Slitherine

The points system that FOG-PC uses has been taken from the tabletop FOG wargame. Whilst it is the policy of the designers to adhere to the TT as much as possible, certain unforeseen discrepancies have from time to time occurred which I believe brings imbalance to the PC game.

I have played countless games over the past year, including league games, tournaments, friendlies and scenarios both against players and the PC. Over this time I have gotten to know which are the good armies and which are the poor ones. It is my mission in writing this post to try to rebalance things so that the powerful armies cost a little more and the weak armies cost a little less.

Lancer vs Shooty Cavalry
Whilst Shooty Cav is acknowledged as being very strong on the tabletop, on the PC it seem woefully underpowered in relation to their points cost. Shooting just isn't the killer it is on the TT. On the TT a lance costs just 1pt whereas a Sw/Bw combo costs 5pts!
I suggest that a Sw/Bw should cost 2pts (1pt each)

Skirmisher javelin v Skirmisher bow/sling
The sling and the javelin cost 0pts the bow cost 1pt. This seems fair on paper because the Javelinman is slightly better in combat. But in reality, combat with skirmishers only happens when they are trapped and cant evade and more than likely hit in the rear in the same move. It doesn't matter if you have a javelin or a sling/bow when hit in the rear, it is just as painful either way. Also, with shooting, range is king. Why? Because the biggest fear of a skirmisher is getting surrounded and trapped. When you are only 1 hex away, which a javelinman has to be to get a shot off, any 3 hex mover nearby can cut off his retreat and kill him. Slingers and Archers do not suffer this problem so much.
I propose skirmisher with J (LH and LF) cost 1 point less (i.e. -1pts)

LH v LF
Under the current points system LH cost the same as Cav and are 1 or 2pts more expensive than a similarly armed LF depending on whether they are Avg/Poor or Elite/Sup. But on the crowded battlefields of the PC game a LF is far more useful than a LH. Although a LH can move further and beat up on a LF in the open, it suffers from wild uncontrollable evade moves, often sending it disruptively through allied HF/MF, it can rarely catch a LF because of the LF's extreme manoeuvrability and it can't interpetetrate HF/MF to get their shots off or get into position, the LF can interpenetrate anything.
I propose that LH cost the same as LF.

Pike vs Offensive Spear
All things being equal, on the PC a pike army will usually cream a hoplite spear army (even if armoured). Pike is the king of weapons on the PC and whereas I'm happy with the spear being an average yardstick weapon, I'm not happy that an OF Sp cost 2 pts and a pike cost 0pts.
I propose both Pk and OF Sp cost 1pt each.

MF Offensive Spear vs HW, Sw, LS, Impact Foot
The whole point of MF is that they are rough going troops. So why give MF an Offensive Spear which doesn't work in disordering terrain? Also, OF Sp have a disadvantage of going anarchy whereas HW and Sw do not. So why make him pay 2pts for it when a Sw or Impact Foot cost just 1pt?
I propose that OF Sp cost 1pt.

I can't comment on the comparisons versus the TT, I don't play shooty cavalry armies, so I can't comment on the 1st point raised and I don't really follow the point values that Ian is quoting, Offensive Spear 2pts, Pike 0pts?

But I do agree with all the other points raised.

My inspiration for writing this article came about because Slitherine are currently working on FOG v2.0 for tabletop miniatures and there is a huge discussion about changes that might be made to the current rules. As FOG-PC is a slightly different animal to the TT version I thought I'd give my 2 cents about how FOG-PC v2.0 should go.

The points system in FOG gives a Basic cost for a foot soldier and a Basic cost for a mounted soldier based upon their quality and armour type, then it adds a muliplier based on what weapon(s) they use. For foot soldiers: Sword +1, Offensive Spear +2, Defensive Spear +1, Impact foot +1, Heavy Weapon +2, Bow +1 etc. For mounted: Sword +2, Lance +1, Light Spear +1, Bow +3 etc.

Because I feel there is a bit of an imbalance since the game was converted over to the PC, I thought I'd try to sort out where these imbalances lie and suggest how to put them right.

