Slitherine

The problem with small BGs of skirmishers is not their numbers or effect on army break points.

Its their ability to use their extreme maneuverability to concentrate their shooting to a degree which they can regularly deliver more shooting dice onto a target than equivalent numbers of MF & Cv bowmen.

madaxeman wrote:The problem with small BGs of skirmishers is not their numbers or effect on army break points.

Its their ability to use their extreme maneuverability to concentrate their shooting to a degree which they can regularly deliver more shooting dice onto a target than equivalent numbers of MF & Cv bowmen.

That might be a problem with LF, but I don't think it's a problem with LH. At least regarding Horse Archers this whole that is LH and that is Cv distinction is an arbitrary crutch to fit them into a game system/basing scheme. They mostly should have the ability to move from one state to the other during battle IMO. The "be in single line and you can skirmish thingy" is a 1st step, but no more. So if it helps think of LH as HA in a formation optimised for shooting. Loking at it that way it is then ok if they frequently manage to get more shooting dice then Cv (which is basically HA in a formation optimised for melee ).

My bad about the hand gunners.
It has been a long time since I trotted them out. But either everyone rolls crappy or I get lucky at least once a game (most times twice) my Swiss hit a unit who's morale has dropped due to hand gunners. I have no idea what other Swiss players use for Skirmishers since you can only have 6 X-Bows.

So you have to take hand gunners. to screen your advance. Maybe that is why my Swiss are undefeated because I do take so many skirmishers.

irondog068 wrote:My bad about the hand gunners.
It has been a long time since I trotted them out. But either everyone rolls crappy or I get lucky at least once a game (most times twice) my Swiss hit a unit who's morale has dropped due to hand gunners. I have no idea what other Swiss players use for Skirmishers since you can only have 6 X-Bows.

So you have to take hand gunners. to screen your advance. Maybe that is why my Swiss are undefeated because I do take so many skirmishers.

Actually you can have 0-20 LF Crossbow before 1476 and 0-8 afterwards. No idea where you get those 0-6 from. Most Swiss armies I've seen had an healthy amount of LF, though Crossbows seem slightly more popular then Handgunners.

philqw78 wrote:

irondog068 wrote:You do not need to hit, just be shot at by the strange noisemaking weapons to cause a test. Plus I have A LOT of gunners.

Yes you do. Your missunderstanding is why you have a LOT of gunners, and no-one else does. They are generally pooh due to the short range.

If you can arrange for the LH Handgunners to get in range and some Bowmen also if the bows hit 1 per 2 thats a minus and the hangunners give the target a minus so total -2. Yes you do need to get close.

I get 6 because I don't have the book in front of me and I only have 6

My Swiss are built for the 1490 to 1500 ( I have 6 stands of Lorrainer's with the Duke). I even have MORE hand gunners unpainted ready for the post 1500 thing. If you look closely at all my hand gunners they look a lot more like a Arqubus than a hand gun.

This is what I found out works for my Swiss. A bunch of pike blocks, a unit of Lorrainers a unit of light horse, a X-Bow unit and hordes of hand gunners orginized 6 base units (I think there is 1x4 base unit). The army is pretty much a killing machine and it has more skirmishers than any of my other armies.

Dave

spikemesq wrote:

ethan wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Means more BGs in the army

This is, unfortunately IMO, a bit too important.

I, too, wonder if there is a better way to deal with army breaks that does not favor gimmicky filler BGs.

To be sure, filler issues are not nearly as bad in FoG as they were in DBM (IMO), but the marginal value of cheap small BGs does seem a bit odd to me.

For instance the 4-base BG of Mobs in my Ostrogoths and the 4-base BG of crappy javelins in my Komnenan Byzantines are must-haves, but they do absolutely nothing after deployment.

Spike

Bring back command points!!

I vote for command points too.

chubooga wrote:I vote for command points too.

So to maintain balance between relative units the points system would require total overhaul and a rewrite the army lists.
So we will have to buy them all again!

Is this an Osprey inspired plot to get more of our money

Alternative:

Charge 10pts a battlegroup and increase the competition points to 750 (25mm) 900 (15mm)

So no change for 10 battlegroup armies but woe to the swarms (which really only infect 15mm Tournaments).

