Slitherine

how about 700 on a 6' by 3' ?
That might keep the table full enough to stop the dancing ?

Though then we will hear about how no one can beat pike or knights ( he says with a swiss army at the ready
)

ben

NickW wrote:But think of all the extra toys you can play with. Instead of deciding whether you'll have the Varangians or the cataphracts or the extra cavalry - have them all!

More toys on table is always the right answer

benos wrote:how about 700 on a 6' by 3' ?
That might keep the table full enough to stop the dancing ?

Though then we will hear about how no one can beat pike or knights ( he says with a swiss army at the ready
)

ben

Actually I don't think that would hurt light horse very much at all. Fewer points on the same frontage...

Less width makes life harder for skirmishers.
Less depth makes games quicker.

If you want a real heavy foot fest try 600 points on a 4' by 3'

hammy wrote:650 points on a 5 by 3 table, it's the future you know

Only in small countries...

benos wrote:how about 700 on a 6' by 3' ?
That might keep the table full enough to stop the dancing ?

Though then we will hear about how no one can beat pike or knights ( he says with a swiss army at the ready
)

ben

Right I'll take loads of pikes enough to fill the whole table now whop would complain at that then

hammy wrote:

benos wrote:how about 700 on a 6' by 3' ?
That might keep the table full enough to stop the dancing ?

Though then we will hear about how no one can beat pike or knights ( he says with a swiss army at the ready
)

ben

Actually I don't think that would hurt light horse very much at all. Fewer points on the same frontage...

Less width makes life harder for skirmishers.
Less depth makes games quicker.

If you want a real heavy foot fest try 600 points on a 4' by 3'

Would cut down movement would be like another rule set down to dice luck then?

Hold on a sec - are you seriously suggesting FoG is not affected by dice luck at the moment???

8 meant to write 5' by 3' . Oops

that said 4' sounds even better for pike armies !

I have been playing on 5 by 3 with 650 and there is enough space.

ben

david53 wrote:

benos wrote:how about 700 on a 6' by 3' ?
That might keep the table full enough to stop the dancing ?

Though then we will hear about how no one can beat pike or knights ( he says with a swiss army at the ready
)

ben

Right I'll take loads of pikes enough to fill the whole table now whop would complain at that then

Nobody because you won't fill a 6' table with pike

Yes you can.

is that 1 deep ?

I would expect some successors to do well but i think there are counters

ben

Surely 1 deep would be a little bit too ambitious, even against a totally LH opponent?

Skirmishers shot at by non skirmishers. Death roll modifier of minus 1, or even zero. Now that would make mf bow viable, make skirmishers a bit less good and also mean they get pulled out of the line (as they should be) more often than currently. Whats not to like?

madaxeman wrote:Skirmishers shot at by non skirmishers. Death roll modifier of minus 1, or even zero. Now that would make mf bow viable, make skirmishers a bit less good and also mean they get pulled out of the line (as they should be) more often than currently. Whats not to like?

Possible... It would make 4 base BGs of skirmishers a lot less safe.

Skirmishers shot at by non skirmishers. Death roll modifier of minus 1, or even zero. Now that would make mf bow viable, make skirmishers a bit less good and also mean they get pulled out of the line (as they should be) more often than currently. Whats not to like?

Or how about a +1 POA for Non-Skirmishers shooting at Unprotected LH who are in more than 1 rank?

Could also drop skirmishers (or maybe just bow/sling skirmisher?) down a PoA when shooting at non-skirmisher foot. This might help represent the crusader experience of ineffectual shooting at crusader foot.

So Protected foot would be at (-) PoA, Armored and heavily armored at (--), unprotected at no PoA.

Would make it easier for the romans to walk across the table if their flanks were secure, cruader crossbows (all basically protected) would be a bit harder to shoot down, etc. I know some people think "ganging up" on MF shooters with LH is pretty effective and this would cut down on that.

I would leave javelins alone, their short range hinders them as is and crossbows are already disadvantaged versus foot.

ethan wrote:Could also drop skirmishers (or maybe just bow/sling skirmisher?) down a PoA when shooting at non-skirmisher foot. This might help represent the crusader experience of ineffectual shooting at crusader foot.

So Protected foot would be at (-) PoA, Armored and heavily armored at (--), unprotected at no PoA.

Would make it easier for the romans to walk across the table if their flanks were secure, cruader crossbows (all basically protected) would be a bit harder to shoot down, etc. I know some people think "ganging up" on MF shooters with LH is pretty effective and this would cut down on that.

I would leave javelins alone, their short range hinders them as is and crossbows are already disadvantaged versus foot.

I think that is far too much of a downgrade. If you have to makes the shooting of skirmishers worse then a CT modifier in favour of non skirmishers would IMO be more than enough.

Tim's idea of making them more vulnerable to death rolls may have merit but it is a significant change.

hammy wrote:

madaxeman wrote:Skirmishers shot at by non skirmishers. Death roll modifier of minus 1, or even zero. Now that would make mf bow viable, make skirmishers a bit less good and also mean they get pulled out of the line (as they should be) more often than currently. Whats not to like?

Possible... It would make 4 base BGs of skirmishers a lot less safe.

"less safe" or "give you more incentive to pull them out of the front line earlier on, ie when they lose one base"?

At the moment the "skirmisher" phase of the battle tends to happen both at the beginning, and then to return later on once things thin out a little - and I think they were only supposed to only be the former (in theory).

LH armies who cover the table would still be able to pick spots without enemy bowmen to pick on, but would have a touch less freedom. Bowmen would have a role. LH would not be able to outshoot cavalry as easily. Protected Cv vs LH would become rather more interesting....

madaxeman wrote: Protected Cv vs LH would become rather more interesting....

This also might be a good thing. If average protected bow/sw cavalry were seen as a good solution for dealing with LH it might make shake things up.

the cavalry get three shots.

They hit 2 out of 3 38% of the time
they hit 3 out of 3 12.5% of the time

So the LH would face a -1 CT 51% of the time (as it is now) and would lose a stand (with a +1 modifier instead of +2) about 9% of the time. Currently LH lose a stand to 3 shots about 2% of the time. So while it wouldn't be super common, it would represent about a quadrupling of the LH death rate, more with more shots of course.

madaxeman wrote:

LH armies who cover the table would still be able to pick spots without enemy bowmen to pick on,

Of course if the medium foot were drilled and still moved at 4MU I'd argue that it would'nt be true.