Slitherine

philqw78 wrote:

stopping a powerful BG is nearly impossible

And this is the game. Don't try and stop it. Pick off its supports, shoot it, skirmish it, slow it down, tempt it into a bad position. My heavily armoured, drilled, superior, knights don't fight elephants. My light foot do.

Yep, two possible choice, counter the enemy powerful BG with your powerful BG or the opposite, try to delay the enemy BG with someone expendable and put yours against his weak points.

But for this kind of strategy ther's no need of such complex set of rules like FoG, DBA is enough

Nothing is expendable in FoG, and I am certainly not saying counter his powerful Bg's with yours. Don't waste your own powerful BG's, use them on something they can win against quickly. Use BG that he cannot catch or will beat very slowly against his powerful ones.

I have only played two games of FoG, but I have read over the rules quite thuroughly and I would have to say FoG does not have any ubermensch units in it. No matter how powerful a unit is, there is always a unit that counters it. Or, there is always a way to negate the units advantages.

Now you can have bad army match ups, cataphract heavy Parthians versus Dacians on an open table for example.

But back to the actual topic, I do not think adding more "book-keeping" is necessary. The system may not be super realistic, but I think it strikes a fine balance between "realism" and abstraction.

between "realism" and abstraction.

and playability

philqw78 wrote:

between "realism" and abstraction.

and playability

Yep, but the simple change on a dice modifier on the DR from +2 to 0 or +1 doesn't change the mechanics of the ruleset and IMHO gives more realism to the game increasing the probability that the winner of a melee loose some stand.

With the actual modifier (+2 on the DR) the winner has to take at least 3 hits to start throwing the dice (4 hits if they are elephants) and it's not so easy to make 3 hits if you have a - PoA and 2 or 3 front stand fighting.

Maybe the system is a little more balanced if everyone uses BG with 4 front rank stands (more dice thrown = more hits put on the enemy) but with many army that's not always feasible.

Yep, but the simple change on a dice modifier on the DR from +2 to 0 or +1 doesn't change the mechanics of the ruleset and IMHO gives more realism to the game increasing the probability that the winner of a melee loose some stand.

With the actual modifier (+2 on the DR) the winner has to take at least 3 hits to start throwing the dice (4 hits if they are elephants) and it's not so easy to make 3 hits if you have a - PoA and 2 or 3 front stand fighting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that most seem to disagree with you on several major points:
1) Elite BG's aren't dominating the Game
2) Not backed up by history. I believe the low casaulty rate of the winning BG better matches historical battles. We already had the sample of the Pyhrric victory where it appears the casaulties where local to the battle where the Epeirot / allied army was loosing.

And finally will destroy the balance of the game. For example you mention elephants - they would become completely worthless battlegroups. As always your are free to try anything at your local games - whatever you find the most fun! But I don't see this being an accepted rule change that is going to be adopted.

FWIW when I first started playtesting the game I missed the +2 on the death roll for winning or drawing in melee. The game still worked but it was dominated by death rolls not cohesion. If you feel that removing the +2 is a good idea by all means play that way but I don't expect it to become a standard rule any time soon.

hammy wrote:FWIW when I first started playtesting the game I missed the +2 on the death roll for winning or drawing in melee. The game still worked but it was dominated by death rolls not cohesion. If you feel that removing the +2 is a good idea by all means play that way but I don't expect it to become a standard rule any time soon.

Well I hate rulesets with zero risk for the winner of the melee and in my club we used to discard sooner such type of systems.
FoG has a stronger movement system and other good idea that I really like so it's a pity to discard it completely, probably I'll try various HR to avoid what I hate of FoG (first of all 0 or +1 on DR for the winner).

Duke68 wrote:

hammy wrote:FWIW when I first started playtesting the game I missed the +2 on the death roll for winning or drawing in melee. The game still worked but it was dominated by death rolls not cohesion. If you feel that removing the +2 is a good idea by all means play that way but I don't expect it to become a standard rule any time soon.

Well I hate rulesets with zero risk for the winner of the melee and in my club we used to discard sooner such type of systems.
FoG has a stronger movement system and other good idea that I really like so it's a pity to discard it completely, probably I'll try various HR to avoid what I hate of FoG (first of all 0 or +1 on DR for the winner).

Well there isn't zero risk to the winner, just less risk than to the loser.

I can't think of that many games where both sides take similar penalties regardelss of winning or not. I suppose that the old WRG rules did mean you picked up gradual losses on winning forces through casualties but most other rules I have played haven't had that.

