Overlaps (and stuff)

[madaxeman]

Discussion point for y'all:

It's currently too hard to achieve overlaps in FoG:AM. Troops such as Cataphracts, or even armoured superior lancer swordsmen can tool around the battlefield in a big solid block of 4-6 BGs (at 800AP) in the total confidence that they are going to be better than (or at least as good as) any possible in-period opponent both at impact and melee.

Even where they are Shock and liable to charge without orders, a block of superior lancers they can still do tricksy wheels, or have an IC to command them, so there is still little if any opportunity for poorer quality (morale, weapons,. armour, whatever) troops to engage them with overlaps - which are in theory often the only way to make weight of numbers count. Superior troops can also take more base losses before breaking, are less likely to lose anyway, and also less likely to fail successive CT's, so on all three counts weight of numbers had not that much chance to take effect

So, quality lancers (+skirmishers for army bulk & stuff) almost always trumps weight of numbers in period. You could say the same for Kn + LH

Is this a fair assessment, and if so what could we change to allow poorer quality troops to bring their weight of numbers to bear against more expensive equivalents?

[hazelbark]

I disagree.

I say that as someone who really likes lancers and uses them a lot. I have had them his and fail plenty of times.

Now you talk about overlaps and I am specifially thinking about a 4 base lancer into a 6 base foot.
I have not found Cataphracts the be all either of the early period.

I think there is a very good historical case that small numbers of quality troops OFTEN annhilated large bodies of peasant like forces.

Now I do favor a way to make say the dark age protected undrilled HF defensive spear stronger. I am not sure the way to do that is POAs.
In game terms they are easy to outmanuver and they are almost worthlessly slow to reinforce friends a short distance away.
Consider 2 BGs of spear side by side. (1,2) where (1) is fighting the enemy.

E
1 2

So your point is at best 2 supplies overlap dice. But historically as 1 loses troops (base losses) and might get thinner. Wouldn't two push down and over. So maybe in a reforming or late in the JAP phase a BG of spear/pike whatever can CMT to consolidate meaning go back to the 2 deep formation if a neighboring BG can slide over.

[Strategos69]

Another way to make numbers count is letting some kind of use of the reserves. Now it is not wise to deploy behind your own troops as you risk to drop one cohesion level. If there was any way to let friends pass, even through checking a CT, it could be used. Some troops, like the Romans, could do that without checking; some troops should not be allowed, like pikemen or spearmen. As Hannibal did in Zama, you would send first your worst troops hoping to harm them or getting them tired and finally you send better troops. Indeed you would have some time to rally them behind your lines. This would have the side effect of letting the clash of infantries not so disordered as it is right now.

By the way, some optional rules regarding tiredness could be nice to stop invincible BG.

[hazelbark]

By the way, some optional rules regarding tiredness could be nice to stop invincible BG.

But some forces were historically "invincible" in the time of the critical battle fights.

You could double the normal of morale levels and create a lot more gradations in effects, but time and detail become an issue.

[Strategos69]

But some forces were historically "invincible" in the time of the critical battle fights.

You could double the normal of morale levels and create a lot more gradations in effects, but time and detail become an issue.

In fact, I was not thinking the tiredness rules like a main rule, but optional. I like rulesets that give you a selection of advanced/optional rules that can be chosen by players to reflect those aspects. In fact we were promised a campaign book that could have been a nice setting for that and other things like weather, unbalanced games, scenarios, etc.

[madaxeman]

I don't buy into the "fatigue factors" argument either, but my point was more that the times where "weight of numbers" seems to count is when there are lots of small, maneuverable independent drilled units in play. The army has more staying power, and the multiple units are more able to hit flanks. To put more succinctly, "more bases" is nowhere near as effective as "more units".

"Bigger" units don't often get the chance to use their weight of numbers to achieve overlaps as quality units can tool around in coherent blocks anyway, so the only real benefit is in terms of occasionally avoiding a -1 in the CT due to less chance of incurring "casualties per 3 bases". Even then, as only the first 3 ranks count for unit size, big units often can't really use deep formations to give themselves materially more staying power either.

Is there a way of giving something back to bigger units ?

[Strategos69]

Ok, I get your point now. It was not the story of the superunit killing one by one parts of your army (for those instances some fatigue rules avoid that this one unit has too much impact on the game).

