Slitherine

hammy wrote:There is a proposal to cap the number of AP required to break an army at 1 for every 50 AP in the army so an 800 point army would be defeated after it suffered 16 AP. Not a huge change but it will slightly cut the extremes.

The last time I played an army with poor LF filler I charged them with my lights so they evaded through their supports then I kept the supports busy and hunted down all the poor lights in the rear to break the army.

Yes, but leaving aside the realism of breaking an army by running over the lights, wouldn't it have been easier if they were average? There would have been roughly half as many to kill.

If two Seljuk Turk armies face each other, say both have 6 BGs of Cav and 6 BGs of LH. One has 2 BGs of poor LF, the other has 1 BG of average LF. So one player has 14 BGs the other 13 – because one player uses poor LF at half the cost his army is harder to break?

One problem is the points differential is too great - eg between poor LF slingers and average LF slingers 2 and 4 points. And yes it might only feature at the extremes but sometimes those extremes are important. After all, the winner of Britcon used two poor LF units instead of one average. Maybe he can give us his reasons?

Surely I can't be the only person who has had a battle in the balance; both armies one point away from breaking? In that case the extra point from a poxy poor LF unit can come in handy.

The other problem is the lack of consistency in the army lists. In Legions Triumphant out of 22 lists only 3 have poor LF, the 3 Roman armies. Armies such as Sarmatian or Kushan have all average LF, yet comparable armies in Immortal Fire such as Skythians have the option of poor LF. Two issues here, first, the distinction between poor and average LF would have to be one of the more arbitrary in the lists, and second, it is fairly irksome when a player gets to use those poor troops and his (or her) opponent doesn't.

In Swords & Scimitars Cilician Armenian, Fatimid Egyptian, Georgian, Cuman and Mediaeval Cypriot all have average only LF; every other list has the option to have poor. I would like to see the evidence for that!

I realise the problem with allowing LF to act as suicide troops but I don’t think making them stiffen an army is the right to way to fix it. Maybe all LF shouldn't count towards an armies BG total. Did they do anything historically?


Walter

After all, the winner of Britcon used two poor LF units instead of one average. Maybe he can give us his reasons?

It's not me!!! All my LF were average and proud of it!

olivier wrote:

After all, the winner of Britcon used two poor LF units instead of one average. Maybe he can give us his reasons?

It's not me!!! All my LF were average and proud of it!

Ok one of the other winners! (But would you have used poor LF instead of average if the army allowed it?)

But would you have used poor LF instead of average if the army allowed it?

Depend of army balance and tempo.
I'm more interested by added value of BG moving and fighting together than stockpiling BG or optimize point value
In your example with slinger, 2 poor BG aren't better than one average if you must detach a commander to take care of them.

waldo wrote:One problem is the points differential is too great - eg between poor LF slingers and average LF slingers 2 and 4 points. And yes it might only feature at the extremes but sometimes those extremes are important.

Good point on the differential. Would not a better solution therfore be to change the points system so that Superior troops cost 15% more and poor are 23% cheaper? After all everyone uses computers so why not

The other problem is the lack of consistency in the army lists. In Legions Triumphant out of 22 lists only 3 have poor LF, the 3 Roman armies. Armies such as Sarmatian or Kushan have all average LF, yet comparable armies in Immortal Fire such as Skythians have the option of poor LF. Two issues here, first, the distinction between poor and average LF would have to be one of the more arbitrary in the lists, and second, it is fairly irksome when a player gets to use those poor troops and his (or her) opponent doesn't.

Perhaps we should fight a number of test battles between otherwise idential armies but give one of them 5 BGs of poor LF bow and the other one 3 BGs of average ones?
FWIW BGs of 6 poor LF are actually rather easy to break, all it takes is 2 bases loses for them to autobreak for a start.

I realise the problem with allowing LF to act as suicide troops but I don’t think making them stiffen an army is the right to way to fix it. Maybe all LF shouldn't count towards an armies BG total. Did they do anything historically?

Army break is an artificial thing anyway, in reality armies often realised they were defeated long before half their number were sent packing. The army break rules in FoG are just a simple way of managing the end of the game.
You seem to think that poor light foot are some sort of magical troop type. I don't. I hardly every use them when I can get average instead. Does that make me a bad player because I am not using the most effective troops? I suspect that my tournament record may say otherwise.

hammy wrote:

waldo wrote:One problem is the points differential is too great - eg between poor LF slingers and average LF slingers 2 and 4 points. And yes it might only feature at the extremes but sometimes those extremes are important.

Good point on the differential. Would not a better solution therfore be to change the points system so that Superior troops cost 15% more and poor are 23% cheaper? After all everyone uses computers so why not

The other problem is the lack of consistency in the army lists. In Legions Triumphant out of 22 lists only 3 have poor LF, the 3 Roman armies. Armies such as Sarmatian or Kushan have all average LF, yet comparable armies in Immortal Fire such as Skythians have the option of poor LF. Two issues here, first, the distinction between poor and average LF would have to be one of the more arbitrary in the lists, and second, it is fairly irksome when a player gets to use those poor troops and his (or her) opponent doesn't.

