Slitherine

grahambriggs wrote:

petedalby wrote:

Superior javenlins in Blood and Gold. Elite javelins too...

And at no additional cost - how good is that?!!

We felt sorry for the armies with no mounted, armour or heavy foot

We thought it would be nice to see them on the tabletop again, without making them too super (like what they was in 7th).

grandviceroy wrote:Longbows seem terribly weak and ineffective in FOG.

this is not true...if you roll always 5 and 6 they are very strong on the other hand if you roll 1 or 2 they are very very bad unit
really it seems in these rules the dice is very important and a bad dices in 99% of the cases can lead to a defeat of your army...even if you have a better strategy than your enemy
don't you think?
Stefano

sdaddino wrote:

grandviceroy wrote:Longbows seem terribly weak and ineffective in FOG.

this is not true...if you roll always 5 and 6 they are very strong on the other hand if you roll 1 or 2 they are very very bad unit
really it seems in these rules the dice is very important and a bad dices in 99% of the cases can lead to a defeat of your army...even if you have a better strategy than your enemy
don't you think?
Stefano

Well sometimes battles were decided by the Gods...

It is a game...BUT usualy it is the best players that win even if the Gods are against them.

Poor dice just compound bad play.

Phil, could not agree more.

Stefano, because of the number of dice rolled the luck will tend to average out.

sdaddino wrote:this is not true...if you roll always 5 and 6 they are very strong on the other hand if you roll 1 or 2 they are very very bad unit
really it seems in these rules the dice is very important and a bad dices in 99% of the cases can lead to a defeat of your army...even if you have a better strategy than your enemy

I think that the same can be said of any game involving dice.

If high is good and you always roll 5s and 6s while I always roll 1s and 2s then I will struggle to beat you at any game.

There are a fair number of dice rolled in a game of FoG and over the course of a game or several games things should average out.

What I have found is that when I play badly my dice are worse than when I play well. If I am playing at the top of my game it seems that even bad dice don't get in the way much. Yes an unfortunate roll might see me lose a BG I was not expecting to lose but I should have a plan that can cope with such events. If your entire game plan revolves around winning a key combat where the odds are perhaps 60-40 in your favour then you are not in a good situation IMO.

I think with regard to die rolls there are some critical ones that can cause huge swings. I had a Poor, Undrilled battle group and it happened to have Portable Obstacles. Well, it's pretty hard to put down Portable Obstacles with a Poor, Undrilled BG. So, I put my IC with that battle group to give them a +3. That worked...and they placed their Obstacles.

The situation being what it was, however, the enemy pulled away the mounted unit that was the reason I placed the obstacles, and charged in with a foot unit (Avg Offensive Spear). I decided to have my IC fight in the front rank of my Poor BG to give it the best chance of winning, on top of providing +2 for cohesion tests.

Of course you can guess what happened...my opponent's BG won and my IC was killed! Various ensuing cohesion tests with no wonderful general nearby were taken and two failed.

No more IC, and BGs now disrupted...fairly huge swing for my decision to REINFORCE POTENTIAL FAILURE and then suffer at the hands of my opponent's die roll.

The IC should not have been fighting in the front rank of a combat that I would probably lose anyway.

Frank

On the other side of poor troops....
In one game I had a unit of poor offensive spears that stood and held off the Romans for 4 turns allowing me to get my armoured offensive spears over from the opposite flank and into position just as the poor troops broke and the armoured spears were there to stop the pursuit and hold them back till the game was won. One of those times the poor boys came through big time, too bad they didn't always work out so well for me.

fgilson wrote:I think with regard to die rolls there are some critical ones that can cause huge swings. I had a Poor, Undrilled battle group and it happened to have Portable Obstacles. Well, it's pretty hard to put down Portable Obstacles with a Poor, Undrilled BG. So, I put my IC with that battle group to give them a +3. That worked...and they placed their Obstacles.

The situation being what it was, however, the enemy pulled away the mounted unit that was the reason I placed the obstacles, and charged in with a foot unit (Avg Offensive Spear). I decided to have my IC fight in the front rank of my Poor BG to give it the best chance of winning, on top of providing +2 for cohesion tests.

Of course you can guess what happened...my opponent's BG won and my IC was killed! Various ensuing cohesion tests with no wonderful general nearby were taken and two failed.

