Armies: Better and worse under V2

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

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

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by bahdahbum » Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:14 pm

The hard copy set of rules haven't even been dispatched (so far as I'm aware) and we're already trying to get v3 happening?
Yes they have . I have one and JILU does too .

LB are really deadly because the second rank will usually shoot at 4-5-6 while the first rank will roll 5-6 . In our game I stopped a KN charge but it was ust pure luck . But the thing is they will hit any infantry at 4-5-6 so chances are the unit that wants to assault them will loose some cohesion before arriving ( and a base or 2 ) . Charging will be interesting if you lost a cohesion level !

Cavalry will have to pray , and so will elephants ( hit on 3-4-5-6 ) ...

But yes Elephants are a winner . I might try my champa army next time ( 8 BG of elephants ...it might even be funny to charge pikes ....)

Jilu
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by Jilu » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:30 pm

ravenflight wrote:
Jilu wrote:LB armed troops should get more expensive. OR ùake stakes compulsary...as these should be and for evey base not just 1/2 a unit lenght.
Blow me down with a feather.

The hard copy set of rules haven't even been dispatched (so far as I'm aware) and we're already trying to get v3 happening?

I mean seriously - they said in the v1 to v2 discussions that points would NOT be changed. So what makes you think that they would change the points now?

Making stakes compulsory is just plain idiotic. Middle Platagenet English cannot have stakes - what do we do with them?

I'd suggest we see if Longbow become the new 'Roman Swarm' before deciding that the rules are broken.

well thank you for the idiotic comment, yet, i did not say the rules were broken just that LB become way to strong. ok i agree the KN fight at 3/4/5/6 my mistake and i wonder if we did it right. Yet, LB will have at least 1 shooting phase at 4/5/6 with all bases so minimum 4 dice....average 2 hits or 6 dices (if 8 bases group) so average 3 hits. but then these are heavy knights....anything else would surely survive.... ok can Davinci make an industrial production of tanks?

ok maybe we are pessemistic....we will see what the future tells us...maybe weare mistaken

Best regards

JILU
"the idiot, who has received a hard copy on dec 24th, and likes the new version especialy because one of his ideas as beta proposal was kept by the developpers and still thinks that no eglish LB troops in the HYW would not be carrying stakes to protect themself against French knights, and that there is a huge difference between undrilled LB of the middle plantagenet army of an early era and drilled HYW LB troops, and surely they used stakes just because they liked to carry these and had no use for it but to make a huge after battle BBQ"

Jilu
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by Jilu » Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:12 pm

ShrubMiK wrote:And any analysis that stops at the end of the impact phase is a bit flawed.

well a 6 sup knight with Gen breaking in melée against one 6 bases LB BG.......is not flawed lol

but ok i know i am known to have really bad luck..

Jilu
"you can count on me to charge with 8 BG's of elephants in one turn and lose one base in each BG at impact...... weeeps, yes yes it did happen"

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by marty » Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:58 pm

v1 to v2 discussions that points would NOT be changed. So what makes you think that they would change the points now?
They have since said that one of the advantages of the electronic format is it will make the points changes that didn't happen as part of V2 easier/possible. I look forward to this prospect as I feel they still need to fix the costing of superiority (it is significantly and consistently too cheap) and a few other things.
But yes Elephants are a winner . I might try my champa army next time ( 8 BG of elephants ...it might even be funny to charge pikes ....)
Elephants are a winner in the sense of been slightly better than before but they are still pretty bad. I have played 3 V2 games with an army with 2 BG's of elephants. They are yet to win a frontal combat with anything. I've got them (undisrupted) into knights, a 6 element units of LB, spearmen, etc and they have lost every time. Charging pikes is likely to prove funny, but probably more so for your opponent. They are still a clear candidate for a significant points reduction.

In general I'm enjoying V2. An improvement and probably also slightly quicker once we get used to the changes.

