4 base skirmishing BGs

[hammy]

I have played in a couple of comps that used the system in the rules and everyone (or at least anyone who had read the rules) was aiming to 'win' by inflicting 6 AP on the enemy for the loss of no more than 2 AP or 4AP for no loss then running for the hills. It was IMO deeply unsatisfactory.

Well that is partly caused by the rather granular nature and the simplicity of the system (everyone knows instantly where he stands right now).
It might be possible to use the full range of the 20-0+5 system for some finer gradings that might help here, something like:
<snip>

Something like that might well work although I am not sure it is that far different from what we are using now.

It seems that people think there may be a problem and that said problem may be related to armies with big BG counts, armies with lots of skirmishers, players that don't want to play the game, the Benny Hill phase or the scoring system.

I think the first thing (and the hardest) to do is to actually identify what the problem is.

[david53]

I have played in a couple of comps that used the system in the rules and everyone (or at least anyone who had read the rules) was aiming to 'win' by inflicting 6 AP on the enemy for the loss of no more than 2 AP or 4AP for no loss then running for the hills. It was IMO deeply unsatisfactory.

Well that is partly caused by the rather granular nature and the simplicity of the system (everyone knows instantly where he stands right now).
It might be possible to use the full range of the 20-0+5 system for some finer gradings that might help here, something like:
<snip>

Something like that might well work although I am not sure it is that far different from what we are using now.

It seems that people think there may be a problem and that said problem may be related to armies with big BG counts, armies with lots of skirmishers, players that don't want to play the game, the Benny Hill phase or the scoring system.

I think the first thing (and the hardest) to do is to actually identify what the problem is.

Or maybe there is nothing wrong and it is only the minority that feel for whatever reason there is something wrong. I for one think its the minority for what ever reason feel that things need changing IMO.

[nikgaukroger]

Or maybe there is nothing wrong and it is only the minority that feel for whatever reason there is something wrong. I for one think its the minority for what ever reason feel that things need changing IMO.

I believe that you are simply wrong here. Certainly on the Benny Hill situation this has been a noted issue from quite early on in FoG (post release) - denying that is like being a flat earther.

FWIW I thnk that in regard to skirmishers, and the 4 base BG variety (which are bloody useful), FoG:AM would be improved if it was amended the way we have made FoG:R. LF move 4MU and LH move 6MU and wheeling can only be 90 degrees at most (and, IIRC, in total between multiple wheels). The combined effect of these is quite good IMO. Oh, and CMTs are passed on an 8 for all troops.

I am also quite interested in Hammy's (IIRC) idea that you get +1 on a CT if testing for being shot at by skirmishers (or mostly skirmishers presumably).

[kevinj]

• david53 wrote:
  
  Or maybe there is nothing wrong and it is only the minority that feel for whatever reason there is something wrong. I for one think its the minority for what ever reason feel that things need changing IMO.

  Nik Gaukroger wrote:
  
  I believe that you are simply wrong here. Certainly on the Benny Hill situation this has been a noted issue from quite early on in FoG (post release) - denying that is like being a flat earther.

To be honest I don't think the people who post here are ever going to be more than a vociferous minority, but I'm sure that most of us do so from the starting position that we enjoy the game and, if we have any little niggles, they are not going to stop us from playing it. We have certainly moved on from the situation where rules were produced in some remote dark tower and each competition had it's own set of amendments (thinly disguised as clarifications!) and the reputation of the whole competition experience (and the type of player who participated) was very negative.

Personally, I've no real experience of the Benny Hill problem. I've heard about it, and the fact that it's been named indicates that it has been an issue. I don't think it's unreasonable for a player to try to avoid defeat using their skills within the rules if their plan hasn't come off, I would be annoyed if such a player hid in the toilet for half an hour.

I'd appreciate a competition scoring system where players could calculate their own scores and we didn't end up with things being decided on 2 places of decimals, but I don't think the current system is giving the wrong results. Some people have won tournaments with large numbers of BGs, some with relatively small numbers. Mostly what you can point to is that the player concerned did not cause a great surprise by winning. I don't see a great pattern of anomalous results using either tactic.

Oh, and I think 4 base BGs of skirmishers can be great. But I'll continue to also use 6s and 8s.

