Damn Light Horse again

[rbodleyscott]

I like Fog because is a good set of historical rules. i.e. allows for good historical simulation. No problem when you play against historical opponents. Don’t think the solution should be to change a good set of Historical rules because of unhistorical battles!

That seems to be the nub of the issue.

Most of the mismatches we are talking about are unhistorical. In the cases where they are historical, the non-LH army is usually recorded historically as having had difficulty getting to grips with their opponents.

I think the Italian idea of excluding Mongols from a Storm of Arrows/Oath of Fealty competition is therefore a very sensible response to the issue. (Though I hope not all Oath of Fealty tournaments will do this, because the Mongols and the Andalusians were armies that European armies did have to deal with).

Most of the problems currently seem to be due to:
1) Unhistorical matchups.
2) Players playing for a draw (allegedly).

We will make changes to the rules in due course, but not to the extent that they give unhistorical results. The trick will be to get the rebalance right.

[peterrjohnston]

I think the Italian idea of excluding Mongols from a Storm of Arrows/Oath of Fealty competition is therefore a very sensible response to the issue. (Though I hope not all Oath of Fealty tournaments will do this, because the Mongols and the Andalusians were armies that European armies did have to deal with).

It also intentially excludes the eastern medieval armies like Lithuanian and Early Hungarian, ie "western" Europe only from 1000AD to 1500AD.

The more I think about it I suspect a list of armies may be better. Anything west of the Vistula and Eastern Alps/Vienna.

[rbodleyscott]

I think the Italian idea of excluding Mongols from a Storm of Arrows/Oath of Fealty competition is therefore a very sensible response to the issue. (Though I hope not all Oath of Fealty tournaments will do this, because the Mongols and the Andalusians were armies that European armies did have to deal with).

It also intentially excludes the eastern medieval armies like Lithuanian and Early Hungarian, ie "western" Europe only from 1000AD to 1500AD.

The more I think about it I suspect a list of armies may be better. Anything west of the Vistula and Eastern Alps/Vienna.

Yes.

[marioslaz]

I like Fog because is a good set of historical rules. i.e. allows for good historical simulation. No problem when you play against historical opponents. Don’t think the solution should be to change a good set of Historical rules because of unhistorical battles!

That seems to be the nub of the issue.

Most of the mismatches we are talking about are unhistorical. In the cases where they are historical, the non-LH army is usually recorded historically as having had difficulty getting to grips with their opponents.

Carthaginian Vs Numidian
Greek State Vs Thracian
Successor Vs Skythian
Crusader Vs Muslim
are these unhistorical? I don't want to be repetitive, but rules for evasion/pursuit are good. What FOG lacks, and likely many other systems indeed, is a different objective for massed troops against skirmishers. Massed troops knew they couldn't aspect skirmishers accept to get involved in a melee, so their goal weren't to break their opponent, but to drive them away without let them isolate some friends who could be torn to piece by shooting. Scoring system gives the objective to players, so I think you need to re-evaluate it. Again, and for the last time, I don't moan for a change of rules.
This is my last post about this argument, not because I don't want to confront with different points of view, but because I wrote the same three times. My english is awful, indeed, but I think you understood my point of view and retype again would be boring for you all.

[Mehrunes]

@marioslaz

I understand and agree with you. But do you have an idea how this different scoring system might look like? I fear it is very difficult because you often can't sort armies into "massed troops" or "skirmishers" that easy. Even Carthaginians can be played skirmisher-heavy with only some hard spearmen and elephants in the line.
Or Successors can be a formidable "air & grit" army.

So you will have to take into account the number of skirmisher BGs relative to other BGs. Where to do the cut regarding the army's tactical doctrine and are your sure this new system is safe from being exploited?

[ShrubMiK]

I'd be a bit wary of using players moving over to WW2 gaming as evidence that there is something badly wrong with FoG (which I've noticed a few people doing recently). Maybe some people find tanks and big explosions inherently more fun, and no amount of tinkering with rules or scoring systems will do much about that.

[dave_r]

I'd be a bit wary of using players moving over to WW2 gaming as evidence that there is something badly wrong with FoG (which I've noticed a few people doing recently). Maybe some people find tanks and big explosions inherently more fun, and no amount of tinkering with rules or scoring systems will do much about that.