Martin

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

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by ethan » Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:18 pm

marty wrote:Elephants are a winner in the sense of been slightly better than before but they are still pretty bad. I have played 3 V2 games with an army with 2 BG's of elephants. They are yet to win a frontal combat with anything. I've got them (undisrupted) into knights, a 6 element units of LB, spearmen, etc and they have lost every time.Martin
I think this is just bad luck on your part. They should be odds on winners to beat most things in impact now. An extra die is a signficant boost, probably about 1-1.5 PoAs worth (double dice are worth about 2 PoAs).

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by marty » Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:30 pm

I was a little unlucky in some of these cases but in general the elephants are just so unreliable that as long as your opponent can survive the impact (and as the elephants almost never have rerolls they are no sure thing even here) the elephants will eventually (and in some cases immediately) blow up in the melee.

All this and they are cripplingly vulnerable to shooting, extremely unmanouverable and just about the most expensive element in the game! I love the look of them and the history of some of the armies that have them but they are still a really bad investment as things stand. I would still have doubts about using them if they were 20 points.

Martin

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by ravenflight » Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:13 am

Jilu wrote:"the idiot, who has received a hard copy on dec 24th, and likes the new version especialy because one of his ideas as beta proposal was kept by the developpers and still thinks that no eglish LB troops in the HYW would not be carrying stakes to protect themself against French knights, and that there is a huge difference between undrilled LB of the middle plantagenet army of an early era and drilled HYW LB troops, and surely they used stakes just because they liked to carry these and had no use for it but to make a huge after battle BBQ"
Well, now you're changing what you said. It started life mentioning French Ord, now it's dismissing middle Plantagenet. So tell me, what do you do to fix the broken LB troops that don't carry stakes? If Drilled LB can stop a knightly charge without stakes, why can't an Undrilled LB troops? This is why I said it was idiotic. IF the rules for LB are broken, then they CANNOT be fixed by making troops that didn't historically carry stakes carry stakes. It's an idiotic 'fix'. I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm saying your fix was not thought out as it ONLY fixes the problem you encountered. What about Welsh LF longbow? Do they need compulsory stakes too?

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2989
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by grahambriggs » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:32 am

Have just received my book but not read it. What changes have been made to Longbow to improve them? I realise there is the no -1 for support shooting any more but is there something else?

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by ravenflight » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:39 am

grahambriggs wrote:Have just received my book but not read it. What changes have been made to Longbow to improve them? I realise there is the no -1 for support shooting any more but is there something else?

So far as I'm aware there is no other differences (could be wrong) but naturally the extra armour penetration would make them more effective than normal bow.

I do believe that Jannissaries and immortals/saparabara would be damned good :)

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2989
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by grahambriggs » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:12 pm

ravenflight wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:Have just received my book but not read it. What changes have been made to Longbow to improve them? I realise there is the no -1 for support shooting any more but is there something else?

So far as I'm aware there is no other differences (could be wrong) but naturally the extra armour penetration would make them more effective than normal bow.

I do believe that Jannissaries and immortals/saparabara would be damned good :)
Oh right. If that's so not sure why bahdahbum and Jilu think they are now so good. It's a fairly minor change and Longbow armies were not really world beaters in v1.

Jilu
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by Jilu » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:41 pm

ravenflight wrote:
Jilu wrote:"the idiot, who has received a hard copy on dec 24th, and likes the new version especialy because one of his ideas as beta proposal was kept by the developpers and still thinks that no eglish LB troops in the HYW would not be carrying stakes to protect themself against French knights, and that there is a huge difference between undrilled LB of the middle plantagenet army of an early era and drilled HYW LB troops, and surely they used stakes just because they liked to carry these and had no use for it but to make a huge after battle BBQ"
Well, now you're changing what you said. It started life mentioning French Ord, now it's dismissing middle Plantagenet. So tell me, what do you do to fix the broken LB troops that don't carry stakes? If Drilled LB can stop a knightly charge without stakes, why can't an Undrilled LB troops? This is why I said it was idiotic. IF the rules for LB are broken, then they CANNOT be fixed by making troops that didn't historically carry stakes carry stakes. It's an idiotic 'fix'. I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm saying your fix was not thought out as it ONLY fixes the problem you encountered. What about Welsh LF longbow? Do they need compulsory stakes too?
ok i agree with you, and thank you, and only idiots do not change their minds. Undrilled will have it a harder time to concentrate firing, if they had no stakes then they had none. I just think that stakes when the troops had them these should be complusory.

