Slitherine

babyshark wrote:

philqw78 wrote: And its not the length ot the spear, its how you use it.

That's what I keep telling her.

Maybe you aren't using it right.

As long as you are a protected spearmen things should be fine.

hammy wrote:

azrael86 wrote: Personally I fail to see why fanatical irregulars (delis or Crusader knights, say) and disciplined career soldiers (Legions or Janissaries) have to work under the same characteristics. After all, the rules stipulate that adding 3' to the length of a spear makes a difference, but spending 4 hours a day practicing doesn't?

Err, they don't. One lot are undrilled and the other lot are drilled. This makes a HUGE difference to their maneuverability. Poor quality drilled troops are more maneuverable than Elite undrilled.

The simplification is that where troops are of a better or worse than average quality that change applies to all the relevant dice rolls rather than have troops that are superior for maneuver, poor for shooting, average for close combat and elite for morale.

Exactly

Furthermore the difference between
Drilled Cav /Drilled infantry
versus
undrilled cav
versus
undrilled infantry/undrilled Kniights
is HUGE
even if they all are superior.

Drilled troops can do things undrilled troops can't

It is something that is not as obvious when you start the game and think "i can take good quality undrilled troops and be just like the drilled guys except i need an 8 instead of a 7 on the CMT." But that is overlooking a huge difference.

That is why I think you are missing part of what has been designed. The differences are actually pronounced once you recognize them in game terms.

I recently had some drilled average knights (the ones people say are dog meat) crush undrilled superior knighs merely by out manuvering them owed to the differences of being drilled.

hammy wrote:

azrael86 wrote: Personally I fail to see why fanatical irregulars (delis or Crusader knights, say) and disciplined career soldiers (Legions or Janissaries) have to work under the same characteristics. After all, the rules stipulate that adding 3' to the length of a spear makes a difference, but spending 4 hours a day practicing doesn't?

Err, they don't. One lot are undrilled and the other lot are drilled. This makes a HUGE difference to their maneuverability.
The simplification is that where troops are of a better or worse than average quality that change applies to all the relevant dice rolls rather than have troops that are superior for maneuver, poor for shooting, average for close combat and elite for morale.

The point, which you are carefully missing, is that the effect in combat is identical. The fanatics kill more of the enemy through re-rolls, as do the seasoned veterans. Are you saying this is purely a mechanism or claiming it is realistic? If the latter then it would make more sense for the veterans to be harder to kill (representing fighting as a group), and it would also change the character of the army.

Scrumpy wrote:As long as you are a protected spearman things should be fine.

Like the Trojan war...

azrael86 wrote: The point, which you are carefully missing, is that the effect in combat is identical. The fanatics kill more of the enemy through re-rolls, as do the seasoned veterans. Are you saying this is purely a mechanism or claiming it is realistic? If the latter then it would make more sense for the veterans to be harder to kill (representing fighting as a group), and it would also change the character of the army.

The opposite is true as well though, should every bloke that got some drill automatically fight better (or just as well) as an enthusiastic and experienced tribal warrior, just because that warrior is not very good at moving in formations? The seasoned veteran you are talking about probably needs to be superior and drilled, not just one or the other. Drilled IMO says nothing about the willingness to fight. You may know how to fight, but may actually lack the guts for a real fight.

Of course one can also tack on additional rules, like as you say, make certain troops harder to kill, but where to stop? That's a good way to overload a rule set with not really required detail.

possum wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:As long as you are a protected spearman things should be fine.

Like the Trojan war...

Whilst driving through West Virginia the wife I passed a Catholic high school who boasted ' We are proud of our Trojans !"

We both hoped that was the name of the school team.

azrael86 wrote:The point, which you are carefully missing, is that the effect in combat is identical. The fanatics kill more of the enemy through re-rolls, as do the seasoned veterans. Are you saying this is purely a mechanism or claiming it is realistic? If the latter then it would make more sense for the veterans to be harder to kill (representing fighting as a group), and it would also change the character of the army.

I have to say that I think I really don't understand your point at all.

Are you trying to say that for some reason drilled troops who are good should be harder to hit but undrilled troops who are good should be more likely to hit their opponents? If so I am still not sure what the point is.

What do you think should happen?