[Ghaznavid]

FWIW I thnk that in regard to skirmishers, and the 4 base BG variety (which are bloody useful), FoG:AM would be improved if it was amended the way we have made FoG:R. LF move 4MU and LH move 6MU and wheeling can only be 90 degrees at most (and, IIRC, in total between multiple wheels). The combined effect of these is quite good IMO. Oh, and CMTs are passed on an 8 for all troops.

Agree on the reduced moves, not sure on the wheels and I don't think CMT on 7's for Drilled troops is the problem and for what it is worth I consider FoG:R the worse game. A good simulation perhaps (probably even the better simulation, but then given the smaller time frame that's not that difficult), but for me at least somewhat less enjoyable as a game.

I am also quite interested in Hammy's (IIRC) idea that you get +1 on a CT if testing for being shot at by skirmishers (or mostly skirmishers presumably).

And what would that model?
Also if combined with the other limitations you listed I'm afraid it would make some armies rather unplayable, it's already work to disrupt anyone that is not unprotected with skirmishers. Under the FoG:R move rules it would be even harder. Granting a + on CTs would be way over the top.
If you want all that I also want the ability to switch from LH to Cv mode (or from LF to MF) and back for those armies that did so historically.

Finally I don't think that rule changes should be used to amend list problems.

[peterrjohnston]

FWIW I thnk that in regard to skirmishers, and the 4 base BG variety (which are bloody useful), FoG:AM would be improved if it was amended the way we have made FoG:R. LF move 4MU and LH move 6MU and wheeling can only be 90 degrees at most (and, IIRC, in total between multiple wheels). The combined effect of these is quite good IMO. Oh, and CMTs are passed on an 8 for all troops.

I think these would be very good amendments! I find it strange in FoG that on even VMDs light foot can outrun all infantry and even more so, cavalry. And LH at 6MU would make cavalry just a little more dangerous for LH; currently one has to be very unlucky to be caught by cavalry, especially combined with the over-manoeuvrability of LH. It may also have a side-effect of making non-superior and non-armoured cavalry more useful than they are at present.

I am also quite interested in Hammy's (IIRC) idea that you get +1 on a CT if testing for being shot at by skirmishers (or mostly skirmishers presumably).

Unless also skirmishers, perhaps.

[peterrjohnston]

And what would that model?
Also if combined with the other limitations you listed I'm afraid it would make some armies rather unplayable, it's already work to disrupt anyone that is not unprotected with skirmishers. Under the FoG:R move rules it would be even harder. Granting a + on CTs would be way over the top.

Currently 2 BGs of 4 LH will outshoot 1 BG of 4 armoured bow cavalry. It's an effect that seems a little strange.

[Ghaznavid]

And what would that model?
Also if combined with the other limitations you listed I'm afraid it would make some armies rather unplayable, it's already work to disrupt anyone that is not unprotected with skirmishers. Under the FoG:R move rules it would be even harder. Granting a + on CTs would be way over the top.

Currently 2 BGs of 4 LH will outshoot 1 BG of 4 armoured bow cavalry. It's an effect that seems a little strange.

Well they represent more shooters are probably more expensive and it's 4 dice vs. 4 dice, so their only advantage is that they disperse the hits over more people (erh... bases) and are more manoeuvrable, but compensate for it by being much worse in melee. Where exactly is the problem there? It will always be possible to pick a single situation and claim it is imbalanced, many things are if taken out of the 'big picture' and viewed separately.

[hammy]

I am also quite interested in Hammy's (IIRC) idea that you get +1 on a CT if testing for being shot at by skirmishers (or mostly skirmishers presumably).

Unless also skirmishers, perhaps.

The full idea is that a BG of non skirmishers shot at entirely by skirmishers gets a +1 on its CT.

I am not sure if it degrades skirmisher shooting too much but the idea came about after hearing people complain that skirmisher shooting seemed to be too effective.

Perhaps the idea could be weakened slightly by making it that a steady BG of non skirmishers shot at entirely by skirmishers gets the +1. That way once the rot starts things are exactly as they are now but a solid formation of troops is less impacted by skirmisher fire.

I remember being concerned that non skirmisehr shooting was not really effective enough compared to skirmishers through the testing phase but the various ideas tested to improve shooting from non skirmishers made their shooting too effective. Knocking back the effectiveness of skirmisher shooting by a CT modifier didn't occur to me at that time.

