Interesting statistic

[ianiow]

So far in the League of Gentlemen tournement there have been 35 games completed.

Of these 35 games, 32 have been won by the player with the largest (AP) force!!

Is the game (points system or combat results) unfairly favouring quantity over quality?

[batesmotel]

So far in the League of Gentlemen tournement there have been 35 games completed.

Of these 35 games, 32 have been won by the player with the largest (AP) force!!

Is the game (points system or combat results) unfairly favouring quantity over quality?

You should check how big the discrepancy in APs between the sides is. I think a difference of less than 15-20% of the smaller force isn't terribly significant. More than that and it can be a significant advantage to the larger force. I don't think the game necessarily unduly favors a larger force but anyone fielding an army where they are likely to be significantly smaller than an opposing force certainly needs to take into account how they plan to deal when faced with a larger AP force.

Chris

[jamespcrowley]

So far in the League of Gentlemen tournement there have been 35 games completed.

Of these 35 games, 32 have been won by the player with the largest (AP) force!!

Is the game (points system or combat results) unfairly favouring quantity over quality?

You should check how big the discrepancy in APs between the sides is. I think a difference of less than 15-20% of the smaller force isn't terribly significant. More than that and it can be a significant advantage to the larger force. I don't think the game necessarily unduly favors a larger force but anyone fielding an army where they are likely to be significantly smaller than an opposing force certainly needs to take into account how they plan to deal when faced with a larger AP force.

Chris

By doing what exactly? You do not necessarily know that the enemy is going to have a numerical adavantage -although you may have a good idea - but unless the terrain is highly favourable to you, I don't think that there is much that you can do about it. Other than maybe retreat off the friendly board edge and declare a draw?
This highlights the problem of the player having so much control over all of his BGs, even those not in C&C. You can micro-manage every single element of huge, poor-quality armies in a manner which is totally un-historic and unrealistic. I think higher numbers play a significant part in the overall results.

In a recent LOEG game with ericdoman1, the ratio was exactly 2-1. I certainly made a few errors but on a fairly open map the outcome was never really in doubt.

[ianiow]

I played a recent battle against Eric (Irish v Swedish) where he outnumbered me almost two to one. I had maxed out all the troop types in the list bar canons and bombards so this mix of troops was the only one available to me.

When I play a smaller force, my tactic is to bunch my troops up as tight as possible and try to maintain a line. Unfortunately it is far too easy to pull a small army apart and destroy it piecemeal. Erics tactic was to charge cheap 5 point MF at my 10 point HF, knock me below 75%, then make me pursue after his routing MF into a pack of 3 or 4 waiting friends. At which point I had the choice to maintain my formation and watch my pursuing unit die, or follow up and help, whereby breaking my formation and exposing flanks.

I think one problem lies in the fact that elite units are often useless and vulnerable to defeat after their first fight, they are overly fatigued and they have often been pulled way out of position to be attacked in the rear at will.

Perhaps a solution would be to not have victorius units charge off after their defeated foes, but hold the line if they have friendly troops shoulder to shoulder with them. This would give small elite armies a fighting chance. Also I think fatigue numbers should not be so harsh in hand to hand.

Just my two sesterces

[jamespcrowley]

Is the game (points system or combat results) unfairly favouring quantity over quality?

I don't know enough about the points system to comment but I feel that the combat results - or the mechanisms that produce them - definately do.

Given the almost bizarre range of combat results that can be obtained using the same match-ups, the same type of BG against the same type of target, it follows that if you hit a target BG with three attacks, almost certainly one of them will produce an outlandish result. Might is right with the FoG sytem at present.

[ianiow]

ericdoman1 (Med Irish) (74/74) vs pantherboy (Scots in Britain) (21/51)

Hey Pantherboy, stop ruining my argument!


Ps, Eric, you were our last best hope of beating him! What happened?

[deeter]

I can attest to the fact that the game is skewed toward quantity over quality as can many other players, many of whom have gotten onto the horde bandwagon, I don't like it, but in order to stay competitive, I've had to adopt the same tactics myself. The result is armies that resemble nothing in history and formations that look rediculous.

I'm not sure how to fix this, but I'm always relieved when I face players who field historical armies. Too often battles go to the guy with the biggest, cheapest, under-officered force. Force match ups and map selection are critical determinants as well.

Maybe starting a league of gentlement who like history more than winning is one solution, or perhaps only playing paired scenarios might bring things into reason. Another good thing would be the ability to set up the map as in the TT rules.

Deeter

[batesmotel]

I played a recent battle against Eric (Irish v Swedish) where he outnumbered me almost two to one. I had maxed out all the troop types in the list bar canons and bombards so this mix of troops was the only one available to me.

When I play a smaller force, my tactic is to bunch my troops up as tight as possible and try to maintain a line. Unfortunately it is far too easy to pull a small army apart and destroy it piecemeal. Erics tactic was to charge cheap 5 point MF at my 10 point HF, knock me below 75%, then make me pursue after his routing MF into a pack of 3 or 4 waiting friends. At which point I had the choice to maintain my formation and watch my pursuing unit die, or follow up and help, whereby breaking my formation and exposing flanks.

