Broken Rules

[fredrik]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: trying to achieve balance between what is effectively all the armies of all of recorded human history (minus the last 500 years or so) is a mirage. First priority for a historical wargame should be that historical matchups play out the way they should and that the "feel" of the game is right, from an historical perspective (I might add at this point that I believe the maneuverability of pikes should be addressed before anything else, the notion that 10.000 Macedonian sheep farmers would be able to turn 90 and move without their opponents reacting is farcical, but I digress).

The point is that whatever change you make to the rules will eventually just bring out a new super army for open competition play. At this point the consensus seems to be that HF armies are more or less useless in an open tournament, and by implementing some of what's been suggested so far LH armies will become just as useless. Remove evades, turn-and-move (far!), ridiculous bow ranges, flank march bonuses, CT modifiers for lancers, breakoffs and all the other things that make mounted troops good then HF will be the tournament tigers and everyone will play Romans - and that's not what we want either, is it?

Let's be realistic for a moment and accept that there won't be a FOG 2.0 for at least a couple of years - if ever, considering that any change to the game balance needs to be reflected in the unit costs, which in turn means that all twelve(?) army books needs to be revised, retested and republished as well. Our options are either to learn to live with the game balance as it plays today or find another game (and I challenge each and every one on this board to find me a game spanning all of history where I can win open tournaments with my Libyans!). For those interested in the first option I humbly offer these two alternatives:

1. Themes! As was discussed extensively in the latest (long) thread on balance issues and as has been proposed earlier in the thread, themes are a good way to keep tournament gaming interesting. Theme it by period, by army/unit type, by terrain type or whatever. It's simple, cheap, and much more likely to attract players than arbitrarily changing the rules mechanics. Or...

2. Build an army that can handle LH. Seriously - if you want to play competitively build a competitive army. Whatever changes are made to the game balance chances are your favorite army won't be more than average anyway, it's a natural law of competitive gaming - if your Romans become all the rage then chances are my Germans will still be crap. I don't mean to sound crass, but if your army struggles then the rational approach if you want to win games is to build an army that you know can win. Competition statistics for most armies along with example lists are available on the madaxeman site so buy an army from a list that you know has won some high profile tournament, go to a couple of events and see how you do and then start tinkering with it when you've learnt how it works.

And don't take me for an apologetic LH player now, this comes from the guy that traveled halfway across Europe to play LRR (the MANLY roman option!) at Britcon and managed to have a good time anyway, in spite of getting trashed four games out of six... I spent the rest of the summer building a horse archer army.

[ottomanmjm]

As I see it, Julian is simply saying that if an army has obviously given itself over to self-preservation by running away (whether that running away is compulsory or due to player volition) he will rule that that army is defeated.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

I wonder if the same would apply to an army that has given itself over to self preservation by sitting between two terrain pieces, or hiding behind field fortifications or portable obstacles? I thought preservation of the army was one of the marks of a good general, Pyrrhus being an obvious exception!

[mbsparta]

[quote="nikgaukroger

Nope, I'm considering the effect on both the LH and the opponents and on due consideration that a 2AP for evade will be a benefit to the game.

.................. This is as it should be!

Mike B

Why should it?[/quote]

Well, BG's that leave the table are, in essence, leaving the battle. If several Hunnic LH leave the battle, I would think the Romans would claim that as a victory or at least a step towords victory. Let them count as 2 AP. Let the battle be decided.

Mike B

[david53]

[quote="nikgaukroger

Nope, I'm considering the effect on both the LH and the opponents and on due consideration that a 2AP for evade will be a benefit to the game.

.................. This is as it should be!

Mike B

Why should it?

Well, BG's that leave the table are, in essence, leaving the battle. If several Hunnic LH leave the battle, I would think the Romans would claim that as a victory or at least a step towords victory. Let them count as 2 AP. Let the battle be decided.

Mike B[/quote]

As one of the writers stated the 1AP for evading was linked to the ability of the LH to shoot armoured troops. Doubling the AP for evades and not changing the shooting ability will force LH armies out of the game. By all means double my AP for evades but allow me to hit armoured foot on 4's.

