Slitherine

Hi All,

I really think that the disparity between drilled and undrilled needs to be looked at.

I'm sure everyone already knows this, but having just played a game last night where drilled walked all over my undrilled with me not being able to do a thing about it really raised the issue with me.

The points that came up were as follows:

My enemy being able to 'contract whilst stationary' and then make a minimal wheel effectively took a unit of my undrilled knights out of the game.

My enemy being able to 'break up my line' by being able to do 90degree turns and move with his drilled bow, and my being unable to even wheel to follow unless passing a CMT meant that he could easily concentrate his power where he wanted to.

My enemy having a light infantry formation 3.9" away from my medium infantry means I either don't move OR charge him away (which may be tactically disadvantageous at the time).

Now, everyone is going to say 'you should have played against that' but often you can't.

The disparity between drilled and undrilled is HUGE and the points don't show that. Either (in my opinion) the rules have to be radically changed, or the points radically changed.

Proof need only be pointed at the top ranked armies. I don't see many undrilled heavy foot armies being used. You have to get down to number 34 before we see any 'undrilled heavy foot' army being used.

Thoughts?

There is and has been a good amount of debate on this in the V 2 forum.

Most of it has centered around the excessive strength of turn and move. But all your points have had various advocates. I have no idea how close the authors wnat to come to your views but I would say my observation is at least a full step in your direction.

The one v 1 game point on the wheel is undrilled with a general can wheel without a CMT. That includes battlelines.

One other point I think the negatives of undrilled decrease as the troop density increases. WHich may or not be helpfu to point out.

hazelbark wrote:There is and has been a good amount of debate on this in the V 2 forum.

Hi Hazelbark,

Thanks for the information.

Most of it has centered around the excessive strength of turn and move. But all your points have had various advocates. I have no idea how close the authors wnat to come to your views but I would say my observation is at least a full step in your direction.

I've said before (somewhere) that it's actually tactically a lot easier to do a 180 degree turn and move, but they removed this for game play purposes... and I can understand that. Personally, I believe that any kind of manoeuver is pretty much impossible once the battle is set, but I understand that manoeuver is what makes the game an enjoyable passtime rather than a historical bit of biff. That said, hamstringing the undrilled so much means that the unhistorically manoeuvering drilled run rings around the undrilled. Personally, I think practically anything a drilled could do an undrilled should be able to do, with the drilled doing it easier and the undrilled finding it harder.

The one v 1 game point on the wheel is undrilled with a general can wheel without a CMT. That includes battlelines.

Yes, so the 'cheaper' undrilled 8 base Offensive Spearmen costs 8 points less, but needs a 35 point general . If you have a battle line of 4BG's (which you can't control with 1x TC) you get the general (which you basically need to be able to manoeuver at all!) for free(ish).

The question, I guess, is how many people would take a battle line of 4 BG's of Offensive spearmen undrilled if the option was there to have them drilled? Not many. Why? Because drilled are so much better. They are less likely to do an uncontrolled advance. They have manoeuver's available to them that the undrilled can only dream of. They can wheel whenever they like - with or without a general. They can move less than maximum whenever they like. All of this for the low price of 8 points a BG! That's a bargain, and everyone can see it.

I hope you're right that our fearless leaders are looking at it, but I think it's more than the 90degree turn and move. It's the overall 'I'm a pile of molasses in winter' for the undrilled vs 'I'm greased lightning' for the drilled!

Ultimately, I don't even mind the rules as written, except that the cost of being drilled should be a lot more to compensate for the increase in manoeuverability.

One other point I think the negatives of undrilled decrease as the troop density increases. WHich may or not be helpfu to point out.

Not sure what you're saying here. You're saying 'if you have 900 points it is less of a problem than if you have 650 points'?

If so, I can certainly see this as a possibility. Perhaps we need to increase the points of the games!

Now, I'm off to grumble about something else

Good gaming all.

hazelbark wrote:There is and has been a good amount of debate on this in the V 2 forum.

Hi Hazelbark,

Thanks for the information.

Most of it has centered around the excessive strength of turn and move. But all your points have had various advocates. I have no idea how close the authors wnat to come to your views but I would say my observation is at least a full step in your direction.