Except that this totally unbalances the relative costs of LF and Mobs and any low cost rubbish units, almost doubling the cost of a poor unarmed mob.
Would we ever see them on table again?

I started off by almost agreeing but after writing best leave well enough alone.

Tournaments/competitions should just impose a 15 BG limit, after all that is the authors state is the upper limit.
'Armies should be made up of 10 to 15 Battlegroups'

bertalucci wrote:

chubooga wrote:I vote for command points too.

Tournaments/competitions should just impose a 15 BG limit, after all that is the authors state is the upper limit.
'Armies should be made up of 10 to 15 Battlegroups'

That seems reasonable enough

What is it that determines which armies were given the option to have LF in 4s and which have to take them in 6s or 8s?

flamingpig0 wrote:

bertalucci wrote:

chubooga wrote:I vote for command points too.

Tournaments/competitions should just impose a 15 BG limit, after all that is the authors state is the upper limit.
'Armies should be made up of 10 to 15 Battlegroups'

That seems reasonable enough

Because Karsten and Martin need a 25-0 system*, it would be easier just keep the system as it is now, but the maximum total number of BGs counting towards an army break point is 15, irrespective if whether or not an army has more. So an army of 12 BGs would break on losing 12 attrition points, 15 BGs on 15 attrition points, 16 or more BGs on 15 attrition points. That way players can still use the armies they want, but they would be less unbreakable in a competition time frame.

Even better make it 13 or 14. Would help prevent the "benny hill" effect at the end of games.


* It's worth noting that the rules victory conditions have decisive, major, moderate and marginal victories, plus a draw. Which is best scored by something like the 3210 system; (probably 5-0, 4-1, 3-1, 2-1 and 1-1). To get the non-decisive victories, one needs both to inflict more victory points and have ratio gains in attrition points. So there's no "let's swap BGs so I win on percentages" effect by having armies with high numbers of BGs. I don't know who came up with the 25-0 system, but frankly it wasn't well thought out. Unfortunately it now seems to be set in stone.

peterrjohnston wrote:Even better make it 13 or 14. Would help prevent the "benny hill" effect at the end of games.

I don't see an episode of Benny Hill show since many years, but I remember many times in the show sprung from nowhere beautiful girls, often nearly naked. Are this the effect you want to prevent?

marioslaz wrote: I don't see an episode of Benny Hill show since many years, but I remember many times in the show sprung from nowhere beautiful girls, often nearly naked. Are this the effect you want to prevent?

Near-naked beautiful girls appearing on a wargame's table is would be an altogether different scoring system... "result!" more like

leaving the girls alone for a second........ not an easy thing I admit...

.... but I like the sound of the 'your army breaks on 15ap or less' idea..... that would be good IMHO.

now, back to these girls......

jon

.... but I like the sound of the 'your army breaks on 15ap or less' idea..... that would be good IMHO.

This has been suggested many times before.....

We just need a tournament organiser to try it.

The idea of limiting army breakpoint to 15 (or whatever else) is not bad, but I prefer a cost per BG.
As I said in a parallel thread, the cost only on a base basis is ok if you have a game

1. with just bases which fought alone (not grouped in units)
2. with fixed unit's size

In a game with units and where units can have different size, unit's size matters.
If you put a limit to army breakpoint and indeed you eliminate a reason to build a swarm army. If you introduce a cost per BG you get a more balanced system (IMO).

Adding command points for BGs is changing the rules; it would need testing to find the right values and balance. Do undrilled BGs cost the same or less, and if less, how much less, for example. So it's not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

Modifying the scoring system doesn't change the rules (beyond the artificial change in "break-point") and is much easier to implement. Not that I think the current scoring system is any good, artificial limit of 15 or not (he says, for the 5 millionth time, perhaps I should just add "25-0 delenda est" to the end of all my posts )

petedalby wrote:

.... but I like the sound of the 'your army breaks on 15ap or less' idea..... that would be good IMHO.

This has been suggested many times before.....

We just need a tournament organiser to try it.

I'm sure it has been suggested many times.

Unfortunately I don't organise any tournaments...

One possible simple rules change would be to change the death roll:

Foot BGs of 4 elements are less get +1 on their death roll if they win the combat and -1 on the death roll if they lose the combat.

Mounted (non-Elephant) BGs of 2 elements or less get +1/-1 as above.

I would probably leave shooting as is.