OTHER

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design

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

OTHER

Post by terrys » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:15 am

This section will be used for ideas that do not fit into the topics already entered.

SKIRMISHERS:
** >> All Skirmisher BGs count as 1/2pt towards army size
Some light horse armies will be particularly affected (Numidians, Parthians etc). Any feedback will be read with interest.

Elephants:
> In order to add more variation we'll introduce an option to upgrade/downgrade elephants to Superior/Poor. This will be on a list by list basis, but in general will only be made available to those lists that can't have elephant generals.
> For further variation, we will allow some elephants to be used in BGs of 2or3. This will also be on a list by list basis, but will only be made available to those lists that can have elephant generals.

New Weapon Type:
Some HW will be changed to POLE ARM where appropriate in certain lists. These will be better against mounted at impact, but not quite as good as HW in melee.
It will affect a number of medieval armies plus some of the Chinese armies and maybe a few others.

Army Lists:
We will publish an updated errata for each of the 13 lists so that we can 'repair' some of the lists, and also add updates for Pole-arms and Elephants as above. We'll try to keep these to no more than a single sheet for each book. (of course we need to get the FieldofGlory website repaired for this to happen)

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: OTHER

Post by ChrisTofalos » Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:48 am

All Skirmisher BGs count as 1/2pt towards army size
Some light horse armies will be particularly affected (Numidians, Parthians etc). Any feedback will be read with interest.
Why punish Numidians, Parthians, etc? Isn't the real problem with skirmishers the over-use (and unhistorical use) of masses of cheap LF to (a) pad out an armies BG total and (b) run like hell when things go wrong (making an army rout much more difficult to achieve)?

With the exception of a few armies which could genuinely field lots of LF (e.g., the 'ever popular' Early Libyans and Nubians) I'd much prefer to see this bit of gamesmanship cured more radically. What about going with the half point towards army size but then count 2 points if broken? That might just be enough to deter the abuse and mean the added complication of LF not being allowed to march wouldn't be needed...

Chris

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: OTHER

Post by philqw78 » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:21 am

If they only count half and only count one when lost it makes battle troops far more important so that works for me. Losing half your Numidian skirmishers would make the same dent in your army as now, losing the imitation legio would make a bigger dent though, as it should
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

LEmpereur
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:52 pm
Location: L'Empire Bête et Méchant!
Contact:

Re: OTHER

Post by LEmpereur » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:27 am

philqw78 wrote:If they only count half and only count one when lost it makes battle troops far more important so that works for me. Losing half your Numidian skirmishers would make the same dent in your army as now, losing the imitation legio would make a bigger dent though, as it should
That the point !
It is not sure that the skirmishers disappear from our table ... it will perhaps even the opposite. :oops:
L'Empereur Bête et Méchant vous invite à visitez :
Le Blog : https://lempereurzoom13.blogspot.fr/
Le projet 2020 : http://2020batailledeloigny.blogspot.fr/
Cons se le disent!!!

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: OTHER

Post by hazelbark » Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:22 pm

terrys wrote: Elephants:
> In order to add more variation we'll introduce an option to upgrade/downgrade elephants to Superior/Poor. This will be on a list by list basis, but in general will only be made available to those lists that can't have elephant generals.
> For further variation, we will allow some elephants to be used in BGs of 2or3. This will also be on a list by list basis, but will only be made available to those lists that can have elephant generals.
Positive changes all.
May want to consider giving some Elephants a bow capability. It would help make an army mixed with foot shooter not have blind spots for shooting.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: OTHER

Post by hazelbark » Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:25 pm

terrys wrote: SKIRMISHERS:
** >> All Skirmisher BGs count as 1/2pt towards army size
Some light horse armies will be particularly affected (Numidians, Parthians etc). Any feedback will be read with interest.
Agree with the objective, worry about the side effect which others allude to.


