Slitherine

I'm currently in a game and a Javelin LH is almost impossible to catch.

I charge with Companions, it runs away.
I charge with Cats, it runs away.
I charge with Pikes or other heavies, it runs away.
I rear-charge with Bow armed LH, it runs away!
I know if I charge with MF, it'll run away.

It seems the only way I have to catch this annoying horse unit is to charge it with LF.

I'm struggling to see the sense in all of this. I can understand the Companions, Cats and HF not being fast enough to catch it. I struggle to understand why other LH can't catch, especially when attacking from rear, when there is an element of surprise with a rear attack.

So now, I have to use foot troops which I suspect in reality wouldn't want to attack horse troops (I suspect they may go into anarchy when I ask them to attack - which is fine, because they are poor LF and I understand why they wouldn't want to do this) and foot troops wouldn't really be fast enough to catch horse troops.

Why can't LH catch LH, especially when they are weaker!

I bet they will stand for a frontal charge from LH bowmen.

Deeter

deeter wrote:I bet they will stand for a frontal charge from LH bowmen.

Deeter

You may well be right, but my opponent is trying not to get caught, it seems I have to commit about 6 units to catch one

Too bad light troops aren't subject to Anarchy. They could charge you.

Deeter

I posted a complaint regarding the evading system before. I feel troops should only be able to evade heavier ones. LH shouldn't evade from each other. Cavalry regardless of quality should stand when charged by like troops. I just can't see how history is replicated currently. Imagine Cannae where you have Carthaginian cavalry arrayed versus Roman cavalry. Historically they crash together like every other battle but in this game system it isn't possible unless the romans chage to contact with the carthaginians. LF screens would move within range and pepper each other but here it isn't possible due to stark differences in quality and weaponry. The best skirmisher is the poor LF sling/bow, cheap, can't be caught, catches everything etc. If LF caught each other then you'd see a drastic decrease in the number fielded and a shift in tactics to relying upon the main fighting body. Also superior LF would be able to have a strong impact rather than be a costly waste.

think anyone is listening to us??

deeter wrote:I bet they will stand for a frontal charge from LH bowmen.

Deeter

You seem to not be having any problems catching my light horse or velites.....

I think light horse works fine...Javelin light horse is easy to trap when they get close to your troops...one cheap LI will pin them long enough for HI to destroy them...however, you can't chase...nor should you...historically light cavalry should be able to avoid almost any enemy...in theory they could even avoid LI...but perhaps they can't resist the target...without their ability to evade their value would drop like a stone...as their primary value is to harass or delay enemy units...less clear is why LI can evade LH...it seems they would be able to run the LI down (which I guess they can from two hexes away)...

Yes but LH should be able to fight LH surely without them always evading.

I can't seem to say this enough, the game is wrong when the best units to attack an enemy with are the poorest units.

Pantherboy has reiterated in his post what I've been saying for ages. With LF and horse units it really shouldn't be the case where units evade other similar units. If there is a big obvious difference in quality then they should evade most of the time. But if it isn't a massive difference, then they should generally fight. In history there wasn't a big sign above advancing troops showing level of troop quality, or percentage chance of success, so more often than not they should fight... that's what they were there for. Of course, there were times when a units reputation went before it, and so the opposition would run, that's why I say "most of the time" and "generally", but now it's seems to be a simple equation of a is better then b, so b runs.

In FoG there seems to be an assumption that mobile troops don't fight unless they are certain of winning and that mobile troops can escape anything all the time. Whilst I'm sure the former has some merit, I'm not convinced about the latter.

We have all been banging this and a few other drums for a long time. I don't mean to sound too negative, but instead of fixing this, they decide to break anarchy. Maybe the prgoraming to fix evades is beyond their abilities at the moment.

Deeter

Ya, I think so. We use to get developers answering questions and commenting on observations/suggestions. We don't seem to hear anything much anymore. It may be that the game is just as far as they can go and we will have to live with some of the short-comings. It is still enjoyable but definitely misses the 'excellent' mark because of the few things we have been mentioning.

Or at least it was till they changed anarchy. It almost makes me want to quit playing.

Deeter

Blathergut wrote:Ya, I think so. We use to get developers answering questions and commenting on observations/suggestions. We don't seem to hear anything much anymore. It may be that the game is just as far as they can go and we will have to live with some of the short-comings. It is still enjoyable but definitely misses the 'excellent' mark because of the few things we have been mentioning.

I doudt its a programming issue, just a time issue

Also, I havnt heard anyone on this forum mention it but Slitherine and Matrix Games justed merged.... Likly they are all very very busy at the moment.....

they did?

Deeter

deeter wrote:they did?

Deeter

Appears so, I havnt registered at any of the hardcore game news websites to read the full story but just google "slitherine" and like the ist 3 hits are about it.
They are also talking about it at the Wargamer and Matrix Games own forum...

Guys - be realistic. We cannot spend every weekend on the forum monitoring feedback. We'll read it when we get to work on a Monday and respond when we feel necessary.

iainmcneil wrote:Guys - be realistic. We cannot spend every weekend on the forum monitoring feedback. We'll read it when we get to work on a Monday and respond when we feel necessary.

Just want to chime in with something positive. YES FoG have some issues, but I think you guys have done a great job so far and "with time" FoG will develop into something near perfect with the help of positive feedback from customers.

Don't get too stressed by negative comments, I sure if you sold a time machine so people could return to an actual historical battle they would complain it is the wrong colour for a time machine.

Keep up the good work, I for one will be continuing my support of your FoG product.

Regards,
Stefan.

Yes, FoG is good, but it has some flaws which ruin a great game.

The latest is the 'can't rear charge me' defence. I'll post this on a separate thread.

I think also that current rules for evade are a bit oversimplified.

How about introducing "doctrine" or something like that for a light battlegroups.
There could be for example 3 stages, "cautious, normal, bold"-doctrines.
1 - With cautious doctrine the light group would try to evade alltimes (maybe they would need cohesion test for evading if the enemy would be a lot of weaker and an easy prey!),
2 - with normal doctrine(default) they would behave like they do now, and
3 - with bold doctrine they would not evade. (maybe they should need a cohesion test if they would evade under normal conditions in a given situation).

These rules would give more flexibility for skirmishing with different tactics.

Doctrine could be set same way as stakes all placed.

When do we get stakes to work in scenarios made by scenario editor the same way they do with armies made by DAG?