Slitherine

david53 wrote: 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.

It does. When you lose half of your BG it is likely that before autobreak happens you have lost your cohesion first. If the BG is bigger it is harder to take 2HpB and thus lose heavily. And if you draw or win you are less likely to take casualties. The 2HpB in melee fixes instantly many issues, so that the autobreak is not felt much. In my first game the only autobreak was an elephant element which was routed the same turn. Other autobreaks came when pursuing.

Given that knights fight in single lines, there can be a case to get a +1 as elephants for death rolls if they are felt not enough staying. Or, as it was proposed a while ago, that the size of the frontage might be taken into account when rolling for death rolls (example, +1 for every 4 wide). A BG of eight 4 by 2 is more likely to take casualties from shooting than two BG's of 2 by 2.

But since the point of view of a newcomer, I would save looking at tables to know when your BG autobreaks. Half, especially when all BG are even, is a concept very easy to get and the + - 1 for the extremes are reasonable. Regarding points, I think it has been said that the game will be fixed first and then other issues.

olivier wrote:
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.

As I proposed a while ago, that might be a good case for making the rolls slightly different.
Equal PoA's: both 5
+ PoA: 4's vs 5
++ PoA: 3's vs 5

Basically every PoA difference you get, adds one to the score you have to get. Easier to remember too, no need for tables by the way, and equal combats would be less bloody.

Regarding the question, it seems to me that it is merely a knights issue. Try them in 3 by 3 and you will see, especially with the new rear support rule, that the battle will be long and less bloody.

Regarding the question, it seems to me that it is merely a knights issue. Try them in 3 by 3 and you will see, especially with the new rear support rule, that the battle will be long and less bloody.

False, it's also a HCH issue and, in a less extent a Ct issue.
Kn don't fight in deep formation, think about an internal support with Kn is gamey not historical. Even in game perspective, I suspect it's better to charge in 6*1 than 3*2 because if you lost you have a double debord and if you win you destroy the enemy BG.

olivier wrote:

Regarding the question, it seems to me that it is merely a knights issue. Try them in 3 by 3 and you will see, especially with the new rear support rule, that the battle will be long and less bloody.

False, it's also a HCH issue and, in a less extent a Ct issue.
Kn don't fight in deep formation, think about an internal support with Kn is gamey not historical. Even in game perspective, I suspect it's better to charge in 6*1 than 3*2 because if you lost you have a double debord and if you win you destroy the enemy BG.

Try knights 3 by 3 do you know how many points that would take up how many BGs in a 800 poimt army would you have if you did that? they are 23 points a base after all?

Strategos69 wrote:

david53 wrote: 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.

It does. When you lose half of your BG it is likely that before autobreak happens you have lost your cohesion first. If the BG is bigger it is harder to take 2HpB and thus lose heavily. And if you draw or win you are less likely to take casualties. The 2HpB in melee fixes instantly many issues, so that the autobreak is not felt much. In my first game the only autobreak was an elephant element which was routed the same turn. Other autobreaks came when pursuing.

Given that knights fight in single lines, there can be a case to get a +1 as elephants for death rolls if they are felt not enough staying. Or, as it was proposed a while ago, that the size of the frontage might be taken into account when rolling for death rolls (example, +1 for every 4 wide). A BG of eight 4 by 2 is more likely to take casualties from shooting than two BG's of 2 by 2.

But since the point of view of a newcomer, I would save looking at tables to know when your BG autobreaks. Half, especially when all BG are even, is a concept very easy to get and the + - 1 for the extremes are reasonable. Regarding points, I think it has been said that the game will be fixed first and then other issues.

Right you seem to be changing the discussion.

You say the big 8 Base group will be harder to drop than smaller BGs I agree but when are you going to see 6 base BGs of Knights.

Giving the Knights a +1 for death rolls this is'nt in the rules or the amendments, as they stand the Knights are worse off.

What has shooting got to do I said Spears against Knights not bows?

You say the auto break is easy well I have played FOG for a number of years and even while new to the game I knew very quickly lose two bases on a 4 base LH and they break lose 3 bases on a 4 base of LH superior and they break anything elese it was written down on a chart in the rule book.

This new rule will effect the Knights much more as the changes stand now.

As it has been repeated several times, points cost will be adjusted later if needed. The point is getting the interactions right and at least for Ancients it works pretty well. The problematic BG's seem to be the ones fighting melee with only one line (and that is not a question of grading, as I will show, but game mechanics). If you refight them in deeper deployments, the interactions work better. The rationale is the following: more bases into combat means more dice, more dice means more hits, more hits mean higher death rolls and death bases mean autobreak. Example:
A BG of eight bases receives 4 hits by shooting. The death roll would be getting more than 2 in the roll (2+dice>4). Now, two BG's of 4 receive each 2 hits from shooting (the same as the former: imagine we splitted the BG by half). No BG would be forced to take a death roll. Something seems wrong in here.

