Better armour PoA

[olivier]

The Romans v pikes is not a big problem. Double minus against average pike is not a huge negative.

Are you kidding ?

Actually at even in impact, if the roman win, the melee combat is favorable to romans, If not and the romans don't lose a level and a base, they may win a melee and reverse the odd. With a double minus, they can't do that and even they won and the pike lose a level, the pike have more probability not to lose.

Knights at evens v longbow is fine.

Please, stop to look at Crecy and Poitiers were longbows cowardly hide behind obstacles or on hill and look at Formigny or Patay where they were caught in open.

Armor may not be perfect, but the current set-up is too integral to the core rules to be changed easily. I would leave things relatively as they are and fix the AP. It may not be perfect but it isn't a useless fix either. If I can get enough protected lancers I can probably wear down your armoured cavalry...

I agree

[marioslaz]

Romans will be at -- against steady pike, Knight will be at evens against long bowmen, Knight will be at evens against ghilmen, heavy Cav will be at - against any steady spear Etc...

The Romans v pikes is not a big problem. Double minus against average pike is not a huge negative. The pike are 3-6 as opposed to a 4-6. Not much more chance of losing. Given that the Romans are likely to lose anyway at a single PoA down, I think the +1 on the CT might be better for them. It does mean the impact for the Romans is more important.
Knights at evens v longbow is fine. If they don't win at impact, then either their superiority pulls them through or they break off and try again. Aren't knights supposed to be brittle anyway if their charge is unsuccessful. Cavalry at minus v steady spear doesn't seem so bad either. Cavalry rarely charge spear anyway because of the impact factors. Again, I would much rather see the cavalry break off in good order, which the +1 is a significant help to. This feels much better than the grind down effect of heavier armour over rounds of melee.

I agree with you, and I like your solution of +1 on the CT, but now I think this could be improved in a combination with a PoA like: +1 PoA for better armour if your net PoA is '-' or worst. So, armour give a little of benefit both in CT and in melee where you would be otherwise disadvantaged. Armour still wouldn't give you any benefit in melee where you are at even or better, as in your original proposal.

[rogerg]

Olivier, I think you are going with more emotion than calculation! The legionary v pike change amounts to the pikes getting an extra hit when a three is rolled. Better, but not by that much.
Knights and longbow is mainly about whether the bow disrupt at impact. This is where the stakes are crucial. Assuming no stakes, if the knights don't disrupt the bow then, with my change, they have to fight one round with the bow hitting on 4 instead of 5. No big deal, particularly as I am giving a +1 on the CT for the knights. This means for a minimal gain for the bow, the knights get a better chance of a second, undisrupted, charge after breaking off.
If the knights disrupt the bow at impact, then the bow have probably had it whether they are hitting on 4's or 5's.
It might at first look seem as if the bow and knight being on even factors is not correct. However the knights will probably be superior. Irrespective of this, they cannot be in the 'even fight' for more than one round because the knights either win or break off.

Whatever, isn't it more chivalrous to have the knights winning in glorious charges than grinding the poor archers under the weight of metal armour?

[Robert241167]

Hi Roger

You know my feelings on this, double minus against anything is bad news on those with the double minus. Put a general in with those average pikes and 3's plus become a whole lot easier. Plus it is amazing how often I roll a handfull of 4's when I need 5's. I know the legionaries would still need 5's but the pikes are going to get a hit on 3's with virtually every dice.

Replace those average pike with superior swiss pike and a general. Hitting on 3's re-rolling 1's and 2's. At least my armoured spear had a chance as long as they got past impact in one piece. Now they would be down in melee too.