Or maybe, just maybe, it is possible to play two sets of rules, one covering ancients and the other covering WW II?

It's a crazy idea, but it just might work.

[hammy]

I am curious to know what system all these players are going to that are leaving FoG? Surely they cannot be throwing their figures away?

As a player who loves the ancient period above all others I’ll use the set of rules that give the best feel for the period and in my opinion that is FoG at the moment.

In UK a lot of ex ancients players are playing WWII.

Well, quite a lot of players that played DBM and don't like FoG are playing Flames of War but I wouldn't say there is a mass exodus to tanks and guns.

I am playing a lot of FoW but I also play a lot of FoG.

[countadam]

I noticed some comments about the scoring system in FOG. I agree that the current model can encourage the "draw" by rewarding both players with a number of points. Therefore an army rich in skirmishers can play for the draw and score approximately 10 points. This however, should never be enough points to place in a comp. I have never experienced this sort of play first hand but I imagine that it does happen.

Leaving LH tactics aside, this scoring system can also encourage slow play and make friendly draws more common place. At the end of a long day gaming, it would be easy to sit back and collect 10 points.

I like a scoring system that rewards aggressive play, where relatively fewer points are earned for a draw. The warrior scoring system is very good in this regard. There are 3 points awarded based upon the number of points of troops killed/off table/shaken (the warrior equivalent of fragmented). Then a further point for killing 150 points more than your opponent and a further point for doubling your opponents killed troops. In a game where nothing dies, both players would earn zero points. Destroying a third or more of your opponent’s forces and losing nothing yourself would be a 5-0 result. A hard fought game with one side ending slightly further ahead would be a 4-3. I think this is a better model for a competition scoring system.

Paul.

[geoff]

I like a scoring system that rewards aggressive play, where relatively fewer points are earned for a draw. The warrior scoring system is very good in this regard. There are 3 points awarded based upon the number of points of troops killed/off table/shaken (the warrior equivalent of fragmented). Then a further point for killing 150 points more than your opponent and a further point for doubling your opponents killed troops. In a game where nothing dies, both players would earn zero points. Destroying a third or more of your opponent’s forces and losing nothing yourself would be a 5-0 result. A hard fought game with one side ending slightly further ahead would be a 4-3. I think this is a better model for a competition scoring system.

Paul.

As an ex-Warrior player I agree 100% with your comments. In Australia we had a period of maybe 6 or 7 years where a group of up to 20 players where having Warrior tournaments using this scoring system. Never did you have a game where someone was hiding. I can also say that the best players consistently won using this system. Not often in 25mm but in 15mm, armies with good numbers of LH were used aggressively and achieved good and sometimes winning comp results.
The good thing is that all these players that have transitioned to Fog are still playing with the same "get it on" attitude regardless of the scoring system.


Cheers...Geoff

[ethan]

Most of the mismatches we are talking about are unhistorical. In the cases where they are historical, the non-LH army is usually recorded historically as having had difficulty getting to grips with their opponents.

Carthaginian Vs Numidian
Greek State Vs Thracian
Successor Vs Skythian
Crusader Vs Muslim
are these unhistorical? [/quote]

I think there are a couple of points worth making here.

First, these are one of issues with theme tournaments. If you have a Hellenistic theme do you leave hte Parthians out? or do you accept Parthians in and instead of re-fighting the big successor battles - one of the big draws of ancients - you have your pikes slogging away against LH...

the other is the Crusader vs. Muslim fight. My recollection is that crusaders didn't do badly here, especially Late Crusaders who had a lot of experience. If we can't recreate that we have a problem.

[Rekila]

I think they are unhistorical because in a tournament they are out of context. E.g. Carthaginian vs. Numidian Hannibal will not take his Italian veterans to invade Numidia. More probably a lot of mounted troops with a Numidian ally. The same could be said of the Mongol invasion of Europe. The Mongols are invading! They were aggressive no doubt. No problem in a scenario, campaign or a friendly game. After all if you make an invasion of the steppes with a Heavy foot army what do you hope for?

[ethan]

I think they are unhistorical because in a tournament they are out of context. E.g. Carthaginian vs. Numidian Hannibal will not take his Italian veterans to invade Numidia.

