Poll Most Broken Rule

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

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

Pick which you think is the most broken bit of the rules

Interpenetration
44
51%
Swarms
18
21%
Road and River Terrain Selection
9
10%
Evading off Table
3
3%
Intercept Charges
4
5%
Dave Ruddock's LH (this for Tim)
2
2%
Other (please specify)
7
8%
 
Total votes: 87

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8721
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Poll Most Broken Rule

Post by philqw78 » Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Which rule needs fixing the most? (I have time on my hands and don't like being a gallic noble)

Ghaznavid
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
Location: Germany

Re: Poll Most Broken Rule

Post by Ghaznavid » Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:01 am

philqw78 wrote:(I have time on my hands and don't like being a gallic noble)
You are of course aware that the natural step up from being a gallic noble is to become a german noble? ;)
Karsten


~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~

madcam2us
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:54 am
Location: Searching for the meaning of "Authors Intent"

Post by madcam2us » Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:03 am

I picked other...

I would like to see a better end game mechanic...

Madcam.
There goes another crossing the Rubicon!
W/D/L
2008
CoA - 3/0/0
C.I. - 1/1/1
2009
Ottoman - 6/0/1
Khurasian - 3/5/2
2010
Catalan - 4/0/0

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8721
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:07 am

madcam2us wrote:I picked other...

I would like to see a better end game mechanic...

Madcam.
I am asking for answers. What in yor opinion would be better?

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8721
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Poll Most Broken Rule

Post by philqw78 » Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:46 am

Ghaznavid wrote:
philqw78 wrote:(I have time on my hands and don't like being a gallic noble)
You are of course aware that the natural step up from being a gallic noble is to become a german noble? ;)
Garlic or sauerkraut? Mein gott und himmel.

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

Re: Poll Most Broken Rule

Post by lawrenceg » Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:06 am

Ghaznavid wrote:
philqw78 wrote:(I have time on my hands and don't like being a gallic noble)
You are of course aware that the natural step up from being a gallic noble is to become a german noble? ;)

B***** collaborators.
Lawrence Greaves

marioslaz
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: San Lazzaro (BO) Italy

Post by marioslaz » Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:46 am

I picked "Interpenetration", but also the idea of a better mechanism to end game is very important IMO. I already exposed my way to resolve interpenetration problems.
Mario Vitale

recharge
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:04 pm

Post by recharge » Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:57 pm

I picked "other" also. for end game mechanic. This has been discussed a lot on another string.

John

zellak
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: Ayrshire ,Scotland

Post by zellak » Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:07 pm

I also picked other, i understand why mounted get caught by HF when they break off, i just dont like it.

But i'm in the minority , not being a tournament player. And tourney games are under time constraints.

i would like mounted that break off to have the choice of not turning to face the enemy.
Come and Trade your D&D miniatures at ukroleplayers.com

jcmedhurst
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:20 pm

Post by jcmedhurst » Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:42 pm

Hi, cast my vote for interpenetration - nobody has tried this against me but I would be pissed off if they did.

I have done a bit of gentle stats on the BRITCON results and there is no evidence that any type of army does significantly better than would be expected by chance, not Dom Rom swarms and not LH based armies, so as far as I can see there is no reason to fix these rules.

Some Dom Rom players do well, others badly, same with LH based armies such as Parthian or Skythian.

The best indicator of being in the top 10 is one's position in the BHGS rankings, not the army being used.

The only possible exception is Ottoman Turk (1% significant) - which may be a case for Janissaries being a bit too good. But, mind you, they were pretty good, and maybe this is also a 'Pete' factor. If you include other shooty armies in the Late Period, the result disappears.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8721
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:14 am

zellak wrote:I also picked other, i understand why mounted get caught by HF when they break off, i just dont like it.
But i'm in the minority , not being a tournament player. And tourney games are under time constraints.
i would like mounted that break off to have the choice of not turning to face the enemy.
But mounted can't be caught by Foot when they break off. Unless Cav from LF or Kn/Cats from MF. Unless the mounted have something preventing them from breaking off their full move. They can be pinned. IMO if they could not be pinned and after breaking off could just carry on going mounted would be worth another 20% points per base as they could get away from any foot. Why bother testing not to charge the swiss. I can charge, then break off, then move away next turn. I may lose a base or 2 but I've held up his line for no real threat to myself.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3792
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:01 pm

Dave Ruddock's LH (this for Tim)
Just checked the results for this poll and two people have now voted for this option - I thought under the terms and conditions then this option was only available to Tim Porter?

