Better armour PoA

[Strategos69]

I think that Richard makes a good point here and it recalls me to the situation where shooting and melee should be treated differently. Going to my old example, we have Gaesati (protected), Gallic warband (protected), Lybian phalanx (protected) and Roman principes (let's say armoured). From what I have read in the sources I would say that Gaesati could be perfectly protected as they suffer both in close combat and shooting, and they did suffer more from shooting than the rest of Gallic warband in Telamon (being naked was not such a good idea!). Therefore the clasification of both troops as the same types seems wrong to me. Then I haven't read accounts of phalanxes suffering from shooting more than Romans or something similar, but it is true that in prolonged combats Romans were ahead most of the times so the extra PoA seems right to me.

Thus, thorugh this example I see that some protected troops should remain as they are. Some protected should be classified as armoured at least for shooting purposes. Some other troops should be considered armoured for shooting purposes but not close combat too. How do you solve it? There is no need to change the rules but the classification of the troops, and not all of them, but only the ones that seem to cause trouble.

[philqw78]

There is no need to change the rules but the classification of the troops, and not all of them, but only the ones that seem to cause trouble.

No need to change the rules when adding 2 more armour classes, at least, and changing all the point values to fit.

[Strategos69]

There is no need to change the rules but the classification of the troops, and not all of them, but only the ones that seem to cause trouble.

No need to change the rules when adding 2 more armour classes, at least, and changing all the point values to fit.

This proposal does not change game mechanics, but classification of troops. Well, sometimes it seems that we have to change rules to make army lists fit instead of thinking otherwise when the specific problems are the classifications in the army lists. Complaints are focused on how some troops worked historically and are useless in this game system. It will be necessary to add these new types, but only a few troops will be adjusted. I consider that a minor change compared to, for example, how rerolls work or creating specific aspects that could be dealt better with rules in specific army lists. Some of the solutions given are really sophisticated. I would rather keep things simple and create the categories that are missing.

[NickW]

Consider 4 Average LH bow shooting at 6 HF Spearmen.

If the Spearmen are Protected there is a 1 in 4 chance of them needing to take a CT.

If the Spearmen are Armoured there is a 1 in 9 chance of them needing to take a CT.

Should Armoured Spearmen be more than twice as resistant to shooting?

Well, with the concept I proposed above, the chance of hitting protected spearmen would reduce to 43% from 50% compared to 33% for armoured.

[shadowdragon]

There is no need to change the rules but the classification of the troops, and not all of them, but only the ones that seem to cause trouble.

No need to change the rules when adding 2 more armour classes, at least, and changing all the point values to fit.

This proposal does not change game mechanics, but classification of troops. Well, sometimes it seems that we have to change rules to make army lists fit instead of thinking otherwise when the specific problems are the classifications in the army lists. Complaints are focused on how some troops worked historically and are useless in this game system. It will be necessary to add these new types, but only a few troops will be adjusted. I consider that a minor change compared to, for example, how rerolls work or creating specific aspects that could be dealt better with rules in specific army lists. Some of the solutions given are really sophisticated. I would rather keep things simple and create the categories that are missing.

It might be a simple change philosophically but not practically as a reclassification means the re-issuing of all those supplements.

I'll give you my personal criterion for "cost/effectiveness" of changes....the cost is a real cost - dollars or pounds or euros. After having spent a good deal of coin to buy all of those supplements I DO NOT want to have to repurchase a good number of - and maybe all - supplements.

I'll be honest, the "valued added" for adjusting armour classes is waaaay down the list compared to issues like the ability of skirmikshers to skeedadle out of trouble. Look at all the after action reports and various posts on the slitherine forum. There are lots of posts about LH / LF and hardly anything that's a "oh damn, I got screwed in that game because of the armour POA in melee".

Yes, "armour" counts in all melee combats, but "superior" counts almost all the time - impact, shooting, melee, CMT, CT.... and no one's complaining about "superior" - which by the way costs about the same as being "armoured".