But I feel its not the evades that matter here its the inability of HF/MF armies of catching LH troops that certain people have trouble with.

[david53]

1. Themes! As was discussed extensively in the latest (long) thread on balance issues and as has been proposed earlier in the thread, themes are a good way to keep tournament gaming interesting. Theme it by period, by army/unit type, by terrain type or whatever. It's simple, cheap, and much more likely to attract players than arbitrarily changing the rules mechanics. Or...

2. Build an army that can handle LH. Seriously - if you want to play competitively build a competitive army. Whatever changes are made to the game balance chances are your favorite army won't be more than average anyway, it's a natural law of competitive gaming - if your Romans become all the rage then chances are my Germans will still be crap. I don't mean to sound crass, but if your army struggles then the rational approach if you want to win games is to build an army that you know can win. Competition statistics for most armies along with example lists are available on the madaxeman site so buy an army from a list that you know has won some high profile tournament, go to a couple of events and see how you do and then start tinkering with it when you've learnt how it works.

And don't take me for an apologetic LH player now, this comes from the guy that traveled halfway across Europe to play LRR (the MANLY roman option!) at Britcon and managed to have a good time anyway, in spite of getting trashed four games out of six... I spent the rest of the summer building a horse archer army.

I enjoyed playing my Skythians against your manly Romans at Britcon?

I agree with your ideas above as well.

[jlopez]

As I see it, Julian is simply saying that if an army has obviously given itself over to self-preservation by running away (whether that running away is compulsory or due to player volition) he will rule that that army is defeated.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

I wonder if the same would apply to an army that has given itself over to self preservation by sitting between two terrain pieces, or hiding behind field fortifications or portable obstacles? I thought preservation of the army was one of the marks of a good general, Pyrrhus being an obvious exception!

I have no issue with armies sitting between or in terrain or behind fortifications. There is always a weak link somehwere and if there isn't you should go for it and trust to luck. Just ask Thomas Lidholm. Facing my 60 longbowmen at Britcon with Lithuanians was a challenging prospect for him to say the least. Nevertheless he went for it, played very well and the dice favoured him giving him a 24-1 in under 2 hours. While I wasn't exactly ecstatic at the result I could only admire the way he, as a general, got the best out of his army against seemingly overwhelming odds.

What I'm against and want to discourage are non-games where no or little fighting occurs and one player has no intention to fight either. No matter what the odds are there is always a chance of winning and if you go to a competition you should give it your best shot. My proposed tournament rules for Barcelona are really only aimed at two or three players at the most, none of whom are good or experienced players. I may risk annoying them like hell by forcing them to fight but I'd rather do that than have anything between eight to twelve players going home feeling like they wasted their time in at least one game and losing their opportunity for a top place.

Julian

[lawrenceg]

As I see it, Julian is simply saying that if an army has obviously given itself over to self-preservation by running away (whether that running away is compulsory or due to player volition) he will rule that that army is defeated.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

I wonder if the same would apply to an army that has given itself over to self preservation by sitting between two terrain pieces, or hiding behind field fortifications or portable obstacles? I thought preservation of the army was one of the marks of a good general, Pyrrhus being an obvious exception!

Issuing the order "Save youselves" in the face of the enemy will normally not lead to the preservation of the army.

Sitting in your fortified camp is a historical way of preserving the army, but it is quite difficult to do in FOG. In the unlikely event that the enemy can't concentrate enough shooting on one point to do damage, you just need one BG to pursue out into the open after a sacrificed enemy BG and get picked off and suddenly you don't have enough troops to cover your perimeter. And we've already established that the chance of getting two peices of terrain to hide between against a LH army is virtually nil.

[nikgaukroger]

[quote="nikgaukroger]

Nope, I'm considering the effect on both the LH and the opponents and on due consideration that a 2AP for evade will be a benefit to the game.

.................. This is as it should be!