I have 5 BGs of battle troops at the rear, I have 7 BGs of LH. I break on 8.5 so I have a disposable LH force. So you need to make sure that is not allowing the LH to be too powerful. Which I think you are addressing elsewhere, but keep a sharp eye out.

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

Re: OTHER

Post by terrys » Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:01 pm

I have 5 BGs of battle troops at the rear, I have 7 BGs of LH. I break on 8.5 so I have a disposable LH force. So you need to make sure that is not allowing the LH to be too powerful. Which I think you are addressing elsewhere, but keep a sharp eye out.
I fully respect this comment. It is something that we need to be careful about.
We certainly don't want LH armies to become unusable, but recognise the concern that we may have inadvertently made them better.
I don't think we have - but only more testing will confirm that.

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: OTHER

Post by timmy1 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 6:26 pm

Terry

Suggestion. Skirmishers contribute 1 AP to the army break point but count 2 AP when lost/evaded off table and they have to take a CT every time they evade.

Regards
Tim

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

Re: OTHER

Post by terrys » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:12 am

Suggestion. Skirmishers contribute 1 AP to the army break point but count 2 AP when lost/evaded off table and they have to take a CT every time they evade.
This was our first proposal - However, we soon cam to the conclusion that it would totally cripple LH armies.
In fact the effect of losing your skirmishers in a 'balanced' army was quite significant. With army reduced to a size of 10 attrition points, losing 2 lh BGs is a significant loss.

Take Parthians as an example:
For 800pts you should get about 4BGs of cataphracts and 10 of LH (plus generals). That would give you an army size of 9
If LH counted as 2pts, you could lose the army by only losing half the LH.
Under the current proposal, you need to lose almost all the LH - or all the cataphracts and the baggage. (or a combination).

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

My Thoughts on Skimishers and Attrition above

Post by philqw78 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:15 pm

My Thoughts on Skimishers and Attrition above and a couple of other add ins
The rules need to incentivise people to use troops historically so lights are used historically but not throw away.

In my opinion using 0.5's is a bad idea. Makes the maths ugly, so basically double everything in what is above

Attrition Point values

Army Attrition Point Value
Add 0 for each BG of Scythed Chariots
Add 1 for each BG of light or poor troops
2 for others

Attrition Point Loss
Scythed chariots never count
1 Skirmishers Broken, Fragmented or Evaded off table
1 For other troops Fragmented
2 for other troops broken or evaded off table
2 for lost camp
Armies break once they have lost half or more of there attrition point value at the end of any phase

I personally think lights shouldn't even get to be fragmented, they should just go straight from disrupted to broken, or even steady to broken on a double drop. (Currently chances are currently that lights will fight battle troops for an impact phase and 2 melee phases, even if caught in the rear)
Lights are designed to run away, but its up to a good commander to get them back into the battle.
But Because they are designed to run away make them rally more easily once they have moved away from enemy threat.
So
Change to cause for CT
No troops take a CT for seeing lights rout
Change to CT
Light troops get +1 if more than 6MU from non-broken enemy


Examples

A grit and air army with 8 BG of battle troops and 8 of lights woould be worth 24 AP. If it lost all its lights it would still be there. If it lost 6 of its battle troops, but still had all its lights, game over.

So a more sensible army with 10 battle and 4 light would still go on a loss of 6 battle troop BG. Or all its lights and 4 BG of battle troops.

Huns
4 Battle, 10 skirmish. with this case worth 18AP. If it loses all its battle troops and 1 light game over. Solution change some of the LH to cav.

Dom Rom
12 Battle, 7 light. Now worth 31. So 8 battle BG to break.

Bosphoran
5 Battle 10 light. now worth 20. Kill the lancers and it goes home

What this will help with.

Light v light combat will be over much more quickly getting them out of the way. A BG of lights currently lasts the impact and a couple of phases of combat against battle troops and much longer against other lights. They won't any more, and they will almost certainly be broken if caught in the rear whilst evading

It will make MF shooters much more potent against lights, who they are quite impotent against now.

