Interesting statistic

[TheGrayMouser]

I thought the new feature was for mounted except Cataphracts, knights, elephants and scythed chariots and LF. I did not think it applied to MF and HF.

Im pretty sure it will only apply to units that have the option to evade anyways wich would exclude lancers and medium and heavy foot

[TheGrayMouser]

well, most of the games I've played, and won, in LoEG season 2 were with smaller armies than my enemy's, as I always prefer quality over quantity (hail alexander!).

when fighting greater armies than yours, try to:
- refuse a flank (the best would be to refuse a flank you can pin on something), or even both flanks
- concentrate your punch in a single sector of your army, to can deliver it in a narrower point of his front (the fist). the faster moving troops are the better (yay cavalry)
- conceal your fist behind your main line, and keep your options open in order to identify your enemy's weakest point and direct the punch force to it
- use LF troops to screen your enemy's enveloping flank (and deny him fast DM on that flank, or even on both flanks). remember: only screen them, do not try to make contact with them, unless as a last desperate move to hold them a little longer
- when greatly outnumbered, seal your both flanks (echelon both of them by placing the flank's lower part troops like this < >) to maximize your enemy's flanking troops marching to envelop time and eventually form a second front line with reserves ready to turn about and fight enemy troops arrived in your back (remember gaugamela!)
- use reserve troops at a ready in order to seal the breaches or fight fast enveloping troops
- always use 3 commanders (the ideal would be to have an inspired leader and two field ones), use the inspired leader for the punch or for strengthening your part of the line which seems to be hit the hardest
- preserve the initiative

there would be more, but i have to run at the office.

I agree with all your points in princiapal, and i use 3 leaders including alex himself in my Alender Greek liist

Problem is when facing a VERY large army, even when you puch thru a wealk spot your elite /superio troops are pretty much spent at that point and really cant be depended on to keep going...
Bsically a elite or sup lancer can account for 1.5 enemy troops that cost 1/3 less... They then maybe can damage another unit before succumbing to auto routs etc....if your facing an army with 20 plus bp advantage, not amount of echeloning will save the day....

[Scutarii]

Ummm maybe the new feature is only for mounted units (not all maybe no heavy armored units) but i understand that MF is one of the unit types that can use it... i think in archers/crossbow units, for example crossbow units dont have a melee weapon like arches have in SoA and they cant do a good job in melee, and LF units because use LF armed with slings or poor LF to fix enemy LF need a little change because you dont want see skirmish fixed and they can do their job as scouts in front your line (more than 2 hexes from battle line is dangerous and MF as support isnt a good solution) or in the other side see how your LF units in bad terrain for enemy cavalry/HF units evade when you want stand and fight.

Well, we dont have any news about the new feature and SaC army pack and only can wait for it

PD: another interesting question fighting bigger armies is add a rule to break contact retreating one hex and leaving melee, a good way to give smaller armies a chance to retreat if attacks fails and this prevents the box tactic, i use it one time because dont like see my flanks rolled and attacked by my back because a big army usually uses a point to point deployment

[batesmotel]

The Next expansion will bring some interesting armies that used feigned retreat/route to pull knights out and kill them. I wonder how this will be handled in the rules.

There isn't anything special in the TT rules so I doubt anything new in that respect will be introduced with Swords and Scimitars. I think may include the improved control over when troops choose to evade.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

The Next expansion will bring some interesting armies that used feigned retreat/route to pull knights out and kill them. I wonder how this will be handled in the rules.

There isn't anything special in the TT rules so I doubt anything new in that respect will be introduced with Swords and Scimitars. I think may include the improved control over when troops choose to evade.

Chris

I think he means armies that have a lot of light cavalry that can harrass and force anrchy checks vs the more heavily armoured crusader knights/ Byzy cats etc.... Cant wait to try out some Serbians and Mamalukes

[deadtorius]

Biggest difference between the TT and the PC game is that on the TT you don't keep track of % hits. Your battle groups are assembled by bases from 2 to 12 depending on your army. 4-6 is the average size. when you fight you roll to see how many hits you inflict and whoever inflicts less hits is the loser. Both sides then roll 1 D6 and try to roll higher than the number of hits you received, if you fail to do so you lose a base. Winner adds +2 to his die roll, if more than 6 hits were inflicted you lose 1 base automatically and try to roll more than the excess of 6 was. Example if you took 8 hits you lose one base and try to roll higher than 2 or lose a second base.
On the PC you take % loss so your BGs are constantly whittled down allowing a larger army to have full strength reserves all over the place that can move in on your 75% or less strength units. If using the same armies on the TT you might find it slightly different if the smaller army could win more combats they would be less likely to lose bases so might stand a better chance of surviving the massive numbers.
Theoretically it would also make the dancing opponent less effective as they can't keep hitting you for % losses and run away keeping at full strength.
Now this is just personal opinion but I have often thought I wish the PC game could somehow simulate this base loss system instead of a % loss, but its still a fun game anyway.

