Slitherine

IMHO one of the few (but big) problems of FoG is that in melee or impact the winning BG come out more or less untouched so with my fellow wargamers I've tryed a little change on the rules thas seems to better balance the game.

Simply remove the +2 bonus on death rolls for won or drew close combat (keep it for shooting DR).

What do you think about it?

That would unbalance the game IMHO, as some BGs are much more susceptible to base losses than others. Pikemen and Knights would be pretty crap w/ that rule change.

I have not noticed this at all and removing the +2 would destroy elephants IMO.

Historically a winning army usually suffered very few casualties (less than 10%) and so the rules make sense to me.

flameberge wrote:Historically a winning army usually suffered very few casualties (less than 10%) and so the rules make sense to me.

Me as well.

Of course if both sides cause enough hits then the winner starts to have a real chance of losing a base--usually when there POA is equal

It may seem unlikely but I've seen it happen with Romans versus romans for instance.

D

Historically very few battles were fought with even-ish armies.

Esben

flameberge wrote:Historically a winning army usually suffered very few casualties (less than 10%) and so the rules make sense to me.

*Cough* *cough*, Pyrrhus of Epirus, "Another such victory and I am undone."

That's a very suspect generalization you're making there, bro...

possum wrote:*Cough* *cough*, Pyrrhus of Epirus, "Another such victory and I am undone."

That's a very suspect generalization you're making there, bro...

Melee is more than one turn so maybe Pyrrhus was losing some turns and winning others, overall taking a beating.

*Cough* *cough*, Pyrrhus of Epirus, "Another such victory and I am undone."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually the causulties in that battle were not really that high IMO, only 3500 out of a force of 40,000+, compared to the Romans who lost 6500. It wasn't the casaulties but the fact that these where line Phalanx and officers. In FOG this would be represented by locally broken / routed Battle Groups, I don't believe a general attition down the line is the right way to model this which would happen by removing the +2.

Neither army was able to really "break" the other....and so no persuit and slaughter after the fight. Compare this to some of Hannibal's victories where of similar sized armies the Roman causualties where very large. Of course campaigning in Italy these troops may not have been replaceable, while the Romans could just keep on raising legions....

possum wrote:

flameberge wrote:Historically a winning army usually suffered very few casualties (less than 10%) and so the rules make sense to me.

*Cough* *cough*, Pyrrhus of Epirus, "Another such victory and I am undone."

That's a very suspect generalization you're making there, bro...

First off I said USUALLY and as IanB3406 pointed out he lost 3500 of 40,000+ which is less than 10% and so your example of Pyrrhus of Epirus actually supports my statement by showing that even a very costly victory resulted in comparatively very few casualties.

Esbenmf wrote:Historically very few battles were fought with even-ish armies.

Esben

Agreed.

The 2 difference is essential to balancing the game...

If you want a really bloodthirsty variant don't drop it but go instead for

Won or drew +1, lost -1 - and watch the bases come flying off!!

You will find autobraks dominate your games and the balacne between CTs and base loss issues changes dramatically. But you will get lots of bases coming off the table.

We tested lots of ideas for balance, and simulated the resilts across 000s of combats, and the current one is by far the best IMO.

But if you like your blood ... give it a go

Si

Well from my knowledge of military history the majority of casualties for the loosing side comes after the rout of the army and the subsequent pursue by the winning side not by the raw fighting.

In a single melee there are very little chances that one side is smashed and the other comes out fresh as a daisy in the same perfect good order like at the start of the morning.

Even elite cavalry units can broke one ore two weak enemies but after that they have to stop and regroup before keeping in fighting because their ranks are probably dispersed around the routing enemies.

If you let the winner to come out of a fight without some sort of disorder or base losses (it's more or less what always happens in FoG) one elite BG is perfectly capable of smashing the entire enemy army without losing a single base.

I'm sorry but IMHO this is not historically correct.

Remove the +2 and you have solved the elite steamroller effect without changing too much the structure of the game.

Another possible solution is to give a disorder marker to every BG that fight a melee round (better 1 marker per round) but then you have to consider the rules about removing this disorder (for example in the subsequent turn the BG have to stay stationary and do nothing to remove 1 or more level of disorder) and the effect of the disorder if the BG is not able to remove it or keep in fighting (for example 1 - POA for every level of disorder).