No more IC, and BGs now disrupted...fairly huge swing for my decision to REINFORCE POTENTIAL FAILURE and then suffer at the hands of my opponent's die roll.

The IC should not have been fighting in the front rank of a combat that I would probably lose anyway.

Frank

Well, like Phil said, poor dice compound poor play. At least he died and you learnt the lesson. Had he survived you might have tried it again

grahambriggs wrote: At least he died and you learnt the lesson. Had he survived you might have tried it again

How many generals did you lose before you learnt this lesson Graham?

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: At least he died and you learnt the lesson. Had he survived you might have tried it again

How many generals did you lose before you learnt this lesson Graham?

Haven't learnt it yet....

Surely there is something in the rules that says never put your IC or ALLY GEN in the front rank they will die on the 1st test
David

davidandlynda wrote:Surely there is something in the rules that says never put your IC or ALLY GEN in the front rank they will die on the 1st test
David

I think there's probably a weakness in the rules in that losing the IC early can be a disaster but in the last bound he often gets risked in combat the same as any naff TC. That's assuming he's not require as a rallier or morale umbrella. I can't think of an easy change to fix it though.

grahambriggs wrote:I think there's probably a weakness in the rules in that losing the IC early can be a disaster but in the last bound he often gets risked in combat the same as any naff TC. That's assuming he's not require as a rallier or morale umbrella. I can't think of an easy change to fix it though.

But surely this is a tiny bit like the general seeing an opportunity to turn the battle and diving in death or glory style just before the sun sets and it gets time to go home for tea and medals. And it is an artificial game.

Or if it your army is on the verge of breaking, he goes into the front line so he will be remembered for all eternity... or so your friends will never let you forget you lost your IC when he jumped into the front ranks.

philqw78 wrote:And it is an artificial game.

...and here I've been thinking it was a genuine game.

FWIW every time I've fought longbows in the open with knights I've managed to ride them down (the other week despite losing 2 generals in the first impact - ouch!), but every time they have skulked in terrain or behind stakes I've found them difficult to beat on the basis that they tend to have dismounted men-at-arms around to protect them from any foot. Feels about right to me.

hannibal wrote:FWIW every time I've fought longbows in the open with knights I've managed to ride them down (the other week despite losing 2 generals in the first impact - ouch!), but every time they have skulked in terrain or behind stakes I've found them difficult to beat on the basis that they tend to have dismounted men-at-arms around to protect them from any foot. Feels about right to me.

Well that is the interaction that was sought, and, IMO, is a good representation of the historical situation.

nikgaukroger wrote:

hannibal wrote:FWIW every time I've fought longbows in the open with knights I've managed to ride them down (the other week despite losing 2 generals in the first impact - ouch!), but every time they have skulked in terrain or behind stakes I've found them difficult to beat on the basis that they tend to have dismounted men-at-arms around to protect them from any foot. Feels about right to me.

Well that is the interaction that was sought, and, IMO, is a good representation of the historical situation.

This then just becomes a potential negative situation that you have to solve in a tournament...if your longbow opponent has chosen to take stakes and anchor against/in a terrain feature, you may run out of time before you can address this...of course your opponent is conceding the initiative entirely to you, and hoping you'll make significant mistakes trying to defeat his defensive position.

fgilson wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

hannibal wrote:FWIW every time I've fought longbows in the open with knights I've managed to ride them down (the other week despite losing 2 generals in the first impact - ouch!), but every time they have skulked in terrain or behind stakes I've found them difficult to beat on the basis that they tend to have dismounted men-at-arms around to protect them from any foot. Feels about right to me.

Well that is the interaction that was sought, and, IMO, is a good representation of the historical situation.

This then just becomes a potential negative situation that you have to solve in a tournament...if your longbow opponent has chosen to take stakes and anchor against/in a terrain feature, you may run out of time before you can address this...of course your opponent is conceding the initiative entirely to you, and hoping you'll make significant mistakes trying to defeat his defensive position.

I have fought a few Longbows but none have used stakes they did'nt sit back but used the Longbows agressivlly which considering then move 4 and fire 6 thats 10 inchs you hd to plan for, not to be played against when using a LH army.