Slitherine

rogerg wrote:To keep it simple, +1 for the winners, but move the elephant bonus to +2.
Elephants are not seen in great quantities in FoG competitions, but other small battle groups are. The armies picked for competition are a good measure of what works. The 'test the market' approach.

Makes sense.
I think this is a rule change whose effect is hard to quantify without playtesting. I think there are a lot of over-reactions to the effect it will have. Yes it will significantly increase the number of bases lost by winning BGs - maybe by double or triple. However, how many times per game do you lose a base from a BG that has won a combat - maybe once or twice per game.

Polkovnik wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

Cerberias wrote:You're talking about extremly unlucky chances there david.. winning a combat and losing a base when the other team doesnt go down or lose a base?

Not really. Knights will typically fight on a 4 base frontage. That means at 8 dice against them. If they are fighting 2 small BG, or worse 2x6BG they could suffer very badly.

If they win the combat the most they can suffer is a base loss. The opposing BG(s) are much more likely to suffer base losses and loss of cohesion. It is unlikely that the knights will suffer worse than their opponents when they win the combat.

What your missing out of your arguement is that a base loss for the Knights takes 2 dice away most others 1 dice so I have seen it before beating an enemy and they don't lose a base or drop now think if that was your BG that won and only you lost the base fair?

Consider BG of 4 Kn fighting BG of 8 foot

8 dice each at impact - say 6 hits for Kn, 4 for foot

Kn win and win big, chances are the foot will drop and they definately lose a base. But foot hits received were 1 per 1.5 bases, Kn hits received were 1 per 1 base - so there is a good argument that in terms of "hits received" more damage has been done to the Kn formation that the foot formation. Seems then odd that Kn only have a 33% chance of losing a base - 50% feels much better, indeed there is an argument that odds are still weighted too much in favour of the Kn in terms of base losses.

The +2 modifier encourages good quality troops to be run in small units - they can easily beat up much bigger units of poorer troops with low risk of losses. For me, factoring in some permanent reduction in fighting ability for future combats (by base losses) feels like a good idea. The modifier also generally encourages smaller units even for average troops - if you fight on a narrower frontage as a small BG then the +2 has a much bigger effect in preventing losses than if youn fight on a wider frontage.

As has already been stated, this is quite a change to the dynamic, but I think something that should be looked at seriously. Lots of testing needed I think!

Marc

You seem to all be taking the view that number if hits by using the dice roll is actually related to a number of hits upon real people and not a game mechanic. But, IMO, it is a game mechanic related to probabilities of winning combat and then after winning/losing a combat there is a relationship to probability of losing fighting capacity.

philqw78 wrote:You seem to all be taking the view that number if hits by using the dice roll is actually related to a number of hits upon real people and not a game mechanic. But, IMO, it is a game mechanic related to probabilities of winning combat and then after winning/losing a combat there is a relationship to probability of losing fighting capacity.

Not sure that I get that Phil - surely the closer the number of hits between the combatants the more even the fight? If number of hits is close (and I take 75% to be reasonably close) then is that not saying that along parts of the battle line the foot (in my example) may have successfully resisted the Kn charge? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the Kn formation to have suffered losses. Now if it were 6 hits to 1 or 6 to 2 then that's another matter.

Or are you saying that the win/loss decision is a purely binary mechanic? In that case why is the death roll related to the number of hits inflicted at all?

Marc

If I do 6 hits and you do 4 the ratio of base losses should not be 6:4. People losing combats tend to lose people a hell of a lot faster than those winning.

If I do 6 hits and you do 4 the ratio of base losses should not be 6:4. People losing combats tend to lose people a hell of a lot faster than those winning.

At the moment this would result in the loser losing a base automatically and the winner having a 33% chance of losing one. Reducing the win bonus to +1 would increase this to 50% of the time, making it 50% more likely. Bearing in mind that the loser will also be taking a CT at -2, I don't think that's a huge increase in risk to the winner, but does make an element of attrition a little more likely. I think it merits consideration and playtesting.

removing the +2 for the winner does 3 good things:

- introduces attrition to the game so large, but poor units can wear down small, elite forces (barbarians vs romans)
- encourages larger units, thus fixing the BG swarm problem
- makes the game shorter and more decisive

Well, I suppose it will make those hard done to Christian Nubians a bit better.

Well, I suppose it will make those hard done to Christian Nubians a bit better.

To be honest, I think the popularity of the Christian Nubians is due to the fact that they are an effective counter to cavalry armies. If heavy foot becomes more viable they are likely to be less useful.

philqw78 wrote:You seem to all be taking the view that number if hits by using the dice roll is actually related to a number of hits upon real people and not a game mechanic. But, IMO, it is a game mechanic related to probabilities of winning combat and then after winning/losing a combat there is a relationship to probability of losing fighting capacity.

Yes it is just a game mechanic.
But it a mechanic that gives a low probabilty of losing fighting capacity for a BG that wins a combat. So a BG can fight combat after combat throughout the game without losing any fighting capacity.
And also this mechanic skews the probabilities in favour of small BGs. A 4 base BG that wins a battle whilst talking one hit per 2 bases cannot lose any bases. An 8 base BG that wins whilst taking the same proportion of hits has a 1 in 3 chance of losing a base.

philqw78 wrote:If I do 6 hits and you do 4 the ratio of base losses should not be 6:4. People losing combats tend to lose people a hell of a lot faster than those winning.