...but here we are 8 pages of discussion down the road.

End of rant....whcih wasn't necessary because I trust the authors to do what's sensible. (Sorry, Phil....there's that word "sensible" again.)

[philqw78]

(Sorry, Phil....there's that word "sensible" again.)

You used it so I assumed it wasn't

[shadowdragon]

(Sorry, Phil....there's that word "sensible" again.)

You used it so I assumed it wasn't

And what the heck are you doing up so late?

[philqw78]

And what the heck are you doing up so late?

Drinking and putting people like you to right

[shadowdragon]

And what the heck are you doing up so late?

Drinking and putting people like you to right

If you need to do the former to achieve the latter then - trust me on this - you can't drink enough and I've known some - mostly Brits come to think of it - who could put Bacchus to shame.

[philqw78]

[and I've known some - mostly Brits come to think of it - who could put Bacchus to shame.

My little brother

[Strategos69]

It might be a simple change philosophically but not practically as a reclassification means the re-issuing of all those supplements.

Is this section about improving the game?

All supplements have small errors but people do not run to buy the new amended ones. They just check in the Internet the small changes and apply them. This whole discussion is about small changes in some units that have not been classified properly in the lists and rather than thinking that we should be rerolling the hits with the lower number or the bigger (or whatever) or using armour as quality but only for one roll whereas in others is the other way round seems to me complicating the game A LOT. I already have problems to convince people to try the game, I don't want to think how it would be if it is still more complicated. So, yes, the problem regarding this subject is the classification of some troops in the books, The mechanism that makes you get a PoA if you have more armour seems right to me, the fact that some less armoured troops suffer more from shooting is also right to me and it is just that armoured troops get way too many advantages compared to protected in both shooting and close combat when that was not the case historically.

[shadowdragon]

Is this section about improving the game?

Yes, but I believe "cost / effectiveness" is a part of that discussion - even if we disagree on how to measure either cost or effectiveness. If we can have the same effect for one small change in a POA table that's better than 50 small changes in army lists, but both are preferable to a complicated new mechanism in the rules.

All supplements have small errors but people do not run to buy the new amended ones. They just check in the Internet the small changes and apply them.

That would depend on how many errors / changes. What you say applies to a few pages of amendments. It would not be so with large volumes of amendments - I just don't want to see FoG go the way of DBM.

I already have problems to convince people to try the game, I don't want to think how it would be if it is still more complicated.

No argument there. Neither was I arguing for a more complicated rule for "armour". I actually think the problem is more the fragility of spearmen and that, in the end, melee matters more than impact. So, if you're not an armoured spearmen you're a speed bump.

Sorry you can't convince people to play. You're welcome to a game here.

[dave_r]

Sorry you can't convince people to play. You're welcome to a game here.

Who wants to play in Hades

Seriously, if people won't play it is unlikely that a few minor amendments will make them change their minds. It is no good trying to play something they don't like.

[shadowdragon]

Sorry you can't convince people to play. You're welcome to a game here.

Who wants to play in Hades

Seriously, if people won't play it is unlikely that a few minor amendments will make them change their minds. It is no good trying to play something they don't like.

Dave is "not wrong".

[shadowdragon]

I still think that any discussion on "armour" versus "protected" should include "superior" versus "average" since the point cost is the same. So any adjustment on armour effectiveness or increase to points for armour points has to the point value for superior.

Armour has an advantage when shot at or in melee while superior is all-round useful.

So what would you prefer? Armoured average spearmen or Protected superior spearmen.

A sample calculation for the situation of 8 spearmen shot at by 8 average bows in 2 ranks. The spearmen have an IC in range. Only one round is considered.

Case A: the spearmen are average protected
Chance of losing a base = 19%
Chance of losing cohesion = 15%

Case B: the spearmen are average armoured
Chance of losing a base = 7.3%
Chance of losing cohesion = 6.4%

Case C: the spearmen are average protected
Chance of losing a base = 19%
Chance of losing cohesion = 8.7%

That’s not an unexpected result. The loss of cohesion is about the same for upgrading armour versus upgrading morale, but the superior protected suffer attrition the same as average protected.

