Polearms

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

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

Post Reply
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8643
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Polearms

Post by philqw78 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:10 pm

Polearms are too good.

Chinese foot are happy to charge out of terrain and hit the enemy that their own records said they were unable to stand against in the open. Bow Cavalry.

The fix is easy. Alter the POA that says it does not count when charging shock mounted by deleting the word shock. It doesn't count when charging any mounted. It's not multiple ranks of spear. There is no shower of lighter spears during the charge. And it makes the troops that use them act more historically.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4182
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Polearms

Post by terrys » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:20 am

Polearms are too good.

Chinese foot are happy to charge out of terrain and hit the enemy that their own records said they were unable to stand against in the open. Bow Cavalry.
> A high proportion of Chinese infantry were conscripts and therefore poor. We don't force players to use poor troops in most armies - because players would never use that army. Commanders of historical armies didn't have that choice.
The mix of poor troops, their vulnerability to bow fire , and lack of training in close formation meant that they couldn't stand up to mounted in the open.

However, the average ones probably do perform better than they did historically - against bow-armed cavalry, but that's mainly because most competitions so far have been either 800pts on a restricted table, or 900pts (or more) on a 6x4 table. We need to have more single competitions played at 800pts on a 6x4 table before we can make a judgement on this.

Roll call will be interesting, because it will be 800pts with armies from book2 - Where most of the Chinese armies are.
>>NB. I think that the period should be restricted to "up to 1000 AD" - because there are a few armies at the end of the book that can have knights after that date. (or a 'no-knights' restriction should be added)

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8643
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Polearms

Post by philqw78 » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:53 pm

Knights are now way too expensive. Don't think I'd worry about them with the preponderance of foot now. Unless I was a bow cavalry army
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3006
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Polearms

Post by petedalby » Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:18 pm

We need to have more single competitions played at 800pts on a 6x4 table before we can make a judgement on this.
The BHGS Challenge will be entirely open - 800 AP on a 6 x 4 table. Last year's was similar but I don't recall a single Han Chinese - just lots and lots of Elephants.
Pete

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3764
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Polearms

Post by dave_r » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:59 pm

Quite right Pete.

I think Polearms should be reduced in points.
Evaluator of Supremacy

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Polearms

Post by ChrisTofalos » Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:30 am

.Knights are now way too expensive. Don't think I'd worry about them with the preponderance of foot now. Unless I was a bow cavalry army
Polearms and 3 dice on impact have contributed to the virtual disappearance of lancer armies such as Bosporan, etc. The typical 4-base unit is much more likely to suffer a damaging -1 on CTs.

To redress the imbalance and perhaps introduce a bit more variety in army choices, what about a +1 on casualty rolls for all lancers (and light spear cavalry) at impact?

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4182
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Polearms

Post by terrys » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:11 am

Polearms and 3 dice on impact have contributed to the virtual disappearance of lancer armies such as Bosporan, etc. The typical 4-base unit is much more likely to suffer a damaging -1 on CTs.
You can't blame Pole Arms on the disappearance of lancer armies - All of the Pole arm armies in books 1 and 2 are Chinese ones - and I haven't seen a Chinese army used in competition as yet.
3 Dice at impact has had an effect on lancer armies ..... It certainly is more risky to take them in 4's.
One of the things you need to take into account is that a lot of competitions so far have still used either 900 or more points or have been played on a small tables. These formats were introduce so that HF had a better chance against mounted armies. That and the introduction of a 4 inch move for HF combine to make the "wall of foot" armies much more effective.
However, when (I hope) we revert to the standard 800 pts on a 6x4 table cavalry armies will perform better (Although a cavalry army won at Britcon last year - and my Ottomans came 4th).

Players need to accept that armies containing 10 or 11 BGs are perfectly usable.
The alternative is to use more average troops. For example 6 average knights are only 4 pts more than 4 superior knights.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”