What do you think about this second type of change?

Well from my knowledge of military history the majority of casualties for the loosing side comes after the rout of the army and the subsequent pursue by the winning side not by the raw fighting.

In a single melee there are very little chances that one side is smashed and the other comes out fresh as a daisy in the same perfect good order like at the start of the morning.

The two are simply abstractions to get 2 ways to be destroyed - one by attrition of losses and one by morale. CT pressure is the main mechanic for breaking opposing armies in FOG. In any FOG game most base casualties come from pursuits and actual base losses are a pretty small proportion of any game. So don't the current mechanics reflect the history you desribe already? And making more base losses from combat is the opposite is it not

Si

shall wrote:The two are simply abstractions to get 2 ways to be destroyed - one by attrition of losses and one by morale. CT pressure is the main mechanic for breaking opposing armies in FOG. In any FOG game most base casualties come from pursuits and actual base losses are a pretty small proportion of any game. So don't the current mechanics reflect the history you desribe already? And making more base losses from combat is the opposite is it not

Si

Ok IMHO the real problem is that an elite BG can break a lot of enemy BG (mainly via CT failed) without being harmed at all (in other words it didn't drop in cohesion neither loose stands so it keep being a steamroller), so the game is reduced to a simple strategy: maximize your elite units in the list and simply throw them in the fight.

Having a second defensive line have more or less no sense (apart the support bonus in CT) because if the elite BG is capable of breaking the front line it could easily break the second line (and the 3rd, the 4th and so on).

If the elite steamroller gets some sort of deterioration in breaking through the first line I've some strategical choice more in using multiple defensive line of average units.

so the game is reduced to a simple strategy: maximize your elite units in the list and simply throw them in the fight.



I can guess you haven't played a lot, your opinion might change .......Just look at the army that won Britcon, which seemed to follow exactly the opposite strategy......

The only army that can really get a lot of elites so far seem to be the MRR and LRR, and general advice seems to be to not take too many as you will be destroyed.

I seem to remember old Alex cutting his way through a good portion of a Persian army with a few Elite BGs though.

Ian

IanB3406 wrote:I can guess you haven't played a lot, your opinion might change .......Just look at the army that won Britcon, which seemed to follow exactly the opposite strategy......

The only army that can really get a lot of elites so far seem to be the MRR and LRR, and general advice seems to be to not take too many as you will be destroyed.

I seem to remember old Alex cutting his way through a good portion of a Persian army with a few Elite BGs though.

Ian

I've read some reports on Britcon and the top 2 lists, an interesting approach to the game but the Dominate Romans list with MF small BG could be beated by a heavy cavalry charge if well directed and supported.

The real strengt of that list is the high number of BG, it's difficult to reach the breaking limit of 19 BG in 2-3 hours of gaming and maybe an hidden strengt is that nobody was prepared to face that kind of army.

I've heard that the two top player was two expert generals and this should be taken in account too, maybe an average general with the same list couldn't obtain the same results.

Duke68 wrote: Ok IMHO the real problem is that an elite BG can break a lot of enemy BG (mainly via CT failed) without being harmed at all (in other words it didn't drop in cohesion neither loose stands so it keep being a steamroller), so the game is reduced to a simple strategy: maximize your elite units in the list and simply throw them in the fight.

Hi,

After > 50 games (and 4 french tournaments), I can say that it is not true. Elite BG don't dominate the game at all.
Did you experiment this problem in real games ?


Regards
Lionel

Lionelc62 wrote:Hi,

After > 50 games (and 4 french tournaments), I can say that it is not true. Elite BG don't dominate the game at all.
Did you experiment this problem in real games ?


Regards
Lionel

I haven't played any tournament but in many games with my friends I've found that stopping a powerful BG is nearly impossible.

PS: when I'm talking about elite BG I don't mean a BG wich quality is "elite", I mean a BG that has good POA versus a lot of enemies (both in impact and in melee phases).

stopping a powerful BG is nearly impossible

And this is the game. Don't try and stop it. Pick off its supports, shoot it, skirmish it, slow it down, tempt it into a bad position. My heavily armoured, drilled, superior, knights don't fight elephants. My light foot do.