Slitherine

david53 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:making such a change to the Bw/Cv interaction might actually be a good thing...

Or not of course or you do that and I'd make it harder for drilled MF to move around the table like chess pieces. Since I played two Dom Roms armies at Stockport both seemed to enjoy doing all manner of great turns/moves, lots of them very close to a line of proper enemy troops ie Knights. For some reason you think Cavalry need sorting but not this type of Roman wonder troops.

Sorry, I'd already have done that too

marty wrote:For anyone who doesn't accepts there is a problem with game balance and disappearing HF consider the following. We have just finished a year of competitions. In the UK (the largest and perhaps most competitive competition circuit) we have seen the following armies win 15mm non-team events.

7 predominately mounted armies (Later Serbian, Lithuanian, western turkish, ottoman turk, middle hungarian, Parthian and Mongol).

5 MF "shooter" armies (Ord Frenchx2, 100yw english, japanese, christian nubian)

3 "Fighting" MF armies (Aztec and Catalan companyx2)

3 armies it is hard to be sure what they have without seen the list, but chances are very little HF and possibly quite a bit of LH (Palmyran, SHNC and Dom Roman)

And 2 armies that probably contain significant numbers of HF (Early Successor and later sumerian/akkadian).Both of these HF victories were in "Themed" events.

So 12 of the 20 armies were either mounted armies or the shooters that are often taken as a response to the mounted armies. Only 1 in 10 victories were gained by armies that have significant numbers of HF and always in a themed comp.

The game balance"pendulum" is clearly positioned rather to one side. Any changes that make foot (especially non missile foot) even less attractive are a very bad idea.

I apologise in advance if I have recorded any of this information incorrectly. I got it from the Slitherine rankings site.

Martin

I notice you haven't included the Lydians in the ITC tournament. They were mainly comprised of Heavy Foot.

madaxeman wrote:I look on the train of thought in threads on this board as a sort of a Mornington Crescent for ancient wargamers ...

I'm not that old

philqw78 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:I look on the train of thought in threads on this board as a sort of a Mornington Crescent for ancient wargamers ...

I'm not that old

Tim seems to get tetchy when somebody absolutely batters him on the table.

dave_r wrote: I notice you haven't included the Lydians in the ITC tournament. They were mainly comprised of Heavy Foot.

Would that be your army? The one with 4BG of HF out of 14?

peterrjohnston wrote:

dave_r wrote: I notice you haven't included the Lydians in the ITC tournament. They were mainly comprised of Heavy Foot.

Would that be your army? The one with 4BG of HF out of 14?

I suspect that is the one Dave is refering to.

That said the combat frontage of the army was very much focussed on the HF.

While HF armies are not dominant in FoG at the very least Swiss seems to do OK.

Can anyone name another ruleset used in tournaments where armies prediminantly made up of HF are both interesting to play and effective against most types of opponent. OK, the Jez Evans Wall 'o' Spear TM is not a bad army in DBM but it does not regularly beat good players and it is about the most boring army in the world to play aginst.

I will once again repeat my feeling that what is needed is not rules changes but more themed tournaments and perhaps different tournament conditions like smaller tables of different point levels.

dave_r wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:I look on the train of thought in threads on this board as a sort of a Mornington Crescent for ancient wargamers ...

I'm not that old

Tim seems to get tetchy when somebody absolutely batters him on the table.

Eh? You mean I become really, really small

If there is a problem with Heavy Foot taking too long to get into the action, wouldn't it be simpler to start them further in, rather than mess with the relative movement rates? As a side issue, measuring deployment from the centre-line instead of the baseline would decouple the initial deployment and movement to contact from variations in effective table depth.

I have to agree with Hammy that the best way of managing killer armies as and when they arise is through themed games.

madaxeman wrote:Eh? You mean I become really, really small

Martial not marital problems in this forum Tim.

peteratjet wrote: I have to agree with Hammy that the best way of managing killer armies as and when they arise is through themed games.

