4 base skirmishing BGs

[Ghaznavid]

Might be interesting/helpful if the authors would explicitly list this as "something we are interested in seeing tested." I think the limits suggested (10 attription points at 650AP, 13 @ 800, 15 @ 900) are pretty good choices.

What has it got to do with the authors? IMO scoring systems are for comp organisers - is anyone using the one in the rules for example?

Well there is an 'official' scoring system (by Terry Shaw I think?) on the FoG HP which is pretty universally used and I think that is a good thing. Naturally the authors are thus assumed to have an interest as well as a say in it and IMO they should.

[peterrjohnston]

Well there is an 'official' scoring system (by Terry Shaw I think?) on the FoG HP which is pretty universally used and I think that is a good thing. Naturally the authors are thus assumed to have an interest as well as a say in it and IMO they should.

If you are referring to 25-0 (FoG HP?), my understanding is it came about because of strange aversion to non-checksum scoring systems.

And it's not good, it's crap. And the root cause is it's a essentially a percentage based scoring system. It's a bit like saying Fulham beat Chelsea 75% to 25%. I'm trying to think of any other game that uses a percentage scoring system, is there?

Scores and results should be in absolutes, like times, win or draw, goals, runs, sets, whatever. But not percentages.

[madaxeman]

I'm already choosing to do less competitions this year as a result of this sort of thing - I have to have something else to make up the time

Tim, I honestly think you are making this up just to have something to whinge about.

At Britcon you played against
Principate Roman; too expensive to swarm
Foederate Roman; maybe max 15
Sassanids; 13 or 14
Ostrogoths; 12
Dominate Roman: 19, 4 of which LH
Nikes; 12 or 13

Where's your problem? Most of your opponents you outnumbered in BG, and the army with the samllest number beat you*. Although he had 4 BG of LF. One of which charged your Armoured Aux.

*slightly

Britcon was pretty good fun to be honest, as was Usk. However most other comps I've played there has been at least one or more games against LH/Swarm armies which were designed to be almost unbeatable, and those games have been uninteresting enough to make me cut back the amount of FoG comps I plan to enter this year. I don't think its really to do with numbers of BGs, its more about the very limited number of credible counters there are to deal with massed shooting skirmisher units?

[philqw78]

its more about the very limited number of credible counters there are to deal with massed shooting skirmisher units?

Unfotunately I believe that to be historical

And something that the Romans and Welsh never had to deal with. Obvious why you are the Il Campione di Tutti Europa di FoG and Cympyonnys Di FfffyoGGh really.

[hammy]

I don't think its really to do with numbers of BGs, its more about the very limited number of credible counters there are to deal with massed shooting skirmisher units?

If that is the case then why is fiddling with the number of BGs going to do anything to help?

From what I read in my youth bow armed light horse were difficult to deal with and the solution adopted by many armies were foot bow or crossbow. I have found that shooty light horse really don't like facing large amounts of foot bow. Perhaps you should try Achaemenid Persian or Christian Nubian and then watch those horsey types squirm.

The Byzantine and Assyrian mixed foot are also pretty good against light horse.

[grahambriggs]

Britcon was pretty good fun to be honest, as was Usk. However most other comps I've played there has been at least one or more games against LH/Swarm armies which were designed to be almost unbeatable, and those games have been uninteresting enough to make me cut back the amount of FoG comps I plan to enter this year. I don't think its really to do with numbers of BGs, its more about the very limited number of credible counters there are to deal with massed shooting skirmisher units?

At Britcon I found that the Merovingians were a good anti swarm army. Large numbers of armoured average Light Spear/Sword cavalry worked a treat combined with a centre of heavy warbands. They're mobile enough to catch the swarm if they're not careful, cheap enough to have large numbers and the cavalry and warband in combination can do a bit of 'hammer and anvil'.

I've a vague (and, frankly, poorly thought out) theory that the armies that had lots of Cv(O) under DBM are quite good against swarms in fog. But few people have them as they were rubbish in DBM.

