Disturbing Trend?

[Paisley]

I think having micro control over evades is a bad idea. But I do think the current system of evading can be a source of frustration.

[petergarnett]

I'm sorry but I fail to see why I cannot have a simply option at the start of a battle to alter a default of Evade to one of Stand for the duration of the battle - IMO Alexander was not told he could not command the Agrarians (is that spelt correctly?) to stand on whatever flank they were on at Granicus.
All units would default to Evade (this is LF & LH) & as I say you could alter the option at the start of a battle only. Then the CMT is required as is, to Evade or to Stand as appropriate.

I agree with Paisley's comment about not wanting micro management but surely what I (& others) suggest merely represents the commander's plan at the start of a battle.

[ianiow]

Real good post Deeter! You sum up what is on my mind exactly.

Rope-a-dope attacks against better light troops are a common gimmick, as are crazy evades off the table by heavy cavalry. Even worse is ability of missile troops to get a free facing change just because they can shoot. Drilled infantry can face, move and face again--something only light troops can do on the TT, and even they must pass a CMT to do so. These and wacky route moves are the glaring problems with FoG PC

.

Excellent summary of the things that are not quite right yet in this game.

As for shooty armies, I don't think they're much fun, but I'll face them and occaisionally play them. But the Bosporans benefit to an unreal degree from the above problems. I grow weary of seeing a wall of bow/sword cav that are effectively as nimble and as cheap as skirmishers, asnd I've only faced them a few times.

I have run a "wall of bow/sword cav" army three times to see what all the fuss was about. I must say I felt sorry for my opponent because it was so easy to maneuever behind his troops and hit him in the back. And if i was careful where i placed my troops he was forever chasing ghosts. (not to mention the HUGE amount of APs you have if you swell the ranks with 2pt LF, even if you lost all your cavalry you still would be far from breaking!) I don't think the shooting attrition rate would be too bad if the maneuever aspect was fixed in this army's case.

It might be better if, when you post an unspecified challenge, the computer picks the nationalities for both sides and you play what you get.

I like this idea!

[deeter]

A global setting per turn or for the whole game for skirms and one for cav would not needlessly complicate a given turn. That would flow as normal. There could even be a random factor such as a CMT to obey that order. I like just about every idea being put forth because any of them are better than what we have, and I suspect Slitherine is taking a serious look into this. Sure hope so...

Deeter

[Morbio]

So many good suggestions that I'm not going to quote them all again!

In these posts, and others that I've written before, there are lots of good suggestions of how to improve the use of skirmishers, and cavalry. I hope someone does address this.

The bottom line is that the usefulness of troops must be reflected in their points value and while it is better to have poor troops than good troops it's just not right.

Please don't get me wrong. I love this game even with it's current faults . Yes, I do get frustrated by them ... yes, I'd like to see improvements to make it even better . I'd be more than willing to help play test any efforts to improve it

[TheGrayMouser]

I cant speak for Paisley but I think what he meant by micromanagement is not so much the logistics of setting different stances for the troops, but the overall control this would give the player over the "uncontrolable"
For example, just because you want your slingers to engage in combat doesnt mean they will actually do so, of course you covered this w the idea for cmt checks etc

I dont mind the idea of a broad setting for unit stances as long as its not changable in the battle , and as long as there is still a chance that they disobey.

I think the inherant problem wih allowing too many control settings is the game would actually become more abstract in nature, if that makes sence, the reason being is that the game has no command and control structure whatsover modelled, ie each individual unit moves as it will....


The GMT games had a leader assigned to a larger level formation of multile units ie the main phanlanx, and you could either moved the entity fwrd as whole which used up the entire command for that leader, or you could attempt to micro move 2 or so units in that formation at the expense of not being able to do anything w the rest...

I think Ian mentioned on another post that he was interested in a line command functionality of some sort which would be interesting

[Morbio]

I agree with the need to keep a chance of anarchy to whatever is chosen. The chance of anarchy should increase with the more risky or dangerous or difficult the command. Obviously close attendance of leaders and the level of leaders should mitigate this.

[SRW1962]

You know, even if they simply added a variable evade/pursuit distance like in the TT rules, it may be enough of a change to the situation as to make skirmishers play much better than they do now. Surely that cannot be too large a step for the designers to undertake.

I also agree that generals don't seem to do much really in respects of command distance, surely if the troops are out of command range they could be penalised for maneouvre purposes, either way most troops are way too good at turning, about facing etc. Again a very small change in the rules may be all that is required to remedy the situation.

[KenPortner]

I don't understand how an army of all LF or LH can win a game against a "standard" army. I can see how they can avoid losing by not being caught but how could they win? Shooting just isn't effective enough.

As often as not I will ignore LH and LF that get in my rear. So what if they disrupt a few units? (I've only once seen shooting fragment a unit and have never seen a rout from it).

What am I missing here?

