Damn Light Horse again

[azrael86]

How long before everyone took Heavy Foot armies and how exciting would that be with no proper movement? since most armies can take easily three foot of Heavy foot spears ect.

I'm not advocating every comp should be on a 5 x 4 table or even a 5 x 3 table.

But wouldn't it be fun if at least one was so we could see how it went? Try something different?

I tried 350 points on 3 x 2 table (I think?) - in 25mm - it was great fun!

The point is not so much the width of the table, as the time taken to cross it. So how about changing the first bound to address this instead (altering deployment zones is problematic for those armies that can be all LH but don't have to be).

If the first moving player has HF in the central sector(middle 4'), and the enemy has no heavy battle troops in the equivalent area (what constitutes heavy battle troops would need discussion - definitely HF, El, Kn, HCh, Ct, BWg, and superior MF or Cv) they can make an immediate double move straight forward (with one shift) without a general: before making their normal move. This would mean after move 1, instead of being still 32MU from the enemy baseline they would be 26.

Smaller tabels sounds like a vote for the French Ordonnance, who seem to do OK as it is.

[hazelbark]

[quote="jlopez]
Initally I thought it might have something to do with the recession but FOW competitions are well attended and increasing in numbers. I think Benos has made a fair point about FOG's lack of dynamism compared to other rulesets. ...to then spend three to four hours doing not an awful lot. Increasingly the veterans are also coming to the conclusion that they have better things to do with their time. I for one stopped playing FOG after my first FOW competition when I realised how much more fun it was to play than FOG which isn't bad when you consider I got hammered in every single game.
[/quote]

I don't blame people for playing what they enjoy. I have friends that love to play the WAB version of WW I trench warfare. THey love the shoving lots of figures in and pulling lots of figures off. THat is not for me.

It will be interesting if FOG R which i have heard a rumor has a lot more shooting base removal is viewed as more dynamic.

Personally I have found that people that flaff about, will do so regardless of rules. FoW seems to still be what the cool kids play.

Also i find FoG plenty interesting and dynamic.

[dave_r]

Initally I thought it might have something to do with the recession but FOW competitions are well attended and increasing in numbers. I think Benos has made a fair point about FOG's lack of dynamism compared to other rulesets. Most new entrants to the hobby refuse point blank to spend significant amounts of time and money painting a large army to then spend three to four hours doing not an awful lot. Increasingly the veterans are also coming to the conclusion that they have better things to do with their time. I for one stopped playing FOG after my first FOW competition when I realised how much more fun it was to play than FOG which isn't bad when you consider I got hammered in every single game.

Thanks for the considered response, it is interesting.

From the UK perpsective, then FoW has been around for a long time, whilst I can't speak for the national numbers, certainly at the club FoW is seemingly on the decline, with the regular FoW players switching to FoG. This has largely been down to issues with the production of books and associated cost. We have however, had many new players interested in both FoG and FoW. All seem interested, able and committed to spending large amounts on figures and rulebooks (in both rule systems)

From the club perspective FoG and FoW have really been conducive to vastly increased numbers. Which is good.

To be honest, apart from a couple of notable exceptions, then largely the Spanish don't travel so I wouldn't be that worried about that. Although, I can't understand how players are willing to pay for a FoW army which are so much more expensive than a FoG army (especially with the current Euro values)

I suspect that if you try something and give up after the first go then it isn't a problem with the gaming system. Again, I would put forward the view that if you can't deal with Light Horse armies then you need to try harder and not simply take the easy choice and blame the rules. Personally, even when playing against LH armies with non-LH armies I don't have a problem and still enjoy the game. There are different challenges to be had, for certain, but that is why I enjoy wargaming.

I happen to play both FoG and FoW and can't see for the life of me why they are mutually exclusive.

[jlopez]

Initally I thought it might have something to do with the recession but FOW competitions are well attended and increasing in numbers. I think Benos has made a fair point about FOG's lack of dynamism compared to other rulesets. Most new entrants to the hobby refuse point blank to spend significant amounts of time and money painting a large army to then spend three to four hours doing not an awful lot. Increasingly the veterans are also coming to the conclusion that they have better things to do with their time. I for one stopped playing FOG after my first FOW competition when I realised how much more fun it was to play than FOG which isn't bad when you consider I got hammered in every single game.

