Slitherine

marioslaz wrote:I think we are still missing the point. With actual system, against one army with a lot of skirmisher an army of massed troops has not a true tactic, because if you run back to shooters, as you know, you must sweep all enemy BG from the table. The story of paper-scissor-stone is not a solution, because this mean you have not a balanced game if you are not coupled with a similar army; you likely will have an easy or hard game, not a balanced one. And in the meantime in Italy people are talking to limit LH to a very small number of bases because otherwise game are boring. I don't think this could be a solution...

Not a similar army, but one capable of tackling the other (inside your skill range, some people can win vs. impossible odds... I sure can not). And yes it means that not all games are balanced, even more so if one player is happy with a draw. That kind of bad matchup exist in all ancient/medieval wargame rules I know. Even the best point system only gets you so and so far.
This is not limited to LH vs. HF matchups though. If I like to play early Crusaders, Normans or similar I'm not going to be a happy camper to find a pike heavy Swiss or a LB heavy 100YW army on the other side. So next we limit the number of Pike or LB bases an army can have? Then players of various 'barbarian' armies complain about those unbeatable superior Legionaries, so we limit them too?

Out of curiosity, what is an army of massed troops in your opinion? I crushed Khwarezmians with Crown of Aragon and Seljuks with Latin Greece. Yes some armies struggle to win vs. LH heavy outfits (and the other way round) but that is something I know in advance. There is no such thing as a 'best' army in FoG and I like that. If we give all the advantages to the heavy hitters people will soon complain that the games a dull, mono-dimensional and just dice rolling fests. If you take Swiss or LRR you buy a certain set of abilities, catching skirmishers isn't really among those. I might still be able to do it, but it will be hard work (on the other hand if I buy Mongols I don't really get the ability to beat LRR or Late Medieval Danish either, with hard work or luck I might still be able to win but chances do not favour me).

I don't know why the problem seems larger in Italy, maybe it's expectations, maybe playspeed, maybe it is the players of the LH armies, maybe the players of the heavy armies need to change tactics or army composition, maybe some people need to learn that a 16:4 is a win, even if you don't get the +5 point bonus, dunno. While some people like to play LH armies here in Germany (myself included), we see our share of defeats. Vs. very mono-dimensional armies (HF Spears all over + an IC) it can be dull but then those types of armies struggle even vs. a mixed force with just some LH (say Crown of Aragon), as it allows the mixed army to pick the fights or at least establish a local superiority. You want to "ban" those also? And end up with Swiss ruling supreme?

I have played with all the armies listed below. And the only games I haven't enjoyed are the ones where I got a bad opponent. I've never faced an army that I didn't enjoy fighting against. But player style can annoy me. You know the ones. Haven't bothered reading the rules. Needs to measure and remeasure everything. Constant griping about the rules. If I have sacrificed a day to play, and every game day is a hard earned thing for me, I want to enjoy the experience. That means I play to the best of my ability against someone playing to the best of his ability. If that means I merrily chase lights all over the table the whole game so be it. If we're both in the game it's a good one.

By the way, unprotected LF handgunners in BGs of 4 are quite possibly the best bargain in the game!
Too bad only the Swiss get them in numbers. Life is so unfair.

Ghaznavid wrote:

marioslaz wrote:I think we are still missing the point. With actual system, against one army with a lot of skirmisher an army of massed troops has not a true tactic, because if you run back to shooters, as you know, you must sweep all enemy BG from the table. The story of paper-scissor-stone is not a solution, because this mean you have not a balanced game if you are not coupled with a similar army; you likely will have an easy or hard game, not a balanced one. And in the meantime in Italy people are talking to limit LH to a very small number of bases because otherwise game are boring. I don't think this could be a solution...

Not a similar army, but one capable of tackling the other (inside your skill range, some people can win vs. impossible odds... I sure can not). And yes it means that not all games are balanced, even more so if one player is happy with a draw. That kind of bad matchup exist in all ancient/medieval wargame rules I know. Even the best point system only gets you so and so far.
This is not limited to LH vs. HF matchups though. If I like to play early Crusaders, Normans or similar I'm not going to be a happy camper to find a pike heavy Swiss or a LB heavy 100YW army on the other side. So next we limit the number of Pike or LB bases an army can have? Then players of various 'barbarian' armies complain about those unbeatable superior Legionaries, so we limit them too?

