Field of Glory Ancients version 2

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

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

davesaunders23
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:37 am

reduce the power of skirmishers

Post by davesaunders23 » Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:02 pm

can i suggest that non skirmisher battle groups can only be reduced to fragmented by missile fire. they cannot be broken purely by missile fire. this would reduce the current fashion for armies with large numbers of skirmishers and/or evading bow armed troops. heavy infantry units running off the table through skirmisher bowfire seems a touch extreme, they could still not approach closer to the enemy. this would make those skirmisher heavy armies then take more heavier troops to finish off an enemy unit. or at least have to attack them in melee as well.

and/or introduce an extra level of cohesion drop which is purely one for bowfire. an initial "shot by missiles" cohesion drop, making cohesion reduction effectively 4 levels for bowfire. but still 3 levels for contact combats.

and make all competition armies 900pts. it worked well in the decline and fall period at Derby. this might also increase the number of undrilled armies. give an army which consists of 600pts+ undrilled non-skirmishers an extra 50 army points. 950 instead of 900.

900pts doesn't slow the game down in the least and gives non-shooting non-skirmisher armies a better chance.

GordonJ
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:05 pm

Post by GordonJ » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:09 pm

I really like the idea of non-skirmishers being reduced to fragmented by missile fire but NO further. In the case of infantry, it is easy to imagine them hunkered down behind their shields and suggesting any officers who are keen to advance should lead from the front. Not many are dying, so the unit is not going to get broken anytime soon But nor is the unit capable of any offensive manoeuvres. The fragmented cavalry might not be trying to dig a slit trench with their swords, but they too are devoting their energy to making as small a target as possible.

When light horse charge in to finish off the fragmented troops, there is a good chance they will scatter, but some desperate units making a last stand might fight well enough to see off light horse.

For an army with hordes of light foot skirmishers, they can fragment opponents and cripple an army but will have to send in some proper troops, such as light chariots, or even just light horse, to finish off the enemy.

All that seems rather realistic, and it doesn't require any great rewriting of the rules, and absolutely no rewriting of army lists. Excellent idea, Dave.

I prefer this option to any special "only shot by missiles" cohesion states, because that would require a lot more book-keeping.

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:32 pm

GordonJ wrote:I really like the idea of non-skirmishers being reduced to fragmented by missile fire but NO further.
I think you have a good point there, but some stupid situations can happen so some additional changes might be needed. For example, longbows getting knights to fragmented and then being forced to check CMT to finish the job as it is not possible to do it other way; light foot getting heavy foot fragmented and just sitting in front of them until someone ends the job as they can't charge and the fragmented troops can't charge either. Therefore, missile armed troops and skirmishers should be allowed to charge fragmented troops anywhere.

robertthebruce
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Granada, Spain.

Post by robertthebruce » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:41 pm

Therefore, missile armed troops and skirmishers should be allowed to charge fragmented troops anywhere.

I can´t imagine, 30 guys without protection or combat weapon charging 100 heavy knighs despite they were in a hard situation.

And I can´t think how the same Knighs could remain the place under a Storm of arrows with rout and flee.



I have played with Skirmishers armies lot of times, and in fact, for me it´s harder to win with this kind of armies, although it is more difficult to lose too.

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 » Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:26 pm

robertthebruce wrote:
I can´t imagine, 30 guys without protection or combat weapon charging 100 heavy knighs despite they were in a hard situation.
And I can´t think how the same Knighs could remain the place under a Storm of arrows with rout and flee.
I just meant that if we change something regarding shooting, other elements are involved.

If you want to put it differently, the light foot is not getting in hand to hand combat but shooting from a closer range to be more effective. All side effects should be taken into account before any decision is made.

expendablecinc
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

Post by expendablecinc » Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:32 am

Strategos69 wrote:
robertthebruce wrote:
I can´t imagine, 30 guys without protection or combat weapon charging 100 heavy knighs despite they were in a hard situation.
And I can´t think how the same Knighs could remain the place under a Storm of arrows with rout and flee.
I just meant that if we change something regarding shooting, other elements are involved.

If you want to put it differently, the light foot is not getting in hand to hand combat but shooting from a closer range to be more effective. All side effects should be taken into account before any decision is made.
I think all this is overkill for a v2 version. Just make the odds harder rather than sweeping impossible routs (eg +1 to CT and deth rolls if only shot at by light troops). Eventually the light troops will take them down but it will take all day.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:11 am

Too long a stream to comment on here, but have printed out for full perusal when having a break in early November.

Meanwhile could people please continue to start to post their ideas as separate streams within this forum and I will start a dialogue running on a few ... personal thoughts only at this stage but all will feed into RBS, TS and I as we think about vs 2.0. I think Terry and Richard are both deserving of a rest after some sterling efforts on FOG R and FOG N respectively.