I haven’t done calculations for melee but it’s probably closer to a 50-50 result for armour versus superior. Plus superior gets advantages for CMT’s, any CT and at impact, which would balance out the disadvantage of attrition due to shooting – well, unless your facing Dave and his shooty LH hordes or a bunch of superior Christian Nubian archers.

[ethan]

I haven’t done calculations for melee but it’s probably closer to a 50-50 result for armour versus superior.

Actually it isn't close to 50-50, in melee the armour is worth a fair amount more than the re-roll. The superiors have an advantage in impact.

A good rule of thumb is that any advantage in melee/impact (superior vs. average or a poa) changes a 50-50 combat into something about like 50% win, 25% draw, 25% lose. Obviously, the exact factors, number of dice, etc matter but roughly that is the outcome.

I did a sim for 2 BGs of Chariots/Knights fighting one super, the other average and the super wins 53%, average wins 28%, draw 18% for instance.

[Strategos69]

Seriously, if people won't play it is unlikely that a few minor amendments will make them change their minds. It is no good trying to play something they don't like.

I don't think changes will make them play. I was sugesting that making the game too complex will make me explain the rules for so long that by the time I am done explaining they will be done with the game forever. The reason of this argument is changing the armour rules in such a way that it implies rerolling, or something more drastic. I think that the mechanism is good as it is now (better armour, one PoA) and it only has some minor problems with some lists. If we take the lists as a given, then the rules, trying to be generic, will be a succession of special features only applicable in a few circumstances (like the PoA for impact foot that is heavy foot and undrilled I have seen in another post, when it would be easier to define two different troop types).

In my view most of the troops will remain as they are and only for a few we can identify looking at historical matchs up we can split the armour into two categories, one for combat and another for shooting. And I would not even change the points (what would be the change, half point?). You got a free upgrade or downgrade.

[Strategos69]

Yes, but I believe "cost / effectiveness" is a part of that discussion - even if we disagree on how to measure either cost or effectiveness. If we can have the same effect for one small change in a POA table that's better than 50 small changes in army lists, but both are preferable to a complicated new mechanism in the rules.

My point here is that there are not that many cases that should be changed and if Army books are reprinted the new ones can have all the amendments. I think we are getting army lists out of question when people are really questioning that. The armour PoA measures quite well when a unit had more standing power (I would say even regardless of the armour they wore). Then the problem is when a unit is clasified that way when it really did not have that standing power when facing historically a theoretically less protected unit. The same can be said for shooting. Other troops have been classified in how they performed in close combat despite how they performed against shooting.

I can't see the costs you are implying as I can't see that that many troops need a reform. Another question is some other features of the lists...

[madaxeman]

Changing just two lines in the shooting POAs table, so that 2-rank Prot Cv didn't create a + when shot at, and to include Protected foot in the "shooting at armoured foot" -1 POA would probably make a big difference both to the viability of protected troops and to the prevalence of LF and LH shooters.

Even extending the "armoured target" -1 POA to protected HF only would be handy (as MF can catch LF and LH sometimes as it stands, but HF are sitting ducks).

[hammy]

Changing just two lines in the shooting POAs table, so that 2-rank Prot Cv didn't create a + when shot at, and to include Protected foot in the "shooting at armoured foot" -1 POA would probably make a big difference both to the viability of protected troops and to the prevalence of LF and LH shooters.

Even extending the "armoured target" -1 POA to protected HF only would be handy (as MF can catch LF and LH sometimes as it stands, but HF are sitting ducks).

It would but it doesn't seem to me to be reasonable. IMO armoured troops should be less vulnerable to missile fire from ligher weapons.

The simple 'fix' to reduce the effectiveness of skimisher shooting is to give non skimishers a +1 on their CT when shot at entirely by skimishers.