Slitherine

I don't find pikes to be overly effective either. The medieval period has a number of counters - the large numbers of Superior, Armoured, Heavy weapons notably, down at impact then even in melee often with a superior vs. average. Superior Pikes are extremely tough for sure, but then at 32AP a file are basically the most expensive foot file in the game (barring some Varangian guard elites).

I would like to see the introduction of undrilled (and possily unprotected) pike to cover some of deeper formations that were Pk(I) in DBM, such as Sumerians and Scots.

ethan wrote: I would like to see the introduction of undrilled (and possily unprotected) pike to cover some of deeper formations that were Pk(I) in DBM, such as Sumerians and Scots.

Except the DBM Pk(I) classification was a load of tosh for these as Sumerians and Scots did not fight in formations that were deeper - there is a good reason we made them Spearmen in FoG rather than pikemen ...

TimSnoddy wrote:I recently played in a medieval tournament. Every army fielded was pike or light horse based.

That's highly surprising, although it depends quite what you mean by 'LH based'. If you look at the recent Britcon results, then of 30 there were only five pike armies (plus 2 Fr Ordonnance); nine LH/Cav/Kn types, and quite a lot of either combined arms or with a base of MF, either MF shooters (HYW, Nubian) or almughavars(albeit spread around three different lists).

And while one Swiss army finished 3rd, the other pike armies ended up 11, 12, 28 and 29.

It sounds as though you have some sort of arms race, possibly due to a lot of players choosing Swiss? If you know you will face superior pike then the two answers are run away or join them.

olivier wrote:My suggestions about the game:

* Troops

- Undrilled cost to much as protected for the infantry.
- Infantry LS is too cheap or must be the same as cavalry one.
- LF poor are too cheap.
- Fortified camp cost too much as Bwg

Commanders

- Death of commanders oblige test in command radius
- FC have half the bonus of the IC
- Death of a CinC must give a general -1 to CT has in ancient time you fight for the great man and not for a cause

Movement

- Pike make CMT as other Undrilled even if drilled
- clarify moving through friendly troops, specially with LF.
- no more teleport with interpenetrations

Impact phase

- you must make a CT after an evade move ( give you a -1 if your are already fragged as testing for more than 1 reason)

Combat mechanism[/b][/u]

- Give a ++ at lancer charging or don't give a + for LS against charging Lancers


Elephant and camel

- Give Bw capabilities on certain SE asian

s

I agree with these proposals and I add .

- The effect of bagage loss on the army should also be linked tothe number of BG. At the moment losing bagages in a small army is more harmful than in a large and that seems strange.
- Why not add a protected possibility for some El (to add chrome)
- Armoured Kn costs too much

Regards
Lionel

olivier wrote:My suggestions about the game:
.....Commanders

- Death of commanders oblige test in command radius
- FC have half the bonus of the IC
- Death of a CinC must give a general -1 to CT has in ancient time you fight for the great man and not for a cause

Nobody would have an IC if the test radius was 12MU, ever. What is half the IC bonus, a 6MU radius? Agree with CinC death, all CT from then on at -1.

olivier wrote:Movement

- Pike make CMT as other Undrilled even if drilled
- clarify moving through friendly troops, specially with LF.
- no more teleport with interpenetrations

I think in future all troops will CMT on 8+, I agree, as do most i believe, with the others

olivier wrote:Impact phase

- you must make a CT after an evade move ( give you a -1 if your are already fragged as testing for more than 1 reason)

CT once you decide to evade, not after. Most troops don't give a monkey's about lights so this will clear them out of the way faster if a few of them dissappear after a few evades. Rationalise it as dispersed

olivier wrote:Combat mechanism[/b][/u]

- Give a ++ at lancer charging or don't give a + for LS against charging Lancers


Elephant and camel

- Give Bw capabilities on certain SE asian

s

Also elephants severely disorder mounted in one base, did anyone use nellies and horse close together, if not disorder in 2 bases.

Foot Skirmishers should be pushed away by non skirmishers. No charge needed for the skirmishers to retreat in front of advancing close order troops.

Jilu wrote:Foot Skirmishers should be pushed away by non skirmishers. No charge needed for the skirmishers to retreat in front of advancing close order troops.

I think this makes a lot of historical sense, however i am not sure LF are over powered right now. Maybe only let HF do this.

Terrain, a lot of batles were fought with one or two flanks secured by a mountain/hills or forests/wood.
i would sugest to add wood or hills to cover a whole side edge.

jdm wrote:Field of Glory has now been in circulation for more than two years, ...

Hi,
Here below some ideas I was considering

1. Commander in chief
Today C-in-c are not different from all other subgenerals. I think that in reality they were almost always leaders of the entire army and their loss was often a turning point in the battle. I’d suggest:
a) C-in-c are in line of command even for allied generals and BG.
b) Loss of the C-in-c causes 1 attrition point to his army.