Look forward to opening up a riched dialogue on the vs 2.0 possibilities.

Simon
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"

lawrenceg
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Former British Empire

Post by lawrenceg » Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:26 am

In the Appendices, it would be very useful to have:

The header at the top of the page say the topic of the appendix instead of "REFERENCE SECTION".

The list of subheadings with the current ones in bold down the side of the page (like in the other chapters).


Currently it's a real pain (IME) trying to find something in the Reference Section.
Lawrence Greaves

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8650
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:29 am

lawrenceg wrote:In the Appendices, it would be very useful to have:

The header at the top of the page say the topic of the appendix instead of "REFERENCE SECTION".

The list of subheadings with the current ones in bold down the side of the page (like in the other chapters).


Currently it's a real pain (IME) trying to find something in the Reference Section.
Its a pain trying to find anything anywhere
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

lawrenceg
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Former British Empire

short move up to an obstruction

Post by lawrenceg » Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:38 pm

If a BG can't move a full move because of an obstruction then I suggest that a short move as far as they can go should be an easy forward move instead of a difficult forward move. (i.e. not need a CMT for undrilled other).

It's annoying when you can't move supporting troops up because the friends in front are too close, and seems hard to justify historically.
Lawrence Greaves

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

Post by timmy1 » Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:36 am

Phil,, in that picture you look like you are wearing the tent rather than guarding it...

Easier to find stuff with Andy Bascombe's index.

lawrenceg
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Former British Empire

Lins of sight and charging

Post by lawrenceg » Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:12 pm

stefanjhill - in Teleporting Cavalry using Interpenetration in Rules Questions wrote: Thanks, I guess the difference between LoS and LoV needs to be cleared up, as some may see those two concepts as identical. As we argued in the game I had. The argument went something like. "If I can see it, why can't I volley arrows over the front friendly BG and into the enemy?". The conclusion we came is that there aren't any volley fire rules, so you can't. I would be nice to see a clarification of (a) when you can declare a legal charge and (b) LoS rules with regards to BG's not only terrain.

Musings from our first games,
S.
Lawrence Greaves

azrael86
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:55 pm

Dave is wrong.

Post by azrael86 » Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:53 pm

I think you should include this in v2?

As a restriction, it would apply only to a Dave who has over 60% of his BG's as LH, cv or LF.

kdonovan
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:26 pm

Imapct MF Foot Break Off?

Post by kdonovan » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:57 pm

What about allowing/requiring MF impact foot to break off like cavalry? (Maybe only against HF.) The barbarians would charge, and if they failed to break into the legion or phalanx would fall back, reform and charge again. This would mean the Romans only get their ++ POA in 1/2 the combats (melees) and the other 1/2 would be very risky (impact) combats. This might make barbarians too good against Romans. It could also result in combats where the barbarians get driven back 3 MUs per combat, forcing them back into unfavorable terrain or onto their supports.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2983
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Imapct MF Foot Break Off?

Post by grahambriggs » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:17 pm

kdonovan wrote:What about allowing/requiring MF impact foot to break off like cavalry? (Maybe only against HF.) The barbarians would charge, and if they failed to break into the legion or phalanx would fall back, reform and charge again. This would mean the Romans only get their ++ POA in 1/2 the combats (melees) and the other 1/2 would be very risky (impact) combats. This might make barbarians too good against Romans. It could also result in combats where the barbarians get driven back 3 MUs per combat, forcing them back into unfavorable terrain or onto their supports.
Hi Kevin, hope you're well. I think this has been raised previously but the authors felt that the breaking off piece was inappropriate historically. However, they do seem keen to improve undrilled impact foot as they are too weak right now. Current proposal (it's somewhere in the other threads in this section) is to make it an extra -1 (over and above those in there at present) for losing to undrilled impact foot (HF or MF).

So, rather than evening it up by having repeated impact phases, they're considering making the downside if you do lose against the hairies quite severe. Testing with 3 negative modifiers, 4 if you lose heavily, would mean dropping a level is quite likely even with rear support and generals, perhaps even a double drop.

kdonovan
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:26 pm

Re: Imapct MF Foot Break Off?

Post by kdonovan » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:31 pm

grahambriggs wrote:
kdonovan wrote:What about allowing/requiring MF impact foot to break off like cavalry? (Maybe only against HF.) The barbarians would charge, and if they failed to break into the legion or phalanx would fall back, reform and charge again. This would mean the Romans only get their ++ POA in 1/2 the combats (melees) and the other 1/2 would be very risky (impact) combats. This might make barbarians too good against Romans. It could also result in combats where the barbarians get driven back 3 MUs per combat, forcing them back into unfavorable terrain or onto their supports.
Hi Kevin, hope you're well. I think this has been raised previously but the authors felt that the breaking off piece was inappropriate historically. However, they do seem keen to improve undrilled impact foot as they are too weak right now. Current proposal (it's somewhere in the other threads in this section) is to make it an extra -1 (over and above those in there at present) for losing to undrilled impact foot (HF or MF).

