Slitherine

During many games I have been playing for a few months now, I or my opponent had many opportunities to break through or around the lines and get the chance to go for the bagages.

In most of the case, the choice was made to keep the battle group struggling or putting a threat on the flank/rear of the ennemy.

We had this question again yesterday evening in a friendly game where we thought that it was not worth loosing a BG to plunder bagages for 2 points when this BG could help win more surely the game going on fighting the main line.

Should the bagages loss be more critical ? I really think that the bagages is not an aim in the plan at the moment...

Your opinion ?

Pikeaddict wrote: Should the bagages loss be more critical ? I really think that the bagages is not an aim in the plan at the moment...

Nor was it historically as a rule.

Nor was it historically as a rule.

Yes, but historically, the armies tried to, at least, defend their bagages. In Fog, you don't need to in most cases..

If you increase the cost of losing bagages to 3 or 4 (at least when they are looted by non skirmishers), the effect of losing them will still be low on the army, but not insignificant, as it is now.


Lionel

Nor was it historically as a rule.

Yes, but historically, the armies tried to, at least, defend their bagages. In Fog, you don't need to in most cases..

If you increase the cost of losing bagages to 3 or 4 (at least when they are looted by non skirmishers), the effect of losing them will still be low on the army, but not insignificant, as it is now.


Lionel

Personally I think the current system provides a good balance.

2 points could tip the balance between loss and defeat but on its own is not decisive.

Increasing the value of the camp could adversely affect how the game plays.

Pete

I agree on the fact that 2 points are important, but not important enough to dedicate a BG to this task as you could need it in the battle line.

The problem I see is that you see sometimes battle lines organized with nothing in the centre or completely off balance compared to where the bagages are. This means that players don't care about their bagages and supply or retreat line because their loss would mean only 2 points when historically, it would mean much more, especially on the moral of the troops...

Maybe an impact on the moral tests of the army ?

Jerome

When faced with a much more mobile opponent you sometimes have to conceded that if you attack then he will sweep round you and get the baggage. If loss of the baggage was more critical then the temptation would be to sit on the base line defending it.

I think starting effectively one lost unit down is quite sufficient. It is difficult enough against a more mobile opponent.

Maybe an impact on the moral tests of the army ?

Jerome

That's a great suggestion Jerome - probably too late in the day to be used.....but you never know.

Pete

When faced with a much more mobile opponent you sometimes have to conceded that if you attack then he will sweep round you and get the baggage. If loss of the baggage was more critical then the temptation would be to sit on the base line defending it.

I think starting effectively one lost unit down is quite sufficient. It is difficult enough against a more mobile opponent.

Of course it is very easy to loot ennemy bagages with a BG of LH (or LF). Personally, I don't think that in this case the rules should be changed.

But if the bagages are looted by some heavy troops a more significant effect should happen. The effect on the moral to have some ennemy skirmishers sitting on your retreat / communication line is not very important, but if the ennemy is a full Gauls tribe or cataphracts unit ?

Lionel

Hi all,

Another comment about bagages :

I am not sure if the comparison is entirely sensible but in DBM, your bagages = 40 % of your army demoralisation level (with 60 EE). You can protect the bagages wwith 7 TF (1.75 % of your 400 AP budget).
In FOG, your bagages = 17 % of your army demoralisation level (12 BG). You can protect the bagages with 24 AP (3 % of your budget).
Who will choose to have protected bagages ?


Is it what was intended ?



Lionel

Lionelc62 wrote:Hi all,

Another comment about bagages :

I am not sure if the comparison is entirely sensible but in DBM, your bagages = 40 % of your army demoralisation level (with 60 EE). You can protect the bagages wwith 7 TF (1.75 % of your 400 AP budget).
In FOG, your bagages = 17 % of your army demoralisation level (12 BG). You can protect the bagages with 24 AP (3 % of your budget).
Who will choose to have protected bagages ?


Is it what was intended ?



Lionel

I wouldn't choose to pay for baggage defence with Latin Greece or Parthians (the two armies I have used so far in competitions) simply because those armies are sufficiently big and flexible to make a breakthrough to the baggage unlikely and should it happen its loss would not be catastrophic and probably compensated by wiping out the raiders. However, using a medieval army with probably 9 BGs and a very limited manoeuverability to counter an enemy move on the baggage I think 24 points spent on camp guards is money well spent.

At the end of the day it all depends on the army you choose and how you intend to use it which will determine whether it is worth it or not. Personally, I am happy with the rules as they stand.

Julian

16.75% but 17% was the closest we could get

We feel the balance is about right. In most historical battles commander would prefer to use troops to win great victory rather than have them loot the camps there and then. After all the camp isn't going anywhere and is there to be looted later once veryone is massacred. In game balance we find the 2 points to be a good incentive but not one to be taken lightly as you can get wrapped up for some time - which is historical again. This mechanism is partly there to reflect the fact that even unfortified camps have camp guards to try to get in the way so sacking a camp is not without risk.

Certainly the potential 40% in DBM seems far too high to us - it is hard to see an army in good tact running away due to its camp being scaked - revenge is a more likely emotion in such circumstances.

In my own games I have stayed ot of camp sacking more than tried it. I tend to se it as a good way to finish off the morale of a wobbly opposing army - which again feels historical to me.

Hope that makes sense

Si

We feel the balance is about right. In most historical battles commander would prefer to use troops to win great victory rather than have them loot the camps there and then. After all the camp isn't going anywhere and is there to be looted later once veryone is massacred. In game balance we find the 2 points to be a good incentive but not one to be taken lightly as you can get wrapped up for some time - which is historical again. This mechanism is partly there to reflect the fact that even unfortified camps have camp guards to try to get in the way so sacking a camp is not without risk.

Certainly the potential 40% in DBM seems far too high to us - it is hard to see an army in good tact running away due to its camp being scaked - revenge is a more likely emotion in such circumstances.

In my own games I have stayed ot of camp sacking more than tried it. I tend to se it as a good way to finish off the morale of a wobbly opposing army - which again feels historical to me.

Hope that makes sense

Si

Ok. Thanks for your answer.

Lionel

shall wrote: In my own games I have stayed ot of camp sacking more than tried it. I tend to se it as a good way to finish off the morale of a wobbly opposing army - which again feels historical to me.

I've found in my games with Huns it's always worth sacking the baggage, (a) because it takes effectively a BG off the other side and (b) because I try to get at least one BG round there anyway to stop the other chap rallying/provide shooting support/be a general pain in the (excuse the pun) arse

I would suppose that army choice and play style make the difference here, which to a certain degree can be seen as historical

Regards
Huw