Half Strength but Happy

[david53]

So what your saying is that for example, of 4 base Superior BG of Foot Romans will run when losing the same bases as a unit of average Javilin/light spear armed LH (picking on those LH now) now that to me does seem strange.

Why?

The whole army runs when half of it is routed so why should a whole BG keep fighting manfully when half of it is dead?

Cause they were better trained had a higher motivation than their enemy, they had a general with them. More than enough reasons why they could and did fight on, all we need to do is look back into history to see examples of just that happening were a group kept fighting after losing large numbers.

[hammy]

So what your saying is that for example, of 4 base Superior BG of Foot Romans will run when losing the same bases as a unit of average Javilin/light spear armed LH (picking on those LH now) now that to me does seem strange.

Why?

The whole army runs when half of it is routed so why should a whole BG keep fighting manfully when half of it is dead?

Cause they were better trained had a higher motivation than their enemy, they had a general with them. More than enough reasons why they could and did fight on, all we need to do is look back into history to see examples of just that happening were a group kept fighting after losing large numbers.

Finding instances of groups of troops that fought on when reduced to half strength is not I suspect going to be as easy as you might think.

[grahambriggs]

Take a game I had recently with my Early Persians against Romans. I had some 4 base units of superior armoured shooty cavalry. Early in the game I daren't commit them against the legions as they would get ground down and then they are very vulnerable. However late in the game I can be far braver with them. The worst that is likely to happen is that I lose two bases and break off (in fact that did happen) - the Romans don't have time to close and finish me off.

Richard's change would add risk to this tactic. In fact, it might be an option to make all morale classes break on 50% losses. That would toughen poor troops a bit (but not much, they normally go on morale). Elite could be an exception.

But why would you then want to pay for superior if they broke on the same point as average would you allow army lists were you only can have Superior units the ability to take average. If not it seems a double wammy, break the same as average and yet still cost much more than average and poor were is the up side for users of superior troops then?or do you think to many people use them.

Well, in the case of those particular superior cavalry, superior costs 72 points, average 56. For that extra 16 points I get:

- they shoot better. rerolling 1s doesn't sound much but often makes a difference.
- they fight better, and by fighting better lose less often, so are less likely to lose bases.
- they pass CMTs better.
- they pass cohesion tests better.
- they can give rear support to immortals.

I'd count any of these as far more important than breaking on 3 bases lost rather than 2.

[frederic]

What about putting the autobreak of superior at 50% but offering them a +1 to dice for loss roll ?

[gozerius]

So the only reason you take superios is so that they don't autobreak at 50% losses. Rerolls on combat and cohesion tests are worthless then?

IMO changing the autobreak rule for superiors to mean they run at 50% would I think be a jolly good idea. At the moment with a BG of 4 bases changing from average to superior to get a better autobreak and all those rerolls is not far off a no brainer a lot of the time.

Why do you think its a great idea then, its all very well saying its a no brainer but please do explain as you know stick a general with an average unit and it gets to re-roll as well.

As things stand average knights are almost never taken because superior knights are a lot better and only slightly more expensive. The package of benefits for superiors in a 4 base BG is considerable and because of the way things work BGs of 2 knights are actually quite hard to inflict a base loss on so in practice superior knights are getting on for twice as good as average ones but only cost 20% or so more.

As things stand, It depends on what you intend to do with those average knights. If you can dismount as superior HF they are very useful. As it stands, running average knights in BGs of 4 is suicide. 6s are pretty powerful though.

[dave_r]

Well, in the case of those particular superior cavalry, superior costs 72 points, average 56. For that extra 16 points I get:

- they shoot better. rerolling 1s doesn't sound much but often makes a difference.
- they fight better, and by fighting better lose less often, so are less likely to lose bases.
- they pass CMTs better.
- they pass cohesion tests better.
- they can give rear support to immortals.

I'd count any of these as far more important than breaking on 3 bases lost rather than 2.

Depends on what you are going to do with the Superior BG - if it is Knights then 1 and 5 don't matter - However, Superior Knights facing Ordinary Knights have a massive advantage because they can lose two bases and the average lads can't.

I think this is one of those situations where whatever the situation and whatever the rules you can come up with a good example of why they are wrong!"

[ethan]

What about putting the autobreak of superior at 50% but offering them a +1 to dice for loss roll ?