Thanks for the considered response, it is interesting.

From the UK perpsective, then FoW has been around for a long time, whilst I can't speak for the national numbers, certainly at the club FoW is seemingly on the decline, with the regular FoW players switching to FoG. This has largely been down to issues with the production of books and associated cost. We have however, had many new players interested in both FoG and FoW. All seem interested, able and committed to spending large amounts on figures and rulebooks (in both rule systems)

From the club perspective FoG and FoW have really been conducive to vastly increased numbers. Which is good.

To be honest, apart from a couple of notable exceptions, then largely the Spanish don't travel so I wouldn't be that worried about that. Although, I can't understand how players are willing to pay for a FoW army which are so much more expensive than a FoG army (especially with the current Euro values)

I suspect that if you try something and give up after the first go then it isn't a problem with the gaming system. Again, I would put forward the view that if you can't deal with Light Horse armies then you need to try harder and not simply take the easy choice and blame the rules. Personally, even when playing against LH armies with non-LH armies I don't have a problem and still enjoy the game. There are different challenges to be had, for certain, but that is why I enjoy wargaming.

I happen to play both FoG and FoW and can't see for the life of me why they are mutually exclusive.

I think you misread my previous post: I didn't give up on FOG after one game, I gave up on FOG after my first FOW competition.

I've used just about every kind of army in FOG competitions (superior, poor, KN, CV/LH, HF, Longbow) and I've won at least one with every type of army except HF armies. The LH armies have by far given me the most tournament wins and also made for the least interesting games for both myself and my opponents. I've given up on the rules after two years of playing almost exclusively at tournaments (around 20 or so including Britcon last year) so I reckon I've given the rules a fairly good testing.

Julian

[jlopez]

[quote="jlopez]
Initally I thought it might have something to do with the recession but FOW competitions are well attended and increasing in numbers. I think Benos has made a fair point about FOG's lack of dynamism compared to other rulesets. ...to then spend three to four hours doing not an awful lot. Increasingly the veterans are also coming to the conclusion that they have better things to do with their time. I for one stopped playing FOG after my first FOW competition when I realised how much more fun it was to play than FOG which isn't bad when you consider I got hammered in every single game.

I don't blame people for playing what they enjoy. I have friends that love to play the WAB version of WW I trench warfare. THey love the shoving lots of figures in and pulling lots of figures off. THat is not for me.

It will be interesting if FOG R which i have heard a rumor has a lot more shooting base removal is viewed as more dynamic.

Personally I have found that people that flaff about, will do so regardless of rules. FoW seems to still be what the cool kids play.

Also i find FoG plenty interesting and dynamic.[/quote][/quote]

Interesting and dynamic? Try this:

After both players have deployed, mark on the table the areas where BGs can move to in 8 turns. You end up with lots of cones marked on the table where your BGs can operate and try to influence the course of the battle. If you're commanding a HF army you'll soon come to the conclusion half your army may aswell not be there for what's it's going to achieve while a Cv/LH army will pretty much be able to do what it wants where it wants. It might be dynamic for some armies but I find it utterly predictable.

I did that with one player who kept fielding Early Successors with lots of Galatians and who couldn't understand why he wasn't getting anywhere in competitions. Haven't seen him at a FOG competition since.

Julian

[MatteoPasi]

I've used just about every kind of army in FOG competitions (superior, poor, KN, CV/LH, HF, Longbow) and I've won at least one with every type of army except HF armies. The LH armies have by far given me the most tournament wins and also made for the least interesting games for both myself and my opponents. I've given up on the rules after two years of playing almost exclusively at tournaments (around 20 or so including Britcon last year) so I reckon I've given the rules a fairly good testing.

Julian

Lopez is a wery good players, I hope I can play with him again

LH armies are not so nice to play with or versus and are quite strong but HIMO the real problem is that the kind of armies that can easily beat them will lose with everyone else so no one use them (try with lots of MF Xbow).

My personal opinion is that something must corrected, ex: make them have a CMT before move after evading

Matteo

[marioslaz]

I think you misread my previous post: I didn't give up on FOG after one game, I gave up on FOG after my first FOW competition.

