Point system for victory conditions

[mschund]

Having played over 100 games of FoG, I think that some debate over whether the lost of each unit should count the same...obviously purchasing them is different...I bring this up, because I have amassed quite a winning record by stacking my army with mobile light units and destroying my opponents light units while he tries to come to grips with my core units...often when he does I am so close to winning that it is to late...eventhough I often lose the proverbial push of the pike...so my complaint is not sour grapes...in fact, the current system works well for me...but it seems the loss of a poor quality impressed LI unit should not count as much as a Swiss Pike unit or knights or Legion...just a thought...

[TheGrayMouser]

I dont think the problem is the equal points that lights have to heavies, i feel the issue is the ablity of lights to be caught by the gameyness of charging and catching your opponents lights w lower quaility ones, then following up with heavy units... There is a whole art to it that defies historical logic... Others have mentioned the rope a dope tactics of lights as well/// If you do it well then you will have a large ap differential before any main forces engage at all....

[76mm]

I usually have problems fielding large numbers of light foot, they end up getting caught between the lines and squished. If I have too many in the center, they get bunched up and do not evade when one routs and the winning unit pursues and latches onto the next LF.

It works OK if I pull them all off to the flanks, but then I can't use them to soften up the enemy main line, where they would be most useful.

Bottom line is that I find LF very difficult to use properly.

[petergarnett]

I usually have problems fielding large numbers of light foot, they end up getting caught between the lines and squished. If I have too many in the center, they get bunched up and do not evade when one routs and the winning unit pursues and latches onto the next LF.

It works OK if I pull them all off to the flanks, but then I can't use them to soften up the enemy main line, where they would be most useful.

Bottom line is that I find LF very difficult to use properly.

I don't have a problem - I keep my LF close to the front of my MF/HF & if I think the enemy is getting close I retire them behind the main line.

[mschund]

I agree with Gray Mouser that it is strange that poor lights in some respects are better at skirmishing than superior lights...since you will evade almost any other enemy lights...but can pin the enemy's lights so your heavies can smash them...but how would you change that...perhaps lights should not evade from other lights period...

[rbodleyscott]

I agree with Gray Mouser that it is strange that poor lights in some respects are better at skirmishing than superior lights...since you will evade almost any other enemy lights...but can pin the enemy's lights so your heavies can smash them...but how would you change that...perhaps lights should not evade from other lights period...

All this should change when the developers get around to changes the evade rules to allow the level of "evadability" to be speicifed for each unit. This is on the lists of things to be done, I believe.

[ianiow]

As a quick fix, I would swap around the LF evade situation. Better LF always evade, poor LF stand around like dummies and take the charge.

As to the original question about LF (and other lesser troops) occupying too much of an army's APs. I totally agree. Armies that can field large quantities of cheap filler are extremely difficult to beat with a normal sized army. Maybe the Quantity vs Quality balance needs a looking at?

[kujalar]

Why not counting breakpoints needed to break army, as 1 pnt/light-, 2pnt/medium- and 3pnt/heavy-unit. And then awarding breakpoints 2 for routing light-, 4 for routing medium- and 6 for routing heavy-unit.

[Xiggy]

Unfortunately the above comment makes lightes even more effective. One quick fix would be to let an evading unit stay facing away from the enemy and have them may some kind of movement cost to turn around. That way at least it would take them a turn to get back in range. I guess poor lights could have a higher movement point cost to run away and to turn, actually making them worse than higher moral troops. You might also let lights drop more than 2 moral levels n a turn, so if you catch them they could break instantly.

[TheGrayMouser]

I kind of like Ianiow suggestion re evades

Howver I have no problem w lights equalling heavies in terms of break points.. This is a fundamental part of the game system and its likly not going to change....

My own thoughts re light infantry

*make it so lights can never charge other lights unless the enemy light is disrupted (much like you cant charge heavies with lights) If a disrupted light is charged it does not evade (only if attacked by a light)

* what this would do is make the skirmishers behave like skirmishes and attrit each other via missles,
once the heavies get close they can and should retreat back to the flanks....

* heavies could of course charge in and scatter the lights ...

This would allow more focus on the maneuver of heavies vs the enemy heavies which decided the battle

I really dont like the cat and mouse game the ist 5-8 turns where one MUST seek to engage strong LF with ones weaker so they can be pinned and destroyed by heavies.... heavies did not historically maneuver just to do this, yet if you fail to do this, or your oppoenent is better/ better equipped, you will find you are 6-8 break point in the hole at the beginning of the battle, often this is all it takes to lose....

[batesmotel]

I kind of like Ianiow suggestion re evades

Howver I have no problem w lights equalling heavies in terms of break points.. This is a fundamental part of the game system and its likly not going to change....