Mike B

Why should it?[/quote][/quote][/quote]


Because it benefits the game. Simples

[nikgaukroger]

As one of the writers stated the 1AP for evading was linked to the ability of the LH to shoot armoured troops. Doubling the AP for evades and not changing the shooting ability will force LH armies out of the game.

A very silly statement indeed IMO. I'll state quite categorically that if it were 2AP for BGs fled off table it wouldn't alter my frequency of use of them at all - and I doubt it'd change how I use them either.

[lawrenceg]

I may risk annoying them like hell by forcing them to fight but I'd rather do that than have anything between eight to twelve players going home feeling like they wasted their time in at least one game and losing their opportunity for a top place.

Julian

I agree, it is extremely annoying when I lose my chance of a top place.

I'll be calling on Julian to red card anyone who looks like they might beat me.

[dave_r]

My proposed tournament rules for Barcelona are really only aimed at two or three players at the most, none of whom are good or experienced players. I may risk annoying them like hell by forcing them to fight but I'd rather do that than have anything between eight to twelve players going home feeling like they wasted their time in at least one game and losing their opportunity for a top place.

Right, so the problem isn't with the rules, but with three players. Why not just not allow them to compete?

[philqw78]

My proposed tournament rules for Barcelona are really only aimed at two or three players at the most, none of whom are good or experienced players. I may risk annoying them like hell by forcing them to fight but I'd rather do that than have anything between eight to twelve players going home feeling like they wasted their time in at least one game and losing their opportunity for a top place.

Right, so the problem isn't with the rules, but with three players. Why not just not allow them to compete?

Surely it would be better to talk to these players.

[jlopez]

My proposed tournament rules for Barcelona are really only aimed at two or three players at the most, none of whom are good or experienced players. I may risk annoying them like hell by forcing them to fight but I'd rather do that than have anything between eight to twelve players going home feeling like they wasted their time in at least one game and losing their opportunity for a top place.

Right, so the problem isn't with the rules, but with three players. Why not just not allow them to compete?

Surely it would be better to talk to these players.

It's been done and they have quite rightly pointed out they aren't doing anything wrong according to FOG or tournament rules. Can't ban them for the same reason. We even have one guy who's life ambition is to lose all games 25-0 which is all very nice unless you are one of the guys who doesn't play him. Unfortunately, I feel we have to give ourselves the tools to deal with these problems. I don't anticipate using them except in a handful of cases.

One solution that occured to me this morning was that instead of giving red cards for turning around an army and running away to avoid defeat we could simply calculate points as normal for both players and then give the victory bonus of 5 points to the guy who won the moral victory. That way one player gets the points he wants from a draw and the other is compensated for being denied the opportunity to fight it out and being master of the battlefield. Victory bonues to be allocated by the umpire on a case by case basis to avoid people taking the piss.

Julian

[david53]

[quote="nikgaukroger]

Nope, I'm considering the effect on both the LH and the opponents and on due consideration that a 2AP for evade will be a benefit to the game.

.................. This is as it should be!

Mike B

Why should it?

Because it benefits the game. Simples [/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

No it dos'nt simples

[david53]

As one of the writers stated the 1AP for evading was linked to the ability of the LH to shoot armoured troops. Doubling the AP for evades and not changing the shooting ability will force LH armies out of the game.

A very silly statement indeed IMO. I'll state quite categorically that if it were 2AP for BGs fled off table it wouldn't alter my frequency of use of them at all - and I doubt it'd change how I use them either.

Once again this whole arguement is not about the 2 points for an evade it is the evading that people dislike and the ability of both HF/MF to catch or not catch LH. If a rule change would'nt make you play LH differently whats the change for then, if not giving the foot armies something to chase and what do the LH get out of this deal? I understand your arguement but disagree completely with it.

[batesmotel]

...
It's been done and they have quite rightly pointed out they aren't doing anything wrong according to FOG or tournament rules. Can't ban them for the same reason. We even have one guy who's life ambition is to lose all games 25-0 which is all very nice unless you are one of the guys who doesn't play him. Unfortunately, I feel we have to give ourselves the tools to deal with these problems. I don't anticipate using them except in a handful of cases.