My understanding of ancient warfare is that almost no one last many troops until an army broke - the vast number (and huge disparity) of casaulties were caused when a routing army was cut down from behind.

Polkovnik wrote:

rogerg wrote:To keep it simple, +1 for the winners, but move the elephant bonus to +2.
Elephants are not seen in great quantities in FoG competitions, but other small battle groups are. The armies picked for competition are a good measure of what works. The 'test the market' approach.

Makes sense.
I think this is a rule change whose effect is hard to quantify without playtesting. I think there are a lot of over-reactions to the effect it will have. Yes it will significantly increase the number of bases lost by winning BGs - maybe by double or triple. However, how many times per game do you lose a base from a BG that has won a combat - maybe once or twice per game.

As a user of big BGs (6 chariots, 10-12 foot) I found that they often lose a base even when winning a combat.

hannibal wrote:Consider BG of 4 Kn fighting BG of 8 foot

8 dice each at impact - say 6 hits for Kn, 4 for foot

Kn win and win big, chances are the foot will drop and they definately lose a base. But foot hits received were 1 per 1.5 bases, Kn hits received were 1 per 1 base - so there is a good argument that in terms of "hits received" more damage has been done to the Kn formation that the foot formation. Seems then odd that Kn only have a 33% chance of losing a base - 50% feels much better, indeed there is an argument that odds are still weighted too much in favour of the Kn in terms of base losses.

But the loss of a knight base is twice as much of a penalty so the overall impact is about right as is. I will generally be very happy to have 4 knights charge a Bg of 8 of my defensive spearmen. they are likely to lose, likely to lose a base and even if I lose they cannot afford a single base loss or it goes downhill for them despit winning combat. Any further penalty to knights makes the combat even more unbalanced.

hannibal wrote: The +2 modifier encourages good quality troops to be run in small units

a reasonable outcome

hannibal wrote: - they can easily beat up much bigger units of poorer troops with low risk of losses.

Hardly easily if you are talking about HF spearmen. for others beating them up easily is a reasonable outcome.

stecal wrote:removing the +2 for the winner does 3 good things:

- introduces attrition to the game so large, but poor units can wear down small, elite forces (barbarians vs romans)

this interaction has its own v2 thread and I believe a simple fix already suggested 9removing the ++ Mellee somehow (via skilled swordsmen changes)

stecal wrote: - encourages larger units, thus fixing the BG swarm problem

the swarm problem is not just a base loss issue but a flank charge issue. the fix for this is in the army lists and calculation of army break point.

stecal wrote: - makes the game shorter and more decisive

not a good thing if the mechanism is wrong (romans vs gauls is generally quite short and decisive)

ethan wrote:

philqw78 wrote:If I do 6 hits and you do 4 the ratio of base losses should not be 6:4. People losing combats tend to lose people a hell of a lot faster than those winning.

My understanding of ancient warfare is that almost no one last many troops until an army broke - the vast number (and huge disparity) of casaulties were caused when a routing army was cut down from behind.

This is my experience in the Kn vs Def spear interaction. Either the knights lose or lose a base and get massacrred within a turn or two or the spearment waver and get quickly run down. In this regard the authors have it right.

hammy wrote:Possibly +1 of you draw or win by 1 hit and +2 if you win by 2 or more hits.

rogerg wrote:To keep it simple, +1 for the winners, but move the elephant bonus to +2.
Elephants are not seen in great quantities in FoG competitions, but other small battle groups are. The armies picked for competition are a good measure of what works. The 'test the market' approach.

I like either of these ideas. My impression of ancient/medieval battles is that casualties on the field were usually not high - the key difference was who ran first and they suffered much more.

With one of these adjustments the BG winning a round of combat has a slight edge in casualties, but most importantly forces a CT on the opposition.

Would need to be tested, but encouraging larger BGs is probably not a bad idea.

As for swarms, I still think fighting battles with >800 pts is the best way to combat them.

NickW wrote:
As for swarms, I still think fighting battles with >800 pts is the best way to combat them.

I agree. The more games I play the more I come to realise that 900pts would be a much better "norm" than 800pts for 15mm battles. I'd be interested in views of 1,000pts battles - don't think I've even done one? Should this be the norm for doubles?

I'd be interested in views of 1,000pts battles - don't think I've even done one? Should this be the norm for doubles?

The first year that FOG was out we did 1000 points for doubles. I thought it was good, someone else will need to explain the logic for reducing it. Personally, I think 800 is good for singles (although I also like 650 on a smaller table) and returning to 1000 for Doubles would make the games more varied.

kevinj wrote: The first year that FOG was out we did 1000 points for doubles. I thought it was good, someone else will need to explain the logic for reducing it.

IIRC it was something along the lines of "its too many troops whilst we're learning the rules" - of course when the change had been made most people had learnt the rules (basics at least) ...

I'm all for 900 singles and 1000 doubles as the base line - with some variety around that for interest.