[madaxeman]

I don't think its really to do with numbers of BGs, its more about the very limited number of credible counters there are to deal with massed shooting skirmisher units?

If that is the case then why is fiddling with the number of BGs going to do anything to help?
From what I read in my youth bow armed light horse were difficult to deal with and the solution adopted by many armies were foot bow or crossbow. I have found that shooty light horse really don't like facing large amounts of foot bow. Perhaps you should try Achaemenid Persian or Christian Nubian and then watch those horsey types squirm.
The Byzantine and Assyrian mixed foot are also pretty good against light horse.

I'm not really one of those advocating a BG-based solution (although I'm not sure what I am advocating really!) however I do feel vaguely uneasy that foot bow/XB do not appear to really be a counter to LH or LF in the game, whilst as you say, they perhaps were in real life.

In my experience the ability of LH/LF to fall back out of range and recover cohesion, and their ability to concentrate fire means they tend to come off better in a shooting match against average foot shooters - which really limits the employment of average protected bow/XB foot as they are also useless against most other things too!

As you rightly point out, Superior shooters are a different kettle of fish (and I used 4 of them in my Pseudo-swarm Dom Roms) but not many armies get superior shooters. Maybe increasing the effectiveness of foot Bw/XB vs skirmishers (however you achieve it) is therefore the tweak that might fix a lot of issues that on the surface appear to be "swarm" or "LH" based ?

[hammy]

I'm not really one of those advocating a BG-based solution (although I'm not sure what I am advocating really!) however I do feel vaguely uneasy that foot bow/XB do not appear to really be a counter to LH or LF in the game, whilst as you say, they perhaps were in real life.

In my experience the ability of LH/LF to fall back out of range and recover cohesion, and their ability to concentrate fire means they tend to come off better in a shooting match against average foot shooters - which really limits the employment of average protected bow/XB foot as they are also useless against most other things too!

As you rightly point out, Superior shooters are a different kettle of fish (and I used 4 of them in my Pseudo-swarm Dom Roms) but not many armies get superior shooters. Maybe increasing the effectiveness of foot Bw/XB vs skirmishers (however you achieve it) is therefore the tweak that might fix a lot of issues that on the surface appear to be "swarm" or "LH" based ?

I have found that decent sized BGs of average bow and crossbow can hurt light troops and while the lights can run and recover if they do then they have given up ground and used the attention of a commander who may be more use elsewhere. When I used Early Libyans with 32 bases of unprotected MF bow they were very effective against shooty light horse.

If you want a rules tweak to really hurt skirmishers then give non skirmishers shot only by skirmishers a +1 on their CT and watch the skirmishe players squirm.

The fundamental problem is that there are playeras who will play 'not to lose' regardless of the ruleset and if you play such a player in any game you end up with a very dull game.

One counter to this would be to score double for inflicting AP and normal for keeping your AP intact. That way players who are out for 'not losing' would do even worse in comps than they do now but in the car on the way home they woukld still be able to claim not to have lost so I suspect that would nto make any difference either.

[kevinj]

The fundamental problem is that there are playeras who will play 'not to lose' regardless of the ruleset and if you play such a player in any game you end up with a very dull game.

I agree, this is the problem, the "unbreakable" skirmish army is just the tactic that seems to typify this approach in FOG.

[david53]

I'm already choosing to do less competitions this year as a result of this sort of thing - I have to have something else to make up the time

Tim, I honestly think you are making this up just to have something to whinge about.

At Britcon you played against
Principate Roman; too expensive to swarm
Foederate Roman; maybe max 15
Sassanids; 13 or 14
Ostrogoths; 12
Dominate Roman: 19, 4 of which LH
Nikes; 12 or 13

Where's your problem? Most of your opponents you outnumbered in BG, and the army with the samllest number beat you*. Although he had 4 BG of LF. One of which charged your Armoured Aux.