Taking the first and last post, and ignoring everything in between, it seems to me that (at least part of) the original point may have been some thing like:

Basing rerolls just on quality is too coarse grained, because:
Being Superior grants a reroll on CMT, even if undrilled; and
There is no mechanism to allow a reroll on CMT for drilled troops of average quality.

That seems, to me, to be core of the issue raised in the first post, and was followed by some suggested changes.

The initial responses seem to have been along the lines of:

Yes, we considered different mechanisms for representing combat effectiveness and manoeuvrability rerolls, but decided that it introduced too much complexity.


Here's my input:
In support of this response we have several things to consider:

'Drilled' represents being taught to manoeuvre, but not necessarily how to fight. This is represented by needing a 7 rather than 8 on the CMT test.

'Superior' essentially represents being taught how to fight, at both the individual weapon skills level, and also how to fight in concert as a unit. This latter also means that there must be at least some training involved in 'being a unit'. Whilst this does not by itself mean the unit is 'Drilled', it does have some effect on the manoeuvrability of the unit. This is represented by allowing rerols on combat, and on CMT.

'Elite' simply means 'even more superior'.

If a unit is 'Drilled' and 'Superior', then obviously a lot of time has gone into their training in both manoeuvrability and fighting. This is represented by allowing rerols, and the need for 7 rather than 8 on the CMT.


A second point arising seems to have been that 'Superior' troops should not only find it easier to kill their oponents, but should also be harder for their opponents to hit.

This is represented in the rules in a more subtle manner.

Superior troops are more likely to win individual combats against average or worse troops. This means they will not have to take Cohesion Tests, representing the better morale of veterans, but it also means they will not have to make Death Rolls, representing the better personal defensive abilities of veterans.


It is always possible to find flaws with any generalisation (which is what a set of rules is, effectively). For example, barbarians who faught viciously but with scant regard for personal safety will probably be classed as Superior (such as Superior and even Elite Ancient British warriors). This means they get the same CT and DR benefits as, say Legionaries, who had excellent defensive discipline. In the case of the Brits, though, this does not represent better 'morale' or defensive ability, it represents the fact that they were frenzied lunatics who just didn't care.

Also, the barbarians will get rerolls on their CMT's. This is a bit harder to rationalise, but I think of this as follows. A bunch of barbarians in loose order is easier to manoeuvre ("This way, lads!") than a unit using a weapon requiring close order for effectiveness (such as offensive/defensive spear). So Superior Undrilled barbarians, by definition 'the best of the bunch', can manoeuvre more easily than, say Average Undrilled hoplites.

However, for me the amazement is that so much subtlety is represented in the current rule set with, essentially, few enough tables to fit on a single side of A4, that are clear to read, easy to understand, and, in combat amount to rolling a set of dice to attack, followed by three more dice rolled by the loser to determine the effects.

The simplicity of the combat resolution mechanism hides a great deal of complexity, with the interaction of the modifiers to the result behaving in subtle ways that really I've only touched on in this post. I think the concerns raised in the original post are valid concerns, but are already covered, both by the existing subtle complexities not immediately apparent, and by the desire to keep the system simple to resolve in game play.

plewis66 wrote:Taking the first and last post, and ignoring everything in between, it seems to me that (at least part of) the original point may have been some thing like:

Basing rerolls just on quality is too coarse grained, because:
Being Superior grants a reroll on CMT, even if undrilled; and
There is no mechanism to allow a reroll on CMT for drilled troops of average quality.

That seems, to me, to be core of the issue raised in the first post, and was followed by some suggested changes.

I have to admit that is what I thought as well but when I pointed out that poor quality drilled troops maneuver better than elite undrilled if didn't cut any ice.

Drilled troops pass a CMT on a 7, undrilled on an 8. Drilled troops also have more maneuvers allowed to them and many that can be performed without a CMT.

Superior drilled troops are more maneuverable than average drilled troops but there is to me no logic in comparing superior undrilled to superiro drilled, it is an apples and oranges thing.

