Slitherine

VMadeira wrote: It would be more sensible to reclassify many of the superior troops as average. Also for some of the elites that I never understood why they were so special (thinking of Achaemenid Persian cavalry, for example), well this should be in another topic, I know...

The list revision one perhaps?

pyruse wrote:pyruse wrote:
I actually think that base removal is a bad thing - real units didn't have their frontage get smaller as they took casualties.
philqw78 wrote:
A lot of them certainly did. Close order foot especially would close up ranks otherwise there would be gaps in the line that could be exploited.
----------------
Close order foot fought many ranks deep for a reason - it means that casualties can be replaced from the rear ranks without your frontage reducing.
Do you actually have evidence of close order foot reducing frontage as casualties mounted, or is that just an assumption on your part?

The shieldwall at Hastings shrunk such that eventually the Norman milites could charge along the ridge. But I think you could rationalise that by English BGs on the flanks being destroyed.

grahambriggs wrote:Richard's change would add risk to this tactic. In fact, it might be an option to make all morale classes break on 50% losses. That would toughen poor troops a bit (but not much, they normally go on morale). Elite could be an exception.

Actually the full proposal is that

Superior & Average break when 50% of their bases are lost

Elite break on 50%+1 base
Poor break on 50%-1 base

This makes 4 base Poor LF BGs very dodgy, which cannot be a bad thing.

rbodleyscott wrote: Actually the full proposal is that

Superior & Average break when 50% of their bases are lost

Elite break on 50%+1 base
Poor break on 50%-1 base

Which would render auto-break on one base left moot, with the exception of a 2-base elite BG, whose opponents now never get to pursue on base-lose breaks.

rbodleyscott wrote:This makes 4 base Poor LF BGs very dodgy, which cannot be a bad thing.

6 base "free army padding" poor LF are more of a problem, I would have said. Are there any 4 base poor LF? Struggling to think of any apart from the one possible BG in late Romans.

peterrjohnston wrote: Are there any 4 base poor LF? Struggling to think of any apart from the one possible BG in late Romans.

Many 4 base poor JLS are pretty common. Assyrians and Byzantines are notable users.

Yeah the 6 base poor LF still and issue.

So, are we so sure of the differences between superior and elite troops to make elite troops so much better when in 4's ?

Superior knights will also be severelly affected, they are already difficult to use successfully against an experienced opponent, making them more vulnerable will make them almost useless, as the points to buy them in 6's is huge and in 4's they are almost as bad, as the now universally despised Average knights in 4's.

More, what happens to those heroic examples of troops fighting to the last (or near that anyway...) ? It doesn't really matter that in reality this would be rare, it still happenned now and then, and it makes the game much more fun. I would leave the auto break rule as it is.

If this is a way to avoid swarm armies, namely the Dominate Swarm, a better solution would be to limit the army break point to a smaller maximum limit (even smaller than 16). What I have read in this forum from more experienced players than I, is that the problem with these armies, is the difficultty to beat them in 3.30 hours, but OTOH only good players are able to win with them. The army break point limit is IMHO a sufficient antidote to this kind of armies, no need to over react, as there is also the increased difficulties to maneuvre and reduced movement to MF being implemented.

VMadeira wrote: If this is a way to avoid swarm armies, namely the Dominate Swarm, a better solution would be to limit the army break point to a smaller maximum limit

Sadly its not as most Dom Roms are in four base BG and most of those are only classed as average anyway.

One slightly less brutal option might be to make all BG that are at or below a certain strength have to take a cohesion test every turn or at least every turn that they are within a certain distance of the enemy.

hammy wrote:One slightly less brutal option might be to make all BG that are at or below a certain strength have to take a cohesion test every turn or at least every turn that they are within a certain difference of the enemy.

It would make things simple.stop autobreak rules..as of 50% bases lost make a cohesion test at the JAP every turn, it would also reflect the difference in quality much more.

pyruse wrote:pyruse wrote:
I actually think that base removal is a bad thing - real units didn't have their frontage get smaller as they took casualties.
philqw78 wrote:
A lot of them certainly did. Close order foot especially would close up ranks otherwise there would be gaps in the line that could be exploited.
----------------
Close order foot fought many ranks deep for a reason - it means that casualties can be replaced from the rear ranks without your frontage reducing.
Do you actually have evidence of close order foot reducing frontage as casualties mounted, or is that just an assumption on your part?

Losing a base in the game does not reduce the BG frontage unless it is already in one rank. For most troops, that fight in 2 ranks, this puts them on 50% losses so they would normally break in the new scheme by that point. This of course does not apply to knights and chariots.

I think it is sensible to regard base losses as an inrrecoverable loss of combat effectiveness rather than actual casualties (as someone else suggested).

ACW casualty rates are not really useful for our period. When ACW units took high casualties their attacks normally failed and in any case they were usually "suppressed" at low casualties and only suffered additional casualties because they remained in place instead of running away immediately. In our period, firepower and hence suppression are much less significant.

Having said that, I'm not sure whether the 5% casualty rates are applicable to battles fought mainly by missiles, as opposed to melee. I suspect casualties for archery duels were higher, but on the other hand there are reports of archers shooting off all their ammo at each other without reaching a decision, so maybe not.

VMadeira wrote:If this is a way to avoid swarm armies, namely the Dominate Swarm, a better solution would be to limit the army break point to a smaller maximum limit (even smaller than 16). What I have read in this forum from more experienced players than I, is that the problem with these armies, is the difficultty to beat them in 3.30 hours, but OTOH only good players are able to win with them. The army break point limit is IMHO a sufficient antidote to this kind of armies, no need to over react, as there is also the increased difficulties to maneuvre and reduced movement to MF being implemented.

