Slitherine

What do you think about counting a fixed dice loss for disruption, fragmentation and disorder?
Something like that:
"BGs lose the following dice:
if disrupted or disordered --> lose 2 dice
if fragmented or sev. disordered --> lose 4 dice
BGs can roll at least 1 die."

I know It could be a bit oversemplifying rule, but It would have the merit to semplify counts, avoid some oddity and "punish" small BG.
Moreover, It would render worth taking big BGs (now, It seems to me a general consensus that It makes no sense taking a 12-bases impact foot BG, if It is possible to take 3 4-bases BGs, or a 6-based CV BG, when is possible to take a 4-bases BG...)

I think I prefer it the way it is myself. Why punish a small BG that only got 4 dice by giving them none in a combat??
No reason to ever get them into it with the enemy if your going not even capable of fighting?

So you lose four dice if frag what happens if your a four base BG cavalry why go into a fight if you lose all your dice. The only people it would help are the large infantry units?

Who says theres something wrong with 4 base BG never heard this at any events I've went too?

As I wrote in my original post, "BGs can roll at least 1 die", so a 4 bases fragmented CV BG will roll 1 die instead of 2.
There is nothing wrong in having 4 bases BG; but probably in having bigger bases BGs: more difficulty in wheeling, less capability to threath flanks, more problems when you are disrupted or fragmented, less BGs in order to break, ecc...
Moreover, often being disrupted is less dramatic for a 4-bases BG (loss just 1 die, i.e. 25% of the total), and in some case completely without consequence (for excample, for a 4-bases shooting LH).
I think It is an empirical fact: Has anyone seen in a tourney a 6-bases CV BG or a 10-bases foot (not pikes, obviously)?

Moro wrote:I think It is an empirical fact: Has anyone seen in a tourney a 6-bases CV BG or a 10-bases foot (not pikes, obviously)?

Yes and yes - used the former in fact.

6 base mounted are not too common it must be said, 10 base foot more common, but fewer lists have them so they are still not that common.

I have seen 6 base cavalry BGs and I have used 10 base infantry BGs so they do exist.

That said I can se a small degree of logic in the idea but I think it would be a major problem when it came to working out how dice are allocated in complex melees. It would also make base losses even more important than they are now.

While I appreciate that you are trying to reduce the effectiveness of 4 base BGs consider a 4 base BG that loses one combat, loses a base and goes disrupted. It would drop from 4 dice to 1 in one fell swoop :O

nikgaukroger wrote:

Moro wrote:I think It is an empirical fact: Has anyone seen in a tourney a 6-bases CV BG or a 10-bases foot (not pikes, obviously)?

Yes and yes - used the former in fact.

6 base mounted are not too common it must be said, 10 base foot more common, but fewer lists have them so they are still not that common.

I've used both. 6 irregular EAP cavalry which was reasonable but expensive. 10 base heavy foot protected defensive spear with Akkadians are efficient (makes the BG 4 wide rather than 3 wide if you want two reserve bases so it's more cost effective per frontage than an 8

grahambriggs wrote:......so it's more cost effective per frontage than an

Ahh, but a is

excuse me if my previous post could seem arrogant, It was not my intention, just difficulty in translation.
And yes, situationally 6-bases Cv Bgs or akkadian spearmen be useful. However, I think that more often it is better taking a smaller one...

Moro wrote:excuse me if my previous post could seem arrogant, It was not my intention, just difficulty in translation.
And yes, situationally 6-bases Cv Bgs or akkadian spearmen be useful. However, I think that more often it is better taking a smaller one...

I think powerful combat troops can work well in small battle groups, which is why I prefer the Persian cavalry in 4s. Weak combat infantry though is often good in 10s. They are cheap, so you still get a lot of BG in the army. Rear support and generals help 10 bases instead of 8, so that is good. And if they lose 2 bases they do not take a - on CHT for 25% bases lost

grahambriggs wrote:I think powerful combat troops can work well in small battle groups, which is why I prefer the Persian cavalry in 4s. Weak combat infantry though is often good in 10s. They are cheap, so you still get a lot of BG in the army. Rear support and generals help 10 bases instead of 8, so that is good. And if they lose 2 bases they do not take a - on CHT for 25% bases lost

And you need four shooting hits to cause a CT, making them virtually invulnerable to shooting. I have all my spearmen in 10s in my Scots army.

Moro wrote: There is nothing wrong in having 4 bases BG; but probably in having bigger bases BGs: more difficulty in wheeling, less capability to threath flanks, more problems when you are disrupted or fragmented, less BGs in order to break, ecc...

And there are advantages in having larger BGs also. More resilient to shooting, more able to sustain losses.
Smaller BGs should be more manoeuverable - that is part of the pay-off for their brittleness.

Moro wrote: Moreover, often being disrupted is less dramatic for a 4-bases BG (loss just 1 die, i.e. 25% of the total),

It's no different than for an 8 base BG. When disrupted it losses 25% of its dice. It is an unfortunate side effect of the rounding process that some BG sizes are affected slightly worse by disruption than others.

Moro wrote: Moreover, often being disrupted is ... in some case completely without consequence (for excample, for a 4-bases shooting LH).