If I recall it properly, it was in the Barbarians thread where it was proposed some PoA for having more depth than the enemy. That was thought only for HF and MF and for specific situations. Regarding the fact of making the number of bases count, it is something I had been thinking too especially when dealing with the so called "swarm armies". A good way to counter that is counting victory points per bases and not per BG. For example, if you have 50 bases (and here it could be possible to make some of them count double, like the core troops, and others half or nothing), that would be your attrition points. Every base lost or routing counts as 2 points and every base fragmented or evaded as 1; the camp could count as 6 or 8 and so on.

[hazelbark]

I don't buy into the "fatigue factors" argument either, but my point was more that the times where "weight of numbers" seems to count is when there are lots of small, maneuverable independent drilled units in play. The army has more staying power, and the multiple units are more able to hit flanks. To put more succinctly, "more bases" is nowhere near as effective as "more units".

"Bigger" units don't often get the chance to use their weight of numbers to achieve overlaps as quality units can tool around in coherent blocks anyway, so the only real benefit is in terms of occasionally avoiding a -1 in the CT due to less chance of incurring "casualties per 3 bases". Even then, as only the first 3 ranks count for unit size, big units often can't really use deep formations to give themselves materially more staying power either.

Is there a way of giving something back to bigger units ?

I agree with this.

How about 4 base foot units suffer an additional -1 CT if in Close combat if overlapped? Not sure I favor this, but...

[madaxeman]

I don't buy into the "fatigue factors" argument either, but my point was more that the times where "weight of numbers" seems to count is when there are lots of small, maneuverable independent drilled units in play. The army has more staying power, and the multiple units are more able to hit flanks. To put more succinctly, "more bases" is nowhere near as effective as "more units".

"Bigger" units don't often get the chance to use their weight of numbers to achieve overlaps as quality units can tool around in coherent blocks anyway, so the only real benefit is in terms of occasionally avoiding a -1 in the CT due to less chance of incurring "casualties per 3 bases". Even then, as only the first 3 ranks count for unit size, big units often can't really use deep formations to give themselves materially more staying power either.

Is there a way of giving something back to bigger units ?

I agree with this.

How about 4 base foot units suffer an additional -1 CT if in Close combat if overlapped? Not sure I favor this, but...

I was mulling over the pros and cons of for hits per base "count bases in the first 3 ranks, or first 4 (5?) ranks for units of 8 (6?, 10?) or more".

Alternatively, allow units of 8 (6?, 10?) or more bases to be rallied in the same turn they drop cohesion.

[Strategos69]

How about 4 base foot units suffer an additional -1 CT if in Close combat if overlapped? Not sure I favor this, but...

Actually it is an extension of the already existing rule "threatened flank", which makes sense to me. However I am not sure if this would fix what madaxeman commented because to apply that -1 you have first to beat that BG (I am thinking in the case of many Barbarians against a few superior legionaries).

[spikemesq]

To me the problem the OP notes is that overlaps are hard to get, so having more troops often gives little benefit. The reduced opportunity for overlapping makes cheaper troops not equal to heartier troops even when the points cost is the same.

In DBM, the recoil mechanism added a lot of overlaps to an otherwise solid line of combat. Without recoils and overlaps, what mechanism would make a "wall of crap" viable in FoG?

[philqw78]

The reduced opportunity for overlapping makes cheaper troops not equal to heartier troops even when the points cost is the same.

[spikemesq]

The reduced opportunity for overlapping makes cheaper troops not equal to heartier troops even when the points cost is the same.

What I mean is that (in a vacuum) a 4-pack of Lancers, etc. is better than equal points in trash MF, because the additional MF have fewer opportunities to overlap and/or fight the lancers.

Extrapolate that to a line of troops.

Now the BG structure and lack of recoils/overlaps tilts the balance further toward Lancers.

No recoils to create overlaps to shift the balance to the MF.

The BG package means that plugging gaps in the line is harder to do than in DBM, because the mobs of MF must operate in 6/8 packs and cannot plug holes in the line as bases are lost.

The net result is that troops interact on a BG vs. BG level that makes point values harder to reconcile.

Consider a 92 AP BG of 4 proper Knights against 92 AP of Undrilled MF Swordsmen. Absent a terrain standoff, what interaction makes these equivalent? Even if you get 4 BG of the MF, the added numbers (in this vacuum) don't do much for you.

