make some radicallish? changes.

[klayeckles]

Ok time to weigh in!
first, i agree with the term "tedius" when refering to horde armies. it is tedius to fight them AND to run them! i've done both. i think we are missing something (well maybe eric didn't)...but the biggest kicker is the poor troops...they can create the issues. If you look at the super armies they all have two things in common...some great troops and some crap troops... So here is the hint of the day for newer players...if you have an army that is 50/50 great/crap hide the crap and make the enemy kill every single great troop...it is a very nasty tactic! that is the secret of the super armies. when you can get a LF skirmisher for 2pts, it really increases your army break level for vertually no cost. I think an approach might involve putting severe limits on these junk troops. given how slippery the junk skirmishers are, they are practically invulnerable if hiding behind the superior good troops...eliminating the poor skirmishers entirerly really wouldnt hurt the game, and would dramatically reduce the value of some of these "super" armies. the poor MF archers are also prone to the same tactic, but they are somewhat vulnerable, lacking evasion. i could see a limit of no more than 50% of ALL MF being poor quality (this would limit the kern hordes and such).

Chris was worried about the limitations on armies...but frankly, he'd benefit from them...doing so will make so many other armies more viable, especially in the upper devisions, where we keep seeing the same ol' armies.

I STRONGLY don't like the limit of 10 skirmishers. if i'm facing a heavy horse archer army, i may need more screening troops to protect against arrows. I'd rather make them more real (not poor) so they are actually part of the action. also, the skirmish battles are quite interesting...i'm still learning the neuances of how to use them effectively. and they add significant interest and tactical opptions (like cutting off the retreat of horse cav). If we cut down to 10 the skirmishers, we will really reduce the tactical nuances of the game!!!

so in summary...no poor LF. limited poor MF. perhaps some other limits on some of the real odd armies like the dacians with the horde of naked superior HW--the best buy in the game.

[voskarp]

Ok time to weigh in!
first, i agree with the term "tedius" when refering to horde armies. it is tedius to fight them AND to run them! i've done both. i think we are missing something (well maybe eric didn't)...but the biggest kicker is the poor troops...they can create the issues. If you look at the super armies they all have two things in common...some great troops and some crap troops... So here is the hint of the day for newer players...if you have an army that is 50/50 great/crap hide the crap and make the enemy kill every single great troop...it is a very nasty tactic! that is the secret of the super armies. when you can get a LF skirmisher for 2pts, it really increases your army break level for vertually no cost. I think an approach might involve putting severe limits on these junk troops. given how slippery the junk skirmishers are, they are practically invulnerable if hiding behind the superior good troops...eliminating the poor skirmishers entirerly really wouldnt hurt the game, and would dramatically reduce the value of some of these "super" armies. the poor MF archers are also prone to the same tactic, but they are somewhat vulnerable, lacking evasion. i could see a limit of no more than 50% of ALL MF being poor quality (this would limit the kern hordes and such).

It's for this reason I think the BPs should be relative to troop cost, but that's another debate...

Maybe the best thing is to put some moderate restriction on skirmishers for the next season and see what happens. Then we'll see what can be done with the new version of the game.