Slitherine

timmy1 wrote:You can blame the poor quality of the FoGR index squarely on my shoulders.

Not looking to blame anyone Tim. The fact that it's so difficult to index points to the lack of structure in the document. Not addressing this in an edited v3 will not bring back those that have left.

timmy1 wrote:I have a corrected version but was not given permission by Slitherine to post it, else I would have.

Superb customer support.

Was this directed at me?

Not as a threat of violence. I was responding to your suggestion that players should have more decisions to make in all phases of the game by suggesting a decision we could make in the combat phase.

Martin

terrys wrote: Skirmisher will be much less effective, with numbers likely to be much reduced (with a knock-on effect of reducing/removing the 'Benny Hill Effect')

I have two suggestions for 'limiting the power of skirmishers'
1) Skirmishers cannot be affect by generals - no double moves, no rallying, no generals in combat.
2) Skirmishers cannot slow 'battle troops'. They are simply pushed back, off table or destroyed.

terrys wrote: Medium foot bow armies lose some of their effectiveness - but not enough to render them unusable.

1) Take away the effect of the light spear against infantry, knights and cataphracts.
2) If charged by certain troop types in the open make them take a cohesion test, with a minus for the charge. Troops failing the test will drop a cohesion level.

Or limit the power of skirmishers by having troops that evade take a Cohesion Test. Simple and does not require change to any other interaction.

marty wrote:

Was this directed at me?

Not as a threat of violence. I was responding to your suggestion that players should have more decisions to make in all phases of the game by suggesting a decision we could make in the combat phase.

Martin

I didn't take it as a threat of violence rather a big "WTF" and wondered why, one of the few decisions that can be made after movement

philqw78 wrote:We are Gamers using a Game based around historic battles. There are many things that can be done at BG level that could increase involvement through more phases. The JAP is prime for use.

[lots of conditions with tests and outcomes - removed for brevity]

Let's see what this means: in an attempt to increase player involvement you add more options (and complexity?) all requiring dice rolling. And this for a version with the stated aim of speeding up the game. You'd be a true genius to achieve both more involvement and increased speed with these steps.

Again the true test is whether the changes will entice those that left to return.

vexillia wrote:You'd be a true genius to achieve both more involvement and increased speed with these steps.

You know me so well

titanu wrote:

terrys wrote: Skirmisher will be much less effective, with numbers likely to be much reduced (with a knock-on effect of reducing/removing the 'Benny Hill Effect')

I have two suggestions for 'limiting the power of skirmishers'
1) Skirmishers cannot be affect by generals - no double moves, no rallying, no generals in combat.
2) Skirmishers cannot slow 'battle troops'. They are simply pushed back, off table or destroyed.

terrys wrote: Medium foot bow armies lose some of their effectiveness - but not enough to render them unusable.

1) Take away the effect of the light spear against infantry, knights and cataphracts.
2) If charged by certain troop types in the open make them take a cohesion test, with a minus for the charge. Troops failing the test will drop a cohesion level.

Interesting Ideas Bob - we have got there before you on some of them though Skirmishers effectivenes is reduced. Have no fear on that part. The armies I'm seeing are changed, mainly because of player choice - i.e.it's simply not worth taking that BG of six poor LF to bulk the army so they aren't on the table.

MF should still be usable, but not as powerful as they are now.

Which will off course be interesting for the MF armies that are bad already, but you cant have everything.

Martin

dave_r wrote:
MF should still be usable, but not as powerful as they are now.

So what MF was the bees knees before?
Some shooter types -- Christian Nubian, Janissary, Longbow.
Dailami and almughavers weren't all that common.
The two that come to mind were the swarm types of Later Roman 4-paks and maybe the warring states type.
Occasionally people griped about Immortals.

So where is the evidence that MF was over powered before?

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote:
MF should still be usable, but not as powerful as they are now.