My own thoughts re light infantry

*make it so lights can never charge other lights unless the enemy light is disrupted (much like you cant charge heavies with lights) If a disrupted light is charged it does not evade (only if attacked by a light)

* what this would do is make the skirmishers behave like skirmishes and attrit each other via missles,
once the heavies get close they can and should retreat back to the flanks....

* heavies could of course charge in and scatter the lights ...

This would allow more focus on the maneuver of heavies vs the enemy heavies which decided the battle

I really dont like the cat and mouse game the ist 5-8 turns where one MUST seek to engage strong LF with ones weaker so they can be pinned and destroyed by heavies.... heavies did not historically maneuver just to do this, yet if you fail to do this, or your oppoenent is better/ better equipped, you will find you are 6-8 break point in the hole at the beginning of the battle, often this is all it takes to lose....

The handling of evasion for all troops in the game needs to be fixed. I don't think that prohibiting lights from charging other lights would solve anything other than meaning that lights can't usefully perform one of their historical functions which was to try to drive off opposing lights.

If you don't want to play the rope a dope game with your lights, either don't buy many in your army so losing them won't put you at a substantial deficit or alterntatively make sure you keep them away from heavier enemy troops and withdraw behind your own heavy troops when the battle line close.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

I think the problem is you cant not play the rope a dope, nor do i think NOT buying lights is a solution(prevented by many lists anyways).

This has been illustrated before but as say the Romans fighting the Macs, I want to be able to: A drive off the enemy skirmishers in front of my battle line... B. be able to at least for a few turns sting the phalanxes w velite fire...
Howver this never happens, The macs will screen there phalanx with lights, I send the velites fwrd and they cause the Mac lights to evade... Now my velites are one hex away from the phalanx but cant fire(as they already did an action ), now its the macs turn.... Either he can send fwrd equal strength lights thru his phalanx, driving my light off without ever getting a chance to use theri missles(the rope a dope ad infinitum) OR he can send one of those poor quality lights THRU his lines and pin some velites, his phalanxes move fwrd a hex and plamo, just lost a couple of velites and break points....

Perhaps lights should only be allowed to evade thru formed troops but not move thru them....

[76mm]

I really dont like the cat and mouse game the ist 5-8 turns where one MUST seek to engage strong LF with ones weaker so they can be pinned and destroyed by heavies.... heavies did not historically maneuver just to do this, yet if you fail to do this, or your oppoenent is better/ better equipped, you will find you are 6-8 break point in the hole at the beginning of the battle, often this is all it takes to lose....

I totally agree...in many battles the key to winning is how many lights you can sneakily pin before the main bodies engage, which feels very gamey.

I remember one (large) game my opponent was up by 20 pts even before the heavies engaged, because he really cleaned up my lights...

Also, I think that LF should be able to disengage from HF, probably MF too.

[Xiggy]

One of the balancing features of FOG PC is that you can get a few points ahead against some of the super trooper armies by killing their lights and then hold on as their main body shreds most of yours. That is how you beat the Republican Romans, and Swiss armies. You cant go toe to toe with the main body and win, even at 1.5 to 1.

I may beat a Roman Army played by a human with Gauls by killing most of his lights and all his mounted. I will have to hold on by my toe nails to win this game, but it will be close. LF are very hard to pin down now. If you put them in front of the main body, they will evade through, so yes it is gamie to pin them. I would hope we can make them less effective, but still useful. It is a tough call. Many armies will be next to useless if we change the LF rules to much. That is their only advantage.

[deeter]

One thing that definately needs to be fixed is the ability of lights to charge through heavies into an attack. It's just wrong. And evading troops should end up facing away from their attacker. This would cut down on skirmisher swarm tactics. Rope a dope will be mitigated once we have the power to set doctine for skirmishers. As for victory points, I think they should count the same as heavies to force players to be careful with them -- although I'm not very careful.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

One thing that definately needs to be fixed is the ability of lights to charge through heavies into an attack. It's just wrong. And evading troops should end up facing away from their attacker. This would cut down on skirmisher swarm tactics. Rope a dope will be mitigated once we have the power to set doctine for skirmishers. As for victory points, I think they should count the same as heavies to force players to be careful with them -- although I'm not very careful.

Deeter

Well it is hard to make a comment on a feature that hasnt been implemented yet, and of course i do hope it works out nicely, yet I do wonder how it will be implmented

for example will your oppoenent know your LF agressive level set?

What happens if I send a skirmisher set to always evade into a charge vs a an enemy LF? Would this even be allowed ? (kind of contradicts itself and gives players way to much control)

Does changing the LF agression levels take up its action for the turn? Do you move and then set? etc etc
All these little things will really have a huge impact on how it works out , not to mention when they add in the double move system....

Guess will have to wait til July 15th to find out!