Out of curiosity, what is an army of massed troops in your opinion? I crushed Khwarezmians with Crown of Aragon and Seljuks with Latin Greece. Yes some armies struggle to win vs. LH heavy outfits (and the other way round) but that is something I know in advance. There is no such thing as a 'best' army in FoG and I like that. If we give all the advantages to the heavy hitters people will soon complain that the games a dull, mono-dimensional and just dice rolling fests. If you take Swiss or LRR you buy a certain set of abilities, catching skirmishers isn't really among those. I might still be able to do it, but it will be hard work (on the other hand if I buy Mongols I don't really get the ability to beat LRR or Late Medieval Danish either, with hard work or luck I might still be able to win but chances do not favour me).

I don't know why the problem seems larger in Italy, maybe it's expectations, maybe playspeed, maybe it is the players of the LH armies, maybe the players of the heavy armies need to change tactics or army composition, maybe some people need to learn that a 16:4 is a win, even if you don't get the +5 point bonus, dunno. While some people like to play LH armies here in Germany (myself included), we see our share of defeats. Vs. very mono-dimensional armies (HF Spears all over + an IC) it can be dull but then those types of armies struggle even vs. a mixed force with just some LH (say Crown of Aragon), as it allows the mixed army to pick the fights or at least establish a local superiority. You want to "ban" those also? And end up with Swiss ruling supreme?

Fundamentally, what we want is to have a game. Failing that we need a mechanism by which players who wish to refuse battle can do so but their opponents get some form of compensation. And this isn't just about LH armies. It's also about armies that do a U-turn and march away to avoid defeat (Condotta running from Swiss for example). A solution CAN be found but I appreciate the majority of competition players are happy with things as they are, especially in Spain. So us moaners will just have to accept that fact and play something else.

Julian

We all want a game. But to get that we have to take risks. We must accept that we will lose some BG and hope that those risks pay off. Unfortunately some players will not take risks, even against players that do, so it can lead to a poor gaming experience.

IMO people should come up with cunning plans, open them up to public ridicule and when nobody believes the plan can work go ahead and use it no matter what the risk. Their confusion may ensure victory, or a good excuse when you are defeated. A win win situation.

If the only risk you or your opponent are willing to take is possibly rolling some 3's then it will be a bad game.

Some of my best games have been against LH armies. Both sides within a couple of AP of army rout. And also against HF where you take you balls in your hand and charge your lancers in at minus along the line. If you are lucky one of the target BG will crack before your lancers suicide themselves. Have enough lancers and one will. (One of the reasons I now like cav more than cats is you get a longer line of lancers to try this with.)

jlopez wrote: Fundamentally, what we want is to have a game. Failing that we need a mechanism by which players who wish to refuse battle can do so but their opponents get some form of compensation. And this isn't just about LH armies. It's also about armies that do a U-turn and march away to avoid defeat (Condotta running from Swiss for example). A solution CAN be found but I appreciate the majority of competition players are happy with things as they are, especially in Spain. So us moaners will just have to accept that fact and play something else.

I agree but I don't think the solution is in significantly changing the rules. FoG to me seems to be pretty 'historical' and troops behave mostly as I would expect. The problem is in the format of tournament games.

There are a number of possible ways to make things more interesting. What about trying a tournament where you use the format the Finns us in Winter War? They setup a number of historical or at least plausible scenarios where what matters is the relative outcome to other players playing the same game.

What about PoW style pairs of armies? If players bring a pair of armies that they feel will give a good game then you won't get many Roman vs Parthian games and if you are forced to play in such an encounter you will get to pick which side you play.

Yet another idea is to play with point values and table size.

The problem is in the format of tournament games.

Agreed. I think that Open competitions don't show FOG at its best, but obviously give the opportunity for the most entries. It may be worth surveying people to see just how many could enter different themes, or whether certain themes just don't contain sufficient interest for some.

What about PoW style pairs of armies?

