Slitherine

Have an "ammo limit" option for projectile units. I'm fine with archers or slingers having a infinite ammo game-wise, but I get somewhat annoyed by javelinmen being able to fire 20 times in a row round after round.

How many javelins can a single warrior realistically carry around? 3-4 max if you ask me. After that the javelinmen should spend a turn adjacent their own camp to "reload stocks".

Sabratha wrote:Have an "ammo limit" option for projectile units. I'm fine with archers or slingers having a infinite ammo game-wise, but I get somewhat annoyed by javelinmen being able to fire 20 times in a row round after round.

How many javelins can a single warrior realistically carry around? 3-4 max if you ask me. After that the javelinmen should spend a turn adjacent their own camp to "reload stocks".

Ammunition has be mentioned in the past by a few players, but not specifically javelinmen if I recall correctly. I will flag this up with TGM as a suggestion to add to the more detailed sheets that we shall be sending shortly to Slitherine. I suppose it could be argued that javelinmen would pick up discarded spears and other weapons and hurl them back at the enemy.

peterb wrote:Noticeably missing from this list (and I think important): user-interface improvements, which help bring more new users into the game.

viewtopic.php?t=20233

Yes, I think it is a good idea. I only went back as far as January 1, 2011 so I missed this one. Apologies. I will talk to TGM about adding it to the more detailed lists we have prepared (separate from the priority list that has already been sent).

Fedem wrote:Recheck the armor. Actually the game doesnt make any diference if you shoot with missile for example Armored or Protected Cavalry.

Tks

Fedem, can you explain this point a bit more please? Are you saying armour does not affect missile fire for all troop types? Does anybody else have an issue with this? Thanks.

This is because non-lancer cavalry are assumed to be in a single rank (from the tt rules) and thus behave as LH for evasion and when recieiving fire. Yet, they are automatically considered in two ranks (formed up for combat) in impact and melee phases.

I'ts quite bent actually and I've had long discussions with Kieth early on about changing this. He has declined saying it's "funner" this way. It is something that really makes Bosporans and the like very overpowered and ought to be fixed.

Deeter

deeter wrote:This is because non-lancer cavalry are assumed to be in a single rank (from the tt rules) and thus behave as LH for evasion and when recieiving fire. Yet, they are automatically considered in two ranks (formed up for combat) in impact and melee phases.

I'ts quite bent actually and I've had long discussions with Kieth early on about changing this. He has declined saying it's "funner" this way. It is something that really makes Bosporans and the like very overpowered and ought to be fixed.

Deeter

Its too bad back in the beginning they didnt apply simple basic formations, at least for cavalry ie one rank for "skirmishing" and one "formed up" for melee, a simple right click on the BG to set formation (likly would be a full action for that unit for the turn) and good to go.
Of course they could also have had 2 hex sized BG's and ... and ...


Maybe one day we'll see FOG II

Im making test, but for example if you shoot with Bows at any Cavalry Protected or Armored. You have the same chance of getting a hit.

There is no dif if they armored or protected.

You do have a difference if they are unprotected or protectecd and between armored or heavy armored.

I know that there is a diference from shooting Lancers or Light Spears and bow Cav.

But pick the same class of Cav and make them Protected and armored and see that the game doesnt make any diference when they are being shot.

Don t know if I can explain myself

stockwellpete wrote:

Sabratha wrote:Have an "ammo limit" option for projectile units. I'm fine with archers or slingers having a infinite ammo game-wise, but I get somewhat annoyed by javelinmen being able to fire 20 times in a row round after round.

How many javelins can a single warrior realistically carry around? 3-4 max if you ask me. After that the javelinmen should spend a turn adjacent their own camp to "reload stocks".

Ammunition has be mentioned in the past by a few players, but not specifically javelinmen if I recall correctly. I will flag this up with TGM as a suggestion to add to the more detailed sheets that we shall be sending shortly to Slitherine. I suppose it could be argued that javelinmen would pick up discarded spears and other weapons and hurl them back at the enemy.

True, but there are those times when my jevelinmen are facing an ennemy army composed of almost exclusively phalangites pikemen backed up by archers and lace cavlary. What are the jevelinmen going to pick up then, arrows or sarissae?

Fedem wrote:Im making test, but for example if you shoot with Bows at any Cavalry Protected or Armored. You have the same chance of getting a hit.

There is no dif if they armored or protected.

You do have a difference if they are unprotected or protectecd and between armored or heavy armored.