[david53]

Or maybe there is nothing wrong and it is only the minority that feel for whatever reason there is something wrong. I for one think its the minority for what ever reason feel that things need changing IMO.

I believe that you are simply wrong here. Certainly on the Benny Hill situation this has been a noted issue from quite early on in FoG (post release) - denying that is like being a flat earther.

FWIW I thnk that in regard to skirmishers, and the 4 base BG variety (which are bloody useful), FoG:AM would be improved if it was amended the way we have made FoG:R. LF move 4MU and LH move 6MU and wheeling can only be 90 degrees at most (and, IIRC, in total between multiple wheels). The combined effect of these is quite good IMO. Oh, and CMTs are passed on an 8 for all troops.

I am also quite interested in Hammy's (IIRC) idea that you get +1 on a CT if testing for being shot at by skirmishers (or mostly skirmishers presumably).

So what your asking for is a major change in the rules then, but you call me a flat earther cause i don't agree with you. I still say cause a minority on the forum says something is broken dos'nt mean its correct. To compare AM to FOG R still dos'nt make it right from what i gather two different rule sets. BTW If CMT were passed on 8 for all troops whats the point of taking Drilled troops and paying the extra points for them. While were at it dropping LF to 4 MU are you going to drop MF to three MU or are they to move at the same speed as Lights? look out for loads more medium foot armies then.

[peterrjohnston]

Well they represent more shooters are probably more expensive and it's 4 dice vs. 4 dice, so their only advantage is that they disperse the hits over more people (erh... bases) and are more manoeuvrable, but compensate for it by being much worse in melee. Where exactly is the problem there? It will always be possible to pick a single situation and claim it is imbalanced, many things are if taken out of the 'big picture' and viewed separately.

Well, the big picture is exactly what I'm referring too, in the context of what actually can happen in a game.

Even if the the LH are bow sword, it's only 4AP more.

Assuming the 2 BGs are facing the bow cavalry in single line as usual, and not dancing round the flanks of the cavalry. On even dice (at 4s, obviously), the LH will force a CT on the cavalry every turn. The cavalry need to hit twice with 2 bases on each LH to force a CT.

If the LH do fail a CT, they can very very easily retire out of range to be bolstered. The cavalry need to be bolstered whilst still in shooting range; not forgetting of course that as disrupted under continued CTs you go fragmented even easier. And in a real game, chances are the player using LH has more LH to feed into the gap.

And unless the LH player is extremely incompetent, the cavalry will never catch the LH by charging.

[philqw78]

Currently 2 BGs of 4 LH will outshoot 1 BG of 4 armoured bow cavalry. It's an effect that seems a little strange.

Not really. LH move to shooting range. Shoot. Either LH has a small chance of disruption. Cav has a much greater chance. Next turn cav charges, probably won't catch them unless the LH is poorly positioned, and can bolster, and it won't get shot. This will also open a gap for support troops to pass through unhindered. But again this takes the situation in isolation and takes no account of what your support troops, nor indeed the remainder of your army is doing.

[david53]

And LH at 6MU would make cavalry just a little more dangerous for LH; currently one has to be very unlucky to be caught by cavalry,

Within 2MU +2 -2 would catch LH with Cavalry so if i have it correctly 1 or 2 rolled for the LH and a 5 or 6 for the cavalry not that bad odds?

[nikgaukroger]

Agree on the reduced moves, not sure on the wheels and I don't think CMT on 7's for Drilled troops is the problem

IMO the fact that Drilled troops can pass CMTs more easily than Undriled ones and do things after passing them that Undrilled cannot - e.g. the turn and move for Drilled foot - is a double benefit for not a lot of extra points and isn't quite balanced.

Of course you could amend what they can do instead of making the manosuvre harder to achieve, however, I generally quite like manoeuvre and so always tend to go with allowing that

I am also quite interested in Hammy's (IIRC) idea that you get +1 on a CT if testing for being shot at by skirmishers (or mostly skirmishers presumably).

And what would that model?

That in general skirmishers, whether foot or mounted, did not generally cause that much disruption or took a long time to do so where as "proper" (for want of a better word) troops had a greater effect and more quickly.

Also if combined with the other limitations you listed I'm afraid it would make some armies rather unplayable, it's already work to disrupt anyone that is not unprotected with skirmishers.