So what MF was the bees knees before?
Some shooter types -- Christian Nubian, Janissary, Longbow.
Dailami and almughavers weren't all that common.
The two that come to mind were the swarm types of Later Roman 4-paks and maybe the warring states type.
Occasionally people griped about Immortals.

So where is the evidence that MF was over powered before?

The dozens of MF, light spear bow armies that were everywhere.

Dan,

Like those that dave_r used to use when he came over and gave the Americans a good kicking...

Mixed 2HCW/CB MI units were quite powerful in V2.

I think it's great that a V3 is being play tested as there certainly problems with V2. Despite what's been previously said, far too many games aren't decisive, even after 3 1/2 hours and, IMHO, it's not all down to players avoiding contact during comp games.

That's base width idea for MUs looks interesting but, IMHO, I'd like to see instant breaks during Impact or Melee, not simply waiting to gradually drive down an opponent's morale/cohesion. Something like, if a BG suffers four more hits than it inflicts and receives one hit per two bases it immediately routs. Also, the penalty for seeing friends rout is simply to force a cohesion test. What about a minus one for seeing friends of equal or superior status rout? And at least a test when routers pass near any friends as they make their way to the rear. It's hard to imagine troops on their way to the front line being happy to see friends running for their lives...

A worrying problem with FOG-AM appears to be falling numbers in most comps, so a more exciting rewrite would seem like a good idea. But has anyone bothered to find out why players have dropped out? What exactly is it they don't like?

Finally, it might also be a good idea if the writers made the drafts openly available to all players. There might be less chance of an error being overlooked and, at least, everyone could see what's going on...

As I said before my Classical Indians have not behaved as "powerful" at any point in their career.

Occasionally people griped about Immortals.

Yes, the Persians with the classic bow/LS combo have given the Indians a thrashing on more than one occasion and in the two big re-fights of Plataea we did the Greeks were humbled as well.

dave_r wrote: The dozens of MF, light spear bow armies that were everywhere.

Which you almost never used. And I would be interested in your data set, because they really show up that way in the ratings data.

timmy1 wrote:Dan,

Like those that dave_r used to use when he came over and gave the Americans a good kicking...

I destroyed his Bosphorans at Challenge in a celebrity invitational match. Many witnesses.

Everyone can come up with dozens of interesting ideas, but a great set of war games rules needs an author with a comprehensive vision to integrate them all. Does this even exist anymore for FoGAM?

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote:
MF should still be usable, but not as powerful as they are now.

So what MF was the bees knees before?
Some shooter types -- Christian Nubian, Janissary, Longbow.
Dailami and almughavers weren't all that common.
The two that come to mind were the swarm types of Later Roman 4-paks and maybe the warring states type.
Occasionally people griped about Immortals.

So where is the evidence that MF was over powered before?

Kofun Nara, Western Han (and similar Dragon armies) and Norse Irish have been quite common also under V2.

I don't think it's that MF is overpowered as such, it's more that perhaps their biggest natural predators, HF based armies are not as good as they should be, for a number of reasons. While some still use them, they are certainly rare in the UK. So some of the changes are looking to get HF back in the game: speed them up and penalise the "strike force and massed skirmisher" armies.

[quote="ChrisTofalos"]A worrying problem with FOG-AM appears to be falling numbers in most comps, so a more exciting rewrite would seem like a good idea. But has anyone bothered to find out why players have dropped out? What exactly is it they don't like?
[quote]

Exactly the point I made when Terry Shaw roped me into helping with V3 Chris. So we canvassed views from a number of people and countries that had moved away. While the feedback was varied and sometimes contradictory, there were some common themes.

Games taking too long was one of them, also skirmishers being too much a feature of the game. Allied to this was that the classic armies of antiquity - Greeks, Romans, warband, Byzantines and so on - were not strong enough. There was also a concern that only certain styles of battle groups were cost effective. So for example, in the ancient era, 4 bases of armoured superior lance, sword cavalry are very common. You don't see many battle groups of 6 average or poor protected Light spear cavalry.