Slitherine

David53 wrote: Drop the movement for medium foot to the same as heavy foot ie three mu, drop Light foot to four mu drop LH to six mu, keep Cav at five MU.

Pulled this from the original topic as it is oft mentioned - and to which we can, no doubt, add Armoured Knights moving at 5 MU as well.

Whilst I am in favour of MF moving the same as HF it is worth bearing in mind that this then means that no "proper" infantry (we can exclude LF for this) can charge mounted archers who are shooting at max range of 4MU.

I suspect that this adds to the already high usefulness of LH.

However, if another suggestion - +1 on CTs if shot at by (mostly) skirmishers - were also used I think that would give balance.

I would mention that I am not keen on what may be suggested as the alternative - HF move at 4MU - as I think that this would make FoG:AM feel a smaller scale game and that it is already at the margin of what a "big battle" game should feel like.

I'd like to see all missile troops (currently MF - a legacy DBMism) slowed down or add a penalty to moving & shooting.. Pretty ridiculous that mf bowmen can chase cavalry around the table while shooting at their full rate of fire and cav cannot easily get out of range.

Why bot allow HF to move 4 MU after a CMT test?

Or make MF bowmen behave more as HF in some ways - as in have "MF" bowmen not count the -1 "medium foot" cohesion test modifier when charged by mounted ? Might make them a bit more robust against (non lancer) mounted?

nikgaukroger wrote: Pulled this from the original topic as it is oft mentioned - and to which we can, no doubt, add Armoured Knights moving at 5 MU as well.

I am a bit agnostic on what is a good fix for armoured knights. But let's not go changing the way they fight if what is really needed is an AP fix.

ethan wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Pulled this from the original topic as it is oft mentioned - and to which we can, no doubt, add Armoured Knights moving at 5 MU as well.

I am a bit agnostic on what is a good fix for armoured knights. But let's not go changing the way they fight if what is really needed is an AP fix.

How does this change the way they fight. There main problem is that they are only useable for 100 years. After that they are suplanted by HA Kn and longbows that decimate them. They suffer worse than cav against normal bows, foot and mounted, as well since they take more shots on the way in. A 5MU move I believe is right for them and would make them much more usable.

philqw78 wrote:

ethan wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Pulled this from the original topic as it is oft mentioned - and to which we can, no doubt, add Armoured Knights moving at 5 MU as well.

I am a bit agnostic on what is a good fix for armoured knights. But let's not go changing the way they fight if what is really needed is an AP fix.

How does this change the way they fight. There main problem is that they are only useable for 100 years. After that they are suplanted by HA Kn and longbows that decimate them. They suffer worse than cav against normal bows, foot and mounted, as well since they take more shots on the way in. A 5MU move I believe is right for them and would make them much more usable.

And is a change that the authors have already unanimously agreed.

nikgaukroger wrote:

Pulled this from the original topic as it is oft mentioned - and to which we can, no doubt, add Armoured Knights moving at 5 MU as well.

Whilst I am in favour of MF moving the same as HF it is worth bearing in mind that this then means that no "proper" infantry (we can exclude LF for this) can charge mounted archers who are shooting at max range of 4MU.

I suspect that this adds to the already high usefulness of LH.

I'd be a bit concerned about the major boost to shooty armies that this would give. Longbows and superior shooters (Christian Noobs, Mamluks etc) basically get another 2 turns shooting against "medium foot" opponents.

Only allow moves to be in full MU increments.

At the army commander level they are not measureing details. It would further remove the geometry of the game that is gamesmanship not strategy.

Makes it much easier to determine if something can or cannot do something.

richnz wrote:I'd be a bit concerned about the major boost to shooty armies that this would give. Longbows and superior shooters (Christian Noobs, Mamluks etc) basically get another 2 turns shooting against "medium foot" opponents.

Perhaps allow MF (and possibly HF) to charge 4", but normal moves are only 3"?

Only allow moves to be in full MU increments.

At the army commander level they are not measureing details. It would further remove the geometry of the game that is gamesmanship not strategy.

Makes it much easier to determine if something can or cannot do something.

But it would end up with players taking an age working out if a wheel or double wheel in units of MU would achieve the benefit(s) of a short move.

Paul

pbrandon wrote: But it would end up with players taking an age working out if a wheel or double wheel in units of MU would achieve the benefit(s) of a short move.

Ban double wheels.

hazelbark wrote:

pbrandon wrote: But it would end up with players taking an age working out if a wheel or double wheel in units of MU would achieve the benefit(s) of a short move.

Ban double wheels.

In which case the key becomes deploying at the correct multiple of MU plus a gnats todger or minus a gnats todger depending on what you are trying to achieve.

hammy wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

pbrandon wrote: But it would end up with players taking an age working out if a wheel or double wheel in units of MU would achieve the benefit(s) of a short move.

Ban double wheels.

In which case the key becomes deploying at the correct multiple of MU plus a gnats todger or minus a gnats todger depending on what you are trying to achieve.

Right. Then some one moves and it becomes very hard to keep tracking.

If someone else proposed it I would have been suspicious, but i do think it solves a giant bit by doing away with gnat's todgers.

hazelbark wrote:

hammy wrote:

hazelbark wrote: Ban double wheels.

In which case the key becomes deploying at the correct multiple of MU plus a gnats todger or minus a gnats todger depending on what you are trying to achieve.

Right. Then some one moves and it becomes very hard to keep tracking.

If someone else proposed it I would have been suspicious, but i do think it solves a giant bit by doing away with gnat's todgers.

But it doesn't, it just means you have to think about the todgers at the beginning of the game.
IMO people get hung up on the exact distances involved. If you are 6.0001 MU away from ebemy archers you have stopped outside their effective range, you might actually be 30 yards outside effective range rather than the 1" people imagine. The fact is you have decided not to advance too close.

I suspect it is the FoW player in me but I have no problem at all with players stopping at a sensible distance. Forcing all moves to be full distance at all times is going to be a nightmare to enforce, players will be imposing checks on every single move even if it is far from the action. I see no advantage to this idea at all. The pain it would introduce will be far greater than the supposed pain it is trying to fix.

hazelbark wrote:but i do think it solves a giant bit by doing away with gnat's todgers.

How? If troops are not lined up exactly opposite each other, or when someone wheels or turns then turns again the disparities will appear again. Things will not be exactly whole MU appart. Aslo what happens when people stop their second move. It must be outside 6MU (by a gnats todger), do they stop at 7MU with your proposal? Or do they actually reach 6?

philqw78 wrote:

hazelbark wrote:but i do think it solves a giant bit by doing away with gnat's todgers.

How? If troops are not lined up exactly opposite each other, or when someone wheels or turns then turns again the disparities will appear again. Things will not be exactly whole MU appart. Aslo what happens when people stop their second move. It must be outside 6MU (by a gnats todger), do they stop at 7MU with your proposal? Or do they actually reach 6?

We have conforming.
We have rules for bases that don't line up.

Yes a unit at say 8.5 MU away that wants to double march will only be able to move 2 MU, becuase a 3rd MU will bring it within 6 MU. really simply easily.