I've said before (somewhere) that it's actually tactically a lot easier to do a 180 degree turn and move, but they removed this for game play purposes... and I can understand that. Personally, I believe that any kind of manoeuver is pretty much impossible once the battle is set, but I understand that manoeuver is what makes the game an enjoyable passtime rather than a historical bit of biff. That said, hamstringing the undrilled so much means that the unhistorically manoeuvering drilled run rings around the undrilled. Personally, I think practically anything a drilled could do an undrilled should be able to do, with the drilled doing it easier and the undrilled finding it harder.

The one v 1 game point on the wheel is undrilled with a general can wheel without a CMT. That includes battlelines.

Yes, so the 'cheaper' undrilled 8 base Offensive Spearmen costs 8 points less, but needs a 35 point general . If you have a battle line of 4BG's (which you can't control with 1x TC) you get the general (which you basically need to be able to manoeuver at all!) for free(ish).

The question, I guess, is how many people would take a battle line of 4 BG's of Offensive spearmen undrilled if the option was there to have them drilled? Not many. Why? Because drilled are so much better. They are less likely to do an uncontrolled advance. They have manoeuver's available to them that the undrilled can only dream of. They can wheel whenever they like - with or without a general. They can move less than maximum whenever they like. All of this for the low price of 8 points a BG! That's a bargain, and everyone can see it.

I hope you're right that our fearless leaders are looking at it, but I think it's more than the 90degree turn and move. It's the overall 'I'm a pile of molasses in winter' for the undrilled vs 'I'm greased lightning' for the drilled!

Ultimately, I don't even mind the rules as written, except that the cost of being drilled should be a lot more to compensate for the increase in manoeuverability.

One other point I think the negatives of undrilled decrease as the troop density increases. WHich may or not be helpfu to point out.

Not sure what you're saying here. You're saying 'if you have 900 points it is less of a problem than if you have 650 points'?

If so, I can certainly see this as a possibility. Perhaps we need to increase the points of the games!

Now, I'm off to grumble about something else

Good gaming all.

ravenflight wrote:

One other point I think the negatives of undrilled decrease as the troop density increases. WHich may or not be helpfu to point out.

Not sure what you're saying here. You're saying 'if you have 900 points it is less of a problem than if you have 650 points'?

If so, I can certainly see this as a possibility. Perhaps we need to increase the points of the games!

Well a lot of people are increasing the points of the game in different places.

I think that Dan's point about larger armies is that the need to do complex maneuvering with undrilled troops is generally reduced. With less open space on flanks and more troops to maintain a line, it is often easier to just move undrilled troops forward in to combat.

Chris

The trouble with making drilled cost a lot more than undrilled is that then the owner of the drilled troops *must* wrongfoot their opponents in order to make up for a large numerical inferiority in a straight-up fight.

ShrubMiK wrote:The trouble with making drilled cost a lot more than undrilled is that then the owner of the drilled troops *must* wrongfoot their opponents in order to make up for a large numerical inferiority in a straight-up fight.

Yes, and it would present real hordes of troops against a few barely able to present a single line to face them, which does not seem quite right. I would seek the solution rather in limiting the movement of drilled or making that extra mobility more risky. In fact, some of the problems that arise between drilled and undrilled appear in the last stages of battles, when lines have been broken. In most of these cases I find that the problem with game mechanics is that the battle should be over and one side should be able to call the victory BEFORE the battle turns into a general guerilla battle.

Agreed.

I'm happy in general with the idea that drilled troops can be distinguished from undrilled, and that the former can do fancier stuff and react quicker/ more easily to changing circumstances, but it does seem that drilled are a bit too nimble and undrilled a bit too flatfooted in general.

The ability to perform grand imaginative wrong-footing manoeuvres ought really to depend as much on the ability of the commanders as the training of the troops. Okay, to a limited extent this is reflected by having commanders aid the CMT rolls, but that's not enough of a reflection of the differing abilities of commanders in real life IMO.

My thoughts for what its worth:

The restrictions on undrilled troops within 6" of enemy seem a little harsh, to to point of being illogical.

At the very least undrilled troops should always have the option to wheel towards the neerest enemy without a CMT.

Other options could be:
Turn 90 or 180 to face the nearest enemy.
Wheel to face an enemy (not necessarily the nearest).
Advance less than maximum move in certain situations, such as to maintain formation with other friendly units.

These would reduce the ability of drilled to "dance" out of the path of oncoming undrilled enemy.
While I agree that undrilled units shouldn't have the flexibility of drilled, the rules as they stand at the moment in many cases preclude them from doing the very sort of thing they would be inclined to do irrespective of orders from higher up, that is react to nearby enemy units. I seem to recall that this is one of the things already suggested for cahange in V2 rules.

