Slitherine

We have a BG of 8 MF/Bw, shooting in effective range against a enemy BG of 8 MF.


They have to get 3 impacts at least to force a test, and to get possibility of kill a base, we assume they have 50% to get possibility to kill a base (4 to hit).


Now we have the same BG of 8 MF/Bw, shooting aganist to enemies BG of 4 MF, three dices for each one.

Now they needs to get 3 impacts to each to get possibility to kill two bases, but they need to hit a 100% of their roll dices.

You need to hit with all your dices in each BG to get a possibility of kill a base.


Suposse that the shooters get the same dice rolling in the two cases, 3 hits (2 and 1 for each hipotetical 4 Bases BG)

In the first case, they force a test, and the get possibility to kill a base. In the second one, they force a test to one group and no possibility at all to kill a base.

Is this historical?, or is this rational?.

The same group firing aganist the same number of mens on the same situation, getting the same number of hits getting very diferents results.



I think sometimes that the big groups of shooters are penalized in FOG for their size, note that this kind of groups ussually are forced to distribute their fire between more than one enemy, and the small ones have the advantage of have smaller front and less possibility to suffer hits.


And this problem is seen too when we shoot against mounted troops, the mounted have less front and they can focus their fire against an only enemy, while a big unit of foot shooters are forced to see how a swarm of skirmishers launches over them a storm of arrows. In the real games, in a exchange of shooting the most of times the weakest teorical units are the winners.

I agree, but I don't think the problem is with the shooters - it's with the receiving BGs. Big BGs are disadvantaged in FOG because the "+2 modifier" on death rolls applies equally to all unit sizes. If you ran the same scenario with only a "+1" modifier on the small 4-base BGs then things even up significantly!

Marc

So that suggests the + modifier for being shot at should vary with BG size.

BG's of 2 and 4 bases get +1 on the death roll from shooting
BG's of 6 and 8 bases get +2 on the death roll from shooting
Bg's of 10 and 12 bases get +3 on the death roll from shooting

That might encourage larger BG's.

Peter

prb4 wrote:So that suggests the + modifier for being shot at should vary with BG size.

BG's of 2 and 4 bases get +1 on the death roll from shooting
BG's of 6 and 8 bases get +2 on the death roll from shooting
Bg's of 10 and 12 bases get +3 on the death roll from shooting

That might encourage larger BG's.

Peter

Interesting idea.


All the people says that the swarm armies has advantage, because they are very hard to beat, well, make the small groups easiest to beat could be a help.

I understand that the big groups have more chance to recieve impacts when shooting, but the smaller ones have too many advantage to avoid casualities by fire.

This is unnecessary complexity. 1 per 2 hits on CT's and options for three rank formations deal with the BG size problem quite well.

rogerg wrote:This is unnecessary complexity. 1 per 2 hits on CT's and options for three rank formations deal with the BG size problem quite well.

Sorry, don't get that. If you have 2 x 4-base BGs side by side this should be the same as (or similar to) one 8-base BG but it isn't! The 8-base BG has a much greater chance of losing a base. Can't be right surely?

hannibal wrote:

rogerg wrote:This is unnecessary complexity. 1 per 2 hits on CT's and options for three rank formations deal with the BG size problem quite well.

Sorry, don't get that. If you have 2 x 4-base BGs side by side this should be the same as (or similar to) one 8-base BG but it isn't! The 8-base BG has a much greater chance of losing a base. Can't be right surely?

I think the point rogerg is trying to make is that the 4-base BGs have the advantage in the particular case you described, but an 8-base has other advantages, e.g.

If a 4-base has to take a cohesion test from shooting, it will always test at -1.
An 8-base often does not have that -1 modifier.

If an 8-base is shot at by only 2 shooting dice it never has to test cohesion.
If an 8 base is in three ranks and shot at by an equal frontage of skirmishers (1 dice per base frontage) then all three dice must hit to cause a CT, which is much less likely than 2 dice both hitting a 4-base.

Therefore neither BG size has an overall advantage, 4s lose fewer bases, 8s lose less cohesion.

However, I agree that it would seem to make more sense if the expected base losses were directly proportional to the number of hits, regardless of the target BG sizes and the split of the shots between target BGs.

On the other hand, loss of a base does not simply represent caualties, it is just a way of representing irreversible degradation of BG combat effectiveness, which may not in reality be directly proportional to the incoming shooting (i.e. below a certain level the BG just shrugs it off).

Another thing to take into account is a 1-base loss on a 4-base BG has greater consequences than it does on an 8-base (it suffers -1 on all CTs and must now test after taking only 1 shooting hit). Therefore it should be a less likely occurrence.

do it differently.

take the total number of dice and spread them up between targets. with a minimum of dice to have an eventual cohesion test effect.

So a 8 base unit that shoots at 2 four base units can devide his 6 dice as 2 on one unit and 4 on the other.

Therefore neither BG size has an overall advantage, 4s lose fewer bases, 8s lose less cohesion.

I don't mean to be pendantic, but if 8-base Bow unit shoots at an 8-base then there is a 23.5% chance of doing 4 hits, which is a CT on -1. If the same unit shoots at 2x4 base units then there is a 25% chance of both units suffering a -1 (although I concede that there is a higher chance of 75% of only 1 unit suffering the -1). There is however a 66% chance of the large BG having to take a test (for 3 cas) vs the same 25% chance for both 4-strong units (75% for either). This feels roughly balanced to me. I don't think that on average the small BGs will lose significantly more cohesion? I'm sure that someone could work out the average chance of cohesion loss per base, but maybe that's going a bit far

hannibal wrote:

Therefore neither BG size has an overall advantage, 4s lose fewer bases, 8s lose less cohesion.