Rob

[philqw78]

Knights and longbow is mainly about whether the bow disrupt at impact. This is where the stakes are crucial. Assuming no stakes, if the knights don't disrupt the bow then, with my change, they have to fight one round with the bow hitting on 4 instead of 5. No big deal, particularly as I am giving a +1 on the CT for the knights. This means for a minimal gain for the bow, the knights get a better chance of a second, undisrupted, charge after breaking off.
If the knights disrupt the bow at impact, then the bow have probably had it whether they are hitting on 4's or 5's.
It might at first look seem as if the bow and knight being on even factors is not correct. However the knights will probably be superior. Irrespective of this, they cannot be in the 'even fight' for more than one round because the knights either win or break off.

Yes, and much more chance of the Kn breaking off, when they got shot for another turn. Makes the combat much more even in favour of the longbow.

[madaxeman]

Hi Roger

You know my feelings on this, double minus against anything is bad news on those with the double minus. Put a general in with those average pikes and 3's plus become a whole lot easier. Plus it is amazing how often I roll a handfull of 4's when I need 5's. I know the legionaries would still need 5's but the pikes are going to get a hit on 3's with virtually every dice.

Replace those average pike with superior swiss pike and a general. Hitting on 3's re-rolling 1's and 2's. At least my armoured spear had a chance as long as they got past impact in one piece. Now they would be down in melee too.

Rob

I agree - double minus sucks. Unless there is opportunity for impact foot infantry breakoff and re-charging, and/or a more dramatic loss for the pikemen once they become disrupted it looks like a mugs game to fight pikes with anything in this scenario, and given its a key one for the viability of the rules, I'm not sure i buy it

[olivier]

Olivier, I think you are going with more emotion than calculation! The legionary v pike change amounts to the pikes getting an extra hit when a three is rolled. Better, but not by that much.

Not really ! A long experience about fighting with Romans and Knight.
Actually a good army is HYW English without knight not a medieval French with a full of them!

Fight between Republican armies and Hellenistic ones a tight contest. With your modification they'll become are a one side affair.

Look at successful army at the last Britcon; I haven't see in the top armies full of Knight or full of Romans...
Christian nubian are Unprotected

[mbsparta]

Hmm with this POA change the French knights are not better than English longbowmen in melee !
Or Seleucid Pike are better than Roman in impact AND melee.

Yes. Despite the disadvantages of the present Armour POA, a lot of historical interactions don't get the right overall result without it.

The armour POAs are one of the ways in what is a simple and very granular system of getting the right results for many important historical interactions.

The lists are written with the effects of armour POAs on historical interactions in mind.

If we could have thought of a simple way to make armour a bit less effective, without mucking up historical interactions, we would have done so in Version 1.0.

In a system with as simple mechanics as FOG, it is inevitable that some aspects will be modelled less "perfectly" than others. Our main priority was to get the main historical interactions correct (in overall result, if not necessarily in process), and this we feel we have done.

Any proposed change would have to maintain those historical interactions. Sadly, the above proposal doesn't.

............. Stick with the status quo. The author is point-on.

Mike B

[expendablecinc]

I dont think Pike Vd Legion is broken at all. The pike are generally up but can tolerate no losses or wavers or it does downhill quickly. Seems ok to me.

I dont think Longbow Vs Knights are broken at all either. If unmolested at impact there is a slight edge in favour of the knights but once again, a minor waver or base loss will very quickly turn into a downhill slide- same but slightly less so for the longbow. Longbow Vs knight fights are generally over very quickly.

Olivier, I think you are going with more emotion than calculation! The legionary v pike change amounts to the pikes getting an extra hit when a three is rolled. Better, but not by that much.
Knights and longbow is mainly about whether the bow disrupt at impact. This is where the stakes are crucial. Assuming no stakes, if the knights don't disrupt the bow then, with my change, they have to fight one round with the bow hitting on 4 instead of 5. No big deal, particularly as I am giving a +1 on the CT for the knights. This means for a minimal gain for the bow, the knights get a better chance of a second, undisrupted, charge after breaking off.
If the knights disrupt the bow at impact, then the bow have probably had it whether they are hitting on 4's or 5's.
It might at first look seem as if the bow and knight being on even factors is not correct. However the knights will probably be superior. Irrespective of this, they cannot be in the 'even fight' for more than one round because the knights either win or break off.