[deeter]

In playing through the LOEG matches, I've become even more convinced that hordes are unduely favored by the PC game. Just finished several games against horde armies, won some but lost most, and this with armies tailored to fighting hordes and corner camping and any other tricks I could devize.

Now I think I know why. The army lists are taken directly from the TT, but the rules aren't. Most horde armies require 8-12 bases per battle group whereas civilized army BGs are 8 bases max. When a large BG breaks on the TT, it takes a big chunk of the battle line away. Bu, on the the PC, all BGs are the same size so fighting a horde army is like playing whack-a-mole. Your better troops kill one BG, but it's only of dozens and means nothing. I've played too many games where losses are equal but the hordes have so many more to lose, it doesn't matter.

As hordes are all the rage now, I suggest changing the game's name for Fields of Glory (FOG) to Hordes of Glory (HOG). Get it?

Deeter

[ianiow]

Would limiting the AP break points help?

400ap battle = 40ap to break max
500ap battle = 50ap to break max

Horde armies will still get the advantage of flanking and getting behind the enemy with their numbers, but their staying power would be diminished (hordes were historically fragile anyway, yes?).

[deeter]

That's a fair suggestion that would work I think. Just finished a Roman vs Illyrian game where I brought the largest army I could get: 49 APs to 69 APs. I lost of course, but the Illyrians had lost nearly as many APs as I did.

A quick look in the TT RoR book shows starter armies for both Roman and Illyrian armies get 11 BG each!

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Would limiting the AP break points help?

400ap battle = 40ap to break max
500ap battle = 50ap to break max

Horde armies will still get the advantage of flanking and getting behind the enemy with their numbers, but their staying power would be diminished (hordes were historically fragile anyway, yes?).

That might work but wont players then just buy more expensive units/more leaders up to the cap anyways, defeating the whole purpose (and depriving both a lot of variety that some lists offer)

Irionically i think one thing that makes horde armies more powerful is when they toned down the anarchy rules(which i was against ) Most horde armies generally have a horde of mediums which they can tuck into covered terrain.. i wonder if this has effected the balance at all?

As others have posted , I feel there is something to be said about the way % losses are handled that could be looked into... Even a powerful unit ie a superior knight for example, is really only good to defeat 1-2 medium infantry units before it becomes so fagile from casualties it succombs to the next battle..

[ianiow]

Perhaps any AP's after the cut off point only count as half? Support from a bunch of cheap peasants counst less than support from a legion or phalanx of pikes.

I think anarchy hinders small elite armies far more than large horde like ones.

[deeter]

In three successive league games against horde armies, everyone played the same game. Load up any terrain with MF (who are invulnerable to HF) and wait for anarchy chargers. The MF won't charge out of terrain anymore, but HF will charge the nearest LF and be prey to the MF who were out of range before. Of course, horde armies don't need any leaders so those point go into more MF. All this is aided and abbetted by the whole initiaitive/map mess.

It's so rare to see a army now that looks like a real army of the day, that I'm usually pleasantly surprised.

Deeter

[Xiggy]

Also, with double moves the horde can move massive reserves where ever he wants. You cant single envelope with quality armies anymore. I think most of the horde armies are using mixed terrain, but I could be wrong. Higher than that and you get rivers and lakes which favor the smaller army fighting at choke points. You can get the horde units stacked up and have them route through their rear support.

I like the fact that certain horde armies can win, but try Numidian, I dont think they can beat anyone.

[ericdoman1]

Wow my name cam up twice in the beginning eventhough I was congratulated ny my opponents for playing well. My suggestion would be league games where army 1 must have < 40 bps, 2 < 50 or something similar. Thing is I played Ironclad recently my army was 50% greater than his (and more) and he beat me. However gents the bottom line is that most games won is won with the bigger army. Various points have been made taht are spot on, ie control of troops, individuality etc. I made a point to Matt about the use of big and cheap bow armies.

