Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Moderators: terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger »

Jhykronos wrote:
madaxeman wrote:If the basis for looking at the armour rule is that there was a long-term trend away from armour in the period covered by the rules which combined with the way Armour works as a game mechanic makes in-game interactions between Early and Later armies play out in a way that feels odd, that could just as easily be fixed by adding the word "strongly" to the sentence in the rules (I'm guessing it's in there) that says "it is recommended that historically matched opponents are used in games"...
I don't think that's the MAIN basis for looking at the armor rule, but rather one of the arguments for it. The main basis is the feeling that the effect of armor rating is too much, both in terms of game balance and historical interactions.

This isn't really a new criticism of the system, it goes back to the ancients rules as well (remember all the complaints about hoplites magically transforming from highly effective troops to mediocre filler, Romans cutting through barbarians like tissue, etc.).

This is correct. The main basis is a belief that armour has too much effect - and as noted this is also true of FoG:AM and FoG:R inherited it's mechanism.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger »

benjones1211 wrote:I to feel the new armour mechanism is a change I am not in favour of, too complicated to work out and easy to get wrong.

I am intrigued as to what you find too complicated about it.

Under the published rules having better armour gives you a + PoA unless you are facing certain enemy types.

Under the current proposal facing better armour gives you a step change in your combat re-rolls unless you are certain types.

My thinking is that basically this is the same level of complexity, it is just different to what is currently in the rules.

What am I missing here?
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger »

gibby wrote:
kevinj wrote:The problem that we see is that it's not just the unhistorical matchups. Some examples:

Louis XIV cavalry, widely reported as the best among their contempories, currently don't perform anywhere near that due to being unarmoured.
30YW Cuirassiers totally outperform the troops that replaced them, who are principally Armoured DH.

Making these troops cheaper was considered, but if they don't work right it doesn't really help.

Actually, I don't think we know that. What armies are you comparing this too ?
I think we are conflating different timelines and that against contemporaries LXIV do fine.
A number of people have expressed an opposite view, and having used them I'd tend to that opinion as well.

I'd also note that the proposed break point changes work against the French here as they make the poorer quality enemies last longer. We need to keep the wider picture in mind.

Comparing against TYW Cuirassier when they didn't really come up against them is more a cost issue in my view.
Kevin was commenting on cuirassiers against their historical opponents and not the later French types.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
gibby
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:50 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by gibby »

nikgaukroger wrote:
gibby wrote:
kevinj wrote:The problem that we see is that it's not just the unhistorical matchups. Some examples:

Louis XIV cavalry, widely reported as the best among their contempories, currently don't perform anywhere near that due to being unarmoured.
30YW Cuirassiers totally outperform the troops that replaced them, who are principally Armoured DH.

Making these troops cheaper was considered, but if they don't work right it doesn't really help.

Actually, I don't think we know that. What armies are you comparing this too ?
I think we are conflating different timelines and that against contemporaries LXIV do fine.
A number of people have expressed an opposite view, and having used them I'd tend to that opinion as well.

I'd also note that the proposed break point changes work against the French here as they make the poorer quality enemies last longer. We need to keep the wider picture in mind.

Comparing against TYW Cuirassier when they didn't really come up against them is more a cost issue in my view.
Kevin was commenting on cuirassiers against their historical opponents and not the later French types.
I thought Kevin said Armoured DH which is what the Early LXIV can be in 1648, the date at which most TYW lists end.
The break point change also makes poorer quality enemies last longer against all opponents.

Principally then we are boiling this down to a melee problem because at impact the LXIV would have advantage over Pistols. At melee they end up double down because of armour and they tend to be sword vs a pistol which has unlimited ammunition. My view is that cavalry fights would all descend into sword vs sword. Why would you not be fixing this bit as well as it gives the earlier type horse an advantage againt the LXIV.? Or you could have modified that bit and left the armour alone.