Perhaps we should fight a number of test battles between otherwise idential armies but give one of them 5 BGs of poor LF bow and the other one 3 BGs of average ones?
FWIW BGs of 6 poor LF are actually rather easy to break, all it takes is 2 bases loses for them to autobreak for a start.

I realise the problem with allowing LF to act as suicide troops but I don’t think making them stiffen an army is the right to way to fix it. Maybe all LF shouldn't count towards an armies BG total. Did they do anything historically?

Army break is an artificial thing anyway, in reality armies often realised they were defeated long before half their number were sent packing. The army break rules in FoG are just a simple way of managing the end of the game.
You seem to think that poor light foot are some sort of magical troop type. I don't. I hardly every use them when I can get average instead. Does that make me a bad player because I am not using the most effective troops? I suspect that my tournament record may say otherwise.

Well Dave Ruddock is rated higher than you so according to your logic poor troops must be more effective. I don't think poor LF are super troops by any means, just annoying.

Walter

why not just put a limit on the number of Bgs in an army.... say 14 (no thought here, just gut feel).

That way players can milk loopholes as much as they want, cram in poor LF if they want, bu the expensive troops wont be able to protect them. This also stop MF swarms............. and also increases the importance of the baggage as well as reducing the 'fun' of fielding lots of LH Bgs and just evading into safety off table.

jon

chubooga wrote:why not just put a limit on the number of Bgs in an army.... say 14 (no thought here, just gut feel).

That way players can milk loopholes as much as they want, cram in poor LF if they want, bu the expensive troops wont be able to protect them. This also stop MF swarms............. and also increases the importance of the baggage as well as reducing the 'fun' of fielding lots of LH Bgs and just evading into safety off table.

jon

Not stop LH armies I can pick just of the top of my head four armies with 14 BGs each but only 3 BGs peoper troops so it would still happen

chubooga wrote:why not just put a limit on the number of Bgs in an army.... say 14 (no thought here, just gut feel).

That way players can milk loopholes as much as they want, cram in poor LF if they want, bu the expensive troops wont be able to protect them. This also stop MF swarms............. and also increases the importance of the baggage as well as reducing the 'fun' of fielding lots of LH Bgs and just evading into safety off table.

jon

Sadly that idea won't wash. There are some armies for which is is almost impossible to make an 800 point army with fewer than 14 BGs without getting very silly on your commanders (i.e. IC,FC,FC,FC or some such)

waldo wrote:

hammy wrote:You seem to think that poor light foot are some sort of magical troop type. I don't. I hardly every use them when I can get average instead. Does that make me a bad player because I am not using the most effective troops? I suspect that my tournament record may say otherwise.

Well Dave Ruddock is rated higher than you so according to your logic poor troops must be more effective. I don't think poor LF are super troops by any means, just annoying.

And the last time I played Dave (in the club competition knock out round) I seem to recall that I beat him 23-2

Lots of troops are annoying, that is after all generally the point of enemy troops. I still remain to be cinvinced that poor light foot are amy more of a problem than lots of bow armed light horse or any of the other troops used in skimisher hordes.

hammy wrote:

waldo wrote:

hammy wrote:You seem to think that poor light foot are some sort of magical troop type. I don't. I hardly every use them when I can get average instead. Does that make me a bad player because I am not using the most effective troops? I suspect that my tournament record may say otherwise.

Well Dave Ruddock is rated higher than you so according to your logic poor troops must be more effective. I don't think poor LF are super troops by any means, just annoying.

And the last time I played Dave (in the club competition knock out round) I seem to recall that I beat him 23-2

Lots of troops are annoying, that is after all generally the point of enemy troops. I still remain to be cinvinced that poor light foot are amy more of a problem than lots of bow armed light horse or any of the other troops used in skimisher hordes.

I agree with Hammy poor light troops are no less annoying than Heavy foot armoured drilled skilled sword

Even more annoying are Average armoured spearman.
What can LH do against a wall of them?

Perhaps spearman could be removed from the game or made much more expensive?

At least poor LF are an easy target for LH.

Peter

prb4 wrote:At least poor LF are an easy target for LH.

Not when they're within 3 MU of HF. Then they are completely safe from the LH.

If fact even in the open you wouldn't want to take a BG of 4 LH (at 28+ points) against a BG of 8 Poor LF slingers (16 points).

Polkovnik wrote:

prb4 wrote:At least poor LF are an easy target for LH.

Not when they're within 3 MU of HF. Then they are completely safe from the LH.

If fact even in the open you wouldn't want to take a BG of 4 LH (at 28+ points) against a BG of 8 Poor LF slingers (16 points).