I think one problem lies in the fact that elite units are often useless and vulnerable to defeat after their first fight, they are overly fatigued and they have often been pulled way out of position to be attacked in the rear at will.

Perhaps a solution would be to not have victorius units charge off after their defeated foes, but hold the line if they have friendly troops shoulder to shoulder with them. This would give small elite armies a fighting chance. Also I think fatigue numbers should not be so harsh in hand to hand.

Just my two sesterces

Out of curiosity, how many points were you playing? Some armies essentially top out of useful troops at significantly lower point totals than other lists. If playing a battle where the list for the smaller army is essentially topped out and the other isn't then you are going to magnify the advantage that the larger one would have. One answer to that problem is to try to avoid playing that army at a point total where you are topped out. The Later Seleucids (pre-133 BC) top out around 700-800 points, if I remember correctly as an example so I would try to avoid playing games above 600 or 650 points with them. (The post 133 version is much better since it has additional options available in terms of allies it can use.) One reason that 500 points is a good point total for the League games is that it is a range where most lists still have a reasonable variety of troop considerations available.

Chris

[ianiow]

Out of curiosity, how many points were you playing? Chris

Chris, I was playing 500pts. For some reason I seem to feel affinity for small under-used armies (Swedish and Ptolemaic Roman) where every bit of the army is picked to make the 500pts!

Deeter, I feel your pain about facing so many horde armies nowadays. I must confess that I am using the Gallic MF horde in ROR, but in my defense the Gauls are my favourites and I would play them whether they were good, bad or indifferent. You will be glad to hear that I am playing tto very small armies in the other two competitions, so you may stand a [small] chance of beating me this time

Jim, I certainly agree that large hordes of poor troops are far too easy to control as things stand.

[batesmotel]

By doing what exactly? You do not necessarily know that the enemy is going to have a numerical adavantage -although you may have a good idea - but unless the terrain is highly favourable to you, I don't think that there is much that you can do about it. Other than maybe retreat off the friendly board edge and declare a draw?
This highlights the problem of the player having so much control over all of his BGs, even those not in C&C. You can micro-manage every single element of huge, poor-quality armies in a manner which is totally un-historic and unrealistic. I think higher numbers play a significant part in the overall results.

In a recent LOEG game with ericdoman1, the ratio was exactly 2-1. I certainly made a few errors but on a fairly open map the outcome was never really in doubt.

It is possible to compensate for being out numbered in AP in several ways. One is to use a refused flank of troops strong enough to hold up the enemy forces opposing them so you can concentrate the offensive punch of your army against a limited portion of the opposing army. I used this unsuccessfully against Pantherboy when I had Ordinance French(late) against his Highlands and Scots Isles list in the SOA knockout tournament and could have won the game with a bit more luck and more careful play. He had 71 AP to my 52 AP and the final results was 55/71 to 56/52. Even with the opposing army having almost 40% more AP, I expect I would have won against a mere mortal opponent rather than the Olympian Pantherboy .

Other possible approaches are to use skirmishers to delay on one flank while you concentrate against the other, or to use the board edges or terrain to protect one flank while you either make a concentrated attack or force your opponent to make an attack with inferior troops on a limited frontage so he can't bring his superior numbers to bear.

It is true that being vastly outnumbered, e.g. 2-1, is very hard to overcome. Superior quality is a definite benefit if you have troops that are just enough better than your opponent. Once you hit that point you get diminishing returns so that having even better quality troops isn't going to be worth the points cost. Against unarmoured, average cavalry, protected, superior cavalry with similar or better weapons is probably a good investment. Buying heavily armoured superior knights probably won't be much better than the superior protected cavalry so the extra points in this case shouldn't be expected to be equal to the much larger number of AP of unprotected cavalry you could buy.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

The problem is horde armies generally have :
more skirmishers than you do
more nimble troops , so refusing a flank just slightly delaying being double enveloped (ie mediums)
many horde armies have signicamt #'s of bows as well

You cant sacrifice a light in order to catch one or so horde army lights, they just have so much of a larger cushion there that its a losing proposition...

Really all you can hope for is you opponent making a big mistake in deployment or being overly agressive, and hope for a lot of chain routs!

[deeter]

Look at the numbers vs. pantherboy. Chris matched him AP for AP but he still had 10 left! This seems to be a problem on the TT as well. The top tournament players all use shooty or horde armies. Time to rethink the victory conditions for both?

Deeter

[Stilicho]

I counted 7 total wins for smaller BGs. One of those wins was 11/33 vs 48/46, quite a difference there. Also, some of these "bigger" BGs are as small as a 1-5 point difference, so I'm not sure I see the significance. I think it just depends on how you build your army, and if you are adjusting your tactics or not for who you are facing.

