Better armour PoA

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

eldiablito
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:40 pm

spear v bow

Post by eldiablito » Sun Sep 26, 2010 4:26 pm

hazelbark wrote:Well is the Knight interaction with Protected Def Spear balanced?

Is the reason their was so much protected defensive spear is, that is the best they could manage historically or was it actually a bit more robust than the game currently portrays.

I am migrating to the armour is both a harder thing to adjust and not as certain that is where the fixes are needed.
Sorry that I'm joining the conversation so late...

This isn't too bad right now and even with the above suggestions for heavily armoured knights wouldn't change the above interaction. I'm more concerned with the interaction between protected, defensive spear and protected longbow swordsmen. Today, the longbow has a slight advantage in impact against the defensive spear. Then, if the defensive spear has not disrupted, then they can do alright in the melee (but not by much). If the spear disrupts, then the longbow/swordsmen will likely crush the spear. So, I guess I feel like the defensive spear needs something more. The defensive spear should be ideal opponents against enemy bow, whereas today they are awful. What is worse, the longbow and defensive spear ARE contemporary opponents.

Perhaps there are actual battles where medieval spearmen walked into longbows and were crushed. If so, if you are better educated in medieval history, please enlighten me. :)

ethan
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:40 pm

Post by ethan » Sun Sep 26, 2010 4:53 pm

Longbows don't seem to make much of an appearance before 1272AD or so (Middle Plantagenet English) and by that point most armies have gotten rid of hte defensive spear or they are pretty clearly a second rate choice.

jlopez
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 589
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlopez » Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:26 am

Scottish offensive spear didn't do very well against massed archery and even French dismounted MAA didn't exactly triumph. The interaction between longbow and other foot is about right I reckon.

Cerberias
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:32 pm

Post by Cerberias » Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:52 am

And your basic prot/average/drilled/longbow/swordsman costs a fairly chunky 9 points a piece.. for average protected blokes. Fairly expensive, not saying overly, but it works.

RichardThompson
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: spear v bow

Post by RichardThompson » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:08 am

eldiablito wrote:
This isn't too bad right now and even with the above suggestions for heavily armoured knights wouldn't change the above interaction. I'm more concerned with the interaction between protected, defensive spear and protected longbow swordsmen. Today, the longbow has a slight advantage in impact against the defensive spear. Then, if the defensive spear has not disrupted, then they can do alright in the melee (but not by much). If the spear disrupts, then the longbow/swordsmen will likely crush the spear. So, I guess I feel like the defensive spear needs something more. The defensive spear should be ideal opponents against enemy bow, whereas today they are awful. What is worse, the longbow and defensive spear ARE contemporary opponents.
Armoured troops get '- any except Longbow' in the shooting phase.

The interaction between Protected Spearmen and Longbowmen would be unchanged by counting HF Protected as Armoured in the shooting phase.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:12 am

To add some thoughts ...

My sense from my historical readings and re-enactment activities was that the most interesting thing about armour - porrly reflected in other rules - is that it s fairly irrelevant at impact but massively valuable in a long developing melee. I don't by that it isn't critical for hoplites - if they could afford it they took it. If you stand in a hoplite line the initial clash tends to be spears against shields. The tussle thereafter is about getting spearpoints past shield and into torsos - believe me it is very valuable to have some armour in those situations.

So my top priority was to reflect this ... which we have.

Second priority was to balance shooting where armour is a big effect. Cavalry always interesting as a debate, but horses are not that easily stopped by most bows/slings etc cf. a man. Hence protect the man first. Longbows, Crossbows and Bullets do indeed. Horse armour a material value for this, but separating this out is rather marginal.

I defer the definitions to the list team. If the companions didn't have metal armour for the body and head then protected is perhaps more sensible. But as Elite Prot Lnc Sw they will still murder opposing Persian cavalry on average (assuming their armoured ones are equally diluted).

IF anyone has a simple suggestion for improving more subtle armour interactions I would be open to them indeed. We of course need to be mindful of all game interactions to make sure nothing is badly thrown off balance. And we do have a better view of that than most as we learned a great deal in vs 1.0 development of how deifferent levers we did not put in throw the system out of kilter.