The same applies to knights because of their formation in one line. Now infantry would be deployed in deeper formations, so they will take less hits per base and thus death rolls will be lower. The same cannot be said for knights. The fixing is in that mechanics, not making superior fight to the last stand. If those mechanics are fixed then the decision between average and superior will be based in morale reasons more than problems with unfairness of the game balance.

Our messages crossed. To be more specific

david53 wrote:
Right you seem to be changing the discussion.

Yes, because the point is not the autobreak, which has improved, but other side effects of the game mechanics that do not look right. You are right that maybe there is something to be fixed but it is not about knights even, but BG's more exposed to hits.

david53 wrote:
You say the big 8 Base group will be harder to drop than smaller BGs I agree but when are you going to see 6 base BGs of Knights.

As soon as they are more worth trying, you will see them. If changes are adopted, my first line of Romans would not be of 4 bases, but 8.

david53 wrote:
Giving the Knights a +1 for death rolls this is'nt in the rules or the amendments, as they stand the Knights are worse off.

It is all about providing alternatives

david53 wrote:
What has shooting got to do I said Spears against Knights not bows?

Change the words "hits from shooting" for hits from spearmen in close combat. The example stands the same, but it is clearer as we don't have to mess with PoA. The idea is that right now the knights are worse because they have wider deployments. And that is a problem that happened before and the autobreak corrected it (only in some cases), but with other very bad side effects for infantry.

david53 wrote:
You say the auto break is easy well I have played FOG for a number of years and even while new to the game I knew very quickly lose two bases on a 4 base LH and they break lose 3 bases on a 4 base of LH superior and they break anything elese it was written down on a chart in the rule book.

Well, my army has Bg's of all sizes except 9. It is ovecomplicating to be forced to check a table everytime (that was 4 different percentage for six different BG sizes). The less we have to remember, the better.

For this question, the broad one, it would be good to have a correction to the death roll depending on the BG wide. It could be a +1 for every 4 stands wide. It will be still better to have BG splitted, but not that much since the point of view of autobreak.

Maybe a different approach would be to leave the autobreak levels (%) as is and up the -1 CT for 25% losses to -2 CT for 50% losses.

Strategos69 wrote:Our messages crossed. To be more specific

david53 wrote:
Right you seem to be changing the discussion.

Yes, because the point is not the autobreak, which has improved, but other side effects of the game mechanics that do not look right. You are right that maybe there is something to be fix but it is not about knights even, but BG's more exposed to hits.

david53 wrote:
You say the big 8 Base group will be harder to drop than smaller BGs I agree but when are you going to see 6 base BGs of Knights.

As soon as they are more worth trying, you will see them. If changes are adopted, my first line of Romans would not be of 4 bases, but 8.

david53 wrote:
Giving the Knights a +1 for death rolls this is'nt in the rules or the amendments, as they stand the Knights are worse off.

It is all about providing alternatives

david53 wrote:
What has shooting got to do I said Spears against Knights not bows?

Change the words hit from shooting for hits from spearmen in close combat. The example stands the same, but it is clearer as we don't have to mess with PoA. The idea is that right now the knights are worse because they have wider deployments. And that is a problem happened before and the autobreak corrected it, but with other very bad side effects for infantry.

david53 wrote:
You say the auto break is easy well I have played FOG for a number of years and even while new to the game I knew very quickly lose two bases on a 4 base LH and they break lose 3 bases on a 4 base of LH superior and they break anything elese it was written down on a chart in the rule book.

Well, my army has Bg's of all sizes except 9. It is ovecomplicating to be forced to check a table everytime (that was 4 different percentage for six different BG sizes). The less we have to remember, the better.

For this question, the broad one, it would be good to have a correction to the death roll depending on the BG wide. It could be a +1 for every 4 stands wide. It will be still better to have BG splitted, but not that much since the point of view of autobreak.

Were I think the problum is at present the rules change involves auto- break I think its harsh on Knights, what you suggest is good if any had been put forward by the authors but it hasnt been and we are were we are.

As it stands I think it is harsh and in the case of the Knights will not increase BG base sizes due to the increase in points per BG and this even if it did would drop the army breakpoint due to the drop in BGs.

Strategos69 wrote:As it has been repeated several times, points cost will be adjusted later if needed. The point is getting the interactions right and at least for Ancients it works pretty well. The problematic BG's seem to be the ones fighting melee with only one line (and that is not a question of grading, as I will show, but game mechanics). If you refight them in deeper deployments, the interactions work better. The rationale is the following: more bases into combat means more dice, more dice means more hits, more hits mean higher death rolls and death bases mean autobreak. Example:
A BG of eight bases receives 4 hits by shooting. The death roll would be getting more than 2 in the roll (2+dice>4). Now, two BG's of 4 receive each 2 hits from shooting (the same as the former: imagine we splitted the BG by half). No BG would be forced to take a death roll. Something seems wrong in here.

The same applies to knights because their formation in one line. Now infantry would be deployed in deeper formation, so they will take less hits per base and thus death roll will be lower. The same cannot be said for knights. The fixing is in that mechanics, not making superior fight to the last stand. If those mechanics are fixed then the decision between average and superior will be based in morale reasons more than problems with unfairness of the game balance.