IanP wrote:My thoughts for what its worth:

The restrictions on undrilled troops within 6" of enemy seem a little harsh, to to point of being illogical.

At the very least undrilled troops should always have the option to wheel towards the neerest enemy without a CMT.

Other options could be:
Turn 90 or 180 to face the nearest enemy.
Wheel to face an enemy (not necessarily the nearest).
Advance less than maximum move in certain situations, such as to maintain formation with other friendly units.

These would reduce the ability of drilled to "dance" out of the path of oncoming undrilled enemy.
While I agree that undrilled units shouldn't have the flexibility of drilled, the rules as they stand at the moment in many cases preclude them from doing the very sort of thing they would be inclined to do irrespective of orders from higher up, that is react to nearby enemy units. I seem to recall that this is one of the things already suggested for cahange in V2 rules.

In FOG:R "difficult moves" have been scrapped. I hope they run with this idea in FOG:AM v2. Anyone know if this is in the list of changes?

Walter

ShrubMiK wrote:The trouble with making drilled cost a lot more than undrilled is that then the owner of the drilled troops *must* wrongfoot their opponents in order to make up for a large numerical inferiority in a straight-up fight.

Valid point... which means if my postulation is correct and radically changing the points isn't the solution, then a radical changing of the manoeuver rules is required. Since I'm not a play tester I can't really comment on what I think of the suggested changes, but am pleased with the 'feeling' in this thread.

waldo wrote: In FOG:R "difficult moves" have been scrapped. I hope they run with this idea in FOG:AM v2. Anyone know if this is in the list of changes?

Walter

No its not sorry

ShrubMiK wrote:The trouble with making drilled cost a lot more than undrilled is that then the owner of the drilled troops *must* wrongfoot their opponents in order to make up for a large numerical inferiority in a straight-up fight.

No reason why that should be "trouble".

The trick is to pitch the point difference so that enough players can still wrongfoot their opponents with their lesser numbers of troops.

Otherwise drilled troops would have no extra cost at all.

I wouldn't like to see a situation where players can automatically win games simply by using troops that are more intelligent than they (the players) are.

From a game balance perspective, most things can be solved by getting the points differences right.

But from the perspective of making tabletop battles look similar to real ones it may not be so easy, that's my point.

david53 wrote:

waldo wrote: In FOG:R "difficult moves" have been scrapped. I hope they run with this idea in FOG:AM v2. Anyone know if this is in the list of changes?

Walter

No its not sorry

Ok, thanks. Looks like those poor undrilled will still have their feet stuck in the mud then!

Walter

I've just been thinking more about this in the last couple of days.

I'm thinking that another part of the problem has to do with the VMD.

A battleline has a 4:6 chance of being broken up because of VMD. A break up that undrilled are very unlikely to be able to fix. Additionally, it is vastly more difficult to get 'to within a bee's dick' of the skirmisher line to increase your chance of catching them with a +/- VMD. So effectively the increase in effect of skirmishers is higher vs undrilled than drilled.

But undrilled being more susceptible to getting themselves in trouble due to unwise charges seems fair enough to me. You don't want to go too far down the path of making undrilled and drilled indistinguishable!

Having your own skirmisher screen, or some MF/cab close by who can charge out in front of your HF to clear the way, might be indicated...

ShrubMiK wrote:But undrilled being more susceptible to getting themselves in trouble due to unwise charges seems fair enough to me. You don't want to go too far down the path of making undrilled and drilled indistinguishable!

Sure, but if you're going to do that you've got to price the undrilled accordingly. Remembering that this is a game not a historical simulation. I don't know any historical battles where one general said to the other 'you bring 800 points of your boys, and I'll bring 800 points of mine and we'll duke it out'. We try to make it historically accurate, but since you're using points they have to balance out... or the rules have to compensate.

I refer back to my original post... if you have to get to ranking number 34 before you've got a reasonable 'Undrilled foot force' (what's more that's the Foederate's, so it's likely to be a drilled foot force anyway) then there is seriously something wrong with the rules to make undrilled foot so pathetic in open comp.

I accept the rules are better suited for themes, but we've got to be realistic too!

ShrubMiK wrote: Having your own skirmisher screen, or some MF/cab close by who can charge out in front of your HF to clear the way, might be indicated...

Yes, and an army like the Vikings have SO many skirmishers and/or MF to deal this kind of deal, and I imagine that there are many armies in similar situations.