I don't mean to be pendantic, but if 8-base Bow unit shoots at an 8-base then there is a 23.5% chance of doing 4 hits, which is a CT on -1. If the same unit shoots at 2x4 base units then there is a 25% chance of both units suffering a -1 (although I concede that there is a higher chance of 75% of only 1 unit suffering the -1). There is however a 66% chance of the large BG having to take a test (for 3 cas) vs the same 25% chance for both 4-strong units (75% for either). This feels roughly balanced to me. I don't think that on average the small BGs will lose significantly more cohesion? I'm sure that someone could work out the average chance of cohesion loss per base, but maybe that's going a bit far

In this precise scenario you are right.

However, in other situations the 4-bases lose more cohesion. For example, the same units offset by 2 bases so each shoots 3 shots at the opposing shooters and 3 at something else, or if 4LH move round and shoot them in the flank with no return shots.

Good point re getting something done about shooting.
I have just competed in a local, 650 pts - 5'x3' table size, competition here using HYW English and found shooting needs something done to stop split fire being forced upon the shooters and skirmisher screen Force Fields in front of the nasties heading your way.
I would like the shooter have the choice which enemy base to shoot at if more than one enemy base is in front of the shooting base,
also the shooter can choose to ignore the skirmisher screen and shoot at the enemy behind.
I mean 4-6 poor javelins or slingers should not be able to force 6-8 bases of longbows away from the nasty MF killer heading their way.

I suggested something similar some time ago in the beta, but it gets to the core of the rules. You have the same problem with big battlegroups against multiple units in small units. This is a general problem that in my opinion is not sufficiently well dealt with because FoG encourages too much lots of mini BG's. Why an army would be more resistant (more attrition points) if the same 8 bases of legionaries are splitted into two groups?

To avoid tricky things the number to add to the death roll should depend on the number of bases in the front rank. If you do not do so, pikemen would become too hard to beat.

Warlord wrote:I mean 4-6 poor javelins or slingers should not be able to force 6-8 bases of longbows away from the nasty MF killer heading their way.

But that was their job.

philqw78 wrote:

Warlord wrote:I mean 4-6 poor javelins or slingers should not be able to force 6-8 bases of longbows away from the nasty MF killer heading their way.

But that was their job.

I would like the choice of who to shoot at being an option.
Why shoot at a 4 base BG of skirmishers who cannot get 1HP3B ?

Because the rules are trying to simulate what the guys on the ground would do, not the all-seeing general flying over the lines on his magic cloud and personally not at risk, especially not an all-seeing blah blah blah who makes his decisions beased on artifacts of the game mechanics?

As for a rationale for why more, smaller BGs should behave differently in many circumsntacnes to the same number of troops in fewer, larger BGs, think what the BGs represent. More smaller BGs mean an army with more junior officers capable of displaying independent initiative. So, for example, maybe in melee they are better able to keep up the morale of their own men by personally intervening at difficult spots in the line, and better able to spot and exploit more tactical opportunities. Why shouldn't this be represented by a small advantage in melee in the game?

FWIW I think it is "obvious" that mounted should generally be in smaller BGs, but I don't think the decision is as cut and dried for infantry as some around here seem to think. And there is arguably an indirect points cost to having more BGs - either you need more generals to provide them with the same level of overall commander support, or you have to accept that there will be more times when you haven't got enough generals on hand to do things with all of the BGs who need their presence.

Warlord wrote:I would like the choice of who to shoot at being an option.
Why shoot at a 4 base BG of skirmishers who cannot get 1HP3B ?

Becuase you can get 1HP2B on them.

philqw78 wrote:

Warlord wrote:I would like the choice of who to shoot at being an option.
Why shoot at a 4 base BG of skirmishers who cannot get 1HP3B on me?

Becuase you can get 1HP2B on them.

I would prefer to shoot through the skirmishers at the real problem area, the MF killers heading my way.

Warlord wrote:I would prefer to shoot through the skirmishers at the real problem area, the MF killers heading my way.

Wouldn't we all (but we can't and shouldn't be able to). Admittedly at the moment skirmishers are far too effective. Hopefully V2 will clip their wings.

ShrubMiK wrote: As for a rationale for why more, smaller BGs should behave differently in many circumsntacnes to the same number of troops in fewer, larger BGs, think what the BGs represent. More smaller BGs mean an army with more junior officers capable of displaying independent initiative. So, for example, maybe in melee they are better able to keep up the morale of their own men by personally intervening at difficult spots in the line, and better able to spot and exploit more tactical opportunities. Why shouldn't this be represented by a small advantage in melee in the game?

Interesting argumentation. I would agree if they were paid for (in points), like the flat rate of points suggested per BG. As this is not the case, I fear that it is an open door for many game artifacts, like the 4 bases BG's of LF cheerleaders or the mini BG's to have more resilience.

But I'm saying they are, effectively, paid for in points when you consider the cost of the generals required to provide the same level of command ability. Whether it is enough to offset worries about over-effectiveness of smaller BGs is another matter, but the effect is there.

There are some issues, in my mind, with the whole generals thing in the rules, I think there is a lot of room for improvement. I did argue once that there should be a maximum number of BGs in an army determined by adding up the command ability of all the generals, with FCs and ICs allowing more BGs in the army. And that would also provide more of a reason to see some FCs on the table more than once every blue moon!