Some examples:

Lancer: Cav Armoured Superior Undrilled ---- Lance,Sword 16pts
Horse Archer: Cav Armoured Superior Undrilled Bow, Sword 18pts

As it currently stands the lancer is much cheaper than the horse archer, this would lead you to believe that the horse archer is more useful than a lancer. But if I were designing an army for FOG-PC I know which I would prefer between 12 lancers and 12 horse archers!

Putting my proposal into action would see the Lancer cost 17pts and the HorseArcher 16pts.

Lancer: Cav Armoured Superior Undrilled ---- Lance,Sword 16pts new=17pts
Horse Archer: Cav Armoured Superior Undrilled Bow, Sword 18pts new=16pts

Much fairer! Now Saracen armies might stand a better chance against the Crusaders instead of the near whitewash that the current league games are resulting in.

My other suggestions would result in the following:

Light Horse LH Unprot Avg Undrilled Jav LS 7pts new= 3pts
Horse Archer LH Unprot Avg Undrilled --- Bow 8pts new= 5pts
Javelinman LF Unprot Avg Undrilled Jav LS 4pts new= 3pts
Slinger LF Unprot Avg Undrilled Sling 4pts new= 4pts
Archer LF Unprot Avg Undrilled Bow 5pts new= 5pts

Pikeman HF Prot Avg Drill Pk 11pts new=12pts
Hoplite HF Prot Avg Drill OFSp 8pts new=7pts

Gaul MF Prot Avg Undrill IF Sw 7pts new=7pts
Thracian MF Avg Undrill HW 7pts new=7pts
Illyrian MF Avg Undrill OFSp 7pts new=6pts

In my opinion these small changes might balance the army lists out a bit and provide unfavoured army lists with a bit of loving for a change

All discussion is welcome though no promises on what will change

I quite understand

As I've gradually got to know the game I have noticed a few minor imbalances in the relative "strength to cost" ratio of some of the troop types, so I thought I'd get some of my thoughts posted here for posterity!

Looking forward to FOG 2.0. Not that I think there is much wrong with FOG 1.0, I'm just a new content junkie

I think there is an imbalance in certain troop costs, especially since the rules were changed to allow troops to change their charge response status. This has altered the balance to favor somewhat those troops who can choose. Now when I charge Light Spear cavalry, I am not sure if they will stand or evade. This gives them an advantage they never had before.

Having said that, I do agree with Ian that Light horse is over priced compared to light foot and to cavalry. My recommendation moves in the direction of what Ian proposed, but not quite as far. Right now, LH, Cv and Cm all have the same point costs. I propose that LH would have its own point costs, as follows:

Armoured Elite - 14 - reduced from 16
Armoured Superior - 12 - reduced from 13
Armoured Average - 8 - reduced from 9
Armoured Poor - 5 - reduced from 6

Protected Elite - 10 - reduced from 11
Protected Superior - 8 - reduced from 9
Protected Average - 5 - reduced from 6
Protected Poor - 4 - same

UnPro Elite - 8 - reduced from 9
UnPro Superior - 6 - reduced from 7
UnPro Average - 4 - reduced from 5
UnPro Poor - 3 - same

I think mounted bows should cost 2 points instead of 3 points; however, similar to the TT, I think that bow, crossbow and longbow ranges should be divided into effective range at 3 hexes; and outside effective range at 5 hexes. Sling range should be dropped to 3 hexes. The reason for the change is to avoid the perpetual tactic of having every missile BG that can get into range shooting at the same target repeatedly. I do not think that this is historical and the change would reduce this occurence.

I agree with Ian's suggestion on the Offensive Spear being reduced to 1 point instead of 2 points, as long as Offensive Spears continue to be regarded as shock troops and subject to anarchy. Personally, I do not see why armoured HI with heavy weapons should not be shock troops and MI peltasts should be, or why Persian Immortals should not be shock troops!

If Offensive Spears are reduced to one point, I would leave pike costs as they are. I think the balance between pikes and HI impact foot is reasonable.