*slightly

Britcon was pretty good fun to be honest, as was Usk. However most other comps I've played there has been at least one or more games against LH/Swarm armies which were designed to be almost unbeatable, and those games have been uninteresting enough to make me cut back the amount of FoG comps I plan to enter this year. I don't think its really to do with numbers of BGs, its more about the very limited number of credible counters there are to deal with massed shooting skirmisher units?

From what you have posted on this thread its not the BGs army size but the fact that people take LH shooters you dislike?

[peterrjohnston]

In my experience the ability of LH/LF to fall back out of range and recover cohesion, and their ability to concentrate fire means they tend to come off better in a shooting match against average foot shooters - which really limits the employment of average protected bow/XB foot as they are also useless against most other things too!

Exploiting the fall-back also means they will beat superior cavalry with bow in a shooting match.

As you rightly point out, Superior shooters are a different kettle of fish (and I used 4 of them in my Pseudo-swarm Dom Roms) but not many armies get superior shooters. Maybe increasing the effectiveness of foot Bw/XB vs skirmishers (however you achieve it) is therefore the tweak that might fix a lot of issues that on the surface appear to be "swarm" or "LH" based ?

There's a lot of superior mounted bow troops, cavalry and light horse. There's few foot bow who are superior, whilst a lot are average or poor. Perhaps the distribution of superior/average/poor in the lists is skewed too far to average and poor for foot bows.

[david53]

I don't think its really to do with numbers of BGs, its more about the very limited number of credible counters there are to deal with massed shooting skirmisher units?

If that is the case then why is fiddling with the number of BGs going to do anything to help?

From what I read in my youth bow armed light horse were difficult to deal with and the solution adopted by many armies were foot bow or crossbow. I have found that shooty light horse really don't like facing large amounts of foot bow. Perhaps you should try Achaemenid Persian or Christian Nubian and then watch those horsey types squirm.

The Byzantine and Assyrian mixed foot are also pretty good against light horse.

There was me thinking one of the biggest empires was founded by those nasty horse rifding bow firing Mongols who managed to defeat more people than i can be bothered to write here. The major problum is not the size of armies but back again to how you can't deal with LH.

BTW I'll be taking those nasty Mongols to the Challange and Britcon just in case you want to come and get even with a LH user? Strangly they might be more historical than some armies taken.

[david53]

I'm not really one of those advocating a BG-based solution (although I'm not sure what I am advocating really!) however I do feel vaguely uneasy that foot bow/XB do not appear to really be a counter to LH or LF in the game, whilst as you say, they perhaps were in real life.

In my experience the ability of LH/LF to fall back out of range and recover cohesion, and their ability to concentrate fire means they tend to come off better in a shooting match against average foot shooters - which really limits the employment of average protected bow/XB foot as they are also useless against most other things too!

As you rightly point out, Superior shooters are a different kettle of fish (and I used 4 of them in my Pseudo-swarm Dom Roms) but not many armies get superior shooters. Maybe increasing the effectiveness of foot Bw/XB vs skirmishers (however you achieve it) is therefore the tweak that might fix a lot of issues that on the surface appear to be "swarm" or "LH" based ?

I have found that decent sized BGs of average bow and crossbow can hurt light troops and while the lights can run and recover if they do then they have given up ground and used the attention of a commander who may be more use elsewhere. When I used Early Libyans with 32 bases of unprotected MF bow they were very effective against shooty light horse.

If you want a rules tweak to really hurt skirmishers then give non skirmishers shot only by skirmishers a +1 on their CT and watch the skirmishe players squirm.

The fundamental problem is that there are playeras who will play 'not to lose' regardless of the ruleset and if you play such a player in any game you end up with a very dull game.

One counter to this would be to score double for inflicting AP and normal for keeping your AP intact. That way players who are out for 'not losing' would do even worse in comps than they do now but in the car on the way home they woukld still be able to claim not to have lost so I suspect that would nto make any difference either.

I think its a check that you think people using LH go for a draw I have played many players with Heavy foot that have played for a draw from the very begining I never moan about that apart from now, I for one am so glad that unlike other rule sets FOG is'nt changed every week.

