Slitherine

In a lot of cases being Superior and having a general will compensate for being a POA down in the Impact phase. This is then compounded when in several interactions the POA's swing in the melee phase.

I am thinking
- Lancer Swordsmen v Bow Swordsmen
- Impact Foot v Impact Foot (Romans v Barbarians)
- JLS Light Horse v Bow Swordsmen LH
- Knights / Cataphracts v Spearmen

So, in order to make the impact phase actually count for something (it is only one round of combat after all) I thought it might be worth making the POA's more worthwhile.

One way to achieve this would be to say that Grading Re-rolls don't apply in the impact phase. This would thereby make charging in at impact a more risky transaction if you are at a -ve POA.

Just a thought. Comments appreciated.

dave_r wrote:In a lot of cases being Superior and having a general will compensate for being a POA down in the Impact phase. This is then compounded when in several interactions the POA's swing in the melee phase.

I am thinking
- Lancer Swordsmen v Bow Swordsmen
- Impact Foot v Impact Foot (Romans v Barbarians)
- JLS Light Horse v Bow Swordsmen LH
- Knights / Cataphracts v Spearmen

So, in order to make the impact phase actually count for something (it is only one round of combat after all) I thought it might be worth making the POA's more worthwhile.

One way to achieve this would be to say that Grading Re-rolls don't apply in the impact phase. This would thereby make charging in at impact a more risky transaction if you are at a -ve POA.

Just a thought. Comments appreciated.

Interesting thought.

One would need to consider the effects on superior troops who have an advantage or are evens in impact and disadvantage in melee. They would be worse off.

dave_r wrote:So, in order to make the impact phase actually count for something (it is only one round of combat after all) I thought it might be worth making the POA's more worthwhile.
One way to achieve this would be to say that Grading Re-rolls don't apply in the impact phase. .

Interesting idea. I suppose you could rationalise it that it doesn't matter that much how good a fighter you are in the initial clash - it's more about weight of numbers, speed of impact, etc.

It would certainly benefit barbarians in the barbarians vs Romans match-up and spearmen in the cavalry vs spearmen match-up (both the subject of recent discussion). It would also improve Poor troops somewhat, so we might see more of them on the table.

However, it doesn't necessarily make the impact phase count any more. It won't have any effect if both BGs are the same quality. The obvious way to make the impact count for more would be to have three dice per base at impact instead of two.

It's an interesting idea. That would mean that generals could only be committed to combat in the melee phase, which is not necessarily wrong (the only one leading charges that I can recall was Alexander). The only "but" I can see is the charge of single line poor BG's to gamble. I am thinking of raw legionaries and alike.

Another way to make impact phase count more (and I fully agree that it should), as suggested on another thread, is to use impact POAs in the initial round of melee.

I assume impact shooting would only count in the initial impact and not in the 1st round of melee with what you are suggesting.

Rob

Maybe we are playing a different game but every time my superior units roll a 1 my re-roll is only a 2!

Making impact more critical is an interesting consideration. What if you fail a cohesion test after loosing in impact you drop two levels. That certainly will create an impact on the game.

Mike b

I think using impact POAs for the first turn's melee would be a great idea. You'd get two turns of impact then and it would be half to a third of close combat instead of a quarter or way less.

Crazy alternate thought - what if both sides made CT checks after impact? Obviously the negative modifiers wouldn't pile up on the winner, but there would still be a chance that pike/spear was made unsteady by the impact even if they rolled well and won.

Using impact POAs for the charging player's initial melee would give those bases contacted by conforming chargers an initial impact resolution as well. Please give evaders (which did not evade in the impact phase) an option to evade when contacted by conforming enemy, though.

iversonjm wrote:Another way to make impact phase count more (and I fully agree that it should), as suggested on another thread, is to use impact POAs in the initial round of melee.

I think this idea is interesting, more so than everyone being average.

A huge difference in hits inflicted in impact (or melee) does not really count for much. For example, if I inflict 6 and you inflict 4, then you will usually suffer a -2 CT (assuming no other modifiers). Likewise, if I inflict 6 and you inflict none, you will still only suffer a -2 CT. Maybe a CT modifier should be based on actual numerical difference, rather than just a threshold. Applying something like this only in impact would make wide disparities in casualties more likely to result in a two step drop.

Just a thought.

Rob

Another thought on this issue would be something like allowing a BG to double drop on the impact phase on a modified 2-3 instead of just a modified 2.

More of a chance of the charge having a disastrous effect, etc.


I can tend to agree with the idea that impacts don't seem as important as maybe they should, but I don't like the idea of removing unit grading on impact to achieve that effect.

This would not help superior impact foot much (i.e. Almughavers, them gallic naked fellas I can never rember how to spell etc but especially the Almughavers). If they dont disrupt the enemy at impact they genraly dont do it at all. Being superior then, just means it takes a longer to die.

Dave, I agree with Matt. This will really make it difficult for any troops whose best chance is at impact. e.g. Moogs, Soldurii, Ancient British Elites, Tuaregs, the unprotected biblical IF.

I'd try to stay away from exceptions as much as possible. (You always get TQ rerolls, except at impact, or You only drop two on a 2 or less, except at impact). I know we have some of those already but not very many.

I think things like that would all be showing up on the FoG 2.0 Most Commonly Misplayed Rule thread in a year.

A modifier is easier to see and doesn't require another table. A global -1 for losing impact for example.

ethan wrote:

iversonjm wrote:Another way to make impact phase count more (and I fully agree that it should), as suggested on another thread, is to use impact POAs in the initial round of melee.

I think this idea is interesting, more so than everyone being average.

I like this idea for troops who will stick in melee. However, the mounted vs foot interaction would break down a bit. At present the balance here is good; an impact, a melee, a break off. It's sometimes a fine judgement whether to commit the mounted as a result. An extra impact phase would upset this balance.

Robert241167 wrote:I assume impact shooting would only count in the initial impact and not in the 1st round of melee with what you are suggesting.

Rob

Yes, my thought was to use the impact POAs in the initial melee, but continue to calculate dice as normal, i.e. no support shooting and 1 die per base in the front two ranks, etc.

grahambriggs wrote:

ethan wrote:

iversonjm wrote:Another way to make impact phase count more (and I fully agree that it should), as suggested on another thread, is to use impact POAs in the initial round of melee.

I think this idea is interesting, more so than everyone being average.

I like this idea for troops who will stick in melee. However, the mounted vs foot interaction would break down a bit. At present the balance here is good; an impact, a melee, a break off. It's sometimes a fine judgement whether to commit the mounted as a result. An extra impact phase would upset this balance.

I actually think this would fix what I see as an existing imbalance. IMHO spears and pikes are underpowered against lancer types, and MF bows/sword are overpowered against lancer types, precisely because the heavier armor (for the lancers) and swords (for the bowmen) even things out in the first melee phase. Having to disorder the foot and stick in before those POAs would be brought to bear would produce (again IMHO) a more historical interaction between at least those troop types.

If a second round of "impact poa's" be introduced, would Bg's be allowed to expand and or count overlaps?

I don't think that fighting two impacts is a good idea - it is too easy to forget which round of melee you are in and breaks one of the fundamental rules of FoG in that you have to remember something - i.e. when you are in the melee phase you have to remember if you have fought the impact melee.

Also creates many, many more problems like the one Briggs and the Mouse have raised.