My suggestion on bow ranges in the last post were intented for foot bows. The TT rules have mounted bows at 4, so I would reduce them to 3 hexes in the PC version. I am basing these suggestions to reduce ranges partially on the difference in the TT rules in movement distances compared with the PC version. For example, HI in the open moves 3 in the TT and 2 in the PC rules. All of the movement distances seem to be reduced by 1 from the TT rules to the PC, so it makes sense to me to reduce missile ranges as well.

Hmm, i understand where you are coming from if looking at the game on a single unit vs single unit line up , but overall disagree in the points changes and the overall effect it would have , unless the unit caps were altered for ALL the armies.

For example, changing the average protected medium offensive spears from 7 to 6 points seems like a small change, until you load up a an Illyrain army at 500points. you can buy 60 of those troops as current with basically not much else but at one point cheaper thats 60 points more to spend...... What about the welsh that would need to be dropped to 5 points as they are unprotected?
Same thing with undrilled hoplites that with your example points change would cost only 6 points.

The thing with medium offensive spears is they , even though losing the steady spear in the rough, can handle cavalry pretty well in the open which makes them a pretty good choice for the money you spend on them.

I guess i am against anyting that increases the amount of cheap chaff troops that flood a battlefield and could provide an even larger BP cushion that many armies already have.

As for lancers vs bow sword cavalry: I agree that I would rather have lancers , but that really is my play style and not necasarily my belief on their in game ability.. Bow /swords can atrit the heck out of a heavy foot amy and as a player you can chose to evade, something lancers cant do which i think is an advantage and is/should be, reflected in the cost .

The idea of having effective / long range for missle troops is intersting and would add "realism " factor to the game but unless some other big change was made methinks it would just devalue archers (especially if javelineers were made cheaper) The difference in th eTT is you play out the missle combat in a seprate phase and all the converging fire from multiple BG's on one enemy BG combines all the dice to test for cohesion hits / losses (ie a death roll) The pc game doesnt have this and you really depend on the attritional value of missle BGs in the pc game to get any effect.

Sorry of this seems negative, it just gives me the shivers to think of armies being able to purchase 20% more lf and mf hordes

As a prime offender using cheap chaff armies, I must say I'm with TGM. I like taking a mix of MF - Offensive spear, HW, Impact and Sw - I don't think any one merits a different point score, they all have their uses in different circumstances.

I also don't think light foot should be any cheaper....if anything, I would argue the increase of unprotected poor LF to 3 points, on the basis that they are as manoevrable as any LF and the missile damage is a small difference.

Light horse could drop 1 point...though they are good value if their purpose is to hunt down enemy LF.

I think crossbows may be overpriced....they are much less useful than longbows.

Underpriced: Bow* in SOA highlanders, Danish HW. Handy to fire while advancing, and no reduction to combat, unlike....
....Overpriced: Defensive spear, Bow* - rare, but the LAPersian Guard infantry is almost useless, getting no POA in melee

Nice debate though

@TGM Yep, I take your point with the 'horde' problem that would arise from a points drop for OF Sp, but I do still feel that MF OF Sp is a bit underpowered compared to other MF, and I personally would not rely on them to stop a cavalry charge!

As for Bow Cavalry shooting advancing HF, sure, but when does HF advance without Cav or even MF in support? The Bow Cav will not get many chances to turn to face, and the bowfire isn't really all that powerful. Even if you do get the odd 'D', you would be a fool to charge that HF line to take advantage of the 'D'. Playing as Latin Greeks (Knight and Def Spear) I could chase all the Bow Cav Saracen armies down without sustaining any noticeable casulties. They were all easy wins for me despite the Saracens being played by so really strong players. Personally I still feel Bow Cav should be cheaper than Lancers (perhaps much cheaper).

@DH Yes, LF are really useful, at least Bow and Slinger are. Javelinmen are useless though! Perhaps we could Increase the cost of Bow and Sling while keeping Javelin at the same cost?