In our club we also gave up on FOG after many games but for other reasons. Anyway, I'm still interested to FOG because we should host a convention in October and we would want a FOG tournament in our convention. My first concern about FOG is enough people enjoy these rules to support a tournament of ancient era, which is my favorite era for wargame. I still read this forum because very likely I will referee our tournament. In relation to what I read, many players are not satisfied with the present system and without a good idea to improve actual system, players number will lower.

[dave_r]

In relation to what I read, many players are not satisfied with the present system and without a good idea to improve actual system, players number will lower.

What this basically boils down to is players stating "I can't kill Light Horse with my army, therefore the rules need to change".

That has nothing to do with the rules and more to do with the player. If Light Horse are devalued then what happens next? Pike are too hard frontally, so they should be downpowered as well?

It is simply ridiculous.

I agree with the change to count BG's fleeing of table as 2AP. No further changes are necessary.

[benos]

Ok this problem is not unique to FOG

IIRC DBM had some similar issues (remeber which armies dominted there?) and WAB as well. one of my first WAB competition games was Skythians vs Hoplites.
very boring for both players, despite our best efforts. It seems to be a problem on all ancients sets as the differing styles of army doctrine do not match up.

however there does seem to be a lot of complaining and very little in the way of contructive options or ideas, (most of those have been shot down by tourney players on one side or the other) now I am not likely to be winning many FOG tournies , but dothey all have to be 800 points on 6' by 4' tables? (Hammy at least has run smaller table sizes i know) rather than either complain the system is broken how about trying a variation (scenarios? smaller tables , themes (storm of arrows ?) )
or alternatively if you think the system isn't broken suggest how to beat a passably well played nomad army? if the rules are not a problem it should be very achievable (persians and macedonians both beat nomad armies so perhaps with them?)
At the end of the day part of the problem in my view may be the "what is the best army" view (which i have seen on the WAB oards too, and put me off them for a long time...the endless compalining and alchemical seeking the best army was putting me off, avoiding silly choices perhaps but simply getting a "perfect army" is not conducive to a good game) and the internet forums allowing the discussion (I have played d & d for a long time, until about 8 years ago it was a lot more interesting before the system was broken down to find the loopholes and exploitations)

so FOG is not alone in having flaws, but perhaps some constructive ideas may reduce them. but don't shoot them down until they have been tried perhaps.

Ben

[madaxeman]

however there does seem to be a lot of complaining and very little in the way of contructive options or ideas, (most of those have been shot down by tourney players on one side or the other)

I think most of the ideas are being shot down by archers on horseback.

[marioslaz]

In relation to what I read, many players are not satisfied with the present system and without a good idea to improve actual system, players number will lower

What this basically boils down to is players stating "I can't kill Light Horse with my army, therefore the rules need to change".

That has nothing to do with the rules and more to do with the player. If Light Horse are devalued then what happens next? Pike are too hard frontally, so they should be downpowered as well?

It is simply ridiculous.

I agree with the change to count BG's fleeing of table as 2AP. No further changes are necessary.

You can try to deride my post, but you will not get to offend me (I found aggressive people boring and sometime rather childish, they never succeed to offend me) and definitely you don't resolve the problem. We found a lot of problems with FOG, related to the mechanic of play which doesn't satisfy us, but this is a problem for us, who love historical simulation. The problem many players seem to have with FOG is related to LH, but not because they cannot catch'em, simply because there is no game at all. I can imagine it's very frustrating making a lot of kilometers to participate to a tournament, and then not to play a game or two because you get bad coupling. There should be a system to let to infantry army owners a tactic to play against a cavalry army. Then, player who shows better game plan will win, but anyway there will have been a match where both players could do something. I read some posts where someone proposed ideas to resolve this impasse, but nobody has put any of these ideas in practice, for what I know. Meanwhile, some people bore. You can deride them, but when you'll find to play always with the same 2 or 3 friends you'll still have the will to make irony?

[dave_r]

I think most of the ideas are being shot down by archers on horseback.

Only the crap ones.

[madaxeman]

In relation to what I read, many players are not satisfied with the present system and without a good idea to improve actual system, players number will lower.