Probably out of scope, but maybe what is needed is more (and possibly slightly better) options to do what is allowed in the Alex Macedonian list, regrade troops for a lighter style of warfare. If you had the option of taking the african veterans as MF, armoured, superior, lt spear/sw if you were facing skirmishers...

[dave_r]

Probably out of scope, but maybe what is needed is more (and possibly slightly better) options to do what is allowed in the Alex Macedonian list, regrade troops for a lighter style of warfare

Perhaps ask Pete Dalby or Andy Ellis, I have played Skythians against their Alex Mac once each, the game against Pete was a classic ending in a 16-9 and the game against Andy resulted in a large Skythian defeat.

Huge casulaties in both games and also very enjoybale.

Perhaps you need to unlearn some of the things you have learned?

[ethan]

Perhaps you need to unlearn some of the things you have learned?

Perhaps you need to stop insinuating I have no clue what I am doing. I have refrained from replying, but your snide comments that anyone who holds a different view form your is either moaning, incompetent or clueless is getting tiresome. Please give some credit that someone aside from yourself has had a valid experience actually playing this game. Your level of arguement now basically amounts to insulting the opposition.

I actually am fine fighting LH armies, however....I do not find them generally the most exciting game and more importantly I know they (as they currently work) are a MAJOR turn off for several people I play with. If you took the time to actually read this forum, the mailing lists and maybe talk to a few people who don't post as much as people here you would see that for many players they are an issue.

There are at least a couple of my club players who basically refuse to fight these match-ups and find them no fun. Terrain involved in fightign "steppe" armies is one of the largest complaints I hear about in tournaments I attend. It is disappointing to me that it is so easy for someone to pick up a LH army when starting up the game and run the table over everyone else at a similar skill level which can have the effect of turning people off from the game.

It is disappointing that at a practical level we can say "themes are the answer" yet there is no serious effort ever made to make themes in which the start players of "ancients' say the carthaginians, romans, macedonians, hellenistics, etc are the featured armies. Instead we see everyone trying to slide around the edges with skirmishers as skirmishers are such a good counter to the "theme."

I don't think any of this is unfixable and does not even require ahistorical changes.

[dave_r]

Perhaps you need to stop insinuating I have no clue what I am doing. I have refrained from replying, but your snide comments that anyone who holds a different view form your is either moaning, incompetent or clueless is getting tiresome. Please give some credit that someone aside from yourself has had a valid experience actually playing this game. Your level of arguement now basically amounts to insulting the opposition.

I have provided several responses to examples provided by yourself that the game can still be interesting and enjoyable even when playing LH armies against non Light Horse armies. You posted the example of Alex Mac against Skythian being a historical battle which can't be replicated on the table. I provided two examples where it could and the Skythians lost both games. If you think this is a personal attack on you then I am sorry, but you also need to understand that there are other people who don't think as you do.

I actually am fine fighting LH armies, however....I do not find them generally the most exciting game and more importantly I know they (as they currently work) are a MAJOR turn off for several people I play with. If you took the time to actually read this forum, the mailing lists and maybe talk to a few people who don't post as much as people here you would see that for many players they are an issue.

I haven't found that at all. I talk to a lot of people, some of whom post on this forum, some of whom who don't. I am subscribed to some of the mailing lists and I simply don't see the volume of traffic that regarding this issue that you talk about.

There are at least a couple of my club players who basically refuse to fight these match-ups and find them no fun. Terrain involved in fightign "steppe" armies is one of the largest complaints I hear about in tournaments I attend. It is disappointing to me that it is so easy for someone to pick up a LH army when starting up the game and run the table over everyone else at a similar skill level which can have the effect of turning people off from the game.

As I have previously stated you can't make people play a game and if they are going to try once and then give up I would suggest they aren't particularly commited in the first place. However, I am interested to know - what the hell where the opponents of the Light Horse using such that they could simply run over the table and batter them? Light Horse takes time and need many turns to soften up their enemy, you can't simply "ride over the table" and shoot somebody to death. It also takes a lot of risk if you want to win rather than get slight victories or defeats.