As for LH, as Pantherboy demonstrated in his ROR league games, they are just a liability. They are awkward, unpredictable, extremely fragile and just get in the way of the rest of your army. I personally will never buy a LH for my armies unless I am forced to. LF do the same job, they do it better, and they do it more cheaply (at present!) Is the 1pt drop you suggest enough?

Yep, Crossbow units are overpriced. In my opinion all ranged units are overpriced because bowfire is underpowered when converted to the PC game.

Totally agree about the mixed rank units. The HW frontrow units suffer no loss in fighting power (infact there is a gain in fighting power at impact because of the shooting extra dice), whereas Spear front rank units are disadvantaged but with no points reduction.

@McE I don't believe the ability to evade or stand is all that powerful a tool. It is nice to have the option of guarding a flank once in a while or standing to avoid evading into a trap. But nine times out of ten you can guess exactly what orders your opponent has given them.

Whilst I agree that targeting one unit at a time is a bit cheesy, I think that lessening the effect of missile troops (lowering their range) would be a step in the wrong direction. Not sure what the answer is though. Perhaps some sort of variant on your idea?

LH are a liability from my perspective.

Their only real use is to run down LF. The problem there comes in many forms;
1 - Success is still infrequent unless they are 2 hexes away to start with.
2 - You are never sure where they will go when the LF evade, so often they run into silly positions where they are pinned (by blocking evade routes) and destroyed.
3 - When they do rout LF they spend the next 2 or 3 turns following and giving further hits. I'd rather have them available to chase down the next LF and don't overly worry if a LF should rally - which they generally don't.
4 - They occasionally run into MF, HF or Cavalry when chasing down evaders or routers and then take big hits which either kills them or makes them so fragile to be useless.

LH, particularly Javelin armed, are next to useless against non-skirmishers.

Morbio wrote:LH are a liability from my perspective.

Their only real use is to run down LF. The problem there comes in many forms;
1 - Success is still infrequent unless they are 2 hexes away to start with.
2 - You are never sure where they will go when the LF evade, so often they run into silly positions where they are pinned (by blocking evade routes) and destroyed.
3 - When they do rout LF they spend the next 2 or 3 turns following and giving further hits. I'd rather have them available to chase down the next LF and don't overly worry if a LF should rally - which they generally don't.
4 - They occasionally run into MF, HF or Cavalry when chasing down evaders or routers and then take big hits which either kills them or makes them so fragile to be useless.

LH, particularly Javelin armed, are next to useless against non-skirmishers.

It is interesting to me how players have different views about various units. I am playing in the league for the first time using the Brutus and Cassius army - and their list allows you to pick numerous mounted skirmishers (light horse), mainly horse archers. And I am picking quite a few of them now whether I am up against "horse" armies (Parthians, Armenians) or "pike" armies (Macedonians). I find that their attritional firing during a 20+ turn game can be very helpful indeed whether it be to whittle pike units down towards 75% so they lose a POA, or whether it is to keep enemy horse archers "honest" and on their toes in a more mobile battle. Horse archers can screen elite units just as well as anybody else and their speed allows you to quickly change your point of attack. Even against armoured cataphracts I have found them very useful in whittling down the enemy's strength so that my own "elite" units have a slight edge in any combat. And, if you are careful, you shouldn't really lose too many of them during a battle (as long as you keep an eye on the "evade" settings, of course).

In the TT, light horse (and Commanders) move 7, compared to light foot at 5. In the PC, LH moves 5 and LF 4. The easiest change to make would be to increase light horse movement to 6 in the PC (I can imagine the developers rolling their eyes at the thought of changing points in each army list.) This would improve their chance of catching LF, and once again bring the PC closer to the TT.

Since I believe that LH should have a place in every army that historically used them, I keep trying to find a use to justify their points, but am becoming more and more frustrated. Ask Davout, as I am presently chasing his Nubian LF bows all over the map and getting shot up for the exercise!

