FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

[nikgaukroger]

Another area for discussion.

A feature of the period of FoG:R is that armour fell out of use over the period - this is most clearly seen in the west, of course, however, it was also a feature in other parts of the world as well, albeit maybe to a bit of a lesser degree.

In FoG:R we have better armour giving a + PoA in melee (unless against shot) which makes it a very powerful attribute and, maybe, is a factor in some of the balance and army viability issues especially at the latter end of the rules period.

One idea that I have had is:

That the Better Armour PoA only count if either of the following apply:

Close combat opponents are Unsteady, or
You have 2 steps of armour better.

Richard has commented on the matter thus, raising the point that it may just be mounted armour as an issue:

I agree 100% that (cavalry) armour is over-rated in close combat in the game. It is the main reason I switched to 100 POA instead of 1 POA in Pike & Shot, because it allowed me to make armour advantage only count as 0.5 (50) POA.

This simple solution, unfortunately, cannot be applied to FOGR because of the monolithic POAs.

Definitely something should be done. And this would also affect the proper balance in points costs between Armoured Determined horse and Heavily Armoured Horse.

Kevin made an alternative suggestion in relation to mounted armour:

Treat Pistol as Shot, so negates armour advantage. This has the benefit of not changing the interactions in the early part of the period or for Eastern armies where the armour was a more significant factor than the 17th century.

Your thoughts and ideas please

[ravenflight]

I'm generally with Kevin on this, however still causes problems with sword armed troops such as 'Winged Hussars', which may be modified with other 'two dice' mounted options which are yet to be seen.

The one thing I WOULD say is that I'd go "Pistols count as shot against mounted". I'd be loathe to see the armour of foot losing a POA against mounted because they have pistols. Mounted are already too good (IMHO) against formed P&S.

[kevinj]

Having thought about this some more I think treating pistols as shot, while simple, is too much of a blanket solution that interferes too much with some of the earlier periods. I believe that the real problem is the interaction between Determined Horse (and Cavaliers) and earlier, heavier armoured troops. So I have a revised suggestion which is that Mounted Troops would need 2 grades better armour to count +POA against DH or Cavaliers. This keeps the interactions in the early period as they are but allows the later troops to perform better against the types that they superseded.

[ravenflight]

Having thought about this some more I think treating pistols as shot, while simple, is too much of a blanket solution that interferes too much with some of the earlier periods. I believe that the real problem is the interaction between Determined Horse (and Cavaliers) and earlier, heavier armoured troops. So I have a revised suggestion which is that Mounted Troops would need 2 grades better armour to count +POA against DH or Cavaliers. This keeps the interactions in the early period as they are but allows the later troops to perform better against the types that they superseded.

Hmm, interesting. So Fully Armoured Gendarmes would still be an (Armour) POA up on Heavily Armoured Cuirassiers?

That would be a good thing I think.

It would also mean that Fully Armoured Gendarmes would be an (Armour) POA up on Armoured DH & Cavaliers. I'm not sure if there is any such thing as a Heavily Armoured DH?

(Edit):

Oops: Wait a second. I just saw a possible problem (one that I don't necessarily see as a problem, but should be pointed out).

Armoured DH would (under this rule) not be a POA up on Unarmoured DH!

[kevinj]

Yes, this would leave interactions with Gendarmes as they are now. Generally the Pistol troops have advantage at Impact and the Pistol balances the Armour POA (assuming they don't lose Impact and disrupt which tends to be an exception). This is also largely going to affect out of period interactions, as by the time Cuirassiers appear the Gendarmes are generally reducing to HA. There are no HA DH but I don't think there are any FA Gendarmes when DH start to appear.

I agree that it benefits the Unarmoured DH in the later period (they'd still suffer against HA Cuirassiers) but as armour was becoming less common by this time that doesn't seem unreasonable. It will help the Louis XIV French, whose cavalry is often regarded as the best of its time.

[madaxeman]

1 level of better armour doesn't count at impact ?

or

1 level of better armour doesn't count at impact against pistols ?

[kevinj]

No levels of better armour count at Impact.

[Akbar]

That the Better Armour PoA only count if either of the following apply:

Close combat opponents are Unsteady, or
You have 2 steps of armour better.

I only play early armies and love infantry, and that may make me biased, but I don't think this would be good at all. Infantry is rarely anything but unarmoured/armoured so why ever bother getting armour if 2 levels difference is necessary? And if one part is already unsteady, why add to their already reduced effectiveness?

[ravenflight]

why ever bother getting armour if 2 levels difference is necessary? And if one part is already unsteady, why add to their already reduced effectiveness?

They would still benefit from distant shooting, and the cost of armour is low, so possibly is a good thing.