[Xiggy]

I think part of the problem is with double moves, if you try to attack a flank, the larger army can close on you so fast, that your single envelopment cant happen. You cant defeat a horde army in detail anymore. Another issue is the maps. A rather large portion of the maps have bad terrain all over them, and the horde armies all have lots of medium foot, that can hold their own in bad terrain.

On the flip side a lot of the horde army generals are very good players and make few mistakes. They take advantage of the bad terrain and are patient when they need to be and aggressive when they need to be. The out numbered player takes the super troops who are 25 percent more expensive and dont gain anything from their points. As an example the 100 Years War English can get armored knights at 12 points or heavy armored knights at 16. There is no difference in the combat factor vs the horde. So they could get more knights for the same points and maybe do better vs the horde. You only get +1 if you have better armor, not +1 per armor level.

Another issue is that you can only drop 2 cohesive levels unless attacked in the rear. Some of the high priced troops would problably instant route the horde, but because of the rule structure they cant.

I am a terrible general for horde armies. (Either playing them or playing again them) I think the points system seems pretty solid, but the above factors really help the Horde armies. This is the only combat system where super troopers dont necessarily win the day.

[TheGrayMouser]

Some people might disagree with me, but 6 patches ago, the route routines were a lot differnt... a horde army with several troops deep often ran the risk of routs ploughing thru their own ranks, chain disruptions for firiends routing etc, you could cave in the center or flank of a horde army if you timed it right... Now it is a little more difficult.... i did enjoy the old way because now you can game the system and basically make gaps with the rear rankers and routed troops in the front are basically guaranteed to flow thru, sometimes changing facing and direction to do so in a most silly manner... Oh well, I liked the old anrachy rules as well so call me crazy....

[cothyso]

well, most of the games I've played, and won, in LoEG season 2 were with smaller armies than my enemy's, as I always prefer quality over quantity (hail alexander!).

when fighting greater armies than yours, try to:
- refuse a flank (the best would be to refuse a flank you can pin on something), or even both flanks
- concentrate your punch in a single sector of your army, to can deliver it in a narrower point of his front (the fist). the faster moving troops are the better (yay cavalry)
- conceal your fist behind your main line, and keep your options open in order to identify your enemy's weakest point and direct the punch force to it
- use LF troops to screen your enemy's enveloping flank (and deny him fast DM on that flank, or even on both flanks). remember: only screen them, do not try to make contact with them, unless as a last desperate move to hold them a little longer
- when greatly outnumbered, seal your both flanks (echelon both of them by placing the flank's lower part troops like this < >) to maximize your enemy's flanking troops marching to envelop time and eventually form a second front line with reserves ready to turn about and fight enemy troops arrived in your back (remember gaugamela!)
- use reserve troops at a ready in order to seal the breaches or fight fast enveloping troops
- always use 3 commanders (the ideal would be to have an inspired leader and two field ones), use the inspired leader for the punch or for strengthening your part of the line which seems to be hit the hardest
- preserve the initiative

there would be more, but i have to run at the office.

[kujalar]

I would call for more restrictions or weakening of morale if out of command range. That would make it necessary to have all troops in command range and make an important use of leaders. Without radios the flanking maneuvers were extremely difficult at ancient times.
One nice thing would be to make command range affected by the terrain. If troops are behind a wood or a hill and cannot see the standard, the range could be reduced by 30% or so? Friendly or enemy troops between should propably not count for this hindrance.

Personally I like to play so that I keep my forces tight together and try to pick a small part of a map where the main engagement should happen.

I liked the old anarchy system for horses but not for foot.

Maybe there should be a new factory for troops, called discipline. This could alter the anarchy behaviour. This way you could have a well disciplined templars waiting for a right moment to launch a charge or then you could have an overeager bold French nobles charging for a glory in a hundred years war.

[Xiggy]

The Next expansion will bring some interesting armies that used feigned retreat/route to pull knights out and kill them. I wonder how this will be handled in the rules.

[Scutarii]

The problem with numbers is that even a barbarian army can conduct 2 flank maneuvers at the same time with a perfect timing, you can refuse one flank but need some help from terrain... quality armies buy units for fighting and rout points but some armies can buy 2 types of troops, fight troops and points troops even 4-5 of mob units give an extra stamina for your army.... I allways think that some type of rule for flank is needed, some like select the units for the flank attack and they move using some type of % or at least prevent small guerrilla attacks with LF/LH or any single unit.

With the next feature, stand level, now big armies can literally do a Cannae all the time if you can use the new feature in all unit types smaller armies dont have the option of try to win the battle in a face to face combat leaving flanks in the air because enemy can retreat and negate rout points but in the bottle the smaller attacker cant evade... i think that some features could be only ready for certain army types or at least with some type of limit... maybe only set stand level in commander range and with no rear support for example.

I think that this new feature need more tests because can kill some type of armies... of course this combat type is historical but not for all periods and armies.

[Xiggy]

I thought the new feature was for mounted except Cataphracts, knights, elephants and scythed chariots and LF. I did not think it applied to MF and HF.