Maybe some people just like it the way it is because the majority of interactions in period seem to work and have worked for the last few years with the armour POA as it is.

cheers
Jim
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger »

gibby wrote: I thought Kevin said Armoured DH which is what the Early LXIV can be in 1648, the date at which most TYW lists end.

He commented about Unarmoured Louis XIV cavalry which is the Later Louis XIV list (well, the early ones do have Unarmoured as an option, however, I think it is quite clear what he is on about).
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by kevinj »

Yes, just to clarify:

I was referring to the later Louis XIV army where all of the horse are unarmoured.

For the TYW example I was referring to the comparison between Cuirassiers and the DH that historically replaced them, for example in the Later TYW German list.
gibby
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:50 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by gibby »

So, ok Later LXIV.
Again what armies did these tend to fight against. Dutch/Spanish/later German states.

In period lists as written in Duty and glory, the French mounted looks far superior taken as a whole compared to any of those lists.
The thing is we tend to play pointed games to equalise things. Therefore players go for relative value for the points cost which means most players in this period will minimize their Determined Horse contingents max out on infantry as generally Determined Horse are too costly and it's relatively easy to jam a battlefield up to negate cavalry superiority.
Not only that but this period was dominated by siege like battles were infantry and artillery were seen as important.

One of the original statements way back in the day about Cavalry costing more than Horse was that the horse were replacing cavalry in the typical western armies of the day.
If that is true of Determined Horse then they should have been cheaper base point cost than horse to reflect this change and continue the logic through.
Just because Lighter Horse followed Heavier horse does not mean that this was because they were better. The rise of foot and artillery and economic will have played a part in this.

As I've said before we have subjective views on the relative merits of one reason over another.

I would say that there are very few players around who have played as many games of FoGr games than myself.They are best played in period.
No rule set is perfect but for the pretty broad period of changing warfare styles these are in my opinion the best set around and sometimes going after that last 10/20% perfection can't be achieved or in achieving it you lose people on the way. That would be a sad thing indeed and as you well know many rulesets have died before or splintered into regional variations.

Now I don't know what the overall objectives of this project are but if increasing or at least retaining current players isn't one of them then it should be.

cheers
Jim
Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Jhykronos »

gibby wrote:So, ok Later LXIV.
Again what armies did these tend to fight against. Dutch/Spanish/later German states.

In period lists as written in Duty and glory, the French mounted looks far superior taken as a whole compared to any of those lists.
The thing is we tend to play pointed games to equalise things. Therefore players go for relative value for the points cost which means most players in this period will minimize their Determined Horse contingents max out on infantry as generally Determined Horse are too costly and it's relatively easy to jam a battlefield up to negate cavalry superiority.
Not only that but this period was dominated by siege like battles were infantry and artillery were seen as important.
I think the point on the Louis XIV French example is that other determined horse in the era can be armored... if you give them the POA, then no other advantage the French cavalry might have is going to bridge that gap, rendering the historical interaction a-historical.

Also, keep in mind, this is ONE example, not the whole justification for the change.
One of the original statements way back in the day about Cavalry costing more than Horse was that the horse were replacing cavalry in the typical western armies of the day.
Who said that? I remember it being said that a lower cost for the cavalry types was considered, but rejected due to the performance of armies like the Ottomans in playtesting (performance that hasn't particularly been replicated in competitions since, BTW). My understanding was the premium cost for cavalry was due to their perceived (and overrated IMO) better maneuverability.
If that is true of Determined Horse then they should have been cheaper base point cost than horse to reflect this change and continue the logic through.
Please, no. That kind of thing kills the whole purpose of a points system.
Just because Lighter Horse followed Heavier horse does not mean that this was because they were better. The rise of foot and artillery and economic will have played a part in this.
Agreed. But the heavier armored horse in this game aren't just better, they are a LOT BETTER. The intent of the proposal isn't to change the fact that they have an advantage, it is to reduce the extent of that advantage, so that it is in line with other advantages (such as quality).
As I've said before we have subjective views on the relative merits of one reason over another.
True, but it isn't really productive to blanket everything as "subjective" like that kills the argument. We do have quite a bit of objective data about how these troops are perceived from an effectiveness standpoint, over quite a few years of competitions and battle reports. Just check the lists people use.
I would say that there are very few players around who have played as many games of FoGr games than myself.
I believe you, but keep in mind you are on a forum with quite a few people that have played, designed, and/or followed these rules for quite a while. I'd say the fact that anyone is still here and arguing about it is indicative that they probably have more than a passing experience with FOG-R.

