Net POA's

[madaxeman]

Is it just me, or do a significant proportion of combat matchups end up being at evens with their basic POA's - so superiority and the addition of generals to combat often make the only difference (working on the assumption that a level of superiority is worth about half a POA)?

Most people seem to get a plus at impact, and in melee having "Sword" capability is sort of the default setting for everyone, and only only Pikes and Spears can cancel this out.... but all Pikes and most Spears are Protected, so any sort of Armoured Swordsman is often back to evens against them.

The only time you seem to get a decent spread of POAs is with spearmen and pikemen - but it's against them when they start to lose cohesion - and also if you are generous enough to turn up with protected swordsmen foot.

I wonder if more POA's should be introduced, or if more of them should be "conditional" (ie don't count in certain circumstances, or are cancelled by certain types of enemy)?

I also wonder if shooting/skirmishing is a tactic favoured by a number of successful tourney players because they have realised that no matter how you work to engineer it, unless you can make flank attacks combat is often a bit of an even's POA lottery ?

[Strategos69]

I agree with you: unless one of the players brings all the veterans (armoured) he can get and the other doesn't, most of matchups are a lottery at who gets more 4's. And even if it is true that sometimes battles were a lottery when both forces were very close to each other, sometimes it spoils the fun of the stone, paper, scissors of this kind of games. The problems that this brings are the following:

• - The main line in the center breaks in some part in your favour and in other parts in favour of your adversary. The sources describe sometimes one wing of every side breaking the enemy, but what we see in FoG is that the battle line ends up transforming into a cheese. Even if you are victorius, you suddenly can not take any advantage of your victory. You were better before serving as an overlap and now part of your line is in danger because of your success.
  - No matter how well you prepare your battle plan: it is very difficult to make any progress anywhere to count in the main battle if you play with HF armies.
  - Many times corrections to PoA's are made through dice instead of PoA's, which emphasizes the lottery part of the game.
  - The first PoA potects you from receiving hits whereas the second gives you a plus for hitting. That means that the first PoA usually is not very decisive.

Anyway, my concern with addiing more PoA's without changing other mechanisms to make the combats last more is that the infantry combats will be even quicker and that would be a bad thing in terms of overall game. Something I have thought to slow down infantry combats is giving HF and MF an extra cohesion level. Another option is making even in PoAs hit at 5's, one PoA up 4's and two up 3's. Then even combats will last longer as there will be less hits ans so the battle will be less decided by the lottery but by other BGS you bring into the combat.

[spikemesq]

I am not convinced that there is a problem with POAs washing out. If so, however, better solutions are likely to be found in adjustments to POAs based on troop combination or overlaps. Upping the hit-rolls for infantry to drag out the hot man-on-man action seems backwards. Heavy infantry already struggle to get into the fight within the allotted time. Why aggravate that at the back end with slower combat results?

[nikgaukroger]

Is it just me, or do a significant proportion of combat matchups end up being at evens with their basic POA's - so superiority and the addition of generals to combat often make the only difference (working on the assumption that a level of superiority is worth about half a POA)?

IMO it is a good thing, and a better historical representation, if morale is essentially the main decider.

[timmy1]

For the third time in my life I find myself agreeing with Nik. That does seem to be what my reading throws up time and time again. Technological edges rarely last long but training and morale seem to make the difference more often than not.

[madaxeman]

I's actually agree as well based on history I've read - but FoG is also supposed to be a game as well as a simulation.

If morale is seen as the key combat decider in FoG, that kinda implies it's a game with 99% of the on-table troops you are likely to see can be divided into just 2 key troop types - Average and Superior.

That might be historical, but if every other characteristic is secondary that's potentially a bit of a dull game isn't it ?

I an see a case in a game for "we are good enough to win against anything even when we are using blunt spoons and they are tooled up like Space Marines " troops if they are classed as Elites, maybe - but there are a helluva lot of Superior troops out there - who have a key edge in combat - but there are almost no Elites.

[batesmotel]

I's actually agree as well based on history I've read - but FoG is also supposed to be a game as well as a simulation.

If morale is seen as the key combat decider in FoG, that kinda implies it's a game with 99% of the on-table troops you are likely to see can be divided into just 2 key troop types - Average and Superior.