Just curious if anyone knows why the relative movement and missile ranges were changed for the PC game from the TT? Also, was it considered to have Commanders detached, as in the TT game? I will not even get into the "unit structure" in the TT and the lack thereof in the PC version, although I believe considering some form of this could address the "horde army" issue.

Doing something about the variability of combat results could also address the "horde army" issue. Right now 2 or 3 lower priced MF attack a higher priced HF in the hopes of getting a wild combat result to weaken or disorder the HF and often does just that. This allows time for flanking and then routing the HI. I proposed a slight mod to this system in the form of a bell curve to make the wildest results less frequent. The poll I sponsored indicated support for this, which also would not require programming, just changing tables.

The developers have not commented on why they chose the movement rates in the PC game, but have stated that detached leaders were to much hassle -- something I disagree with.

Doing away with BG minimums without making adjustments elsewhere to compensate, was also a big mistake in my opinion. That's why horde armies are so hugely successful on the PC. When you compare how BGs on the TT compare to the PC, the answer is obvious. Horde-style BGs are usually 12 bases minimum making them a six-base wide formation on the TT. Faced off with an eight base pike BG two bases wide, that's a lot of combat power on a small frontage. Plus, when a horde unit breaks, it leaves a huge hole in the line. On the PC, it means nothing because there are plenty more units to throw into the hole. Try and use the PC tactic of swarming around HF for numerous rear attacks on the TT with a six base wide unit. It would take several turns just to wheel them into position, assuming you could find room for them.

The system is so broken regarding horde armies, that I never use them and prefer not to face them. I would like to see changes to the PC game to force units to act together in larger formations. An average sized army on the TT is about 14 BGs regardless of who the are, but on the PC it's common the see a quality army of only 40 APs facing a horde army of more the 60. This just doesn't compute.

Deeter

deeter wrote:The developers have not commented on why they chose the movement rates in the PC game, but have stated that detached leaders were to much hassle -- something I disagree with.

Doing away with BG minimums without making adjustments elsewhere to compensate, was also a big mistake in my opinion. That's why horde armies are so hugely successful on the PC. When you compare how BGs on the TT compare to the PC, the answer is obvious. Horde-style BGs are usually 12 bases minimum making them a six-base wide formation on the TT. Faced off with an eight base pike BG two bases wide, that's a lot of combat power on a small frontage. Plus, when a horde unit breaks, it leaves a huge hole in the line. On the PC, it means nothing because there are plenty more units to throw into the hole. Try and use the PC tactic of swarming around HF for numerous rear attacks on the TT with a six base wide unit. It would take several turns just to wheel them into position, assuming you could find room for them.

The system is so broken regarding horde armies, that I never use them and prefer not to face them. I would like to see changes to the PC game to force units to act together in larger formations. An average sized army on the TT is about 14 BGs regardless of who the are, but on the PC it's common the see a quality army of only 40 APs facing a horde army of more the 60. This just doesn't compute.

Deeter

I fully agree with every point raised in this post. Horde armies, with the current leader and command rules, are simply too powerful and manouverable. This, not only from a gaming perspective but also from an historical one IMHO.

Deeter said : Horde-style BGs are usually 12 bases minimum making them a six-base wide formation on the TT. Faced off with an eight base pike BG two bases wide, that's a lot of combat power on a small frontage. Plus, when a horde unit breaks, it leaves a huge hole in the line. On the PC, it means nothing because there are plenty more units to throw into the hole. Try and use the PC tactic of swarming around HF for numerous rear attacks on the TT with a six base wide unit. It would take several turns just to wheel them into position, assuming you could find room for them.

Deeter's comment is relevant. I like to think about ways to address issues without much or any programming or significant structural changes, knowing the developers are busy and already have a schedule for the forseeable future. However, I do think it is important to continue to refine the core game.