I know that there is a diference from shooting Lancers or Light Spears and bow Cav.

But pick the same class of Cav and make them Protected and armored and see that the game doesnt make any diference when they are being shot.

Don t know if I can explain myself

Not sure as the manual might be wrong but there seems to be a logic behind it
if you look at the "order of vulnerability" to bow fire where likly a denser target is easier to hit regardless of armour and then its POA vs bows (and by bows I mean bows, not longbows)

unprotected lancer +2
protected lancer, other unprotected cavalry +1
armoured cavalry lancers or knights 0
other armoured cavalry 0
heavy armoured (cats knights) -1

IMHO the discrepancy in logic appears to be between armoured lancers and armoured non lancers , maybe armoured Non lancers should be at -1 as well? (it would certainly give more value to the highly expensive armoured bow cavalry armies but at same time would make ancient cavalry like non lance macs romans gauls etc too good....)

TheGrayMouser wrote:

Fedem wrote:Im making test, but for example if you shoot with Bows at any Cavalry Protected or Armored. You have the same chance of getting a hit.

There is no dif if they armored or protected.

You do have a difference if they are unprotected or protectecd and between armored or heavy armored.

I know that there is a diference from shooting Lancers or Light Spears and bow Cav.

But pick the same class of Cav and make them Protected and armored and see that the game doesnt make any diference when they are being shot.

Don t know if I can explain myself

Not sure as the manual might be wrong but there seems to be a logic behind it
if you look at the "order of vulnerability" to bow fire where likly a denser target is easier to hit regardless of armour and then its POA vs bows (and by bows I mean bows, not longbows)

unprotected lancer +2
protected lancer, other unprotected cavalry +1
armoured cavalry lancers or knights 0
other armoured cavalry 0
heavy armoured (cats knights) -1

IMHO the discrepancy in logic appears to be between armoured lancers and armoured non lancers , maybe armoured Non lancers should be at -1 as well? (it would certainly give more value to the highly expensive armoured bow cavalry armies but at same time would make ancient cavalry like non lance macs romans gauls etc too good....)

Here is the test.

Shooting with Mongol Cavalry

at Unprotected Lancers: POA +2
at Protected Lancers: POA +1
at Armored Lancers: POA 0
at Heavy Armored Lancers: POA -1
That is ok

at Unprotected Cavalry: POA +1
at Protected Cavalry: POA 0
at Armored Cavalry: POA 0


There is the discrepancy. It's the same to shoot a Protected Cav (other than lancers) or an Armoured Cav. Also as you say you have the same POA when you shoot an Armored Lancer or an Armored Cav.

Tks

Oh ok, I didnt catch that part

Hmm, I guess within the limits of the POA system heavy armour should maybe provide -2 and armoured cavalry (non lance) -1??

Problem is many players think bows should be stronger, not weaker !

TheGrayMouser wrote:Oh ok, I didnt catch that part

Hmm, I guess within the limits of the POA system heavy armour should maybe provide -2 and armoured cavalry (non lance) -1??

Problem is many players think bows should be stronger, not weaker !

That could do it maybe.

Or if not; if they wanted stronger....:

at Unprotected Lancers: POA +3
at Protected Lancers: POA +2
at Armored Lancers: POA +1
at Heavy Armored Lancers: POA -1


at Unprotected Cavalry: POA +2
at Protected Cavalry: POA +1
at Armored Cavalry: POA 0


What do you think? Too powerfull for the bow armies?

With Infantry something similar happens with Longbows and Bows


Longbows at Unprotected Heavy Inf POA +1
Longbows at Protected Infantry POA 0
Longbows at Armored Heav Inf POA 0
Longbows at Heavy Armored Heav Inf POA -1

Longbows at Lancers Unprotected POA +2
Longbows at Lancers Protected POA +1
Longbows at Lancers Armored POA +1
Longbows at Lancers Heavy Armored POA 0

Longbows at Unprotected Cav POA +1
Longbows at Protected Cav POA 0
Lonbows at Armored Cav POA 0


Bows
Bow at Unprotected Heavy Inf POA +1
Bow at Protected Heavy Infantry POA 0
at Armored Heavy Inf POA -1
at Heavy Armored Inf -2

That's Ok---Though no difference between Longbows and Bows to shoot Unprotected and Protected Heavy Inf.

bows at Lancers Unprotected POA +2
bows at Lancers Protected POA +1
bows at Lancers Armored POA 0
bows at Lancers Heavy Armored POA -1

That's ok----Though no difference between Longbows and Bows to shoot Unprotected and Protected Lancers

Bows at Unprotected Cav POA +1
bows at Protected Cav POA 0
bows at Armored Cav POA 0

No difference between longbows and Bows on this one.