Grit and air armies will not have such valuable air.

Skirmish armies will still need to lose lots of skirmishers but once their battle troops have gone it will be over much more quickly

Filler rubbish will be devalued

If you can catch it or shoot it you can get rid of it quickly, if you can't the stuff you can catch is more valuable

Lights will break and rally quickly. In the early stages of the battle they will run behind other troops to be rallied. In the later stages they will run home as the generals get busy elsewhere

Players will use lights more historically, or the lights will act more historically for themselves, bugging out if it gets a bit tough.

They will also use their lights to chase other lights off table as they are so easy to rally.

It will speed up the game

Small high quality armies will not be defeated just by picking on their lights and camp

Any army may as well get another BG of fighting troops rather than 2 BG of filler crap.


The only one attempt to rally broken troops rule would have to be redacted. Its seems odd anyway as if you try to rally something it shows you care but they will disappear if you fail. If a player wants to slow the game he can make sure his general stays within 12 anyway, and never attempt to rally. Happy with the disappear of no general within 12 though
Last edited by philqw78 on Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: OTHER

Post by hazelbark » Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:05 pm

What about making the 1st 4 BGs of lights add nothing to army break point.
After that they add 1 Break point.

All cost 1 if frag'd or worse.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: OTHER

Post by philqw78 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:44 pm

It would make things like Parthian awful
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: OTHER

Post by hazelbark » Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:54 pm

philqw78 wrote:It would make things like Parthian awful
Well my goal is just to make YOUR armies awful.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: OTHER

Post by philqw78 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:39 pm

Fair point
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: OTHER

Post by philqw78 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:13 am

For those of you taht may say my post above makes lights too easy to break from shooting: in a LH v LH shooting match the odds of breaking withing 2 rounds of shooting, 2 dice v 2 dice are less than 3%.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

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: OTHER

Post by ChrisTofalos » Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:28 pm

It would make things like Parthian awful
I don't understand why LH armies are being 'picked on'. Isn't the real problem with skirmishers concerned with the over-use and unhistorical use of massed, cheap LF?

Substitute LF for skirmishers in the various proposals and I doubt there's be many who'd complain...

Chris

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: OTHER

Post by philqw78 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:49 pm

I like the half attrition point change and I use a lot of LH. But its ok because losing them is the same effect to your army, but losing your cataphracts has a relatively greater effect which is good
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

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

Re: OTHER

Post by terrys » Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:14 pm

I don't understand why LH armies are being 'picked on'. Isn't the real problem with skirmishers concerned with the over-use and unhistorical use of massed, cheap LF?
In general, the main use of cheap LF is in bulking up your army.
What this change does is effectively double the cost of skirmishers - in comparison to your army size.... so therefore makes LF less useful as filler.
LH horse have other uses so are not as badly hit.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: OTHER

Post by madaxeman » Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:00 am

LF could also be "fixed" simply by putting an arbitrary limit of, say, 3 units max in any army list.

A lot of the FoG lists (arguably) allow overly-gamey compositions because of an apparent desire on the part of the writers to include all historic options for all force sizes - perhaps a more pragmatic "what can you do to build a 800-point-sensible-list" approach to maxima and minima could be easier to implement than twiddling with some of the rules.

The V2 "every army breaks at 16" is a form of precedent for this idea too...
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

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: OTHER

Post by ChrisTofalos » Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:23 pm

LH horse have other uses so are not as badly hit.
Why should they be hit at all? In games I've played in and watched LH seem to be used quite historically (wearing away the enemy with repeated and rapid missile attacks, then quick withdrawals).

I believe it's LF that are the problem, not LH. Any attempt to deal with the former by globally including measures which will affect the latter is going to adversely (and needlessly) affect Parthians and their like. And, lets face it, LH/Cataphract armies are going to have even more problems to deal with once spear/pike armed HF get their movement bonus...

Chris

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory 3.0 Beta”