Here are the chances of passing a CMT for different types of troops that I have calculated using Excel (all assuming that there are no DRMs for commander disorder disruption etc):

Poor Undrilled 27.1%
Average Undrilled 41.7%
Poor Drilled 43.3%
Superior Undrilled 56.7%
Average Drilled 58.3%
Elite Undrilled 67.9%
Superior Drilled 72.9%
Elite Drilled 82.7%

LambertSimnel wrote:Here are the chances of passing a CMT for different types of troops that I have calculated using Excel (all assuming that there are no DRMs for commander disorder disruption etc):

Poor Undrilled 27.1%
Average Undrilled 41.7%
Poor Drilled 43.3%
Superior Undrilled 56.7%
Average Drilled 58.3%
Elite Undrilled 67.9%
Superior Drilled 72.9%
Elite Drilled 82.7%

I don't care what the chance of passing a CMT is. Poor drilled troops don't need to pass CMTs to do almost everything that Elite undrilled need tests to do and can do things that the Elites can't even dream of should they pass the CMT.

Poor drilled troops can always contract if they advance 3MU, Elite undrilled need to pass a test so will only do it 32.1% of the time. Poor drilled troops can contract without advancing 3MU 43.3% of the time but Elite undrilled can do that precicsely never.

hammy wrote:

LambertSimnel wrote:Here are the chances of passing a CMT for different types of troops that I have calculated using Excel (all assuming that there are no DRMs for commander disorder disruption etc):

Poor Undrilled 27.1%
Average Undrilled 41.7%
Poor Drilled 43.3%
Superior Undrilled 56.7%
Average Drilled 58.3%
Elite Undrilled 67.9%
Superior Drilled 72.9%
Elite Drilled 82.7%

I don't care what the chance of passing a CMT is. Poor drilled troops don't need to pass CMTs to do almost everything that Elite undrilled need tests to do and can do things that the Elites can't even dream of should they pass the CMT.

Poor drilled troops can always contract if they advance 3MU, Elite undrilled need to pass a test so will only do it 32.1% of the time. Poor drilled troops can contract without advancing 3MU 43.3% of the time but Elite undrilled can do that precicsely never.

There's no need to get so stroppy. I was trying to support you by showing that even where both Drilled and Undrilled need a CMT (such as Cavalry turning 90 and moving) being Drilled is more important than being Superior.

EDIT: But mostly I was just looking for an excuse to play with Excel.

LambertSimnel wrote:

hammy wrote: I don't care what the chance of passing a CMT is. Poor drilled troops don't need to pass CMTs to do almost everything that Elite undrilled need tests to do and can do things that the Elites can't even dream of should they pass the CMT.

Poor drilled troops can always contract if they advance 3MU, Elite undrilled need to pass a test so will only do it 32.1% of the time. Poor drilled troops can contract without advancing 3MU 43.3% of the time but Elite undrilled can do that precicsely never.

There's no need to get so stroppy. I was trying to support you by showing that even where both Drilled and Undrilled need a CMT (such as Cavalry turning 90 and moving) being Drilled is more important than being Superior.

EDIT: But mostly I was just looking for an excuse to play with Excel.

Appologies, that came out as rather more stroppy than I intended.

With respect to cavalry you do have a good point though, average drilled are better at maneuver than superior undrilled. To be honest though I don't really think of undrilled cavalry as undrilled, just less maneuverable. Proper undrilled troops fall into the 'other undrilled' category.

Scrumpy wrote: Whilst driving through West Virginia the wife I passed a Catholic high school who boasted ' We are proud of our Trojans !"

We both hoped that was the name of the school team.

Well, at least they were protected whilst mounting mamma's. Unless of course Denver's song is off the mark.

Ian

LambertSimnel wrote: EDIT: But mostly I was just looking for an excuse to play with Excel.

Well, you keep playing with your excel, and Scrumpy and the rest up there *pointing* will keep playing with their trojan protected spears.

Ian

azrael86 wrote:

hammy wrote:

azrael86 wrote: Personally I fail to see why fanatical irregulars (delis or Crusader knights, say) and disciplined career soldiers (Legions or Janissaries) have to work under the same characteristics. After all, the rules stipulate that adding 3' to the length of a spear makes a difference, but spending 4 hours a day practicing doesn't?

Err, they don't. One lot are undrilled and the other lot are drilled. This makes a HUGE difference to their maneuverability.
The simplification is that where troops are of a better or worse than average quality that change applies to all the relevant dice rolls rather than have troops that are superior for maneuver, poor for shooting, average for close combat and elite for morale.

The point, which you are carefully missing, is that the effect in combat is identical. The fanatics kill more of the enemy through re-rolls, as do the seasoned veterans. Are you saying this is purely a mechanism or claiming it is realistic? If the latter then it would make more sense for the veterans to be harder to kill (representing fighting as a group), and it would also change the character of the army.