In my mind there are no killer armies in FOG, however there are some very good players, who handle armies very well.

peteratjet wrote:If there is a problem with Heavy Foot taking too long to get into the action, wouldn't it be simpler to start them further in, rather than mess with the relative movement rates? As a side issue, measuring deployment from the centre-line instead of the baseline would decouple the initial deployment and movement to contact from variations in effective table depth.

I have to agree with Hammy that the best way of managing killer armies as and when they arise is through themed games.

Allowing non skimishers to deploy at 15"" might work nicely I think.

grahambriggs wrote:

peteratjet wrote:If there is a problem with Heavy Foot taking too long to get into the action, wouldn't it be simpler to start them further in, rather than mess with the relative movement rates? As a side issue, measuring deployment from the centre-line instead of the baseline would decouple the initial deployment and movement to contact from variations in effective table depth.

I have to agree with Hammy that the best way of managing killer armies as and when they arise is through themed games.

Allowing non skimishers to deploy at 15"" might work nicely I think.

Play on 6' by 3'6" tables

hammy wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:

peteratjet wrote:If there is a problem with Heavy Foot taking too long to get into the action, wouldn't it be simpler to start them further in, rather than mess with the relative movement rates? As a side issue, measuring deployment from the centre-line instead of the baseline would decouple the initial deployment and movement to contact from variations in effective table depth.

I have to agree with Hammy that the best way of managing killer armies as and when they arise is through themed games.

Allowing non skimishers to deploy at 15"" might work nicely I think.

Play on 6' by 3'6" tables

That would do it too but requires tournament organisers to see the light (which they haven't to date).

grahambriggs wrote:

hammy wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: Allowing non skimishers to deploy at 15"" might work nicely I think.

Play on 6' by 3'6" tables

That would do it too but requires tournament organisers to see the light (which they haven't to date).

No disrespect ment but if there arn't mass'es of gammers shouting for this, which I have'nt heard at any of the major events this year.

Maybe the majority are happy to play on a 4' wide table, silent majority and all that....

Before people say I have a problum with the change I quite happily played on 3' wide tables at Stockport with a Shooty Cavalry army, with regard to the three games I did'nt end up falling off the edge of the world.

I would love to see the 650 point system taken up at one of the big events but I am sure the organizers are thinking of those people who do not get many 800 point games as it is, I can see both sides to this.

As far as I am concerned, I think it would be an improvement reducing the table depth to 3.6".

As to 650 pts tournaments, that's how we started here in Portugal, with a reduced table length to 5'. IMHO the results weren't better than 800 pts in 6', maybe because we were all just starting to play the game.

I do not agree that Killer armies should be dealt through themed games or tournaments, specially if the killer army in the game was not a very effective army historically. There will always be open competitions and it is nonsense (or at least it doesn't feel "historical") that an army who in history systematically loose battles would be a top scorer in the game. In this respect I think FOG is much better positioned than other rules, though of course there is always room for improvement.

Under "Warrior" (WRG7.5 in effect) the gaming world was ruled by pike and elephant armies. So at least from an Australian perspective there was a "golden age" of HF. This was probably just as unfortunate as the lack of appeal in HF at the moment. I will keep playing FOG whether there is a new edition or not and I will continue to use undrilled foot armies on occasion even when there is almost no real hope of victory.

Having said that I think if there are to be any changes they need to consider the balance pendulum is firmly placed on one side. One of the reasons the group I play with shifted to FOG was the hope that a wider range of armies would be viable in competition. We have found this to be increasingly less and less the case as we have got to know the system better. It is simply a different range of armies. More is needed than simply playing on a slightly narrower table. I would suggest this is beacuse:

1) LH are faster and more manouverable than ever before. Under "Warrior" they were relatively slower and much less manouverable even when "regular". In DBM they manouvered fairly freely but still faced the PIP restrictions to movement. At the other end of the manouvering spectrum undrilled non skirmisher, non cav troops are less manouverable than ever before. To do anything other than move their full distance straight ahead they either need the assistance of a general or have to pick up the dice. Clearly LH should be more manouverable then warbands but the FOG designers have pushed it out to an extreme no one else ever found necessary. As exactly how fast and effectively troops manouvered is an area of historical inquiry with no certain answers this can only be a design rather than a historical issue.