In fact, I have met a number of people in my time who have been playing and enjoying the same games for years, glaring flaws with balance or simulation notwithstanding, just because they aren't particularly competitive or analytical. (disclaimer: I am not trying to imply anything about yourself or FOG-R here, this is just an observation about experience).
They are best played in period.
This is generally true. But most of the arguments, pro or con, on this subject have been about historical interactions, with a secondary emphasis on game/competition balance.
No rule set is perfect but for the pretty broad period of changing warfare styles these are in my opinion the best set around and sometimes going after that last 10/20% perfection can't be achieved or in achieving it you lose people on the way. That would be a sad thing indeed and as you well know many rulesets have died before or splintered into regional variations.
Honestly, the publishing situation (or lack thereof) is going to cause FOG-R to die more effectively than any grousing over rules changes.
Now I don't know what the overall objectives of this project are but if increasing or at least retaining current players isn't one of them then it should be.
Again, the probability of substantially increasing the player base is almost nil, given the current publishing plans for the rules and lists. But to flip your argument over: if the authors don't ever address issues in the system, they will also lose existing players.

I expect the main reason people haven't moved on from FOG-R to the "next big thing" already, is that Renaissance/Reformation/Early Enlightenment is not the most popular period to begin with. Well, aside from Samurai.
jonphilp
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:01 pm

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by jonphilp »

Hi,

FOGR has a good following at our club as it is a good rule set, hence the concern over the proposed changes. The "next big thing" is already out, several renaissance rule sets are now on the market one, in particular, is already hitting the tables during club meetings. Let's get the proposed amendments out in a Beta format to allow a lot of games to see how they work, for myself, I am concerned about the auto break rules for the early period covered by the rule set but I need several games against different opponents to get a final view on the changes. We always try and play" in period", but most of us feel the main driver for the changes are coming from competition games. As has been said in other posts we do not need to fragment the base using the rule set, We had a large decrease in FOGA games after version 2 came out we do not need the same to happen to FOGR.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger »

nikgaukroger wrote:
benjones1211 wrote:I to feel the new armour mechanism is a change I am not in favour of, too complicated to work out and easy to get wrong.

I am intrigued as to what you find too complicated about it.

Under the published rules having better armour gives you a + PoA unless you are facing certain enemy types.

Under the current proposal facing better armour gives you a step change in your combat re-rolls unless you are certain types.

My thinking is that basically this is the same level of complexity, it is just different to what is currently in the rules.

What am I missing here?

Ben could I press you for a comment here please. The degree of complexity is important so I'd like to get to the bottom of this. Thanks.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
benjones1211
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by benjones1211 »

When you where doing calculations for melee it was a question of adding up the + and - and getting a value, then you roll the dice, some may be need 4 some 5, if you are fighting different enemies, so you use different colours, then if you have rerolls you pick up the ones that can be rerolled no matter what the colour as for a single unit it has one reroll.

Now with the armour you still roll different colours but have to remember for one colour the reroll is 1-2 (if superior with a general) and the other colour the reroll is 1 (superior with general but fighting better armour). This is where the extra complication arises and where people will get confused, it adds another level of thinking at that point. It may seem small but in the heat of battle its easy to get wrong.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger »

Thanks Ben that is very useful.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”