This would make it virtually impossible to inflict base losses on Superior four element BGs in melee...

[expendablecinc]

What have you got against knights? They are tough but very expensive. Also 4 base units take -1 to CTs after only one base loss. So they are under some penalty even before they get to %50. This would make knights completely cost ineffective.

I disagree. Superior heavily armoured knights in 4s are very cost effective right now and are widely used. This is a minor change, and yet you feel it would make them completely cost ineffective - why?

I acknowledge the issue you are describing however preventing bolsers or giving some other penalty based on being 2 bases is less elegant as it doesnt tackle the issue uniformly
- BGs with significant casualties dont behave differently to ther smaller sized (but fresh) peers.

As an alternative how about applying the penalty when bases are one base from autobreak?

uniform penalty suggestions
-POA
-POA (if net POA is positive) ie takes the edge off your effectiveness

dont like the following:
- preventing bolster
- I think it shoulddl be a minus to ther roll rather than impossible
- making them unsteady
- imbalanced game effect


as a subtle way of providing this you could provide a further -1 to cohesion tests if one base from autobreak

[Jilu]

The current proposal is to have Superiors autobreak on the same base losses as Average.

Fairly radical, but this is what we plan to play-test.

that makes superiors expensive and loose their appeal. especialy the armylists where the superiors are in small units and where you have no choice.

It would probably help the assessment if you indicated which lists you thought would be affected in this way - I assume you have some in mind when making the point.

italian condotta
the Milanese knights 2 bases
and there are other armies with 2 base superior units

[expendablecinc]

Or restrict this effect to units "reduced" to 2 bases - then it only would have an impact on 4-base superior units*, killing two** bugbears with one stone.

* Come on, how many big Elite units do you see?
** Or three if you limited it to 4-base superior Lh units

The problem with superiority effectiveness (if that is your bugbear number 2) is in the relative points cost. IMO the solution shoudl be reflected there (as in FogR) rather than little 'mini-taxes' that ununiformly affect specific BG types/sizes.

[expendablecinc]

As things stand average knights are almost never taken because superior knights are a lot better and only slightly more expensive. The package of benefits for superiors in a 4 base BG is considerable and because of the way things work BGs of 2 knights are actually quite hard to inflict a base loss on so in practice superior knights are getting on for twice as good as average ones but only cost 20% or so more.

As you allude - this is a relative points cost problem not a game mechanic problem.

Change the relative pionts and having 6 average knights with 2 bases at the rear for equal frontage to a 4 base superior group and there is a real choice to be made without any mechanics change

[expendablecinc]

The current proposal is to have Superiors autobreak on the same base losses as Average.

Fairly radical, but this is what we plan to play-test.

Slightly less radical - particularly if you are also intending to increase relative superiority points cost - is to give a -POA if one base from autobreak.

The benefit of this is it also resolves the anomaly where BGS have consistantly been taking casualties, are one casualty froim breaking but are still fighting at full effectiveness due to CT loading (superior, rear support, IC etc...).

[lawrenceg]

The current proposal is to have Superiors autobreak on the same base losses as Average.

Fairly radical, but this is what we plan to play-test.

Slightly less radical - particularly if you are also intending to increase relative superiority points cost - is to give a -POA if one base from autobreak.

The benefit of this is it also resolves the anomaly where BGS have consistantly been taking casualties, are one casualty froim breaking but are still fighting at full effectiveness due to CT loading (superior, rear support, IC etc...).

They are not fighting at full effectiveness. They lose a dice for every base lost ( 2 dice if knights or chariots).

[nikgaukroger]

that makes superiors expensive and loose their appeal. especialy the armylists where the superiors are in small units and where you have no choice.

It would probably help the assessment if you indicated which lists you thought would be affected in this way - I assume you have some in mind when making the point.

italian condotta
the Milanese knights 2 bases
and there are other armies with 2 base superior units

Thanks. However, these are currently removed when they get to one base anyway so what difference, other than they actually break and rout before removal, would this rule change make? Is it a bad thing that they would make a rout move?

[Cynical]

Thanks. However, these are currently removed when they get to one base anyway so what difference, other than they actually break and rout before removal, would this rule change make? Is it a bad thing that they would make a rout move?