I like this idea. It could form an alternative to Doubles, so that one player from each team uses the army that their team has brought, and the other uses their opponent's choices.

kevinj wrote:

The problem is in the format of tournament games.

Agreed. I think that Open competitions don't show FOG at its best, but obviously give the opportunity for the most entries. It may be worth surveying people to see just how many could enter different themes, or whether certain themes just don't contain sufficient interest for some.

What about PoW style pairs of armies?

I like this idea. It could form an alternative to Doubles, so that one player from each team uses the army that their team has brought, and the other uses their opponent's choices.

Yes, each pair brings a pair of armies then their opponent gets to choose which side. You will not get any horribly ballanced pairs if you do that.

jlopez wrote:Fundamentally, what we want is to have a game. Failing that we need a mechanism by which players who wish to refuse battle can do so but their opponents get some form of compensation. And this isn't just about LH armies. It's also about armies that do a U-turn and march away to avoid defeat (Condotta running from Swiss for example). A solution CAN be found but I appreciate the majority of competition players are happy with things as they are, especially in Spain. So us moaners will just have to accept that fact and play something else.

Simply reduce table depth by 20 cm, that might already take care of it. Unless one player is intentionally playing slow that should suffice on average to reach th opposite table edge with HF, even in the face of skirmishers trying to delay them.

philqw78 wrote:We all want a game. But to get that we have to take risks. We must accept that we will lose some BG and hope that those risks pay off. Unfortunately some players will not take risks, even against players that do, so it can lead to a poor gaming experience.

Well, exactly. Perhaps the problems I find with FoG in competition are it's just too easy for a player to not take risks in FoG cf say DBM. Everything moves exactly where it's supposed to go, all the time; movement rules often mean troops can walk away, so no balance of win here, lose there risk; and LH are nigh-on uncatchable if played with even a modicum of skill. And a lot of players prefer not losing to winning...

hammy wrote: Yes, each pair brings a pair of armies then their opponent gets to choose which side. You will not get any horribly ballanced pairs if you do that.

You can be nicely devious doing this. I recall a DBM200 matched pairs comp many years ago where I took a pair of armies where 1 army was apparantly the better choice, however, I knew I could rip it to shreds with the apparantly weaker one. Racked up a couple of wins (think I won the comp as well) because of that

nikgaukroger wrote:

hammy wrote: Yes, each pair brings a pair of armies then their opponent gets to choose which side. You will not get any horribly ballanced pairs if you do that.

You can be nicely devious doing this. I recall a DBM200 matched pairs comp many years ago where I took a pair of armies where 1 army was apparantly the better choice, however, I knew I could rip it to shreds with the apparantly weaker one. Racked up a couple of wins (think I won the comp as well) because of that

And that is a problem how?

Who said it was a problem

hammy wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

hammy wrote: Yes, each pair brings a pair of armies then their opponent gets to choose which side. You will not get any horribly ballanced pairs if you do that.

You can be nicely devious doing this. I recall a DBM200 matched pairs comp many years ago where I took a pair of armies where 1 army was apparantly the better choice, however, I knew I could rip it to shreds with the apparantly weaker one. Racked up a couple of wins (think I won the comp as well) because of that

And that is a problem how?

Not empirically, but if Nik won, obviously that's not right.

azrael86 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:(think I won the comp as well) because of that

... if Nik won, obviously that's not right.

He only thinks he won. He likes to think he can drink. But he's eschewed his roots and is now a southerner

philqw78 wrote:He only thinks he won. He likes to think he can drink. But he's eschewed his roots and is now a southerner

So is it he drinks, therefore he didn't win?

But if being a southerner means you aren't a 'Mancunain Dave LH fetishist' - sounds like a positive thing to me?

azrael86 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:He only thinks he won. He likes to think he can drink. But he's eschewed his roots and is now a southerner

So is it he drinks, therefore he didn't win?

But if being a southerner means you aren't a 'Mancunain Dave LH fetishist' - sounds like a positive thing to me?

I would love more LHists.
Dave is not a Mancunian. Neither of them. Both are from the chilly wastes.

But Nik used to be.