The major issue is that in FoG the only possible loss that a BG could take is a cohesion drop or a base loss. Losing a base is quite significant and losing a base from a small BG is very significant. It doesn't take much for an 'elite' BG to lose a melee and take a base loss or to take 3 or more hits and lose a base. I have on many occasions had my 'victorious' troops lose a base while their deffeated opponents lose none and don't drop in cohesion.

Removing the death roll modifier really does turn a lot of combats into a simple lottery based on who can roll big numbers on their death roll and thus not lose bases. The fundamentals of FoG are based around cohesion loss as being the main driver of defeat, not having the +2 to the death roll for winning a combat changes the emphasis of the game to one about base removal.

For some people the concept of defeating enemy without removing their bases seems difficult to grasp and I have played a number of teaching games against mainly warhammer players where they put far too much effort into killing bases (even from broken BGs) than was needed for them to win the game. This over emphasis on killing bases meant that on more than one occasion the game was lost by the player doing the killing as his troops were pulled away from the ciritical part of the battlefield.

For some people the concept of defeating enemy without removing their bases seems difficult to grasp and I have played a number of teaching games against mainly warhammer players where they put far too much effort into killing bases (even from broken BGs) than was needed for them to win the game

Indeed, this seems to afflict a lot of ancient generals as well. How many accounts do we read of troops pursuing their broken foe only to get hit in the flank / taken out of the larger fight, only for the main army to subsequently lose because they are missing!

Seems to mimic history quite well

hammy wrote:Well there isn't zero risk to the winner, just less risk than to the loser.

I can't think of that many games where both sides take similar penalties regardelss of winning or not. I suppose that the old WRG rules did mean you picked up gradual losses on winning forces through casualties but most other rules I have played haven't had that.

The major issue is that in FoG the only possible loss that a BG could take is a cohesion drop or a base loss. Losing a base is quite significant and losing a base from a small BG is very significant. It doesn't take much for an 'elite' BG to lose a melee and take a base loss or to take 3 or more hits and lose a base. I have on many occasions had my 'victorious' troops lose a base while their deffeated opponents lose none and don't drop in cohesion.

Removing the death roll modifier really does turn a lot of combats into a simple lottery based on who can roll big numbers on their death roll and thus not lose bases. The fundamentals of FoG are based around cohesion loss as being the main driver of defeat, not having the +2 to the death roll for winning a combat changes the emphasis of the game to one about base removal.

For some people the concept of defeating enemy without removing their bases seems difficult to grasp and I have played a number of teaching games against mainly warhammer players where they put far too much effort into killing bases (even from broken BGs) than was needed for them to win the game. This over emphasis on killing bases meant that on more than one occasion the game was lost by the player doing the killing as his troops were pulled away from the ciritical part of the battlefield.

In FoG failing a CT is far more critical than failing a DR (at least for BG of 4 or more stands).

The winner doesn't make any CT so this risk is completely avoided and +2 on a D6 means that the risk of failing a DR is very very low if you haven't get a lot of hits (at least is 33% less than your opponent).

If the two BG have 0 PoA in impact and in melee and they have the same number of stands well it's only a matter of dice.

But if there's a weak BG sooner or later (maybe sooner) it fails a CT or a DR (or both) and from then its situation can only get worse.

From my experience the first BG that loose a round and fail a CT will be broken in 2 round and the winner will come out unharmed and ready to broke someonelse (in most cases).

There were very few situation where both gets some kind of deterioration or where the first to drop cohesion survived the fight.

From my experience the first BG that loose a round and fail a CT will be broken in 2 round and the winner will come out unharmed and ready to broke someonelse (in most cases).

I had a BG of Av, LH, UP, UD, Bw, Sw fight a BG of Sup, LH, UP, Bw in melee fom the second turn of the game to the end. Both had generals. It went from Steady to Disr to stdy to Disr, to frag to disr to steady to disr to frag by the last turn. Some turns it didn't change cohesion at all.

I wouldn't dare use BGs of Knights or Elephants in single rank if this rule was changed. And then if I used them in 2 ranks, people would say I was abusing the rules by using an unhistorical formation. Also, 4 wide Knights against a BG of 8 crap MF, the crap MF would win by attrition...

philqw78 wrote:

From my experience the first BG that loose a round and fail a CT will be broken in 2 round and the winner will come out unharmed and ready to broke someonelse (in most cases).

