Number of battlegroups in PC/tabletop

[Donegal]

Is there any relation between the number of battlegroups in PC and tabletop game? In the tabletop there are battlegroups,each with a number of bases. Is a base a battlegroups in the PC version? What is the relation?

[batesmotel]

Is there any relation between the number of battlegrounds in PC and tabletop game? In the tabletop there are battlegrounds,each with a number of bases. Is a base a battleground in the PC version? What is the relation?

I think you mean Battle Groups (BGs) rather than Battlegrounds. My impression is that BGs in FoG PC are generally equivalent to 4 stands in a 2x2 formation in the tabletop version of FoG. Chariot and elephant BGs (and maybe knights which aren't in the current mix) probably represent 2 models in 1 rank. Pikes appear to be an exception and probably represent 8 stands in a 2x4 deep formation.

Chris

[deadtorius]

That's pretty much what the designers told us back in the beta days. Kind of hard to get your table top army onto the PC since it isn't a straight up switch in numbers. Part of the issue is that the PC game has actual numbers of troops where the TT game does not list so many men per figure like the old WRG 7th did.

[deeter]

Actually, I think the conversion is by people. One HF BG in FoG PC is 1,500 troops. One base in the miniatures game is 250 people (genrally) so one PC BG is 6 bases. So, taking a starter army with three pike BGs (24 bases x 250 = 6.000 men) would be four PC BGs. Cav at 1,000: 1 four stand BG = 1 PC BG. LF at 500 would be two stands per BG, and so on.

Deeter

[batesmotel]

Actually, I think the conversion is by people. One HF BG in FoG PC is 1,500 troops. One base in the miniatures game is 250 people (genrally) so one PC BG is 6 bases. So, taking a starter army with three pike BGs (24 bases x 250 = 6.000 men) would be four PC BGs. Cav at 1,000: 1 four stand BG = 1 PC BG. LF at 500 would be two stands per BG, and so on.

Deeter

Given that the number of of "troops" in a BG has no effect whatsoever, I think that is a red herring. Looking at the number of dice that BGs get for impact and melee, and the POAs for the BGs, it seems pretty clear that each BG represents the equivalent of 2 stand frontage in the table top game together with the number of ranks required for it to be fully effective, e.g. 1 for chariots, knights and elephants, 4 for pikes, and 2 for other troops.

Chris

[keithmartinsmith]

The factors/attacks in the PC game are generally worked out as for a 2 wide formation on the table top. That gave us better rounding/balance compared to any other method. Ods wise it could have be 2, 4, 6, 8. It would not matter.

The big difference to the TT is that 'real' casualties are used. On the TT you can do 5 hits on an enemy battlegroup, win the melee and yet fail to inflict any losses in manpower or cohesion loss on the opponent. In the PC game hit any enemy unit and he will suffer casualties.

The chances in combat use the actual strength remaining So a unit at 90% strength with only be 90% as effective as a comparable unit at full strength. For all purposes the PC game retains all fractions.

There are some key variations to this as at impact most units at more than 50% strength will get the same number of attacks as an 100% strength unit as the front ranks are still as effective. But at melee it will only get 1/2 of the attacks of a full strength unit.

See

help

on the combat mechanism.
Keith

[batesmotel]

The factors/attacks in the PC game are generally worked out as for a 2 wide formation on the table top. That gave us better rounding/balance compared to any other method. Ods wise it could have be 2, 4, 6, 8. It would not matter.

The big difference to the TT is that 'real' casualties are used. On the TT you can do 5 hits on an enemy battlegroup, win the melee and yet fail to inflict any losses in manpower or cohesion loss on the opponent. In the PC game hit any enemy unit and he will suffer casualties.

The chances in combat use the actual strength remaining So a unit at 90% strength with only be 90% as effective as a comparable unit at full strength. For all purposes the PC game retains all fractions.

There are some key variations to this as at impact most units at more than 50% strength will get the same number of attacks as an 100% strength unit as the front ranks are still as effective. But at melee it will only get 1/2 of the attacks of a full strength unit.

See

help

on the combat mechanism.
Keith

Just to clarify, I assume it is the percentage of strength remaining, not the number of troops that affects the number of attacks for a BG?

Chris

[deeter]

My remarks were directed at converting starter amries from the books to the PC, not about how combat works.

Deeter

[orendel]

Looking at the number of dice that BGs get for impact and melee, and the POAs for the BGs, it seems pretty clear that each BG represents the equivalent of 2 stand frontage in the table top game together with the number of ranks required for it to be fully effective, e.g. 1 for chariots, knights and elephants, 4 for pikes, and 2 for other troops.

Chris

If that is true, the point values for units in scenario editor are incorrect. They just show the value of a single TT base (for example: pikes 11, Roman HF ~10, LF javelinmen 4, Elephants 20).
It should be: pikes 44, Roman HF ~20, javelinmen 8, Elephants 20.
The importance of real strength numbers for combat calculations make a correct evaluation even more complicated.

[deadtorius]

Sounds pretty much incorrect, especially as 2 elephants cost 50 points on the TT so in the PC game you get them for less than 1/2 price a real bargain I guess.

[batesmotel]

Sounds pretty much incorrect, especially as 2 elephants cost 50 points on the TT so in the PC game you get them for less than 1/2 price a real bargain I guess.

While they may be based to some degree on the point cost for troops in the TT game, I suspect that the costs for BGs has been modified for effectiveness in the PC game. I don't think a BG of pikes in the PC version tends to stand up as well as they do in the TT game, for instance. And elephants definitely seem not to be all that effective in the PC game either. Among other things disorder due to the elephants in the PC version affects your troops as badly as it does opposing ones where as it often doesn't in the TT game to to the rounding issue and only extending one base width into BGs on either side of the elephants.

Chris

[jomni]

Best way to find out is to wait for the Army builder and compare the PC armies and units with the TT books. I sure hope we get it soon. At this point all we can do is do our own conversions that doesn't seem to fit perfectly.

[keithmartinsmith]

If looking to convert a real battle the unit sizes are guidelines and are not fixed. You can edit the unit strength so if you want a battle group to represent 200 men you can or 2000.

Keith

[batesmotel]

If looking to convert a real battle the unit sizes are guidelines and are not fixed. You can edit the unit strength so if you want a battle group to represent 200 men you can or 2000.

Keith

But if you say one BG in a battle represents 200 men and another represents 2000 men of the same type and grade, will they fight any differently? My impression is that they won't. In some ways I think it might be better to just allow a scenario designer to overall state a scale used for BGs than allowing it to be set individually set for each individual BG.

Chris

[keithmartinsmith]

Its up to the scenario designer to balance the units. The base strength 200 or 2000 has no effect. The idea being that if one unit is set to say 1,500 HF thats the same frontage as 1,000 foot or 500 light foot. The game system counts units down as a percentage of their start strength. The FOG PC and T game engine allows for the fact that HF are denser than MF and LF are very spaced out.

Varying the battlegroup sizes allows you to allocate an historical OB, thats all.

Keith