Slitherine

Polkovnik wrote:

Moro wrote:Yes, poor Kns are bad (but maybe a cheap unit of poor KNs is better than a costly unit of average KN, who knows?), but historically speaking not all knights were famous for their courage and cunning! So, why don'y thinking about consider them in the game?

What you are missing is that troop quality is not relative to other troops of that type - it is relative to all other troops. So even if certain knights were not as good as others, they would still normally be better quailty than the other troops in the army.
So knights that were not very good historically are rated as average.
Or do you really think that there are some knights that were as badly trained, badly led and with as poor motivation and morale as peasant mobs or juvenile skirmishers ?

In which case how about letting some of the best knights, those that beat up other Superior knights, be graded as Elite?

LambertSimnel wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:

Moro wrote:Yes, poor Kns are bad (but maybe a cheap unit of poor KNs is better than a costly unit of average KN, who knows?), but historically speaking not all knights were famous for their courage and cunning! So, why don'y thinking about consider them in the game?

What you are missing is that troop quality is not relative to other troops of that type - it is relative to all other troops. So even if certain knights were not as good as others, they would still normally be better quailty than the other troops in the army.
So knights that were not very good historically are rated as average.
Or do you really think that there are some knights that were as badly trained, badly led and with as poor motivation and morale as peasant mobs or juvenile skirmishers ?

In which case how about letting some of the best knights, those that beat up other Superior knights, be graded as Elite?

It's funny, I was thinking about what I'd posted earlier and had exactly the same thought. If "average" knights are graded superior, and less able / motivated knights are average, then surely the best regarded knights should be elite ?

philqw78 wrote:

countadam wrote:Instead more effort should be made getting the current troops right. Elephants need to be better or cheaper or both. At the moment there is no incentive to take them. Elephant's should be the rock to Knight's scissors.

How often Elephants fight Knights?

I give up. How often?

grahambriggs wrote:

countadam wrote:I am not sure the game needs more troop types. I think mob could be removed. I cannot see any difference between Mob and MF, apart from figures per base.

Instead more effort should be made getting the current troops right. Elephants need to be better or cheaper or both. At the moment there is no incentive to take them. Elephant's should be the rock to Knight's scissors.

Something needs to be done about the difference between MF and HF. MF is much more usable in the game than HF. See one of the many threads about this topic for the relevent arguments.

Cheers
Paul.

I think Mob is fine. It's MF and acts as such, it's just a bit deeper bases so allowing people who have troops based for other rule sets to use it.

I'm hoping elephants will be strengthened a bit in v2. I'm not sure why you think they should be really good against knights though. I don't know that they ever faced them. Our wargames supposition that they are knightsbane is an inference from their effect on classical cavalry.

I see the elephant and knight matchup being necessary for game balance. in a one on one matchup, Knights have little to fear from anything at the moment.

I understand that Kn and El match ups are anacronistic however the FOG community only plays these sorts of tournaments. I have yet to see any matched pairs events for FOG.

I've never succesfully lanced an elephant from horseback. I suspect few, if any, people have (in any period of history). Anachronistic match ups still require some common sense.

Martin

countadam wrote: I have yet to see any matched pairs events for FOG.

Try Campaign for a start. IMO there are many, tho none as tight as campaign.

>Knights have little to fear from anything at the moment.

Except being defeated by larger numbers of considerably cheaper troops?

Talking about 1v1 matchups is all well and good, that's not quite the way the game is actually played though (or shouldn't be!)

Even if I agreed with the idea that knights are too powerful and need a counterbalance for gameplay purposes, I hardly think the right way would be to buff elephants. For a start, you won't see many of those matchups in any sort of dated/themed tournament, of which there are more than a few. And even if you are primarily concerned with open tournaments, not many armies can field significant numbers of elephants.

marty wrote:I've never succesfully lanced an elephant from horseback. I suspect few, if any, people have (in any period of history).
Martin

Apparently a lot of the medieval Indian lancers trained for it, Rajput especially. Great stories of heroes killing mahuts and elephants.

countadam wrote: I see the elephant and knight matchup being necessary for game balance. in a one on one matchup, Knights have little to fear from anything at the moment.

I understand that Kn and El match ups are anacronistic however the FOG community only plays these sorts of tournaments. I have yet to see any matched pairs events for FOG.

Your first point I would suggest Longbow with stakes can take out Knights quite easy, followed closely by Pikes.

Your second point ther is IIRC few large events in the UK that are open events, of the big ones I can only think of the Challange.

Just thought about this why make Elephants harder you don't get your Lance for your Knights at impact elephant is on a + In melee you don't get armour or sword, elephants are on a + I. think thats strong anyway. The - for losing combat to elephants is quite strong as well?

david53 wrote: Your second point ther is IIRC few large events in the UK that are open events, of the big ones I can only think of the Challange.

I think it would be pushing it to describe Britcon as themed

But I do think FoG competitions are better when carefully themed, as different army styles of play can be jarring.

peterrjohnston wrote:

david53 wrote: Your second point ther is IIRC few large events in the UK that are open events, of the big ones I can only think of the Challange.

I think it would be pushing it to describe Britcon as themed

Perhaps but you don't get many elephants fihting knights as most of the elephant armies are in the early period

But I do think FoG competitions are better when carefully themed, as different army styles of play can be jarring.

Absolutely, I agree 100% and hugely prefer themed comps. The only time I play games that are not at the minimum loosely themed is in tournaments.

peterrjohnston wrote: I think it would be pushing it to describe Britcon as themed

Maybe but 1150 to 1500 is much much better than an open event were Cat armies are kept in the box by the majority of players.

I myself TBH can't see why all events are themed to some extend, the majority of players if not having a correct army could were possible borrow one.

It would'nt take that much extra planning and it would add a bit more fun into the event well it would for me.

It also can make it harder if in the draw you could face a mirror of your own army.

Some of the best games I have had such as at Derby last year was when i was playing an army almost simular to mine.

Of course this is just with my experience of the UK end of the hobby and I might be wrong but its my impression.