[Akbar]

1 point is still 1 point. It adds up, and many units, like the close combat elements of a spanish colunela/tercio have armour as a compulsory thing, included in their cost. If it only helped against shooting, I would not want to pay for it, which would not feel right - they were armoured after all, historically.

[ravenflight]

1 point is still 1 point. It adds up, and many units, like the close combat elements of a spanish colunela/tercio have armour as a compulsory thing, included in their cost. If it only helped against shooting, I would not want to pay for it, which would not feel right - they were armoured after all, historically.

But it DOES have an effect. The HA troops don't get a POA against armoured troops, so , yes, the effect is less, but it's not massive. The point cost is less than the cost of the same armour in AM, so (assuming the points are perfect in AM) should be less effective. IMHO (playing Japanese etc) armour is too cheap/effective for the cost.

[Akbar]

HA? What's that?

Well, we're all biased. I just don't think that it is right that breastplate or no breastplate should be unimportant in close combat. Adjust points if need be.

[ravenflight]

HA? What's that?

HA is the armour cuirassiers will use to try to break a solid armoured infantry line... which will now be less effective.

[quackstheking]

The poor Winged Hussars suffer again as they can only be Armoured therefore can never be a POA up on other determined horse! More points wasted on Hussars!

In themed later events, no-one would ever take Armoured Determined Horse, if the option for Unarmoured was there to save on wasted points - after all they're mainly facing shot armoured Infantry where the Armour doesn't count anyway!

Not sure what the solution is! Will have a think of a suggestion!

Don

[nikgaukroger]

The poor Winged Hussars suffer again as they can only be Armoured therefore can never be a POA up on other determined horse! More points wasted on Hussars!

Hence the unsteady bit in my suggestion of:

That the Better Armour PoA only count if either of the following apply:

Close combat opponents are Unsteady, or
You have 2 steps of armour better.

In themed later events, no-one would ever take Armoured Determined Horse, if the option for Unarmoured was there to save on wasted points - after all they're mainly facing shot armoured Infantry where the Armour doesn't count anyway!

Well if it was an east facing theme Armoured has value as you can still be facing Bows - it is why the Austrians kept theirs and the rules give a benefit for that, it was discarded where this was not the case so I haven't really a problem with people not taking them as it is historical.

And as an aside one trusts that you approve of the other suggestions which are about solving the points, etc. of the hussaria.

[quackstheking]

Sorry Nik, I was responding to Kevin's suggestion on the POA adjustment only against DH or Cavaliers.

The second point was not specifically directed at WHussars - I'm not sure why most Duty and Glory armies would take armour if they didn't have to.

Don

[nikgaukroger]

Sorry Nik, I was responding to Kevin's suggestion on the POA adjustment only against DH or Cavaliers.

Ah, OK - I'd tend to agree with you in that case

The second point was not specifically directed at WHussars - I'm not sure why most Duty and Glory armies would take armour if they didn't have to.

Don

Indeed - and as mentioned not taking it became normal.

Just back to my initial suggestion it strikes me that it might be more logical that instead of "Close combat opponents are Unsteady" as a case where better armour would apply it was "If selves unsteady in Close Combat" - i.e. better armour protecting you when the enemy can more easily get in amongst you.

[Akbar]

Any solution that involves the stability level and armour is strange in my eyes and feels counter-intuitive.

I am aware that armour levels did drop during the period and that it causes balance problems for later armies, but I think the proposed solutions affect early period infantry in a bad way. Change the points, or rather, change something else regarding POA and later period cavalry units. There were differences between armored and unarmoured pikemen, and the rules as is represents that well, I think. Possibly armour could cost more.

[nikgaukroger]

I am personally open to the idea that any change could well only apply to mounted troops - see Richard's comment in my original post for example - but in many ways would prefer a global solution that avoids this if it is possible.

On the counter-intuitive armour I know what you mean. However, the idea is based at least partially on my own experiences. A "bit" of extra armour over your opponent does not seem to help that much whilst a formation is coherent as you get mutual support from those fighting alongside you, but a "lot" of extra armour does. However, when a formation breaks up the mutual support is less effective and then any armour advantage is a good thing. I wouldn't claim this thinking is definitive, but I'd suggest it is one way of looking at armour

[Akbar]

Certainly, I'd prefer full plate if I had enemies on all sides as well. But likewise, I'd sure love a breastplate and tassets when facing a unhealthy amount of pike points with nowhere to run as I'm standing in the front of my keil. Granted, I've never experienced either thing. But I HAVE stood in the front of demonstrations facing riot cops unable to get out of the way, and I fell in love with the helmet and the forearm protection I had.

+1 on changes only affecting cavalry.