2) The "army break" and scoring system that is widely used favours armies that can have some small inexpensive units that are hard to kill. The most effective, most commonly available ones are LH. The shooting system probaly also doesnt do enough to punish small units taking lots of hits, the best you can do is cause an extra -1 for 1 hit per two. What about when you get 1 hit per base or more? I know the death test helps a bit but these 4 el units of LH often stand up to a hail of shooting very effectively.

3) One of the "counters" to mounted troops, the elephant, is ludicrously over priced and ineffective.

4) The suggested terrain system allows one side to play on an open field most of the time if that is what they want.

5) 800 points on 6x4 is a very low troop to table ratio. This is as much about frontage as depth.

All of these issues have been discussed in more detail elsewhere. If there are going to be changes I feel these issues need to be kept in mind.

Martin

marty wrote:The most effective, most commonly available ones are LH. The shooting system probaly also doesnt do enough to punish small units taking lots of hits, the best you can do is cause an extra -1 for 1 hit per two. What about when you get 1 hit per base or more? I know the death test helps a bit but these 4 el units of LH often stand up to a hail of shooting very effectively.

You only can do -1 to any BG hit by shooting not just LH, I have done 5 hits to 4 base knight BG in the past and they passed the death through and CT.

Do LH BG stand up to a lot of hits there has been many times that I have lost a base to shooting and losing a base on a 4 base BG is much much worse than losing a base with either a 6 or 8 Base BG.

You only can do -1 to any BG hit by shooting not just LH, I have done 5 hits to 4 base knight BG in the past and they passed the death through and CT.

Once I made 7 hits on a cavalry unit.....he passes the cohesion test and of course rolled a 6 in the death test never forget this one!

An additional -1 if you have 1 hit per base would be welcome, maybe with some mechanism to help BG's that need to be small (or historically worked better in smaller formations).

david53 wrote:

marty wrote:The most effective, most commonly available ones are LH. The shooting system probaly also doesnt do enough to punish small units taking lots of hits, the best you can do is cause an extra -1 for 1 hit per two. What about when you get 1 hit per base or more? I know the death test helps a bit but these 4 el units of LH often stand up to a hail of shooting very effectively.

david53 wrote:You only can do -1 to any BG hit by shooting not just LH, I have done 5 hits to 4 base knight BG in the past and they passed the death through and CT.

I know it may disappoint you, but I don't think the OP is picking on LH specifically, but instead is making a generic point about huge volumes of shooting (say 6+ hits) having the same "-1" morale effect on a small 4-base unit as it would have on the biggest unit possible in the game. Because LH always tool around in 4's, and (arguably represent a looser formations, i.e. less actual soldiers per base than other troops) there could be a case that there is a number of hits per base that causes a greater morale effect, ie "-2"

david53 wrote:Do LH BG stand up to a lot of hits there has been many times that I have lost a base to shooting and losing a base on a 4 base BG is much much worse than losing a base with either a 6 or 8 Base BG.

LH who lose a base are very much out of the game, I agree. However (and I am picking on LH here, which I'm sure you will be happy to notice!) I'd argue that their greater maneuverability compared to many other troop types means in practice they are more able to position themselves to split enemy shooting (so as to reduce the maximum number of hits they can incur) than other troops.

tim

madaxeman wrote: However (and I am picking on LH here, which I'm sure you will be happy to notice!) I'd argue that their greater maneuverability compared to many other troop types means in practice they are more able to position themselves to split enemy shooting (so as to reduce the maximum number of hits they can incur) than other troops.

tim

Unless of course your facing those wonder troops, drilled, bow and medium foot. Then you can't split the shooting, cause of the shooting arcs. (I'm picking on them I'm sure your happy to notice)

I'm glad you agree once a 4 base unit loses a base its out the game, adding an extra - to the one allready for hits is IMO overkill. (unless it is of course 4 base drilled superior medium foot bow types, that you might just find in not proper roman armies)

Just joking about the medium foot BTW but I do think the -1 for shooting is about correct for any units not just the LH 4 base units (if there are other than LH troop types. )