Ghaznavid wrote:

jlopez wrote:Fundamentally, what we want is to have a game. Failing that we need a mechanism by which players who wish to refuse battle can do so but their opponents get some form of compensation. And this isn't just about LH armies. It's also about armies that do a U-turn and march away to avoid defeat (Condotta running from Swiss for example). A solution CAN be found but I appreciate the majority of competition players are happy with things as they are, especially in Spain. So us moaners will just have to accept that fact and play something else.

Simply reduce table depth by 20 cm, that might already take care of it. Unless one player is intentionally playing slow that should suffice on average to reach th opposite table edge with HF, even in the face of skirmishers trying to delay them.

This seems a way to limit LH and other skirmisher. But this is not a solution, as is not a solution to limit the number of LH bases, and other similar expedients. In this way you penalize LH army tactic; what do you think about such limitation if you like LH armies? I think in a community it's right to penalize a bad behavior, not to penalize a group of people. With actual system, people who use LH armies are led to a tactic which give as result boring games. IMO rules have not to be changed (I mean rules on movement, combat and shooting) but some change must be taken on the scoring system, to give in a match where is involved a skirmisher army an aim different from "fight melees and crash your opponents".

Greetings. I've decided to stop lurking to make this suggestion for a different rule change that could limit the ease at which a LH army can achieve draws. Perhaps the PBI rules could be slightly altered to first require an initial die roll to only determine what the overall territory type will be, with the winner choosing the territory. The only modifier to this initial roll would be the quality of the C-n-C (+1 for a FC or +2 for an IC). After that, a second PBI die roll would be made using the usual modifiers for C-in-C's plus the total bases of light horse and cavalry, etc. The second roll would allow the winner to choose the individual terrain pieces first and place them first, and would require the other player to deploy first and move first, just like the rules are now.

The historical rationale for splitting the PBI into two rolls is because the type of territory being invaded or defended was often a grand strategic decision that the senior general made prior to the start of the campaign. For example, Crassus chose to go to the Parthian steppes, Richard the Lionhearted chose to go to the Holy Land, Batu and Subedei chose to lead the Mongols through the Carpathian Mountains into Hungary, etc. How much LH and cavalry each army had did not really affect their ability (or inability) to make wise strategic decisions in this regard, and so only the respective C-in-Cs' ability ratings should affect each player's potential to choose the overall territory for the game. Then, once in the field, the general's own skill plus his army's ability to "out scout" the enemy affected his ability to choose a suitable battlefield within the given territory, and that is what the second PBI simulates, using the remainder of the PBI rules.

The game effect of the initial PBI roll would be to reduce the ability of LH armies to stack the odds in order to get steppe or other favorable territory, and improve the ability of foot or mixed armies to get a territory that is more to their liking. For example, if both opponents had a C-in-C with the same ability, then they would each have an equal chance of getting their preferred territory, regardless of how much horse they had. Winning the choice of territory won't be a cure-all, but it might make it a bit easier for the non-LH army to engage and defeat the LH army, especially if they get the first move as a result of the second PBI roll.

The effect of this on the tournament meta-game might be to influence some players to not take a LH army in the first place, because their chances of getting favorable territory would be less certain than before. At the same time, this proposed rule might influence more players to take, say, a heavy or medium foot army, because their chances of getting favorable territory would be better than before. It might even influence more players to take more balanced armies, because the territory and potential opponents might thus be more unpredictable. Thus, this proposed rule might make the whole game a bit more interesting overall.

Let me add that FOG is my favorite ancients game and this suggestion is not a criticism of the game in general. My FOG tournament experience is so far limited to two tournaments, and I defer to others expertise. Nevertheless, I don't feel that the system is very broken as it is now in regard to LH. Thus I am only suggesting what I hope and believe is a slight change to the rules, that may have a small but noticeable effect on how we play with and against LH armies.

Your thoughts? Cheers, Tony

tonyj wrote:Your thoughts?

Reasonable, but as stated before I think NOT winning the PBI is actually an advantage to LH armies.

Ghaznavid wrote:Reasonable, but as stated before I think NOT winning the PBI is actually an advantage to LH armies.

Yes, smaller armies have more need to win PBI so they can get the match ups they want early. LH armies, especially with lots of filler, can move their battle winners around behind the screen of rubbish.