It is disappointing that at a practical level we can say "themes are the answer" yet there is no serious effort ever made to make themes in which the start players of "ancients' say the carthaginians, romans, macedonians, hellenistics, etc are the featured armies. Instead we see everyone trying to slide around the edges with skirmishers as skirmishers are such a good counter to the "theme."

Have you bothered to look at the armies taken to themed events? I would suggest your analysis is flawed at best.

I don't think any of this is unfixable and does not even require ahistorical changes.

I would agree with this statement.

[ethan]

It is disappointing that at a practical level we can say "themes are the answer" yet there is no serious effort ever made to make themes in which the start players of "ancients' say the carthaginians, romans, macedonians, hellenistics, etc are the featured armies. Instead we see everyone trying to slide around the edges with skirmishers as skirmishers are such a good counter to the "theme."

Have you bothered to look at the armies taken to themed events? I would suggest your analysis is flawed at best.

Actually I have and at least in the US that is the experience.

[benos]

ok i think the problem may be more subtle than it appears .
the issue i can see is that while the top level players find the armies pretty even, those of lesser skill (such as myself) find it easier to use certain armies, and the steppe types are one of the easier ones to get to grips with (get open terrain, skirmish a lot, charge home with the tough stuff at a week point, get some points)
this is not to say this is using them to thier best, or that it is the only easy army. but simply that if beginers are playing a game and one takes this kind of army if the other does not take the correct option it is very dificult to have anything besides a frustrating game.
If either Dave or Ethan were using a foot based army against me and i was using a nomad army i suspect they would win, however if i were playing another relative novice it could be a very frustrating experience for them (actually the first game of fog i played against one of my usual opponents was his romans vs my parthians and it was very one sided. fortunatly we got past that and played other match ups)
so i think both of you have a point. light horse are not the whole of the problem and the system may not be as bad as it is made out to be, but it has the potential to be very frustrating for beginners (and they are where the hobby grows remember, new blood is a good thing ) if they are faced with "unwinnable" games (not that they are unwinnable, but they can seem that way when starting out)

not sure how to address this, but from running a demo game with some freinds at the cavalier show last month, of whom only i had more than 12 games experience it was enjoyed and the viewers seemed interested (despite the unhistorical outcome) though we chose a game with relatively balanced forces.
in a competition this is much harder to do.
I would suggest the 2 ap for evaded off table would be a good thing, but not too much to hamsting light horse (otherwise we will have the situation as in DBM where one of my regular opponents was nearly put off at the start when it turned out that mongol conquest was pretty nearly impossible to win with at our skill level)
but also encourage theme tourneys may well help (i would suggest theming around specific campaigns might work well, such as punic wars (carthage, spain, gauls , romans and perhaps some hellenistic armeis would make a good theme?)

anyway rambling over. remember this is a game , it is supposed to be fun for both players, if one or both are not having fun something isn't right.

Ben

[azrael86]

As I have previously stated you can't make people play a game and if they are going to try once and then give up I would suggest they aren't particularly commited in the first place. However, I am interested to know - what the hell where the opponents of the Light Horse using such that they could simply run over the table and batter them? Light Horse takes time and need many turns to soften up their enemy, you can't simply "ride over the table" and shoot somebody to death. It also takes a lot of risk if you want to win rather than get slight victories or defeats.

True, the problem is really a comp one. that LH armies are a heads I win, tails I draw Option. Suppose I pick a solid army, let us say Alex Mac.
In an open comp,. if I draw an army with knights, I have a chance: If I draw another combined arms army(e.g. LRR), I have a chance, because my cav and pike are good. If I draw a warband/heavy foot army (e.g. Viking or ancient brit) I have a good chance, although I'm outnumbered. If I draw a LH army, say Parthian. It is literally unbeatable. It throws the cats in (which some players won't, but say they do) - and I kill them, losing a unit in the process. Now I can't catch the LH, best option is something like a 12-8, even having killed the 2 or 3 of the enemies best units.
Please explain how you can get a better result against a competent opponent?

[peterrjohnston]

However, I am interested to know - what the hell where the opponents of the Light Horse using such that they could simply run over the table and batter them?

Then I admire your persistence in using Skythian all the time. It must be disheartening having your opponents continually running over the table and "battering" them...