I agree to some extent with your first point but your second one I am afriad I have not got a clue as to why you think that.

Slingers advance to 4MU to shoot, probably only get 3 dice shooting as the LH is unlikely to place itself in the centre of the LF BG. If you want more than 3 dice then you are probably going to be within 3 MU.

3 dice needing 4s rerolling 6s gives a 37% chance of forcing a test which is most likely to be passed on a 7+ so lets say a 1 in 6 chance to distrupt the LH.
If the LH are disrupted they can pull back out of 10MU (unless the LF were within 3 MU to start with) and should be easy enough to bolster.

Assume the LH charge and the LF are at 4 MU then there is an 8 in 36 chance of catching the evade in the rear which will auto dirsupt the LF and result in a 4 at ++ vs 2 at -- combat there is a 75% chance of the LF being beaten by 2 at impact and if they are beaten by 2 there is only a 6% chance of the LF not dropping to at least fragmented.

The LF could I suppose try to stand and take the charge but even then it is not that good. There is still a 50% chance that the LF will disrupt at impact.

prb4 wrote:Even more annoying are Average armoured spearman.
What can LH do against a wall of them?

Get the flanks thats what i say.....................

prb4 wrote:Even more annoying are Average armoured spearman.
What can LH do against a wall of them?

Perhaps spearman could be removed from the game or made much more expensive?

At least poor LF are an easy target for LH.

Peter

That match up has "draw" written all over it. The LH can avoid the spear, the spear are difficult to shoot down. The spearmen are expensive though (maybe not quite expensive enough).

If the LH can go round the flank and gang up they have a chance. I have shot down an army of armoured roman heavy foot with fortifications before. 10 superior dice needing to roll 6s will get there if they can keep shooting.

hammy wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:

prb4 wrote:At least poor LF are an easy target for LH.

Not when they're within 3 MU of HF. Then they are completely safe from the LH.

If fact even in the open you wouldn't want to take a BG of 4 LH (at 28+ points) against a BG of 8 Poor LF slingers (16 points).

I agree to some extent with your first point but your second one I am afriad I have not got a clue as to why you think that.

Slingers advance to 4MU to shoot, probably only get 3 dice shooting as the LH is unlikely to place itself in the centre of the LF BG. If you want more than 3 dice then you are probably going to be within 3 MU.

3 dice needing 4s rerolling 6s gives a 37% chance of forcing a test which is most likely to be passed on a 7+ so lets say a 1 in 6 chance to distrupt the LH.
If the LH are disrupted they can pull back out of 10MU (unless the LF were within 3 MU to start with) and should be easy enough to bolster.

Assume the LH charge and the LF are at 4 MU then there is an 8 in 36 chance of catching the evade in the rear which will auto dirsupt the LF and result in a 4 at ++ vs 2 at -- combat there is a 75% chance of the LF being beaten by 2 at impact and if they are beaten by 2 there is only a 6% chance of the LF not dropping to at least fragmented.

The LF could I suppose try to stand and take the charge but even then it is not that good. There is still a 50% chance that the LF will disrupt at impact.

But the slingers don't need to move within 4 MU and put themselves at risk. If LH move within sling range, slingers shoot then retreat in own turn, safe from being charged. They can head towards terrain or friendly troops and the LH cannot catch them. If they don't move to within 4 MU, slingers stay outside 6MU, and are safe from being charged.

Polkovnik wrote:But the slingers don't need to move within 4 MU and put themselves at risk. If LH move within sling range, slingers shoot then retreat in own turn, safe from being charged. They can head towards terrain or friendly troops and the LH cannot catch them. If they don't move to within 4 MU, slingers stay outside 6MU, and are safe from being charged.

Hmm, that would just result in the slingers moving backwards at 7 MU (on average) per pair of bounds.

Slingers move to 6.1 MU from LH, LH charge slingers, slingers evade and then move to 6.1 MU from the new location of the LH.....

hammy wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:But the slingers don't need to move within 4 MU and put themselves at risk. If LH move within sling range, slingers shoot then retreat in own turn, safe from being charged. They can head towards terrain or friendly troops and the LH cannot catch them. If they don't move to within 4 MU, slingers stay outside 6MU, and are safe from being charged.

Hmm, that would just result in the slingers moving backwards at 7 MU (on average) per pair of bounds.

Slingers move to 6.1 MU from LH, LH charge slingers, slingers evade and then move to 6.1 MU from the new location of the LH.....

That's right. So the LH (which are meant to be useful troops) are wasted chasing around the LF (which are there as cheap filler).

The spearmen are expensive though (maybe not quite expensive enough).

Jesus! have guys got it in for my Later Crusaders; with only Hvy Arm Sup Kns and Arm Ave Spearmen to fight with are you guys out to make my army smaller than it already is.?