Another battle using Byzantine Basil's army against Croatian which is mainly composed of defensive shieldwall, large part raw shieldwall. The shieldwall still acts as the old age to charge the lancers but with more adverse results. I can feel the low quality heavy foot is more fragile than that befo...

I have now played couple missions of the Ashurbanipal campaign and I'm having no issues so far. Enemy uses its cavalry for flanking quite efficiently and the Egyptian spearmen definitely haven't suffered too badly from loss of CT modifier, performing remarkably well against the Assyrian infantry an...

you make it nearly impossible for your units to rally if broken. And your skirmish units, whether cavalry or infantry, can easily be neutralized by chasing them off the board, +1. So sometimes I am quite happy to see my opponent deployed along the edge of the map, so long as I think I have a plan.

MVP7 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:48 am

The units return most of the time, and even if they don't, they don't count for loss percentage.

I don't think it is true. From the experience of my current ongoing Slitherine tournament, my light horse was chased off the map, my opponent instantly got 2% in his score counter.

I think the best way that Richard to defend his design logic is to create a scenario or several scenarios to illustrate that if all ZOC exerts their effect the situation is absurd. I believe there are a few in Richard mind when he is talking about the demise of DBM game. Detailed examples may fortif...

But all he has is massed archers and mobs, and a few Sparabara if I am correct. He surely can't confront your pikes in the open. Too suicidal. I don't really think it egregious. An excuse that can't be applied to a tournament like the DL where players get to pick what they want. I guess what I comm...

I'd say I mostly agree with Mike's view here, although I'm more sympathetic to the first example that was more camping on the map edge type of behavior. The second looked like the player had moved into roughly the middle of the map to take up a forward defensive position, which seems a pretty legit...

Wouldn't my proposed idea create less "clever" use of rules? Let's say you have two opposing units facing each other, each in the other's primary ZoC. One player has a second unit in move range to his foe's rear. Under the current system, an experienced player will know that it is best to keep that...

Oh no... it hurts me as a raw unit lover.

As AP has been decrease to 16 from 20, I suppose you turned your LH facing.

If no suggestion on the game rule or the tournament rule is proposed, then the whole thread is pointless. Whining didn't help to improve anything. What we need to think about is that whether there are any possible rules to rule out a-sportsmanship, or I call it dirty players among my RTS friends. It...

I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue. It IS annoying when somebody just camps some ridiculous terrain, or runs away the whole time; I think that is pretty rare though. Much more common are standoffs where neither side wants to move into terrain that advantages their foe. Sometimes these end...

RBS has explained the rule for the shooting caused cohesion test. I can't retell the detail as I am afraid to make mistakes. One general rule that I recall is that when shooting doesn't cause cohesion drop, more shooting is in vain unless some criterion reached.

This map does look unfriendly to an army mainly composed of lancers due to lack maneuver ground. Perhaps he is playing ambush tactic using woods. But in my view, you are not in disadvantage as the initiator to attack. He made his choice to hide. Usually if both sides find the advance is unfavorable,...

How about an example that unit is in two primary ZOC?

Division B melm (Andalusian 756-1049AD) beat Nijis (Byzantine 963-987AD) 50-19. In 1600 pts army match, bow's effectiveness actually increases as player can deploy more bow unit and concentrate them somewhere to loose havoc. Byzantine is one case. It disrupted several of my units before I was able t...

One idea crossed my mind, perhaps it is a little digression, that currently the cavalry falls back for two tiles after charging the foot formation, which is the same amount that foot can march. How about making it fall back for three tiles, that this one more tile make foot not chasing up the cavalr...

This is certainly something we could look into. The question is whether allowing break-offs in general to ignore ZOCs would be a good change or not? Or whether maybe cavalry break-offs can ignore infantry ZOCs but not cavalry ZOCs? I would like to see some discussion of the pros and cons, so I have...

No version of fog ( computer or tabletop) allowed voluntary break offs ( maybe p&s tabletop did?). I agree that Cavalry is too easily pinned by mere infantry and would love to see it addressed somehow... I feel the upcoming version 1.5.19 addressed it well. Not the pinning issue. They can now (auto...

as a corollary to this it would be nice if you could order a cavalry unit to evade, or to back away from a combat it has been in for 1 or more melee turns (i think this was in FOG1 but removed for FOG2 for balance reasons or some such?) That would be nice. Cavalry is too easily pinned, nthey should...