A unit that autobreaks is only removed at the end of the JAP isn't it? So they already do a route move before being removed.

[philqw78]

Thanks. However, these are currently removed when they get to one base anyway so what difference, other than they actually break and rout before removal, would this rule change make? Is it a bad thing that they would make a rout move?

A unit that autobreaks is only removed at the end of the JAP isn't it? So they already do a route move before being removed.

Elite may not do a route. The may even win the combat, lose a base, not autobreak because they are not below the required level and then just be removed in the JAP.

[pyruse]

There seems to be an assumption in this thread that a unit which has lost half its bases has had half its men killed.
That need not be the case at all. The bases only represent the general combat ability of the unit; which is now at 50% of its starting value.
That doesn't mean half the men have been killed at all.

I actually think that base removal is a bad thing - real units didn't have their frontage get smaller as they took casualties.

[philqw78]

I actually think that base removal is a bad thing - real units didn't have their frontage get smaller as they took casualties.

A lot of them certainly did. Close order foot especially would close up ranks otherwise there would be gaps in the line that could be exploited.

[Strategos69]

There seems to be an assumption in this thread that a unit which has lost half its bases has had half its men killed.
That need not be the case at all. The bases only represent the general combat ability of the unit; which is now at 50% of its starting value.
That doesn't mean half the men have been killed at all.

I actually think that base removal is a bad thing - real units didn't have their frontage get smaller as they took casualties.

I have seen another rule system where you first lose cohesion points and then you lose bases and eventually that leads to a unit being broken. I like the idea of bases loses as I see it as a rule to cover the exhaustion of a unit and its combat capability. As you point out, I don't see bases being removed as dead, but casualties (minor injuries, troops exhausted, etc). If that was the case, FoG battles would be a carnage even for the winners.

My concern is more how FoG lost bases affect PoA's depending on the line and to me it is difficult to both calculate PoA's for every single line and how many dice they can throw with which PoA. I think that this point is something that requieres more attention than eventually 2 stands staying steady. And in that regard the idea of "half strength can be useful". It could be worded as follows:
- When a unit loses 1/3 of its bases it is considered to be "half strenght" (the same that would break a poor BG)
Up to that point spearmen, pikemen and others still apply PoA's for ranks as long they still have at least one base in that rank. After that, that PoA could not be applied. That would simplify the idea of multiple PoA's per file and the whole BG would have only one PoA. Other troops could lose some of their capabilities as judged necessary when they are half strenght (especially the ones that only apply at impact, like lancers or impact foot).

I am not certain about the second half but certainly the PoA's assigned per file (linked to the fact of being FRG or DSR) slows down the game, especially when starting.

[david53]

There seems to be an assumption in this thread that a unit which has lost half its bases has had half its men killed.
That need not be the case at all. The bases only represent the general combat ability of the unit; which is now at 50% of its starting value.
That doesn't mean half the men have been killed at all.

I actually think that base removal is a bad thing - real units didn't have their frontage get smaller as they took casualties.

I have seen another rule system where you first lose cohesion points and then you lose bases and eventually that leads to a unit being broken. I like the idea of bases loses as I see it as a rule to cover the exhaustion of a unit and its combat capability. As you point out, I don't see bases being removed as dead, but casualties (minor injuries, troops exhausted, etc). If that was the case, FoG battles would be a carnage even for the winners.

My concern is more how FoG lost bases affect PoA's depending on the line and to me it is difficult to both calculate PoA's for every single line and how many dice they can throw with which PoA. I think that this point is something that requieres more attention than eventually 2 stands staying steady. And in that regard the idea of "half strength can be useful". It could be worded as follows:
- When a unit loses 1/3 of its bases it is considered to be "half strenght" (the same that would break a poor BG)
Up to that point spearmen, pikemen and others still apply PoA's for ranks as long they still have at least one base in that rank. After that, that PoA could not be applied. That would simplify the idea of multiple PoA's per file and the whole BG would have only one PoA. Other troops could lose some of their capabilities as judged necessary when they are half strenght (especially the ones that only apply at impact, like lancers or impact foot).

I am not certain about the second half but certainly the PoA's assigned per file (linked to the fact of being FRG or DSR) slows down the game, especially when starting.

if you work out the dice and POA by file it works a lot quicker and with less worries.