Regarding this issue, I think that a lower level command structure, under the existing commanders, could be put in place to encourage the manuever of BGs together. I would call the new commander a "unit commander",with a range of 2 hexes. Each HF or MF BG must belong to a unit. The BG could move normally as long as within range of unit commander BG or to move closer to the unit commander's BG. Otherwise, it could move 1 hex or turn. If the unit commander's BG is routed, his "flag" is automatically moved to the nearest BG in the unit. This is just a device to promote multiple BGs moving and acting together. If the "unit commander's" BG is in range of a higher commander, then any of the unit's other BGs in range of the unit commander would also be considered in range. This would result in "units" of 4 or 5 BGs moving and acting together. I think this new "unit commander" should have a minimal cost, perhaps 5 points, to allow some flexibility in unit construction, but also to assign some cost to it. I think the process of choosing the "unit commander" and his BGs could be similar to choosing an ally general and the BGs under him.

I know I am repeating myself here, as I have suggested this before, but it seems a logical approach. I would leave light and mounted troops as is, although perhaps they should be included depending on whether or not anarchy would apply to the unit or to individual BGs under this system. If a player wanted to pay for many unit commanders, he could still have that individual pike unit chasing cavalry off into the distance or if he wanted to have that lone cavalry unit hidden in ambush, he could still do so by having a single BG unit. If light and mounted troops were added to this system, it would be possible to have mixed units, such as Roman HF with Velite LF.

I think that the look and feel of the game would change for the better as you would not see as much of the fragmentation of battle lines and BGs flying all over the board. I also think this would provide a more historically accurate simulation.

mceochaidh wrote:Regarding this issue, I think that a lower level command structure, under the existing commanders, could be put in place to encourage the manuever of BGs together. I would call the new commander a "unit commander",with a range of 2 hexes. Each HF or MF BG must belong to a unit. The BG could move normally as long as within range of unit commander BG or to move closer to the unit commander's BG. Otherwise, it could move 1 hex or turn. If the unit commander's BG is routed, his "flag" is automatically moved to the nearest BG in the unit. This is just a device to promote multiple BGs moving and acting together. If the "unit commander's" BG is in range of a higher commander, then any of the unit's other BGs in range of the unit commander would also be considered in range. This would result in "units" of 4 or 5 BGs moving and acting together. I think this new "unit commander" should have a minimal cost, perhaps 5 points, to allow some flexibility in unit construction, but also to assign some cost to it. I think the process of choosing the "unit commander" and his BGs could be similar to choosing an ally general and the BGs under him.

I know I am repeating myself here, as I have suggested this before, but it seems a logical approach. I would leave light and mounted troops as is, although perhaps they should be included depending on whether or not anarchy would apply to the unit or to individual BGs under this system. If a player wanted to pay for many unit commanders, he could still have that individual pike unit chasing cavalry off into the distance or if he wanted to have that lone cavalry unit hidden in ambush, he could still do so by having a single BG unit. If light and mounted troops were added to this system, it would be possible to have mixed units, such as Roman HF with Velite LF.

I think that the look and feel of the game would change for the better as you would not see as much of the fragmentation of battle lines and BGs flying all over the board. I also think this would provide a more historically accurate simulation.

What a wonderful idea.

I like that idea too but i think realistically this wont happen both from a technical standpoint as well a philosphical one for the game ie Slitherine aint going to add any lower level command structure since its not in the TT...

i wonder if something simpler could be done to have the same impact?

Maybe troops outside command range of a leader (existing leader structure) must pass a CMT to change facing or even move? (perhaps some troops would be exempt like light horse (would give them more value as seems a lot of players think they are junk) )

Would give a lot more incentive to buy more leaders (im a big fan of leaders but even in large ap battles i rarely take more than 3 and that is only if im maxed out other purchses)

TGM said "I like that idea too but i think realistically this wont happen both from a technical standpoint as well a philosphical one for the game ie Slitherine aint going to add any lower level command structure since its not in the TT..."

Remember that the TT has a unit structure, composed of multiple bases. This is just an attempt to give the PC basically the same thing, bringing it closer to the TT.

I do like your other idea, as it would require less programming. It is a step in the right direction. I would allow facing changes and perhaps moving one hex. I would also allow skirmish troops who fail the CMT to move away from enemy but not closer to any enemy.

Now, if we can figure out how this new system can address the horde problem...