A workaround should be nice

I would say taht this is the presence of shield that make the difference.

Any way I am very puzzled about bow. on the same period I see bow (and elephant) being a killer to just a nuisance. I wish I can find more about it.

Though, I think that bow in impact/very short range should be way more powerful than a long range. at 75 m shooting a bow is no longer possible to aim (even with a longbow), this is like an artillery shot. But at impact, the archer will do a direct shot at may be 20-30m with a good accuracy and deadly power.

my 2 cents.

for me the biggest gripe is the power of an isolated defending unit in the impact phase.If frontally attacked by 3 successive units it still defends at full 'dice'against 2nd and 3rd even against a 4th (rear attacks would of course drop its cohesion).This inhibits aggressive play.Am I also alone in feeling that the rolls also favour the defenders in impact phase it always seems to do that to me.I have often ended disorganised attacking with a 3rd unit even losing a general!So a cav unit attacked by 3 cav will throw 12 'dice' to the attacking 3 units cumulative 12!!! I know reduction takes place in the melee phase but this does not compensate for the above Also why no push back?? Any thoughts?

Well, even non isolated units can still get hit on three hexes ( excluding rear hits)

Its kinda abstract but actually I think it is good the way it is since this is a turn based IGO , move each unit individually, results immedietly resolved, next unit... etc etc game.
If you , the active player had so much power to gang up on a Single enemy BG on your active turn, the game would end up being: each player targeting one BG and basically destroying it each time, pass turn, rinse and repeat. It kinda would play out like Panzer Corp in that respect then . ( now I like PK , just a differnt game mechanic for a very differnt game)

As for units doing better when defending, I feel that way too sometime but thats just the dice talking, although some units actually do have better poas , more dice when NOT charging in certain situations.

It's the evil of hexes at work. I 'm confess I was initially thrilled to hear there would be a FoG PC game and then depressed to see hexes in the first screen shots. I can't think of a way to improve the combat mechanic in a hexagonal world.

Deeter

deeter wrote:It's the evil of hexes at work. I 'm confess I was initially thrilled to hear there would be a FoG PC game and then depressed to see hexes in the first screen shots. I can't think of a way to improve the combat mechanic in a hexagonal world.

Deeter

Unit stacking maybe.....

Bgs that are diffent "sizes" even if they occupy one hex.. Ie a 4 base unit vs an 8 etc

Multi hex units (2 wide or even 2 wide AND 2 deep works in a hex based system) aka Great Battles

easiest would have been to implement a phase based aproach ie declare charges and move all into impact positions , Then resolve all at once, next phase etc....

hexes arnt as evil as squares:)

Ideally they could have done something like DBA On Line but I wonder if it is even possible to program an AI that coud handle "free form movement" sans a gid/hex

Multi-hex units and a phased move would certainly be improvements and closer to FoG TT, but that ain't gonna happen. As far as the AI is concerned, it's not handiling hexes all that well.

Deeter

deeter wrote:Multi-hex units and a phased move would certainly be improvements and closer to FoG TT, but that ain't gonna happen. As far as the AI is concerned, it's not handiling hexes all that well.

Deeter

It begs the question how they will handle a FOG Ren game where unit shape frontage etc will be critical to make it feel, uhh, Ren-like. ( hopefully it will happen someday!)

TheGrayMouser wrote: It begs the question how they will handle a FOG Ren game where unit shape frontage etc will be critical to make it feel, uhh, Ren-like. ( hopefully it will happen someday!)

How different would a FOG Renaissance game have to be though, TGM? I don't know very much about Renaissance warfare, and I appreciate the accurate portrayal of the Spanish tercio might present some problems, but how different would, say, the English Civil War be, from the portrayals of armies that we have now in "Storm of Arrows" such as the Swiss, German and Ordonnance armies? Surely the main difference would be that firearms and artillery would be much more deadly e.g. late medieval hand gunners average around 1.5% damage per shot, whereas arquebusiers might need to average 4 or 5%. But essentially you would have rows of pikemen, arquebusiers, groups of cavalry, dragoons and artillery in the same way that we do now for armies dated circa 1500AD, wouldn't you?