Also, instead of changing the game mechanics, how about just changing the lists? If it's not historical, put a lower cap on LH and LF.

[TheGrayMouser]

You know, even if they simply added a variable evade/pursuit distance like in the TT rules, it may be enough of a change to the situation as to make skirmishers play much better than they do now. Surely that cannot be too large a step for the designers to undertake.

I also agree that generals don't seem to do much really in respects of command distance, surely if the troops are out of command range they could be penalised for maneouvre purposes, either way most troops are way too good at turning, about facing etc. Again a very small change in the rules may be all that is required to remedy the situation.

Thats a good idea , simple and keeps in the spirit of the game
So, maybe drilled units out of command range become undrilled for maneuver purposes? Not sure what the penalty for undrilled would be, alot more anarchy charges?

[TheGrayMouser]

I don't understand how an army of all LF or LH can win a game against a "standard" army. I can see how they can avoid losing by not being caught but how could they win? Shooting just isn't effective enough.

As often as not I will ignore LH and LF that get in my rear. So what if they disrupt a few units? (I've only once seen shooting fragment a unit and have never seen a rout from it).

What am I missing here?

Also, instead of changing the game mechanics, how about just changing the lists? If it's not historical, put a lower cap on LH and LF.

I think the issue is with an army that has a lot of lh lf and a lot of lancer cavalry, coupled w the cheap and very effective sword only cavalry

[petergarnett]

Ken - please let me know if you want to play the Romans at Carrhae

[deeter]

Some of us have been talking about these issues since beta. If units can't perform they way they did historically, then something is wrong. Velites and the like should rule the skirmish fight, but are better off cowering in the rear. I find I have to micromanage them to keep them out of trouble. Battle cav should accept battle, not run off the map. Again, I have to micromanage them so I can a least get one charge out them before the run away.

Don't think I don't like the game. I like it immensely. Everything else is simply brilliant.

Deeter

[KenPortner]

Ken - please let me know if you want to play the Romans at Carrhae

I have played Carhae as Parthians and can't win it. If you want to show me how I'd be happy to learn.

[MesaDon]

I don't understand how an army of all LF or LH can win a game against a "standard" army. I can see how they can avoid losing by not being caught but how could they win? Shooting just isn't effective enough.

As often as not I will ignore LH and LF that get in my rear. So what if they disrupt a few units? (I've only once seen shooting fragment a unit and have never seen a rout from it).

What am I missing here?

Also, instead of changing the game mechanics, how about just changing the lists? If it's not historical, put a lower cap on LH and LF.

I just routed a leader in the Carrhae battle playing against my brother (convinced him to buy the game and his wife may never talk to me again but that is another story) and his missle units are killing me dancing in a ring-around-the-rosy fashion (paired game). When I do catch a LH I get one turn at them and the next turn they disengage and head out of the battle.

[IanB3406]

I'm finding my Maccabean Jews are doing OK agaisnt he Bosporan menace....I feel the game is interesting enough and I like to see what I can do against them.

I have a harder time against he Seleucids with all the goodies, even at 500 points it's a tough army.

Ian

[KenPortner]

I don't understand how an army of all LF or LH can win a game against a "standard" army. I can see how they can avoid losing by not being caught but how could they win? Shooting just isn't effective enough.

As often as not I will ignore LH and LF that get in my rear. So what if they disrupt a few units? (I've only once seen shooting fragment a unit and have never seen a rout from it).

What am I missing here?

Also, instead of changing the game mechanics, how about just changing the lists? If it's not historical, put a lower cap on LH and LF.

I just routed a leader in the Carrhae battle playing against my brother (convinced him to buy the game and his wife may never talk to me again but that is another story) and his missle units are killing me dancing in a ring-around-the-rosy fashion (paired game). When I do catch a LH I get one turn at them and the next turn they disengage and head out of the battle.

So you're telling me that his LH are able to break your units with shooting alone? If not what's the difference if he runs rings around you? He can't win that way.

[MesaDon]

Maybe he can't win but you can end up with an unsatisfying draw But I do like the varible evade distances.

[IainMcNeil]

The aim was always to allow you to choose whether a unit evades. We have been looking for a good UI solution for this and trying to find the time to add it.

One option is to set an aggression level
* Low - always evade unles it would take you off table
* Medium - Evade if your combat odds are less than 50:50 with the enemy and you have room to evade.
* High - Do not evade - some troops would need to test not to evade.

[ianiow]

* Low - always evade unles it would take you off table
* Medium - Evade if your combat odds are less than 50:50 with the enemy and you have room to evade.
* High - Do not evade - some troops would need to test not to evade.

Sounds good.

But these changes would definately have to be coupled with an enhanced AI for an evade route.
Something like:- First hex directly back from the enemy. Then quickest route to own table edge, taking enemy unit zones of control into account. Can move laterrally 2 hexes if friends are in the way, if not, burst through them.