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by bahdahbum » Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:48 pm

What changes have been made to Longbow to improve them? I realise there is the no -1 for support shooting any more but is there something else
Because even armoured, mst infantry trying to approach them will be disrupted ! 2 shots at long range and usually 2 shots at short rage with a 50% chance of a hit + the shooting at impact which is not remarquebly better . The - factor made it possible even if difficult . Now ...it will change hings a lot .

And do not speak of heavy cavalry ...3-4-5-6 to hit ( in 2 ranks ) . They will not dare approach .

navigator
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by navigator » Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:30 pm

Got my book yesterday and really pleased with it;well done chaps

Well my skim through seems to show LB not really any better per se but the key changes are that...

* bowmen shooting at impact are improved and that
* protected troops are now good value for money against their armoured opponents (as only one armour class down)

so bowmen/LB (with swords) could well be at evens in melee against their better armoured opponents

* and of course protected cavalry are almost the equivalent of armoured cavalry

The lack of armour differencial may well turn more melees into a dice 'pot luck' fest. And also, the CT minus for losing the impact combat will also mean winning the impact becomes that little bit more important in the light of melees being more evened up.

But its been fun to read through the nice, little and subtle, changes; skirmishers are affected a little and the edge of the table rules may impact on them.

Its a nice book with a lovely feel to the paper- no complaints here altho time will tell if the binding will hold up to constant use.

It will be interesting to see if mounted armoured cavalry decline in use; protected infantry (and cav) become that little bit more cost effective and worthwhile.

I hope the changes revitalise people to play and keeps the ancients hobby and competition scene thriving

Just need to play some games from my remote outpost to see if the other subtle changes make a difference...

list_lurker
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:51 am
Contact:

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by list_lurker » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:01 pm

Shooting chariots also get a bit of a boost. They can retire 2" , but still shoot 4" ... They can also shoot to rear(always could) makes them quite a viable skirmishing type

Robert241167
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by Robert241167 » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:08 pm

Hi Paul

Not sure if you are missing something but armour will still count unless it gives a ++ POA.

So armoured HW and armoured Sw will still be a + POA in melee against protected Longbow.

Rob

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by ravenflight » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:29 am

Robert241167 wrote:Hi Paul

Not sure if you are missing something but armour will still count unless it gives a ++ POA.

So armoured HW and armoured Sw will still be a + POA in melee against protected Longbow.

Rob
Correct.

So Roman Armoured Skilled Sword will be + instead of ++ against Protected Sword.

They would also be + if they were Roman Protected Skilled Sword or Armoured Sword.

I guess the easiest way to say it is "it's harder to get ++ than it was before, but generally just as easy to get a +"

navigator
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by navigator » Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:14 am

yep, noted - my mistake... just need to play some games to identify more things. LH at an angle in a restricted zone can now go straight back and out of the zone... that looks interesting

Jilu
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by Jilu » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:17 pm

navigator wrote:yep, noted - my mistake... just need to play some games to identify more things. LH at an angle in a restricted zone can now go straight back and out of the zone... that looks interesting

and you can retract in certain circumstances when ZOCed....that is also a big interesting change

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by marty » Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:51 am

Another V2 game with 2 BG's of elephants last night (my 4th), another dismal failure. Both units in combat (one with a BG of already disrupted knights, the other with a 6 base unit of AVE MF OFFSP) still no win for the elephants. They have been in combat every game and have not won a fight yet.

Even factoring in some bad dice I strongly feel they are still not "Better" enough.

Martin

Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: Armies: Better and worse under V2

Post by Vespasian28 » Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:08 pm

Even factoring in some bad dice I strongly feel they are still not "Better" enough.
You may be right but early days yet. Had the rules a week now and still waiting for a game and even longer to get the Classical Indians out but I am "waiting and seeing" before writing off elephants yet.
Still glass cannon by the sound of it but they are better but you do need good dice in the impact phase to make it count and in that regard you and I are in the same boat :(

Post Reply

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