That’s a sensible point. Fog 2.0 is going to be a better historical game or only a better tournament game?

hammy wrote:One slightly less brutal option might be to make all BG that are at or below a certain strength have to take a cohesion test every turn or at least every turn that they are within a certain distance of the enemy.

I like this idea. It might even eliminate the lone-base rule and breathe some life into Elephants and other 2-pack BGs.

I must say that my own first reaction to the Superior/Average 50% breakpoint proposal was that I like to see a few "famous last stands" because they add to the fun.

I don't really like the idea of CT testing each turn, that could be a lot of tests.

An even simpler milder rule is to have an additional -1 CT modifier for having lost 50%. So at BG at 50% has -2 on its CT.

My colleagues favour trying the more drastic version specified previously. We had agreed to test it - but the reaction in this thread seems mainly negative, so perhaps we should reconsider.

rbodleyscott wrote:I must say that my own first reaction to the Superior/Average 50% breakpoint proposal was that I like to see a few "famous last stands" because they add to the fun.

I don't really like the idea of CT testing each turn, that could be a lot of tests.

An even simpler milder rule is to have an additional -1 CT modifier for having lost 50%. So at BG at 50% has -2 on its CT.

My colleagues favour trying the more drastic version specified previously. We had agreed to test it - but the reaction in this thread seems mainly negative, so perhaps we should reconsider.

I suspect that pre-DBA if you had suggested that most shooty troops would not be able to shoot, you would have received equally negative reactions, yet DBA and its derivatives were hugely popular.

Therefore I would like to see the drastic version tested. Nothing to stop you testing the simple mild version as well, of course.

A couple of prima facie issues with the CT method:

As superior and elite troops are normally on +poa, they don't often need to take CT and hence the change may have a very small impact.

A larger negative modifier might be needed as these troops always have rerolls.

lawrenceg wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:I must say that my own first reaction to the Superior/Average 50% breakpoint proposal was that I like to see a few "famous last stands" because they add to the fun.

I don't really like the idea of CT testing each turn, that could be a lot of tests.

An even simpler milder rule is to have an additional -1 CT modifier for having lost 50%. So at BG at 50% has -2 on its CT.

My colleagues favour trying the more drastic version specified previously. We had agreed to test it - but the reaction in this thread seems mainly negative, so perhaps we should reconsider.

A couple of prima facie issues with the CT method:
As superior and elite troops are normally on +poa, they don't often need to take CT and hence the change may have a very small impact.
A larger negative modifier might be needed as these troops always have rerolls.

Units could lose their quality re-rolls at 50%.... still allows heroic last stands*, but they would be even more fun !

tim

* see, I made a joke

rbodleyscott wrote:I must say that my own first reaction to the Superior/Average 50% breakpoint proposal was that I like to see a few "famous last stands" because they add to the fun.

.

I suspect all, or at least nearly all, historical famous last stands were when there was no escape path available, and many so-called "last stands" were in fact "last routs" (Custer's being a well known example).

Hence the proper last stands are already in the game, albeit the surrounded BG goes from fragmented with few casualties to total elimination in one turn. Perhaps there should be a CT bonus for a fragmented BG whose rout path is blocked. Ancient authors do occasionally advise against surrounding your enemy on the basis that they will tend to fight harder.

rbodleyscott wrote:I must say that my own first reaction to the Superior/Average 50% breakpoint proposal was that I like to see a few "famous last stands" because they add to the fun.

I don't really like the idea of CT testing each turn, that could be a lot of tests.

An even simpler milder rule is to have an additional -1 CT modifier for having lost 50%. So at BG at 50% has -2 on its CT.

My colleagues favour trying the more drastic version specified previously. We had agreed to test it - but the reaction in this thread seems mainly negative, so perhaps we should reconsider.

Never follow a multitude into folly: I think it's a good development.

The reaction to most threads is negative on the internet. There is always someone who thinks it's a bad idea.

Also, because tough superiors in 4s are so common, people don't like the idea of their supertroops being degraded. So yes, you'll get a lot of special pleading. Hence we have posts on here from people who think such a change will make those well known 9 stone weaklings, superior heavily armed knights, into totally unuable troops. Rubbish. This is a minor change.

What I don't hear is the call for average troops in 4s to be improved so that you have to kill 3 of their bases to break them. Why? few people use them so there is no squawking in their favour. Also, average troops in 4s are weak enough that such a change wouldn't help them much anyway.

I like the idea of toughening up 12s of poor troops (would take 5 base losses to break them rather than the current 4). Might give them enough holding power to be used as bloking troops who will hold the enemy for a bit.

grahambriggs wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:My colleagues favour trying the more drastic version specified previously. We had agreed to test it - but the reaction in this thread seems mainly negative, so perhaps we should reconsider.

Never follow a multitude into folly: I think it's a good development.

The reaction to most threads is negative on the internet. There is always someone who thinks it's a bad idea.

Indeed. My main reason for posting as above was to balance things out by seeing who would come out in favour of the proposed change.

rbodleyscott wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:My colleagues favour trying the more drastic version specified previously. We had agreed to test it - but the reaction in this thread seems mainly negative, so perhaps we should reconsider.

Never follow a multitude into folly: I think it's a good development.

The reaction to most threads is negative on the internet. There is always someone who thinks it's a bad idea.

Indeed. My main reason for posting as above was to balance things out by seeing who would come out in favour of the proposed change.

My vote goes to testing the more extreme alternative first. I hadn't responded earlier since it isn't a strong feeling but I think it makes sense to try it as the more elegant solution first over an additional modifier or additional CTs.

Chris

Go for the extreme version first.

An additional -1 to CT is a good alternative though.