So, rather than evening it up by having repeated impact phases, they're considering making the downside if you do lose against the hairies quite severe. Testing with 3 negative modifiers, 4 if you lose heavily, would mean dropping a level is quite likely even with rear support and generals, perhaps even a double drop.
Thinking about it some more though the problem lies in the ++ melee, not the initial impact interaction. Either dropping the SSword down to Sword for Romans and their imitators or reducing the benefits of armored vs. protected might be the way to go.

I also dislike that this -2 the CT seems to be bringing back the early DBM Irr Kn advantage over Reg Kn

One way to lessen the armor advantage in melee might be to say you only get the +POA if you have better armor and your opponent is not steady or you have two levels of armor advantage (heavy armor vs. protected or armored vs. unprotected) - the idea being the shield and protections from your friends helps well enough if everyone is line formation protecting each other but once a shield wall (or whatever) breaks up then it is more vulnerable. (The single difference in armor grade only adding if you had a net -POA might also work well at cutting down the benefit of a minor advantage in armor and is perhaps more elegant.)

Either of these armor changes would 'fix' quite a few other interactions such as armored vs. protected hoplites etc., heavily armored vs. armored knights, cataphracts vs. companions, etc. (Of course whether these all need to be fixed is another issue.)

kdonovan
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:26 pm

Deeper Deployment Zones if Both Armies Have <= 24 LH/Cav/

Post by kdonovan » Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:30 pm

When there are light horse and cavalry armies present the deployment distances work well and give the armies the space required for mobile battles to develop. However it seems to me that the deployment distances are too far apart when both forces are infantry, knight or combined arms armies leading to the main clash being delay unnecessarily. I would like to see all players allowed to deploy 5 MUs further in (except for ambushes) when neither force has more than 24 bases of non-general light horse, cavalry, light chariots or camelry. A player would not be required to deploy in the extra depth and I could see one of them opting to hang back a bit while the other deployed forward to try and achieve an earlier result. Such a change would allow infantry, combined arms and medieval armies to get to grips with each other about 1-3 turns quicker allowing for fewer draws in time limited games. I think it is even historically justifiable in that light horse and cavalry armies tended to retire quite a long way from the enemy at night to avoid being surprised by a night attack (foraging horses are very vulnerable to this). But the main benefit is game-related: a deployment scheme based on army composition would yield more decisive games in most cases while not disadvantaging the horse armies that need the room to maneuver and skirmish-delay. (Whether 24 is the optimal number of LH/Cv/LCH/Cam bases to split the armies I leave as an exercise of the reader - I just picked it as it is the number used in the deployment rules.)

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8650
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:42 pm

Ref Deeper deployment zones.

Why not allow all troops the opportunity to force march. If they do so they may deploy 6 MU further forwards, but take a CT at deployment. BG that force march must be deployed before any others in the army, but still in normal order of march.

A bit of risk and excitement. A bit further forwards. No rear support or generals to add to the CT. Not too risky if you are a huge block of foot. But a single BG of skirmishers could find itself disrupted at deployment, shot to fragmented in the first turn then routed in the next.

I have put this and the above post in their own thread
Last edited by philqw78 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

kdonovan
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:26 pm

Unit Command Points

Post by kdonovan » Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:57 pm

There has been quite a bit of (justifiable in my view) grumbling about the maneuver and filler advantage of smaller units. Back in WRG 6th-7th, etc. a small cost was assigned for each unit in addition to the per figure/base case. In those system sit was (IIRC) 10 points per regular unit and 25 points for irregulars. I think FOG could benefit from a similar system, though probably not the difference between drilled and undrilled unit costs.

How large should the cost per unit be? I think 15 points is probably the right number. This would push the standard 800 point game up to around 1000 points. A small army would end up paying about 15% of their points for command and a large one about 25%.

If a player had to spend an extra 15 points per unit then there would be an incentive to chose to have fewer but bigger units. A player with 12 units instead of 18 would get an extra 90 points - approximately enough for an extra shock unit or two extra skirmisher units. It would also cut down somewhat on the attraction of having several small poor units as filler.

By encouraging players to have slightly fewer units games would probably go a little bit faster too but we would still have the spectacle of lots of troops on the table.

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

Post by timmy1 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:13 pm

Kevin

I used to think that way (and to some extent still do) and can justify it historically. However I think we are starting to see a trend for small Superior Armoured Mounted BGs and larger foot BGs as they are more resiliant. I think that doing as FoG:R has done and make Superior relatively more expensive might reduced the number of small BGs (and harm my favourite army Principate Roman).

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”