Now that is just rubbish I'm afraid. Now Armoured and Heavily Armoured are pretty difficult, however, Protected are quite vulnerable IMO - and I think I've had enough experience with skirmishers to know what I am on about here.

Under the FoG:R move rules it would be even harder.

Play test evidence suggests otherwise - with Ottomans with a fair chunk of skirmisher LH doing rather well (to the point of worrying us that it was going to be a monster super army)

Granting a + on CTs would be way over the top.
If you want all that I also want the ability to switch from LH to Cv mode (or from LF to MF) and back for those armies that did so historically.

That one crops up a lot as a suggestion and I've looked at it a lot and, IMO, there is little evidence that such a mechanism is needed to represent things that happened in real battles (as opposed to in wargamers minds) - certainly not for the mounted, although there is a better argument for the foot I think.

Finally I don't think that rule changes should be used to amend list problems.

I don't think that the main issues of this thread are list issues, they are rules/scoring systems ones - with the exception of the Roman swarms if that has been raised. (mind you the whole things has got so long I have probably missed something)

[peterrjohnston]

BTW If CMT were passed on 8 for all troops whats the point of taking Drilled troops and paying the extra points for them.

Because drilled troops don't have to take CMTs in many moves types that undrilled troops do. Even if it was an 8 to pass, I'd still take drilled over undrilled for any non-skirmishers other than cavalry; drilled and undrilled cavalry being almost the same in capabilities.

While were at it dropping LF to 4 MU are you going to drop MF to three MU or are they to move at the same speed as Lights? look out for loads more medium foot armies then.

On evens VMDs they still escape a charge. As LH at 6MU, it just makes it a little more risky with variations in VMDs.

[david53]

And unless the LH player is extremely incompetent, the cavalry will never catch the LH by charging.

Unless you get within 2mu of course.

[philqw78]

And unless the LH player is extremely incompetent, the cavalry will never catch the LH by charging.

Unless you get within 2mu of course.

The LH player would have to be incompetent to move to within 2 MU in his own move. If the cav get within 2 MU in the cav move the LH player then just moves back in his own.

I find catching skirmishers with battle troops a very interesting dance. But probably very unrealistic.

[hammy]

And unless the LH player is extremely incompetent, the cavalry will never catch the LH by charging.

Unless you get within 2mu of course.

That would I suspect fall under the category of extremely incompetent. Why would light horse with bow ever want to finish their turn less than 2 MU from enemy cavalry? If you fail the CMT then fall back anyway and use the Parthian shot.

I am quite looking forwards to trying FoG:R as there are a number of changes to the base rules which I feel may be for the better. The 90 degree limit on a wheel for a start is a big one as a lot of the cheese that is still in the game comes from massive wheels.

[nikgaukroger]

Well they represent more shooters are probably more expensive and it's 4 dice vs. 4 dice, so their only advantage is that they disperse the hits over more people (erh... bases) and are more manoeuvrable, but compensate for it by being much worse in melee. Where exactly is the problem there? It will always be possible to pick a single situation and claim it is imbalanced, many things are if taken out of the 'big picture' and viewed separately.

Looking at the big picture the interaction does not match up with my view of what happened historically based on the stuff I've read about the middle to far east (and I've read more of that than is really good for me ) - which is where you get a lot of the troops in question. (Allowing for the fact that real battles are not equal points, yadda, yadda)

Of course there is the solution that all these LH shooty types shuld really be Cv anyway I suspect we'd agree more on that

[peterrjohnston]

Currently 2 BGs of 4 LH will outshoot 1 BG of 4 armoured bow cavalry. It's an effect that seems a little strange.

Not really. LH move to shooting range. Shoot. Either LH has a small chance of disruption. Cav has a much greater chance. Next turn cav charges, probably won't catch them unless the LH is poorly positioned, and can bolster, and it won't get shot. This will also open a gap for support troops to pass through unhindered. But again this takes the situation in isolation and takes no account of what your support troops, nor indeed the remainder of your army is doing.

Well yes, it depends on what else is happening. The LH player could be shooting from the flank, or have other troops to charge the cavalry from the flank.
But on stand-up shooting, the cavalry have more chance of having to take CTs. And the solution that specialist shooting cavalry have to charge other shooters? Surely they should be shooting back at least as good if not better?