I demand a recount.

Lionelc62
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 449
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 9:10 pm
Location: Northern France

Post by Lionelc62 » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:25 pm

Hi,

I picked "other" also for better end game mechanic. I think that the % of the opponent's army you have to break is too high (so longer game than needed).

Lionel

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2970
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:32 pm

dave_r wrote:
Dave Ruddock's LH (this for Tim)
Just checked the results for this poll and two people have now voted for this option - I thought under the terms and conditions then this option was only available to Tim Porter?

I demand a recount.
And I'm not one of them...
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3792
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:59 pm

Excellent. Whose a Tim Porter wannabee?

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8721
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:13 pm

dave_r wrote:Excellent. Whose a Tim Porter wannabee?
I thought it took allsorts to make a world?

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

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:49 pm

From the reaction to some umpiring moments at the ITC this weekend interpenetration is clearly the only answer to this question by a significant margin 8)
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

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8721
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:29 am

well only 57 people care, so nothing is that broken

AlanYork
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:44 am

Post by AlanYork » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:52 am

Is it too late to comment? I missed this poll completely at first but I voted for swarm armies being broken.

Having lots of little units running around the place maybe historically correct for a few armies but not for many. I can do it with my Yorkists, have 6 BGs of 4 Retinue billmen running around the place (if you can run for long in plate armour!) plus 1 BG of 4 Northern Border billmen and 3 BGs of 4 Town and County billmen. I COULD do it, but I don't because it's just plain wrong. Look at just about any WOTR battle and you will see armies formed up in three big blocks with archers in front or possibly on the wings and they ran at each other. There certainly was no little unit firework display messing around.

It's the list that is arguably at fault there but it seems that many armies are allowed to make up lots of little units, dance about and be unrealistically hard to beat in a normal length game due to the sheer number of battlegroups. I've never seen the Dominate Roman swarm and I certainly have no intention of criticising or disrespecting the gentleman that fields it but if, as I have heard, it consists of lots of little 4 man infantry units, well at first glance it looks like a tournament gaming device and bears little resemblance to any Late Roman army I have ever heard of.

That part of the rules seems to me like it needs looking at but then again as I said, maybe it's the lists that allow players to make swarm armies that would need adjusting. The old WRG 6th edition lists had Command Factors, 10 pts for regulars, 25 for irregulars, I always liked those rules and the lists and that concept would seem to be what's needed here. Whilst I'm at it, I should mention that in terms of army composition and army break points, giving as much value to a peasant mob as to the Varangian Guard is, in my personal opinion, nothing short of bizarre.

There actually doesn't seem that much wrong with these rules, they were a slow burner for me but I'm getting there. Perhaps that's why there wasn't so much of a reply to the poll.
Last edited by AlanYork on Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8721
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:04 am

AlanYork wrote:Is it too late to comment? I missed this poll completely at first but I voted for swarm armies being broken.
Never too late
Whilst I'm at it, I should mention that in terms of army composition and army break points, giving as much value to a peasant mob as to the Varangian Guard is, in my personal opinion, nothing short of bizarre.
There's a reason its like it is (Brian). It stops people using LF and Mob as expendable units to drag people out of position, getting them doing something they would never do. A BG of mob worth 12 points but 2 attrition points will not be used to fight knights. They will be kept out of the way. Proper troops will fight the knights. Whereas if the mob were worth less attrition points they would happily be thrown away.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”