That might be historical, but if every other characteristic is secondary that's potentially a bit of a dull game isn't it ?

I an see a case in a game for "we are good enough to win against anything even when we are using blunt spoons and they are tooled up like Space Marines " troops if they are classed as Elites, maybe - but there are a helluva lot of Superior troops out there - who have a key edge in combat - but there are almost no Elites.

Maybe both armour and better quality/morale grades should be more expensive in FoG V2.0. Given that many players would prefer armoured average troops to protected superior ones, I think the rules do provide a reasonable balance now between equipment and troop quality although both are probably a bit under priced for their effectiveness.

Chris

[timmy1]

Chris, Superior are relatively more expensive in FoG:R, see my post ad tedium... Agree about armour.

[Strategos69]

I's actually agree as well based on history I've read - but FoG is also supposed to be a game as well as a simulation.

If morale is seen as the key combat decider in FoG, that kinda implies it's a game with 99% of the on-table troops you are likely to see can be divided into just 2 key troop types - Average and Superior.

That might be historical, but if every other characteristic is secondary that's potentially a bit of a dull game isn't it ?

I an see a case in a game for "we are good enough to win against anything even when we are using blunt spoons and they are tooled up like Space Marines " troops if they are classed as Elites, maybe - but there are a helluva lot of Superior troops out there - who have a key edge in combat - but there are almost no Elites.

I also agree that morale (actually described as drill) was key to winning. Overall they were men against men and those who could stand more saved the day. But haven't it happened to you that you won (or lost) a game and when thinking about it you actually did nothing? It was like we both lined up, I had a careful plan to win in one wing (which ended with 1BG per side dead) and then I was just lucky (or unlucky) in the battle of 4's. The battle ends before anything else can be brought into play. It makes you wonder the purpose of putting out all the miniatures (other than it looks really cool).

[madaxeman]

But haven't it happened to you that you won (or lost) a game and when thinking about it you actually did nothing{madaxeman: "wrong"?}? It was like we both lined up, I had a careful plan to win in one wing (which ended with 1BG per side dead) and then I was just lucky (or unlucky) in the battle of 4's. The battle ends before anything else can be brought into play. It makes you wonder the purpose of putting out all the miniatures (other than it looks really cool).

I agree, but I'm coming at it from a slightly different angle. If no matter how well you plan and plot, a significant proportion of frontal combats will end up at evens POAs anyways like the major impact in this game, the whole idea of entering into hand to hand combat becomes one of committing your chances of victory to the dice.

I'm starting to see a number of consequences of this:

The sensible player who wants to have some control over winning/losing will be encouraged to take armies that emphasise shooting (as during shooting, only the target can be "unlucky" and suffer cohesion losses).

They will also pick armies that can avoid being drawn into unfavourable combats - either by having high mobility, or by being made up almost entirely of limited numbers of well armoured superior troops. Both options permit use of fairly simple to execute strategies prevent a more numerous but lower quality enemy bringing them to battle in a way which might permit weight of numbers to count.

Being "Superior" is super-valuable, as when combined with a General it is one of the few ways to achieve an equivalent-to-a-POA advantage.

I'm sure someone will post to say that the second point is just good military doctrine, however I suspect this concept was more strategic ("avoid battles where you are outnumbered" etc) in the Ancient world than tactical ("turn and march away from those troops 80 yards in front of you, they are the Emperors Guard").

[nikgaukroger]

Must admit that I think there are plenty of opportunities in the game to try and get combats that are not just an even fight.

[lawrenceg]

Must admit that I think there are plenty of opportunities in the game to try and get combats that are not just an even fight.

I agree. When I play with my Ancient British, pretty much every fight has me at a - or -- in melee.

[philqw78]

I also agree that morale (actually described as drill) was key to winning. Overall they were men against men and those who could stand more saved the day. But haven't it happened to you that you won (or lost) a game and when thinking about it you actually did nothing? It was like we both lined up, I had a careful plan to win in one wing (which ended with 1BG per side dead) and then I was just lucky (or unlucky) in the battle of 4's. The battle ends before anything else can be brought into play. It makes you wonder the purpose of putting out all the miniatures (other than it looks really cool).

I think that is very historical in an even points battle. Both armies and generals were perfectly matched but one of them was lucky! That, in an equal point, equal skill game, should be the only decider. If it is the rules work.