I had a BG of Av, LH, UP, UD, Bw, Sw fight a BG of Sup, LH, UP, Bw in melee fom the second turn of the game to the end. Both had generals. It went from Steady to Disr to stdy to Disr, to frag to disr to steady to disr to frag by the last turn. Some turns it didn't change cohesion at all.

I have seen fragged pike recover in melee and break their opponents.

In one game I had a BG of 2 elephants against 4 Heavy Chariots, at impact I won, killed a base and dirupted the chariots, in the first melee round I won, killed a base and fragmented the chariots, two melee rounds later my elephants had been routed (on failed cohesion tests) and the chariots were merely disrupted......

In FoG failing a CT is far more critical than failing a DR (at least for BG of 4 or more stands).

It is not what I have seen in games so far at least for 4 bases superiors / Elite BG
Small Elite / Superior BG are very often killed by DR.

Of course it is not the same story for a 8 bases Elite Varangian guard / Roman legion BG

But if there's a weak BG sooner or later (maybe sooner) it fails a CT or a DR (or both) and from then its situation can only get worse.

It seems both historical and normal ...
Battles won with small casualties for the winner are common.

Bonne soirée
Lionel

Failure of morale (FoG CTs) rather than casualties (FoG DRs) is, IMO, the more historical representation of ancient and mediavel warfare.

I'd go as far as to say that an approach based on losses is a rather naive representation although it has a certain visceral appeal That said if it floats your boat go for it and amend the rules for your games to make it enjoyable for you and the people you game with Enjoyment comes first

I

n FoG failing a CT is far more critical than failing a DR (at least for BG of 4 or more stands).

By desing the CT is the dominating factor as it was hsitorically but DR is critical in providing a balance for eventual exhastion of small elite troops. It is very very carfefully balanced and was subject to several 1000000s of simulations. You will be surprised how much the balance will, change with a +1/-1 for example - but if you like a visible bloodfest then feel free to try it. I think i can safely say it will be less good as a game or represnataion of history but mucho fun!!

I ususally lose troops through CT failure but a nice exmaple for this debate

at Rampage my 4 base Roman BGs lost 7 BGs to DR effects - eventually.
Dying to man in the service of Rome.
Notably given the comments about damage to winners this was all in the process of them winning!
There were regular 4-4 draws in combat where they lost a base or sitations where they won 4-3.

We won the comp. We didn't lose a single BG or Roman legionaries to CT effects. They found round the eagles like true Legionaries. I alos lost my Elite Byzatines by losing 1 base when they rolled a 1 for Dr having won 4.3!! There is plenty of damage to winners as long as they have wona bloody scrap (just not if they have had an easy time of it)

Si

Surely this is just maths?

A line of three 4-strong units fighting will stand less chance of losing bases than a single unit of 12 - each 4 will only have 4 dice against it, and will probably only take 2 hits, but the 12 will have 12 dices against it, and may well take 6 hits each turn. So the 12 may suffer base losses in winning, but the 3 x 4's are highly unlikely to do so.

But the -1 on the cohesion test for losing 25% goes some way to countbalance this...

..although the -1 for 1 hit pre 3 bases you can argue actually works in favour of 4's, as you need 2 hits on each to give a -1 along the line, whereas a 12 takes the -1 with just 4 hits...

...so the losses on the small units are maybe a little more serious (only a little).

But even without a -2 on the death roll for winning the combat, the 12 loses more bases more consistently than 3 x 4 will do.

I think if you take away the -2 for winning, you also need to take away the -1 for 25% losses to counterbalance it

FWIW on even numbers the 12 base BG will only lose 42% of the time but one or more of the 4 base BGs will lose 74% of the time meaning that while the 12 may be more likely to lose bases the 4s are more likely to lose cohesion and if one should lose the combat, lose a base and drop cohesion there is a very good chance it will lose again the next turn and break leaving its colleagues in a rather unpleasant mess.

Also one general can boost all 12 bases of the big BG and give a +1 on CTs while to do the same for the 3 4s would need three generals.

You pays your money and makes your choice.

shall wrote:By desing the CT is the dominating factor as it was hsitorically but DR is critical in providing a balance for eventual exhastion of small elite troops. It is very very carfefully balanced and was subject to several 1000000s of simulations.
Si

Just for curiosity: why haven't you considered some kind of temporary disorder arising from melee but only the disorder from bad terrain?