I agree with Strategos's statement of the underlying problem, which applies principally to knights, chariots and single ranked cavalry.

Number of hits is proportional to your frontage, but if there is any bonus on the death roll, then the number of deaths is not proportional to the number of hits - deaths per hit goes up with number of hits. If BGs fight on a frontage of 2 they will rarely take more than 2 hits so a +2 makes them nearly immune to death, whereas BGs fighting on a frontage of 4 or 6 will gradually be whittled down.

Now, maybe it is intended that knights and chariots should have less staying power than troops that fight in 2 ranks (i.e. that's not a problem, it's a feature). With superior troops (which most knights and chariots are) in v1, the better autobreak mitigated the higher casualty rate, but note how popular average knights were.

Even if that is the case, it may still be an issue in the comparison between LH in 2 ranks and unprotected cavalry in a single rank. Playtests should reveal more about this.

Now, maybe it is intended that knights and chariots should have less staying power than troops that fight in 2 ranks (i.e. that's not a problem, it's a feature). With superior troops (which most knights and chariots are) in v1, the better autobreak mitigated the higher casualty rate, but note how popular average knights were.

Why should Knights have less staying power than some elite shooty cavalry of the same period?

VMadeira wrote:

Now, maybe it is intended that knights and chariots should have less staying power than troops that fight in 2 ranks (i.e. that's not a problem, it's a feature). With superior troops (which most knights and chariots are) in v1, the better autobreak mitigated the higher casualty rate, but note how popular average knights were.

Why should Knights have less staying power than some elite shooty cavalry of the same period?

Because knights' horses were bred for a fast charge, steppe ponies were bred for stamina.

shadowdragon wrote:Maybe a different approach would be to leave the autobreak levels (%) as is and up the -1 CT for 25% losses to -2 CT for 50% losses.

I dont think the autobreak level needs changing at all.

Its better having more distinction between average and superior that superior and elite. particularly if the points diff between avg and sup change

[quote="lawrenceg]
... With superior troops (which most knights and chariots are) in v1, the better autobreak mitigated the higher casualty rate, but note how popular average knights were.
[/quote]

Aligning points so that superior vs average has a higher cost difference (ala ForG) may resolve this.

shadowdragon wrote:Maybe a different approach would be to leave the autobreak levels (%) as is and up the -1 CT for 25% losses to -2 CT for 50% losses.

This would not effect average because they autobreak before 50% and help weaken 4 base superior BGs. Write it as -1 per 25% loss and it saves place on charts.

expendablecinc wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:Maybe a different approach would be to leave the autobreak levels (%) as is and up the -1 CT for 25% losses to -2 CT for 50% losses.

I dont think the autobreak level needs changing at all.

Its better having more distinction between average and superior that superior and elite. particularly if the points diff between avg and sup change

The problum once again is that according to the authors rules amendments for FOG 2 with regard to changes to the points are not coming in.

david53 wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:Maybe a different approach would be to leave the autobreak levels (%) as is and up the -1 CT for 25% losses to -2 CT for 50% losses.

I dont think the autobreak level needs changing at all.

Its better having more distinction between average and superior that superior and elite. particularly if the points diff between avg and sup change

The problum once again is that according to the authors rules amendments for FOG 2 with regard to changes to the points are not coming in.

Was there supposed to be some punctuation in that sentence?

Points changes will be made if necessary, but will come later in the process.

lawrenceg wrote:

VMadeira wrote:

Now, maybe it is intended that knights and chariots should have less staying power than troops that fight in 2 ranks (i.e. that's not a problem, it's a feature). With superior troops (which most knights and chariots are) in v1, the better autobreak mitigated the higher casualty rate, but note how popular average knights were.

Why should Knights have less staying power than some elite shooty cavalry of the same period?

Because knights' horses were bred for a fast charge, steppe ponies were bred for stamina.

Maybe, but don't think there are many examples of shooty cavalry fighting to the last (they simply would go away if things went wrong), while there are lots of examples of knights going on fighting (and charging) despite lots of casualties. I think this is the opposite effect that the new rule creates.

Because knights' horses were bred for a fast charge, steppe ponies were bred for stamina.

Hey, it's not Hollywood!
Knight charges were made at canter, a move more or less equivalent to a trot and "en Haye" formation meaning "stirrup by stirrup". It's a slow charge but remember your math : approximately 900 Kg (horse+ Kn) at 25 Km/H (speed of the charge) impacting on 6cm² (point of the lance) is largely enough to destroy anything!
A "charger" was mounted only for the battle, it's generally an old horse (10 years) trained and vicious and he run only a few hundred meter.

VMadeira wrote:
Now, maybe it is intended that knights and chariots should have less staying power than troops that fight in 2 ranks (i.e. that's not a problem, it's a feature). With superior troops (which most knights and chariots are) in v1, the better autobreak mitigated the higher casualty rate, but note how popular average knights were.

They aren't popular because an autobreak at 50% is too cost ineffective as the new rule for the sup Kn.

Was there supposed to be some punctuation in that sentence?