First Game of FOG V2

elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n · Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:18 am

I think it can be very difficult not to view changes in terms of how they impact upon your own armies.

I think historically few units would not break at 50% losses. So my comment was based upon histrical accuracy and a need to balance the overeffectiveness of superior for their points which results in them being so popular in competition.

The fact that it is bad for your superior lancers may however colour your personnel view of this change.

Thanks for the game last night.

Paul

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:24 am

Perhaps I should have added a smiley?

elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n · Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:39 am

Rereading my reply it does read as a bit abrupt which wasn't meant. Sorry Phil no offense intended.

The only rule change I didnt like was the edge of the table being the end of the world as to me the table side edges are an artificiality. If you are fighting a LH army on the steppes the existence of a table edge that they disappear off does not seem reasonable to me.

Paul

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:13 am

The anti-Lh stuff does seem to have gone into overkill.

I believe the original "2 AP for evading off" gang, of which I was a member, did not envision must evade off as an option.

MatthewP · Post by **MatthewP** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:21 am

philqw78 wrote:The anti-Lh stuff does seem to have gone into overkill.

And your problem is?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:28 am

MatthewP wrote:
philqw78 wrote:The anti-Lh stuff does seem to have gone into overkill.
And your problem is?

Les of a stick to poke Porter with. I'll just have to do it with unprotected cavalry next time.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:27 pm

MatthewP wrote:
philqw78 wrote:The anti-Lh stuff does seem to have gone into overkill.
And your problem is?

As I have said players who like LH armies and I am one, will adapt and come up with sdomething elese to p*** of people no doubt. I have my mongol army made up for the next game on Friday night, with protected cavalry and unprotected cavalry.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:36 am

elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n wrote: I think historically few units would not break at 50% losses. So my comment was based upon histrical accuracy and a need to balance the overeffectiveness of superior for their points which results in them being so popular in competition.

Well remember "losses" means lots of things. Not dead and maimed. A lost base is lost combat capablity.

Also once the gunpowder era is in full swing you have lots of documented examples of units suffering serious 70% lossses and the remainder figthing on. I suspect that the speed of the losses have not permitted the magnitude of the circumstances to hit the the survivors. But a lot can be explained away. Nonetheless losses mean various.

The Q is still what's best for game balance.