What this basically boils down to is players stating "I can't kill Light Horse with my army, therefore the rules need to change".

That has nothing to do with the rules and more to do with the player. If Light Horse are devalued then what happens next? Pike are too hard frontally, so they should be downpowered as well?

It is simply ridiculous.

I agree with the change to count BG's fleeing of table as 2AP. No further changes are necessary.

What about the "why are MF bows not seen on table when this troop type was common historically?" Any suggestions on fixing that one ?

[dave_r]

What about the "why are MF bows not seen on table when this troop type was common historically?"

And here was me thinking that I was sick of the sight of Classical Indian, English Longbow and Christian Nubian armies...

Any suggestions on fixing that one?

Another crap idea disposed of.

[benos]

Ok Dave, how do you deal with light horse (using macedonians or persians for example since they historically should get to do so)?

Ben

[dave_r]

I have already answered this on another thread. However, as you say Achamaenid Persians are useful against Light Horse. They have Armoured Bow armed Immortals and the Sparabara are useful too. Alex Mac are very capable of dealing with Light Horse armies.

Lydian is my personal favourite for dealing with Light Horse, but Scots Common do the job very well by covering the table with huge O/S BG's.

Dominate Romans are also exceptionally potent against Light Horse with the mix of Drilled MF and skrimishers of their own.

Christian Nubian, Classical Indian, English Longbow armies and French Ordonnance all have the toys to deal with LH (i.e. Drilled Longbow MF or massed MF Bow)

Anglo Irish with Longbow and Heavy Weapon BG's are more than capable.

Graham Briggs reckons Merovingian Frankish with loads of Drilled Cavalry, Lt Spear, Swordsmen are very good - and I agree with him.

Pretty much any army in Empires of the Dragon with Armoured Bow armed MF will do well.

Any army with good quality (i.e. Drilled) Cavalry and some LH are more than capable of dealing with LH.

Of course LH facing LH is always a bit scary.

That's only about 40 armies I have mentioned - any more needed?

[hazelbark]

I think you misread my previous post: I didn't give up on FOG after one game, I gave up on FOG after my first FOW competition.

THen why are you here?

[hazelbark]

Ok Dave, how do you deal with light horse (using macedonians or persians for example since they historically should get to do so)?

Let me add to Dave's list almost any army with drilled MF in numbers. Dailami armoured superior are easy. But the Chinese armies with protected average 2nd rank bow or XB. They push LH all over the board.

LH have to rely on two basic tactics.
1) enough fire that a unit or units fail their CT .
2) geting around a flank or whole in the line.

SO take your macedonians.
1) You pike can thin to 3 ranks and probably even 2.
2) don't deply in the center with both flanks exposed. Deploy off center.

The off center deploy is an easy counter the LH. If they come at the flank you are wieghted on, they probably can't punch through and they risk being caught. Then pin wheel your army to the short edge of the board.

3) do't rush your mounted out unsupported. use the moutted to suport the infantry Too many macedonians get their LH into a LH fight. WHy?

[Three]

Ok Dave, how do you deal with light horse (using macedonians or persians for example since they historically should get to do so)?

Let me add to Dave's list almost any army with drilled MF in numbers. Dailami armoured superior are easy. But the Chinese armies with protected average 2nd rank bow or XB. They push LH all over the board.

LH have to rely on two basic tactics.
1) enough fire that a unit or units fail their CT .
2) geting around a flank or whole in the line.

SO take your macedonians.
1) You pike can thin to 3 ranks and probably even 2.
2) don't deply in the center with both flanks exposed. Deploy off center.

The off center deploy is an easy counter the LH. If they come at the flank you are wieghted on, they probably can't punch through and they risk being caught. Then pin wheel your army to the short edge of the board.

3) do't rush your mounted out unsupported. use the moutted to suport the infantry Too many macedonians get their LH into a LH fight. WHy?

I'm asking this because I don't know, but the bit about deploying your pikes only two ranks deep, did the Macedonians ever do this historically ?

[dave_r]

How many times did Macedonians face Light Horse armies?

What were their tactics when they did historically?

It is difficult to ask for historical tactics when they never faced a proper Skythian army.