[ethan]

One possibility would be to allow overlaps to always hit on a 4 or better (or 3 if you have a ++)

[dave_r]

The reduced opportunity for overlapping makes cheaper troops not equal to heartier troops even when the points cost is the same.

What I mean is that (in a vacuum) a 4-pack of Lancers, etc. is better than equal points in trash MF, because the additional MF have fewer opportunities to overlap and/or fight the lancers.

Even in difficult going?

Extrapolate that to a line of troops.

Now the BG structure and lack of recoils/overlaps tilts the balance further toward Lancers.

No recoils to create overlaps to shift the balance to the MF.

The BG package means that plugging gaps in the line is harder to do than in DBM, because the mobs of MF must operate in 6/8 packs and cannot plug holes in the line as bases are lost.

The net result is that troops interact on a BG vs. BG level that makes point values harder to reconcile.

Consider a 92 AP BG of 4 proper Knights against 92 AP of Undrilled MF Swordsmen. Absent a terrain standoff, what interaction makes these equivalent? Even if you get 4 BG of the MF, the added numbers (in this vacuum) don't do much for you.

Well, two flank charges wouldn't be pleasant. Anyway - the points values are for a variety of opponents - you can't pick on one interaction and claim the points are unbalanced (as you well know)

[Jilu]

What i do not like is the 5 rank phalanx.
Charge or be charged 5 rank deep and then they overlap you with that extra rank.

[spikemesq]

Dave: I am not really arguing that the points values should be balanced for this micro-interaction, hence the "(in a vacuum)" qualifier.

The overlap query just got me thinking about some of the intangible points value issues and why FoG presents a far fewer "quantity compensates for quality" decisions. Obviously DBM had these problems too, and when those rules changed to bring more parity between expensive high-grade troops and cheaper low-grade troops, the game IMO suffered under the rise of the "wall o' crap" regime.

In FoG, there are a number of troop types that suck so hard that even deep discounts might not make them worthwhile (e.g., Unarmoured Cav, certain Undrilled MF, Armored Kn). I don't really know how to fix these troops, if they even need it.

The discussion does provoke this question:

Why price troops by base anyway? Armies are built on BGs, and the game turns, for the most part, on BGs. Perhaps one way to explore AP balances might be to price troops at the BG level, and incorporate some diminishing points values for larger BGs. Maybe some troops could be discounted between 4 and 6 stands or between 6 and 8 stands, where the additional stands offer diminishing returns. This could help balance some of the barbarian armies, as larger BGs of Undrilled lose as much or more value as they gain in larger blocks (e.g., horrid maneuver to get some staying power).

A BG pricing system could also capture some subtle performance issues. For instance, consider knights that historically performed badly against their contemporaries, but not so badly as to lose an armor or morale rating (maybe English or Germans?). FoG could capture this by requiring them to be fielded in 6-packs at a cost that is less than 6 x base cost, but more than 4 x base cost. They would be cumbersome and harder to use against the usual 4-pack of proper knights, but the extra 2 stands would not be as expensive, creating more of a dilemma than now (where a 6-pack of Kn is all but unheard of).

[hazelbark]

Why price troops by base anyway? Armies are built on BGs, and the game turns, for the most part, on BGs. Perhaps one way to explore AP balances might be to price troops at the BG level, and incorporate some diminishing points values for larger BGs. Maybe some troops could be discounted between 4 and 6 stands or between 6 and 8 stands, where the additional stands offer diminishing returns.

This is a different variation of add 140 points to the Army level and make every BG cost 10 pt. A different way of same effect.

But you could narrow your discounts to just protected Foot over 6s and protected or unprotected Cav or LH over 4s.

[Jilu]

Overlaps...and then what of the 10 base pike BG...?
They impact and the put their 5 th rank in overlap,...for me it does not make sence

[ethan]

Why price troops by base anyway? Armies are built on BGs, and the game turns, for the most part, on BGs. Perhaps one way to explore AP balances might be to price troops at the BG level, and incorporate some diminishing points values for larger BGs. Maybe some troops could be discounted between 4 and 6 stands or between 6 and 8 stands, where the additional stands offer diminishing returns.

This is a different variation of add 140 points to the Army level and make every BG cost 10 pt. A different way of same effect.

A less extreme version of this might be:

Foot BGs less than 6 bases cost +10 (or whatever)
Cavalry BGs less than 4 bases cost +10 (or whatever)

and increase army AP by 50 or so.