One solution that occured to me this morning was that instead of giving red cards for turning around an army and running away to avoid defeat we could simply calculate points as normal for both players and then give the victory bonus of 5 points to the guy who won the moral victory. That way one player gets the points he wants from a draw and the other is compensated for being denied the opportunity to fight it out and being master of the battlefield. Victory bonues to be allocated by the umpire on a case by case basis to avoid people taking the piss.

Julian

Having the umpire adjudicate a "victory" in this way would seem much more acceptable to me from a tournament player point of view and would also seem to be much simpler to explain as a general plan for the tournament than the red card/yellow card mechanism.

Chris

[philqw78]

It's been done and they have quite rightly pointed out they aren't doing anything wrong according to FOG or tournament rules. Can't ban them for the same reason. We even have one guy who's life ambition is to lose all games 25-0 which is all very nice unless you are one of the guys who doesn't play him. Unfortunately, I feel we have to give ourselves the tools to deal with these problems. I don't anticipate using them except in a handful of cases.

One solution that occured to me this morning was that instead of giving red cards for turning around an army and running away to avoid defeat we could simply calculate points as normal for both players and then give the victory bonus of 5 points to the guy who won the moral victory. That way one player gets the points he wants from a draw and the other is compensated for being denied the opportunity to fight it out and being master of the battlefield. Victory bonues to be allocated by the umpire on a case by case basis to avoid people taking the piss.

Julian

That sounds better, if its a small competition and the usual suspects. Would be hard to police in a big comp though. I would also stop giving the 5 point bonus against the player who wants to lose all the time as well, ensure there is a bye for 1 round, play against him as umpire, play for a draw by running away yourself and give him get the 5 point bonus as a moral victory

[spikemesq]

One solution that occured to me this morning was that instead of giving red cards for turning around an army and running away to avoid defeat we could simply calculate points as normal for both players and then give the victory bonus of 5 points to the guy who won the moral victory. That way one player gets the points he wants from a draw and the other is compensated for being denied the opportunity to fight it out and being master of the battlefield. Victory bonues to be allocated by the umpire on a case by case basis to avoid people taking the piss.

Julian

Moral victory?!?

So competitions now require a referee and a Pope?

That is pants-on-head retarded.

Spike

[madaxeman]

Once again this whole arguement is not about the 2 points for an evade it is the evading that people dislike and the ability of both HF/MF to catch or not catch LH. If a rule change would'nt make you play LH differently whats the change for then, if not giving the foot armies something to chase and what do the LH get out of this deal?.

AFAICS no-one is suggesting emasculating LH, no-one here wants or expects LH to be ever caught by HF, no-one wants to see LH-centric armies rendered unplayable or to see them disappear from the table in competitions, friendlies or otherwise, and no-one is proposing implementing a complete suite of rule changes all of which penalise LH. That would be madness and folly of the highest order. The ability to use LH as, well, LH worked historically is excellent, its a great thing about the rules.

But from a gameplay and game balance POV a few of us just happen to think that it would be nice if a MH or HF army could feel it perhaps had a slight, teeny-weenie little chance, if handled well or if the terrain falls extremely favourably, of inflicting an "army-broken" result on a LH-type army. Because at the moment many peoples view is that a lucky, and/or well led LH-type army can occasionally expect to inflict a total defeat on a HF or MF army (armoured or not), but as long as they are at least competently led the LH army simply will not ever face a total defeat at the hands of a non-shooting MF/HF army in an 800 AP-a-side game.

The question we are - to my mind - debating is which one of the many suggested "anti-LH" tweaks would ever so slightly shift that perceived imbalance and give MF/HF players a glimmer of hope but without in turn emasculating LH?

"Hope" - not total dominance and a radical shift in game play and balance - is all we are trying to give MF/HF, and "avoiding emasculation" is what LH should be expecting to get out of the deal.

[nikgaukroger]

No it dos'nt simples

Can't help you if it doesn't benefit your game, but I'll go for the majority for whom it will