Slitherine

I was actually starting to at least consider the reroll-thingy as a possibility......I am very much against cavalry needing two steps of armour. Keep everything as it was or do the reroll, says I.

The easiest answer is to leave things as they are. I really don't see this as an issue.

I'm with "Three" on this as armour never appeared on my list of tweaks. I would hate to see the effort to find a fix for a very limited number of problem interactions mess up things that currently work fine. I almost always play historical match ups so maybe that is why I'm not seeing the issues everyone else is.

Ditto Dragoons.

That said the Commanded Shot fix looks to be a genuine improvement.

We look to be incorporating tourney rules that have a global impact, principally artillery, but there is no reason why tourney rules for competitions that embrace themes of non-historical match ups cannot be continued rather than complicating things further or negatively impacting on the things that work in the main rules.

Nik

I am ok with the two step program for mounted on mounted action, provided there is a (admitidly small) reduction in the cost of said armour for mounted (as it will still be useful against Bows and long range Shot). It will make some of the Duty and Glory historical interactions closer.

Regards
Tim

timmy1 wrote:Nik

I am ok with the two step program for mounted on mounted action, provided there is a (admitidly small) reduction in the cost of said armour for mounted (as it will still be useful against Bows and long range Shot). It will make some of the Duty and Glory historical interactions closer.

Regards
Tim

Shot isn't affected by mounted armour is it?

ravenflight wrote:

timmy1 wrote:Nik

I am ok with the two step program for mounted on mounted action, provided there is a (admitidly small) reduction in the cost of said armour for mounted (as it will still be useful against Bows and long range Shot). It will make some of the Duty and Glory historical interactions closer.

Regards
Tim

Shot isn't affected by mounted armour is it?

No it is not. Shot is 5/6 regardless of range against mounted and bow generally 4/5/6 (excludes Fully armoured bods)

Akbar wrote:I was actually starting to at least consider the reroll-thingy as a possibility......I am very much against cavalry needing two steps of armour. Keep everything as it was or do the reroll, says I.

Our biggest concern about the reroll idea was that it would have to apply to infantry as well (too different otherwise) and that people did not seem to want any change for them. Of course if people would be OK with infantry changing as well ...

Of course if people would be OK with infantry changing as well ...

Not surprisingly, no. This is what worries me about a few small fixes to an otherwise excellent set of rules snowballing.

nikgaukroger wrote:

Akbar wrote:I was actually starting to at least consider the reroll-thingy as a possibility......I am very much against cavalry needing two steps of armour. Keep everything as it was or do the reroll, says I.

Our biggest concern about the reroll idea was that it would have to apply to infantry as well (too different otherwise) and that people did not seem to want any change for them. Of course if people would be OK with infantry changing as well ...

Agreed with Akbar on the "two steps with a bunch of exceptions thing". I think the cure is worse than the disease on that path.

I think the ideal is that we want armor to be effective in all the cases it is now, just not AS effective. If you eliminate 80% of the cases where it has any effect at all, you really swing the pendulum the other way so far that I wonder why I'd ever want to dish out the 3-4 point premium to be heavily armored at all. Not to mention that now combat is going to have the complication of at least 2 more exceptions to remember.

As far as infantry matchups go, how common is armor an issue there? I haven't played much in other eras, but for pike/shot armies, infantry armor is pretty much a joke and non-factor in FOG-R anyway.

OK, thanks for all the comments to date. I think we need to bring this to some sort of conclusion fairly soon.

As I see it we have 2 credible candidates for a change in the Better Armour rules.

1. Mounted need 2 steps better or their opponent is Unsteady.
2. The rerolls suggestion (the exact way it worked would need to be sorted).

So, over to you in what may well be the final round on this. Speak now or ...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I remain unconvinced that any change is required.

Rerolls, but I'd rather have no change.

I'm unsure. I'm concerned Gendarmes will lose their only advantage... and they (generally) already start at adisadvantage against the next technological leap, the Cuirassier. This maybe realistc, but beedsto be reflected somehow (pounts?)

I'd also like to discuss the wording some. As you have it stated now Nik, armoured foot are evens against heavily armoured mounted (all other things being equal). Is this your intent?

Personally, I can see a can of worms coming out of this.

I do not believe change is required.

ravenflight wrote: Personally, I can see a can of worms coming out of this.

Then please explain further - it'll help everyone. If there are concrete examples of any interactions you feel would become less historical they'd be a great illustration and help no end.

nikgaukroger wrote:

ravenflight wrote: Personally, I can see a can of worms coming out of this.

Then please explain further - it'll help everyone. If there are concrete examples of any interactions you feel would become less historical they'd be a great illustration and help no end.

I'm not so much talking about history, which I can't comment on with any authority. Besides which, I don't know of any historical battle where the two commanders agreed on a set points limit and assessed how their soldiers performed in the field to determine how many they could buy. I understand what you mean, but I'm talking more on game playability.

If you start down this road I feel you really have to change points scores. Why pay more points for a Lance armed Fully armoured Gendarme when you are going to be disadvantaged at Impact, and yet your more expensive heavier armour wont come into play unless the opponent is disrupted, which is unlikely to happen because you're already going in disadvantaged (I'm talking vs Cuirassiers here of course). It MAY be perfectly historical, but if it is, the poonts are wrong. If the points are wrong, and we adjust them accordingly, then how they affect the foot may be wrong, because now you have Lancers that DO have 2 levels of armour vs foot who are (relatively) more expensive. Hence, a can of worms.

And before you start on about 'don't discuss points, just how the armour works', we HAVE to discuss points. We're doing a v1.1 here. We're trying to make minor changes. If we were completely rewriting therfules, knock yourself out, and we'll get the points right when we've worked out interactions. As it stands, you're bringing in a fairly (IMHO) significant change which WILL (again IMHO) change more than you think it will.

ravenflight wrote: And before you start on about 'don't discuss points, just how the armour works', we HAVE to discuss points.

And it will be - hence the threads teed up for it. Pretty much all the changes that will be made will impact on the points, hence why we say it isn't yet the time to nail down the points changes.

It is blindingly obvious that a change to how Better Armour works would need the points changing.

nikgaukroger wrote:OK, thanks for all the comments to date. I think we need to bring this to some sort of conclusion fairly soon.

As I see it we have 2 credible candidates for a change in the Better Armour rules.

1. Mounted need 2 steps better or their opponent is Unsteady.
2. The rerolls suggestion (the exact way it worked would need to be sorted).

So, over to you in what may well be the final round on this. Speak now or ...

Rerolls (obviously).

I don't know if it's the best solution, but I really dislike the 2 steps proposal, both from a game design and simulationist perspective.

I'd still be interested to know what infantry interactions people are concerned about, though.

Jhykronos wrote: I'd still be interested to know what infantry interactions people are concerned about, though.

Its a good question. Some examples would, as ever, be good for the discussion.

nikgaukroger wrote:

Jhykronos wrote: I'd still be interested to know what infantry interactions people are concerned about, though.

Its a good question. Some examples would, as ever, be good for the discussion.

So are there none then?

If so then the rerolls idea may be go

Which version?