If you check out help you will see how it is possible to turn a BG, you know right click on mouse. Anyway if that was an undisciplined BG, after turning that would be it. However if you move forward in a straight line, you can then turn be you discipline or undisciplned. Also and we have all prob done it, you can move straight back, when facing backwards and then turn. Ideal way to use undisciplined bow armies, move away, turn, shoot and so on. Playing TT those moves would be impossible for an undisciplined unit and very difficult if impossible for disciplined units. Aren't we supposed to be playing FOG rules.

The fact is we or some of us are playing the game and the rules correctly. On top of that the rules will incorporate 4000+ years of historical armies. Not sure about 4000 but hopefully you understand what I mean so has to cover huge changes in ancient warfare.

[claymore58]

I like the fact that certain horde armies can win, but try Numidian, I dont think they can beat anyone.

I agree. I enjoy every battle for what it is. If people wish to use a horde as victory means more than 'the game' that is fine by me. I get more enjoyment from playing each army. Seeing what the strengths and weaknesses are and learning to use the troops to the best of my ability. If I win, then good. But I happen enjoy the challenge of battle and the friendly banter with like-minded Ancients players.

Having said that I am using a horde SOA army. It's not very good (or is it me). No wonder it's called the Low Countries .... makes me feel "low" every time I take them out for a battle.

[Scutarii]

The problem with horde armies is the non presence of a limit for flank attacks, you can do at the same time 2 flank attacks with units out of command range and search enemy camp (a single LF unit can take your camp and if is a fort camp you need expend one unit to save it... if enemy dont sacrifice 1 or 2 MF/LF units to stop it) and/or your rear at the same time and if you are using double moves is even worst because every hex between your line and your camp is a problem.

I think that unit out of command range need a movement malus because if using double moves they lose the bonus if you dont use double moves they dont have movement problems.

Maybe here a new rule that Fix units out of command range is interensting, not all the time but that have a % to fix an unit and other near the fixed unit a true penalty for horde units based not in commaders and in extreme battleline.

Another question is the camp looters, a single LF unit can loote your camp and attacker dont have any penalty when loote your camp when in many battles looters usually leave the battle because they are searching BOOOOOTY!!!! AAAAAAARRRR

PD: when SaC see the light with the new stand feature i see horde armies based on MF refusing combat to attract smaller enemy army and leave camp and his rear ready to be attacked by 2 flanks at the same time he take your camp

[davouthojo]

I like ianiow's suggestion, to cap BP at a certain number, or halve the contribution of additional units beyond a ceiling.

This would address the difficulty of breaking them in competitive games, without changing the gameplay - Horde armies are historic, and the game encourages historic tactics of hiding in the woods and enveloping the enemy.

[deeter]

Getting back to Eric's post, if undrilled were treated as on the TT, it would go a long way toward curbing horde abuse. Another TT rule to consider is undrilled moving straight ahead have to pass a CMT if you don't want to make a full move. Failing the test means they either don't move at all or move full.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

This is a tough one, what is the definition of a horde and how does it apply with in the game
Afer all, the hordiest "horde" of them all (soon to be eleased wiith SaS) , the Mongols, wasnt a horde at all but a very large and well organised army, with sub formation from corps to "platoons"

Ironically, the vast # 's of levied troops in many of the Eastern nations (ie Seluecids) almost qualify them as hordes yet i dont think anyone wants to see those armies get larger ( and ironically they tend to be mid to small in bp's when players field them) , unless they are forced to take compulsary poor quality troops... (btw , where are the chained together slave pikes in the selucid list anyways? )

Most horde armies in the historic sense really wernt that large anyways relative to their opponents (gauls, galatians) and i dont think these armies are really too big in dag battles anyways

In game terms the true Hordes seem to be the british isle lists, whether it be irish, anglo'-Irish etc etc
These armies you would actually expect to be smaller than most of the opponents (how many Islanders were there anyways?) yet they can field HUGE armies in the dags ( and those mediums kerns , that blend in perfectly with light kerns , can cause signicant pain)

Perhaps reducing the quality of many of the spam units , or making some compulsary low quality units would help out ... Not just for those lists but many of the lists

I enjoy SOA as much as any of the other expansions but one thing that always bothered me is , where are all the low quality levies? No lists are forced to take along the feudal chaff but for the most part have lists of profesional "average" troops or , more likly Swiss merc's....

In the end , having bp caps etc seems like good ideas but it is such against the mold that Slitherine has made for this game , i doudt it would ever be considered.....

[deeter]

Perhaps a better term than "horde" which has other connotations, should be spam arnies then...

Deeter