Whatever, isn't it more chivalrous to have the knights winning in glorious charges than grinding the poor archers under the weight of metal armour?

[lawrenceg]

Any proposed change would have to maintain those historical interactions. Sadly, the above proposal doesn't.

Are you saying armour is not "real" armour, ie defensive capability in the sense armour and shields. Or it's something else?

Well it isn't entirely metaphysical. However, we have erred on the side of maintaining differentials between contemporary types rather than adopting totally consistent armour class standards throughout history. Non-contemporary battles are fantasy games anyway.

This policy works reasonably well in most cases, though there are some cases which are more arguable (e.g. Early and Late hoplites).

Anyway the real issue is that we have subsumed part of the interaction between certain types into the armour POA
e.g. Protected pikes vs Armoured legions, Heavily Armoured knights vs Armoured Ghilman or Byzantines.

The + for armour advantage is an important part of these interactions as currently modelled, and, if removed/emasculated, the whole system would need to be rejigged to bring those historical interactions back into line.

I do not think we envisage such a root-and-branch reinvention of the whole POA system as would be required to achieve this.

Would simply making armour more expensive address much of the original issue?

[rbodleyscott]

Would simply making armour more expensive address much of the original issue?

I think this is what we need to look at, yes.

[Polkovnik]

Not directly realated to armour POAs, but a suggestion I made on another thread would help to mitigate some of the problems being discussed here. That is to give a +POA in melee for foot in three ranks, if all other POAs are otherwise negative.
This would allow troops with worse armour (eg Prot spear vs armoured spear, barbarians vs Romans) to adopt a deeper formation to help even out the POAs.

[rogerg]

Taking a wider view like that may be needed. The common view seems to be that armour makes troops better in melee, but not the 50% better it currently does.
The current mechanisms are the PoA, the CT, quality re-rolls and the death roll.

Given that armour is protection, I still feel it ought to mitigate losses rather than be an offensive advantage. If a gain on the CT isn't popular, how about a higher death roll or an extra re-roll? The latter is a sort of 'half PoA'

[grahambriggs]

I agree that the armour effects as too deep in the rules/lists to allow for a change to how 'better armour' works.

Changes to points might work (armoured HF, MF more expensive; not sure if mounted need increasing)

Another way to balance it is to make impact more important. At present many players would prefer a melee POA from armour to an impact POA (especially as the armour POA helps vs shooting). For example, I'd rather be armoured light spear sword foot than protected impact foot sword.

Since armour is irrelevant at impact, increasing the importance of the initial clash could reduce the melee imbalance of armour without messing up all the troop interactions.

[MatthewP]

Maybe making the first round of melee equivalent to the impact phase. This would make impact foot more effective. Although might tip the balance to far for spear.

[Lionelc62]

Or 3 dice / stand instead of 2 during the impact phase ?
It will also increase the effect of El / Cm / terrain disorder (good thing) and lower the 'attack in column if disadvantaged in impact' effect.

Lionel

[philqw78]

Or 3 dice / stand instead of 2 during the impact phase ?
It will also increase the effect of El / Cm / terrain disorder (good thing) and lower the 'attack in column if disadvantaged in impact' effect.

Lionel

But reduce the effect of impact phase shooting.

[ethan]

Changes to points might work (armoured HF, MF more expensive; not sure if mounted need increasing)

Armoured foot could be 1AP a stand more and Protected mounted perhaps 1 AP a stand less than it is now.

[madaxeman]

Having protected cavalry not take the + POA for being shot would also be good

[hammy]

Having protected cavalry not take the + POA for being shot would also be good

While it would be good I am not convinced it would be in any way reasonable.

I remember medium cavalry being shot to pieces in pretty much every set of wargame rules I have ever played. At least in FoG they can go one rank deep and not get the penalty.