Slitherine

Which rule needs fixing the most? (I have time on my hands and don't like being a gallic noble)

philqw78 wrote:(I have time on my hands and don't like being a gallic noble)

You are of course aware that the natural step up from being a gallic noble is to become a german noble?

I picked other...

I would like to see a better end game mechanic...

Madcam.

madcam2us wrote:I picked other...

I would like to see a better end game mechanic...

Madcam.

I am asking for answers. What in yor opinion would be better?

Ghaznavid wrote:

philqw78 wrote:(I have time on my hands and don't like being a gallic noble)

You are of course aware that the natural step up from being a gallic noble is to become a german noble?

Garlic or sauerkraut? Mein gott und himmel.

Ghaznavid wrote:

philqw78 wrote:(I have time on my hands and don't like being a gallic noble)

You are of course aware that the natural step up from being a gallic noble is to become a german noble?

B***** collaborators.

I picked "Interpenetration", but also the idea of a better mechanism to end game is very important IMO. I already exposed my way to resolve interpenetration problems.

I picked "other" also. for end game mechanic. This has been discussed a lot on another string.

John

I also picked other, i understand why mounted get caught by HF when they break off, i just dont like it.

But i'm in the minority , not being a tournament player. And tourney games are under time constraints.

i would like mounted that break off to have the choice of not turning to face the enemy.

Hi, cast my vote for interpenetration - nobody has tried this against me but I would be pissed off if they did.

I have done a bit of gentle stats on the BRITCON results and there is no evidence that any type of army does significantly better than would be expected by chance, not Dom Rom swarms and not LH based armies, so as far as I can see there is no reason to fix these rules.

Some Dom Rom players do well, others badly, same with LH based armies such as Parthian or Skythian.

The best indicator of being in the top 10 is one's position in the BHGS rankings, not the army being used.

The only possible exception is Ottoman Turk (1% significant) - which may be a case for Janissaries being a bit too good. But, mind you, they were pretty good, and maybe this is also a 'Pete' factor. If you include other shooty armies in the Late Period, the result disappears.

zellak wrote:I also picked other, i understand why mounted get caught by HF when they break off, i just dont like it.
But i'm in the minority , not being a tournament player. And tourney games are under time constraints.
i would like mounted that break off to have the choice of not turning to face the enemy.

But mounted can't be caught by Foot when they break off. Unless Cav from LF or Kn/Cats from MF. Unless the mounted have something preventing them from breaking off their full move. They can be pinned. IMO if they could not be pinned and after breaking off could just carry on going mounted would be worth another 20% points per base as they could get away from any foot. Why bother testing not to charge the swiss. I can charge, then break off, then move away next turn. I may lose a base or 2 but I've held up his line for no real threat to myself.

Dave Ruddock's LH (this for Tim)

Just checked the results for this poll and two people have now voted for this option - I thought under the terms and conditions then this option was only available to Tim Porter?

I demand a recount.

Hi,

I picked "other" also for better end game mechanic. I think that the % of the opponent's army you have to break is too high (so longer game than needed).

Lionel

dave_r wrote:

Dave Ruddock's LH (this for Tim)

Just checked the results for this poll and two people have now voted for this option - I thought under the terms and conditions then this option was only available to Tim Porter?

I demand a recount.

And I'm not one of them...

Excellent. Whose a Tim Porter wannabee?

dave_r wrote:Excellent. Whose a Tim Porter wannabee?

I thought it took allsorts to make a world?

From the reaction to some umpiring moments at the ITC this weekend interpenetration is clearly the only answer to this question by a significant margin

well only 57 people care, so nothing is that broken

Is it too late to comment? I missed this poll completely at first but I voted for swarm armies being broken.

Having lots of little units running around the place maybe historically correct for a few armies but not for many. I can do it with my Yorkists, have 6 BGs of 4 Retinue billmen running around the place (if you can run for long in plate armour!) plus 1 BG of 4 Northern Border billmen and 3 BGs of 4 Town and County billmen. I COULD do it, but I don't because it's just plain wrong. Look at just about any WOTR battle and you will see armies formed up in three big blocks with archers in front or possibly on the wings and they ran at each other. There certainly was no little unit firework display messing around.

It's the list that is arguably at fault there but it seems that many armies are allowed to make up lots of little units, dance about and be unrealistically hard to beat in a normal length game due to the sheer number of battlegroups. I've never seen the Dominate Roman swarm and I certainly have no intention of criticising or disrespecting the gentleman that fields it but if, as I have heard, it consists of lots of little 4 man infantry units, well at first glance it looks like a tournament gaming device and bears little resemblance to any Late Roman army I have ever heard of.

That part of the rules seems to me like it needs looking at but then again as I said, maybe it's the lists that allow players to make swarm armies that would need adjusting. The old WRG 6th edition lists had Command Factors, 10 pts for regulars, 25 for irregulars, I always liked those rules and the lists and that concept would seem to be what's needed here. Whilst I'm at it, I should mention that in terms of army composition and army break points, giving as much value to a peasant mob as to the Varangian Guard is, in my personal opinion, nothing short of bizarre.

There actually doesn't seem that much wrong with these rules, they were a slow burner for me but I'm getting there. Perhaps that's why there wasn't so much of a reply to the poll.

AlanYork wrote:Is it too late to comment? I missed this poll completely at first but I voted for swarm armies being broken.

Never too late

Whilst I'm at it, I should mention that in terms of army composition and army break points, giving as much value to a peasant mob as to the Varangian Guard is, in my personal opinion, nothing short of bizarre.

There's a reason its like it is (Brian). It stops people using LF and Mob as expendable units to drag people out of position, getting them doing something they would never do. A BG of mob worth 12 points but 2 attrition points will not be used to fight knights. They will be kept out of the way. Proper troops will fight the knights. Whereas if the mob were worth less attrition points they would happily be thrown away.