[philqw78]

I agree, but I'm coming at it from a slightly different angle. If no matter how well you plan and plot, a significant proportion of frontal combats will end up at evens POAs anyways

The point system works then. Should a significant proportion be weighted to one side or the other with even points. No. Design an army where you can pick the combats of your advantage.

If you contstantly fight at even you are playing badly

Happy birthday to me.

[Strategos69]

I think that is very historical in an even points battle. Both armies and generals were perfectly matched but one of them was lucky! That, in an equal point, equal skill game, should be the only decider. If it is the rules work.

You are right but maybe I should rephrase it: the point is that you even couldn't have made it better. Sometimes a terrible general has even more chances than it should. It's nice to explain the game to kids as you see succeding some tactics a history enthusiast would not try, like the frontal charge of the cavalry.

Imagine two armies that are much more the same. We expect all combats at 4's. The problem I see that has been pointed out is that, if the battle is going to be a lottery, there is not an incentive for a "risk averse" (aka sensible or experienced player) to engage in combat and thus the option for shooting/uncatchable armies. If there was a PoA, for example, for deploying in a deeper formation than the enemy (it can be phrased so that when no other PoA's apply, maybe just in melee, etc) then you can see an incentive to engage in combat where you can create those advantages. Other PoA's can be thought for specific situations. The stone, paper, scissors part would be encouraged that way.

Moreover, if you had to roll 5's when even, 4's a PoA up and 3's ++PoA, the combat would be less bloody (less random at even) and players would have more control of it. If you can count that your infantry line can hold for a couple of turns, you can think of plans relying on it. Now it is an ilusion to expect a hand to hand combat last more than four rounds. That gives you barely two turns.

[grahambriggs]

If there was a PoA, for example, for deploying in a deeper formation than the enemy (it can be phrased so that when no other PoA's apply, maybe just in melee, etc) then you can see an incentive to engage in combat where you can create those advantages. Other PoA's can be thought for specific situations. The stone, paper, scissors part would be encouraged that way.

There might not be a PoA but there is often a benefit to deploying deeper:

- two ranks is usually better than one.
- Deploying in more ranks than can actually fight gives you reserves. e.g. three ranks of spears fighting two ranks of spears has an advantage.
- three rank formations are tougher against shooting
- three rank formations take longer to get to 25% casualties
- if the army deplys deep, generals can cover more of it
- most armies won't cover the width of the table wahtever you do, so will have flanks. A deeper army will have just as many flanks as a shallow one

Not necessarily killer advantages, but advantages nonetheless.

[lawrenceg]

I think Tim's point is that many combats net out to 0 POA, for example,

armoured sword is the "standard" POA
If you have less armour you are usually heavy weapon to cancel the opponent's better armour.
If you are protected you are usually spear to cancel the opponent's sword.

Hence instead of the game being mostly one of trying to match scissors, paper, rock versus paper, rock, scissors, which Tim thinks is more fun, it is mostly a lottery with only a few fights obviously influenced by player skill, which Tim thinks is less fun.

Fun is subjective.

The degree of sensitivity of game results to player skill could be assessed by looking at the spread of player ELO ratings, rather than the anecdotal evidence that a few players are posting here.

[rogerg]

In DBM a difference of only one factor meant the troops stayed out of combat. One of the best things in FoG is that there is a lot of combat, because both sides have opportunities to win.

[grahambriggs]

I also wonder if shooting/skirmishing is a tactic favoured by a number of successful tourney players because they have realised that no matter how you work to engineer it, unless you can make flank attacks combat is often a bit of an even's POA lottery ?

Partly, but shooters get lots of other opportunities:

Buying the right type of shooters (generally, the ones that can't be caught) is a little bit of "heads I win tails you don't". But it also has the benefit that good shooters can affect quite a wide area (advance and shoot is 9-11MU distance at which they can do something).

There's also the case that it can have a faster snowballing effect than close combat. In close combat the sides are pretty much locked together base on base until breaks occur, then you have to pursue, which often takes you away from juicy targets. Shooters, on the other hand can do a fair amount of wheeling to focus the arrows and don't have to pursue when the enemy breaks.

Also, shooting takes the initiative away from the enemy - they have to close or get shot down.