It is never without consequence. A disrupted BG of 4 LH might lose no dice when shooting, but will be at -1 on CTs and will go to Fragmented if it fails. So it is in a much more risky position than if steady. For example, you can move a steady BG of LH to within shooting range of enemy LF, knowing that the worst that can happen is becoming fragmented. If it is already disrupted you risk having it broken if you do this.

This proposal doesn't just tip the balance against smaller BG, it also is a disadvantage to troops that fight in deeper formations such as pikes or barbarian foot. I'm not sure that's a desirable side-effect.

Polkovnik wrote: It is never without consequence. A disrupted BG of 4 LH might lose no dice when shooting, but will be at -1 on CTs and will go to Fragmented if it fails. So it is in a much more risky position than if steady. For example, you can move a steady BG of LH to within shooting range of enemy LF, knowing that the worst that can happen is becoming fragmented. If it is already disrupted you risk having it broken if you do this.

Actually, the worst that can happen is disrupted. Shooting won't cause a double drop.

Unless you mean the worst that can happen before your next maneuver phase (i.e., losing cohesion over two rounds of shooting).

spikemesq wrote:

Polkovnik wrote: It is never without consequence. A disrupted BG of 4 LH might lose no dice when shooting, but will be at -1 on CTs and will go to Fragmented if it fails. So it is in a much more risky position than if steady. For example, you can move a steady BG of LH to within shooting range of enemy LF, knowing that the worst that can happen is becoming fragmented. If it is already disrupted you risk having it broken if you do this.

Actually, the worst that can happen is disrupted. Shooting won't cause a double drop.

Unless you mean the worst that can happen before your next maneuver phase (i.e., losing cohesion over two rounds of shooting).

Yes, I mean over two rounds of shooting, i.e. before you get the chance to move them away. If you move disrupted LH within range of enemy shooters you risk have them break.

Moro wrote:What do you think about counting a fixed dice loss for disruption, fragmentation and disorder?

Really interesting idea !

Moro wrote:Something like that:
"BGs lose the following dice:
if disrupted or disordered --> lose 2 dice
if fragmented or sev. disordered --> lose 4 dice
BGs can roll at least 1 die."

too much side effect in those terms.

IMHO the point that really needs to be fixed are those small BG (let's say roman ) 4 Heavy foot fighting at the edge of terrain : 2 bases in rough and the 2 others out and will fight using 4 dice !

I suggest an easy fix :
disrupted/disordered -> loose at least 1 die
fragmented/severely disordered --> lose at least 2 dice


Yes, it means 2 bases BG Elite severely disorder throwing no dice at all
and 3 bases fragmented BG throwing only 1 die.

pad wrote: I suggest an easy fix :
disrupted/disordered -> loose at least 1 die
fragmented/severely disordered --> lose at least 2 dice


Yes, it means 2 bases BG Elite severely disorder throwing no dice at all
and 3 bases fragmented BG throwing only 1 die.

You could end up with BG in melee and both sides throwing no dice.

philqw78 wrote:

pad wrote: I suggest an easy fix :
disrupted/disordered -> loose at least 1 die
fragmented/severely disordered --> lose at least 2 dice


Yes, it means 2 bases BG Elite severely disorder throwing no dice at all
and 3 bases fragmented BG throwing only 1 die.

You could end up with BG in melee and both sides throwing no dice.

They would up fighting a long time then...

philqw78 wrote:You could end up with BG in melee and both sides throwing no dice.

Good point although this situation may be really unlikely. In the curent version it'll be 1 die each, and won't provide a very different result.
I should have kept Moro original "BGs can roll at least 1 die"

On second thought another drawback is that disrupted 4 bases LH/LF BG will only shoot 1 die .

So I update my suggestion this way :
disrupted/disordered -> Lose 1 dice per 3 (lose at least 1 except for shooting)
fragmented/severely disordered --> Lose 1 dice per 2 (lose at least 2 except for shooting). BGs can roll at least 1 die


Another way (not my favorite) is to "round up" the "lose 1 per X" explanation
from 1 to 3 dice = lose 1 die, 2-6 dice = lose 2 dice and so on

pad wrote:

philqw78 wrote:You could end up with BG in melee and both sides throwing no dice.

Good point although this situation may be really unlikely. In the curent version it'll be 1 die each, and won't provide a very different result.
I should have kept Moro original "BGs can roll at least 1 die"

On second thought another drawback is that disrupted 4 bases LH/LF BG will only shoot 1 die .

So I update my suggestion this way :
disrupted/disordered -> Lose 1 dice per 3 (lose at least 1 except for shooting)
fragmented/severely disordered --> Lose 1 dice per 2 (lose at least 2 except for shooting). BGs can roll at least 1 die


Another way (not my favorite) is to "round up" the "lose 1 per X" explanation
from 1 to 3 dice = lose 1 die, 2-6 dice = lose 2 dice and so on

TBH the way its done is a lot easier ie 1 per 3 distubted 1 per 2 Fragmented. Anything making it harder seems strange for a rule set. I see no problums with losing the dice as per the rules now. Neither have i heard any arguements among all the events I have played at, many other things but not the dice.