2. Skirmishers too fast
Some recent critics have sustained that skirmishing is too powerful and that it makes games indecisive. As a user of such armies I must admit some truth. My idea is that reducing their move will greatly help to balance the game.
c) LFt max move 4 MU; LH max move 6 MU.

3. Heavy foot to speed up
I found that in a 3 hrs/800 pts competition often heavy infantry gets only a marginal influence on the battle. To help them:
d) HFt max move 4 MU when outside 6 MU from enemy.

4. Interpenetration
The incredible speeding up of BG interpenetrating must be corrected. If nothing else comes out my solution would be rather drastic:
e) BG cannot interpenetrate/burst throu friendly BG(s) if with their move they are unable to clear it/them completely. In this case they stop on the near side.

5. Camps
At 24 points a fortified camp is rather expensive for what you get. I'd like to compensate:
f) Fortified camps add 1 to the routing level of the army.

6. Road
I cannot understand why roads are prevented to go over other terrain (aesthetic reasons?). I thought that easing movement in rough/difficult going was exactly their purpose. Besides my proposal will stop the trick some use to place a river and a road to limit their opponent terrain placement. So:
g) Roads can superimpose or be superimposed by other terrains (except a Coast).

Best regards
Guglielmo Marlia

Jilu wrote:Foot Skirmishers should be pushed away by non skirmishers. No charge needed for the skirmishers to retreat in front of advancing close order troops.

If this is a good idea, and it seems sensible to me if only heavy, and maybe medium foot can do this, why not let them 'push' of LH also?

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

pcelella wrote:

Jilu wrote:Foot Skirmishers should be pushed away by non skirmishers. No charge needed for the skirmishers to retreat in front of advancing close order troops.

If this is a good idea, and it seems sensible to me if only heavy, and maybe medium foot can do this, why not let them 'push' of LH also?

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

Because that is what the charge mechanism is for? This used to be a problem in DBM, but I don't see it as being a problem in FoG.

It would be murderously difficult to do without introducing the potential for grand fromage.

GuglielmoMarlia wrote: 3. Heavy foot to speed up
I found that in a 3 hrs/800 pts competition often heavy infantry gets only a marginal influence on the battle. To help them:
d) HFt max move 4 MU when outside 6 MU from enemy.

This works. Is a subtle change, that isn't draconian.

<so many things have been suggested ...

In Belgium , my friend JILU and I are ready to test . So when you will need beta testers , say so .

hazelbark wrote:

GuglielmoMarlia wrote: 3. Heavy foot to speed up
I found that in a 3 hrs/800 pts competition often heavy infantry gets only a marginal influence on the battle. To help them:
d) HFt max move 4 MU when outside 6 MU from enemy.

This works. Is a subtle change, that isn't draconian.

It is a subtle change but to be honest I can't see it making much difference. It will only change the distance moved by heavy foot who are more than 9MU from the enemy (in direction of advance) and who don't have a commander with them. Perhaps 2 MU extra in a game so IMO not worth the effort.

If you want heavy foot to be able to get across the table just make the table shallower. Why not play on a 3'6" (105cm) deep table rather than a 4' (120cm) deep one?

dave_r wrote:

pcelella wrote:

Jilu wrote:Foot Skirmishers should be pushed away by non skirmishers. No charge needed for the skirmishers to retreat in front of advancing close order troops.

If this is a good idea, and it seems sensible to me if only heavy, and maybe medium foot can do this, why not let them 'push' of LH also?

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

Because that is what the charge mechanism is for? This used to be a problem in DBM, but I don't see it as being a problem in FoG.

It would be murderously difficult to do without introducing the potential for grand fromage.

you got a whole battleline that can be stopped by one light infantry. as in reality that LF would withdraw when the line advances why would a phalanx or legion charge LF ? as the LF by essence would refuse alll combat and simply recoil to continue harrassing.
We played Magnesia, and the first thing that happens is a skirmish battle, and then the romans must break up the formation of the battleline of the legions to charge the lights before the pikes can be engaged. That feels wrong.

Jilu wrote:

dave_r wrote:

pcelella wrote: Because that is what the charge mechanism is for? This used to be a problem in DBM, but I don't see it as being a problem in FoG.

It would be murderously difficult to do without introducing the potential for grand fromage.

you got a whole battleline that can be stopped by one light infantry. as in reality that LF would withdraw when the line advances why would a phalanx or legion charge LF ? as the LF by essence would refuse alll combat and simply recoil to continue harrassing.
We played Magnesia, and the first thing that happens is a skirmish battle, and then the romans must break up the formation of the battleline of the legions to charge the lights before the pikes can be engaged. That feels wrong.

The Battleline isn't stopped though is it? - one BG charges and then the rest can march. Simple really.

Many interesting proposals here . I can hardly wait to be a beta tester with JILU and test the ideas when we will have the possibility .

Here are some ideas or points of interest :

initiative : the camp with initiative may choose either to begin placing his army first and move first or place second and move second . He might also have the possibility to redeploy, after placement, one BG of his army .