If I play a foot army I have a plan for that if i play a LH army I have a plan for that if I play a Cavalry army once again a plan. I have found in fog having plans against a large number of armies you might face does wonders, and no none are dull games.


This arguement gets dragged out every 6 months or so TBH there are people who play FOG who would love to get rid of LH altogether okey then after we get rid of them can we get rid of 4 base drilled medium foot please as well. While were at it lets change deployment to 240 paces from the centre line as well for a quicker game.

[david53]

The fundamental problem is that there are playeras who will play 'not to lose' regardless of the ruleset and if you play such a player in any game you end up with a very dull game.

I agree, this is the problem, the "unbreakable" skirmish army is just the tactic that seems to typify this approach in FOG.

Which unbreakable army would that be? not like the unbreakable Spartan army. Who is it that goes to events to lose I go to win or whats the point of playing?

[nikgaukroger]

I think its a check that you think people using LH go for a draw I have played many players with Heavy foot that have played for a draw from the very begining I never moan about that apart from now, I for one am so glad that unlike other rule sets FOG is'nt changed every week.

"Some" is not all.

The tendancy to react to an issue raised by saying "but player X with army Y in competition Z didn't do that/did blah" does not help asses potential problems as these cases are never taken in context or analysed to see how common thye are.*

Some do use large numbers of BGs as an insurance that they will not lose - heck, I think I try and play to win but I'll certainly take the opportunity to bulk out my BG numbers if possible as a way of making the army harder to break.

It is a reality of FoG and can be a problem - it isn't, IMO, a game breaker but it can dent enjoyment (as Graham Briggs pointed out).




* Although Tim does whinge overly about LH - hippotoxatophobia is a harsh mistress

[philqw78]

* Although Tim does whinge overly about LH - hippotoxatophobia is a harsh mistress

Why do hippotoxatophobics make love under water?

[kevinj]

Who is it that goes to events to lose I go to win or whats the point of playing?

I agree with you, but some people do seem to have the mindset that their first priority is not to lose, rather than to try to win. At the risk of drawing a load of abuse, think Arsenal under George Graham! With people like that, it doesn't matter what ruleset you play, it's not going to be an enjoyable game.

[ethan]

I think its a check that you think people using LH go for a draw I have played many players with Heavy foot that have played for a draw from the very begining I never moan about that apart from now, I for one am so glad that unlike other rule sets FOG is'nt changed every week.

I certainly don't wan the rules changed every week. I actually think LH are much more interesting in FoG than elsewhere and I also think there are counters available. That said I don't think the game is wholly without issues.

I agree, that people who simply don't want to lose and play that way are always a problem, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier to do. If there are changes available that can make this more difficult without unduly damaging the game otherwise....

When I asked if the authors would give some nod to using the 13 max attrition points at 800 it was to give some cover to tournament organizers to try it out. It is a lot easier to say "we are going to give this a shot, the authors of the rules think it might be a useufl tournament rule in the long run." Otherwise, you get "Ethan just hates swarms so he went nutty and did this.

[david53]

When I asked if the authors would give some nod to using the 13 max attrition points at 800 it was to give some cover to tournament organizers to try it out. It is a lot easier to say "we are going to give this a shot, the authors of the rules think it might be a useufl tournament rule in the long run." Otherwise, you get "Ethan just hates swarms so he went nutty and did this.

You see I would agree with you if that would please some people but looking back on this thread its not the size of the BG's that count for them.
Look at the army I'm going to take to Challange/Britcon Mongol I'd bet a pint of warm beer that most if not all the armies I face at both events will have more BGs than mine. But its the fact or nerve I have off trying to take a historical army that will upset some people. An army I have researched as much as I can and yet cause it has LH I will be accused of going for a draw?.

[hammy]

Look at the army I'm going to take to Challange/Britcon Mongol I'd bet a pint of warm beer that most if not all the armies I face at both events will have more BGs than mine. But its the fact or nerve I have off trying to take a historical army that will upset some people. An army I have researched as much as I can and yet cause it has LH I will be accused of going for a draw?.

Only if you play Tim