I agree that once hand to hand is joined there is little to choose between drilled and undrilled troops who are otherwise the same.

I can imagine that true fanatics might give and receive more casualties than seasoned professionals, and that isn't directly recreated in these rules. However, most superior undrilled troops aren't fanatics.

If we took the example of good Roman legionaries in combat against the good quality foot barbarians (sup, drilled, IF, SSw armoured vs sup undrilled, IF, Sw, protected) then the Roman veterans are harder to kill overall.

I suspect that the mechanics of the game mitigate against havuing a 'fanatic' capability (though no doubt it could be added with a bit of bending for scenario play). Whether that's because the authors think that's realism or game mechanic I can't tell you. I suspect that they did think that fanaticism was less common than previous rule sets have thought (a bit of a shame, I always enjoyed my 6th Ed nutters)

plewis66 wrote:Taking the first and last post, and ignoring everything in between, it seems to me that (at least part of) the original point may have been some thing like:

Basing rerolls just on quality is too coarse grained, because:
Being Superior grants a reroll on CMT, even if undrilled; and
There is no mechanism to allow a reroll on CMT for drilled troops of average quality.

That seems, to me, to be core of the issue raised in the first post, and was followed by some suggested changes.

The initial responses seem to have been along the lines of:

Yes, we considered different mechanisms for representing combat effectiveness and manoeuvrability rerolls, but decided that it introduced too much complexity.


Here's my input:
In support of this response we have several things to consider:

'Drilled' represents being taught to manoeuvre, but not necessarily how to fight. This is represented by needing a 7 rather than 8 on the CMT test.

'Superior' essentially represents being taught how to fight, at both the individual weapon skills level, and also how to fight in concert as a unit. This latter also means that there must be at least some training involved in 'being a unit'. Whilst this does not by itself mean the unit is 'Drilled', it does have some effect on the manoeuvrability of the unit. This is represented by allowing rerols on combat, and on CMT.

'Elite' simply means 'even more superior'.

If a unit is 'Drilled' and 'Superior', then obviously a lot of time has gone into their training in both manoeuvrability and fighting. This is represented by allowing rerols, and the need for 7 rather than 8 on the CMT.



.

SNIP

good post. As for the superior undrilled moving better than average undrilled -- even though they are both undrilled, you would have to say that superior troops have more practical experience on the battlefield - part of the reason they are superior. Thats got to help in some way - part of fighting is moving.

could you even be classified as superior if you didnt have battlefield experience? I suppose romans had brilliant training and equipment, but even so, wouldnt the n00bs be kept at the rear of the formation until they had earned a few stripes?

a system that produced superior troops, whether it included formal drills or not, would have to include some way of accomodating inexperienced troops into the whole without disurpting its perforamnce too much, even if it just amounts to 'stick with me son, go where I go and do what I do'.

stefoid wrote:good post. As for the superior undrilled moving better than average undrilled -- even though they are both undrilled, you would have to say that superior troops have more practical experience on the battlefield - part of the reason they are superior. Thats got to help in some way - part of fighting is moving.

[rant on]
aaaaargh........

The whole point of every post I have made on this thread is that superior undrilled troops DON'T move better than average drilled ones. Even without the fact that if you ignore cavalry every maneuver that undrilled troops need to pass a CMT for drilled ones can perform automatically you still have the fact that average drilled troops pass the CMT more often than superior undrilled.

This is IMO a non debate.
[/rant]

Sorry, I just had to say that, nothing personal.

hammy wrote:

stefoid wrote:good post. As for the superior undrilled moving better than average undrilled -- even though they are both undrilled, you would have to say that superior troops have more practical experience on the battlefield - part of the reason they are superior. Thats got to help in some way - part of fighting is moving.

[rant on]
aaaaargh........

The whole point of every post I have made on this thread is that superior undrilled troops DON'T move better than average drilled ones. Even without the fact that if you ignore cavalry every maneuver that undrilled troops need to pass a CMT for drilled ones can perform automatically you still have the fact that average drilled troops pass the CMT more often than superior undrilled.

This is IMO a non debate.
[/rant]

Sorry, I just had to say that, nothing personal.

Hmm.

stefoid wrote:As for the superior undrilled moving better than average undrilled