Weather: and idea ton include weather : they general who has initiative might choose instead of a terrain to have a weather effect . For exemple : rain . To keep it simple rian makes terrain muddy, so all open terrain that could be choosen - not the whole table - would be treated as mud , same as open field for simplicity sake .
Winter : all marsh terrain , lakes and rivers are frozen and considered same as open field . Same for open terrain to be placed to represent too much snow in certain areas .
I would not introduce effects on units as it will make things too difficult .
EL : Elephants were unpredictable . When an EL BG routs or autobreak, one might consider a die roll to know the exact direction of the routing EL . 1,2,3 direct to the rear . 4 on the left.5 on the right and 6 straight forward trough the ennemy .

SSW : needs fixing, but how ...there are proposals

KN : armored KN are nearly useless , needs fixing but also, HA KN are too strongh . I cannot understand why hey have 2 dice during melee . Once I was answered it is because they train young . It is the same for spartan hoplites, mongols and so on .... so why only for KN ( and EL but that I can understand as a way to represent the strenght and particularities of the EL )

KN lance : too strongh if compared to the other lancers . When I asked why did the KN lance cancel the "simple" LN +, the answer was "because arab lancers never won, never could stand a KN charge and that is why they evolved to bow cavalry" . OK , even the Byzantines feared the massed charges of the KN , but fearing an ennemy is one thing . Considering it better than all other lances is a bit too strongh . I would make the KN same as other lancers for the charge or if better lancer, just give them one die for melee as the other units .

Terrain : Unless the battle was fought in certain specific areas ( Thibet, Thrace.. ) most antique battles were fought in a relative open area with protected flanks ... So having bigger terrain on the flank might be an opition to discuss

Some battles were fought with a river in the middle . I would suggest to give the possibility to place a river across the field ( with bridges ) but to give the opponent a +2 or +3 to eliminate the terrain .

Regards

Jacques

bahdahbum wrote:Weather: and idea ton include weather : they general who has initiative might choose instead of a terrain to have a weather effect . For exemple : rain . To keep it simple rian makes terrain muddy, so all open terrain that could be choosen - not the whole table - would be treated as mud , same as open field for simplicity sake .
Winter : all marsh terrain , lakes and rivers are frozen and considered same as open field . Same for open terrain to be placed to represent too much snow in certain areas .
I would not introduce effects on units as it will make things too difficult .

so why bother?

bahdahbum wrote:EL : Elephants were unpredictable . When an EL BG routs or autobreak, one might consider a die roll to know the exact direction of the routing EL . 1,2,3 direct to the rear . 4 on the left.5 on the right and 6 straight forward trough the ennemy .

Through the enemy is surely continuing the attack, not routing.

bahdahbum wrote:KN : armored KN are nearly useless , needs fixing but also,

They are only useless after 1150. Before that they are great.

bahdahbum wrote:HA KN are too strongh . I cannot understand why hey have 2 dice during melee . Once I was answered it is because they train young . It is the same for spartan hoplites, mongols and so on .... so why only for KN ( and EL but that I can understand as a way to represent the strenght and particularities of the EL )

KN lance : too strongh if compared to the other lancers . When I asked why did the KN lance cancel the "simple" LN +, the answer was "because arab lancers never won, never could stand a KN charge and that is why they evolved to bow cavalry" . OK , even the Byzantines feared the massed charges of the KN , but fearing an ennemy is one thing . Considering it better than all other lances is a bit too strongh . I would make the KN same as other lancers for the charge or if better lancer, just give them one die for melee as the other units .

I'm sure the 2 dice and better impact capabilities are explained in the main rules.

bahdahbum wrote:[Terrain : Unless the battle was fought in certain specific areas ( Thibet, Thrace.. ) most antique battles were fought in a relative open area with protected flanks ... So having bigger terrain on the flank might be an opition to discuss

I would say that since the flanks are secure anyway , due to table edge why bother. In fact take more terrain from the table in ancient battles as they were mostly open field affairs until middle ages. And Tibet was also wide open areas, with an exciting backdrop

bahdahbum wrote:Some battles were fought with a river in the middle . I would suggest to give the possibility to place a river across the field ( with bridges ) but to give the opponent a +2 or +3 to eliminate the terrain .

This would not give a very interesting game though.

I think that a player should be able to select a transverse river (with the removal rules as now) at a cost of 600 points. Of course he can only take it as a terrain choice if he wins the PBI. That might make for a less boring game.

Weather and terrain : what I meant writing "no effetc on the units" was thirst, -1 die because of "it is too hot here", "I am freezing" , not the effect on the terrain and subsequent effect of the terrain on a unit

KN : still too strongh without real reasons ( personnal opinion of course )

EL : if they rout trought the ennemy, the ennemy will be disrupted ..;it is a case a a big elephant running mad here and there . It is not planned and incetain so funny

Terrain : even in belgium you can find much woods