Further thoughts? Proposals?
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"

VMadeira
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:06 pm

Post by VMadeira » Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:15 pm

As far as i am concerned it is quite good as it is right now, don't change.

titanu
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 am

Post by titanu » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:42 am

shall wrote:To add some thoughts ...
My sense from my historical readings and re-enactment activities was that the most interesting thing about armour - porrly reflected in other rules - is that it s fairly irrelevant at impact but massively valuable in a long developing melee.
I suspect from the debate that I am out of step here but when I was talking to Terry at the week-end I was advocating the opposite that you should be able to count up to +2 for armour advantage. So if knights were in melee with HYW English bows then the knights would be +2 instead of the current +1. It seems anachronistic to me that if the knights can survive the arrow storm before contact and then the extra bowfire on impact then they only have a small advantage in the melee. Then if several units charge together some bounce of leaving the others overlapped.

Going back to Simon's point, I agree that as melees went on, men tired and attrition started to become a factor then armour became more important.
If the concensus is that the melee does not want to be changed one possible solution might be to have a -ve factor in the cohesion test if loosing melee (not impact) to more heavily armoured troops by two levels e.g. protected v heavily armoured.

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:37 pm

shall wrote:
IF anyone has a simple suggestion for improving more subtle armour interactions I would be open to them indeed. We of course need to be mindful of all game interactions to make sure nothing is badly thrown off balance. And we do have a better view of that than most as we learned a great deal in vs 1.0 development of how deifferent levers we did not put in throw the system out of kilter.

Further thoughts? Proposals?
I think I mentioned thisin an earlier post: shooting and melee should be treated differently in some cases. Thus, some troops should have an armour classification different for shooting and close combat. The point I defended is that what in the overall the rule works well although I don't think the reason is merely the armour. In long standing combats it seems that the phalanx tended to fragment and when that happened then the legions exploited that, That is the interaction that the rule covers more than the armour itself. Therefore, I recall here what I wrote.

Going to my old example, we have Gaesati (currently classified as protected), Gallic warband (protected), Lybian phalanx (protected) and Roman principes (let's say armoured). From what I have read in the sources I would say that Gaesati can be perfectly protected as they stood in close combat but suffered from shooting (thus unprotected for shooting), and they did suffer more from shooting than the rest of Gallic warband in Telamon (being naked was not such a good idea!). Therefore the clasification of both troops as the same types seems wrong to me. Then I haven't read accounts of phalanxes suffering from shooting more than Romans or something similar, but it is true that in prolonged combats Romans were ahead most of the times so the extra PoA seems right to me (therefore, protected troops should be upgraded against shooting: I think Phil suggested an even easier way to solve this). Regarding hoplites, the changes between the first half and the second one of the IV century was the elimination of the breast plate. Does it mean that cupper protects better than lihothorax? Well, reconstructions made do not tell that story and I don't think that should be the criterion. In my blog you can see a video about this.

http://misminis.blogspot.com/

Thus, thorugh this example I see that all the combinations are possible. Some protected troops should remain as they are. Some protected should be classified as armoured or unprotected at least for shooting purposes. Some other troops should be considered armoured for shooting purposes but not close combat too. How do you solve it? There is no need to change the rules but the classification of the troops, and not all of them, but only the ones that seem to cause trouble.

lawrenceg
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Former British Empire

Post by lawrenceg » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:00 pm

Strategos69 wrote: Regarding hoplites, the changes between the first half and the second one of the IV century was the elimination of the breast plate. Does it mean that cupper protects better than lihothorax? Well, reconstructions made do not tell that story and I don't think that should be the criterion. In my blog you can see a video about this.
I think the "armoured" to "protected" transition for hoplites in the lists is supposed to be the historical transition from a thorax of any sort to an exomis, which IIRC Duncan Head described as "a fetching off-the-shoulder number".
Lawrence Greaves

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 » Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:47 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
I think the "armoured" to "protected" transition for hoplites in the lists is supposed to be the historical transition from a thorax of any sort to an exomis, which IIRC Duncan Head described as "a fetching off-the-shoulder number".
The replacement of metal cuirass would have been between 450-425 for Spartans according to Nick Sekunda and later for other city States, whereas (I am sorry as I am just speaking from memory) the use of exomis would be more a phaenomenon of the IV century as far as I can remember. Thus, I guess that the change in the classificationshould be later

In fact, when dealing with Macedonians, Greeks copied them and put more armoured men in the front ranks, coming back again to the metal muscular plates (thus again a reclassification as armoured might be needed as it is not covered now?). In fact, FoG seems to cover the same way the use of exomis and linothorax, which since a recreation point of view would be wrong.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”