FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

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

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by timmy1 » Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:32 pm

No change required IMO,

Three
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:30 pm

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by Three » Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:41 pm

timmy1 wrote:No change required IMO,
I agree completely.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by ravenflight » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:33 am

I think we've got to resolve the effect of armour as it would be, and then work points out afterwards. The biggest reason I can see for mucking around with the armour rules is that DH are crap in comparison to Cuirassiers. So, maybe those who say 'no change is required' are correct, but the problem is with the cost effectiveness of 2 dice mounted.

So, maybe we're getting the tail to wag the dog.

Perhaps leave the armour rule as is, but work out ways of improving the DH/Cuirassier interactions. There have been suggestions (giving them ++ on overlap, reducing cost etc) so mucking around with armour rules isn't the only option out there.

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

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:19 am

ravenflight wrote:I think we've got to resolve the effect of armour as it would be, and then work points out afterwards.
Indeed - this is nothing to do with points; it is not an attempt to correct an imbalance in the points.

The biggest reason I can see for mucking around with the armour rules is that DH are crap in comparison to Cuirassiers.
Not so. The reason for looking at this is that Richard and myself think that Better Armour for mounted as a whole does not properly reflect history. People are, IMO, muddying the water by getting the points cost of DH (etc) mixed in with this - to repeat, it is not to do with points value for money.

If I may remind you of Richard's comment that I posted at the start of this topic:- "I agree 100% that (cavalry) armour is over-rated in close combat in the game. It is the main reason I switched to 100 POA instead of 1 POA in Pike & Shot, because it allowed me to make armour advantage only count as 0.5 (50) POA. This simple solution, unfortunately, cannot be applied to FOGR because of the monolithic POAs. Definitely something should be done. "

So, maybe those who say 'no change is required' are correct, but the problem is with the cost effectiveness of 2 dice mounted.

So, maybe we're getting the tail to wag the dog.
Well I'm quite clear that they are different issues.

Perhaps leave the armour rule as is, but work out ways of improving the DH/Cuirassier interactions. There have been suggestions (giving them ++ on overlap, reducing cost etc) so mucking around with armour rules isn't the only option out there.
Cost is covered by the mounted points topic - and views there would be very much appreciated.

Other ideas I'd ask be posted as new topics. Obviously they will impact on other topics, but IMO it is best if we keep them as separate discussions for the time being, we can draw them together as needed as we finalise the ideas to be included in the update. But, to bang on about this, if the ideas are really about sorting out the value for points cost then please think twice about posting them as we are going to change the points costs so we don't need fudges to sort that as we're doing it directly :D
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: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by kevinj » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:35 am

Realistically the nearest we've got to half POAs is requiring 2 grades of better armour to gain a POA for Mounted vs Mounted combat.

Points values for the affected troops need to wait until we've sorted out the effects, then we can consider how much change is necessary there.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by ravenflight » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:39 am

kevinj wrote:Realistically the nearest we've got to half POAs is requiring 2 grades of better armour to gain a POA for Mounted vs Mounted combat.
Just thinking about this though, what this is saying is that a Cuirassier vs a League of Augsburg DH would be evens on POA, where a Louis XIV DH would be disadvantaged. I'm not sure I would agree that this is a realistic portrayal of how I would envisage said hypothetical combat to go. Sure, quality would come into it somewhat, but I wonder which is better, a POA or a quality re-roll?

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by kevinj » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:51 am

I think the relevant comparison is that TYW Cuirassiers would be on even POAs with the DH that replaced them and later Louis XIV Horse would be on even POAs with contemporary armoured Horse. Louis XIV Horse can be armoured up until 1670 so there is an option that makes it better for them.

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

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:52 am

ravenflight wrote:
kevinj wrote:Realistically the nearest we've got to half POAs is requiring 2 grades of better armour to gain a POA for Mounted vs Mounted combat.
Just thinking about this though, what this is saying is that a Cuirassier vs a League of Augsburg DH would be evens on POA, where a Louis XIV DH would be disadvantaged. I'm not sure I would agree that this is a realistic portrayal of how I would envisage said hypothetical combat to go.
Perhaps the key thing about that matchup is that, as you say, it is hypothetical - probably the one to concentrate on there is the LoA cavalry against the Louis XIV cavalry to see if that is correct before the hypothetical one is considered?
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

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by hazelbark » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:36 pm

Do not switch to needing two levels for an armor POA. If you do you effectively reduce armor and a whole bunch of HA Superior Cuirassier are no longer the dominant weapon system and they basically were. You should then consider eliminating armor as a game mechanism which is too radical, but you are coming close.

Consider if you have a list option between sup HA or just sup A, wouldn't the default be the later just on points as the game effect is near nul?

Certainly gamers have long posited why armor does not give a death roll advantage. This is a common question as people come into the game. Which would certainly help Gendarmes, who many think need it.

As others have pointed out this is entirely related to the DH interactions. Find a different fix.

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

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:00 pm

hazelbark wrote: As others have pointed out this is entirely related to the DH interactions.

Not so - for the authors (who have raised this topic) it isn't entirely related to DH at all, it a mounted wide issue as Richard stated in the bit I have now quoted twice. Seriously, if this were just about DH we would not raise this idea.

Certainly gamers have long posited why armor does not give a death roll advantage.

Something that has crossed my mind as it has a feel of logic about it - armour saves you :D

How would you suggest such a mechanism work? An extra +1 on the Death Roll?
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

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by hazelbark » Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:34 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
hazelbark wrote: As others have pointed out this is entirely related to the DH interactions.
Not so - for the authors (who have raised this topic) it isn't entirely related to DH at all, it a mounted wide issue as Richard stated in the bit I have now quoted twice. Seriously, if this were just about DH we would not raise this idea.
Granted, RBS says armor is 1/2 too much. But that is not an option. So you need to explain what else you would consider.
Is this something like what you are musing?

2 levels = 1 POA
1 level = +1 CT (argument "you feel invincible")
Heavy Armored or Fully Armored = +1 on death roll except if shot at by artillery.
Unarmored = -1 on death roll versus pistols, unless DH. (this is somewhat serious but also to see if you are paying attention)

Lot of complication for chrome. Is it really worth it?

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by ravenflight » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:10 pm

I like the idea of armour helping saves, but I think the genie is too far out of the bottle to be able to use it.

For example, you're a BG of Cuirassiers who lose vs 2 enemy BG's. One is same level of armour, one is less armoured, do you have a + or not?

If you go with what YOUR armour is, straight up, how do you differentiate between HA and Armoured. You can't give +1 to armoured, +2 to HA, the HA would never die!!! And then what do you do with mixed armour?

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

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by timmy1 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:51 pm

How about in Mounted vs Mounted mellee ONLY, better armour instead of impacting POAs instead raises the troop quality one level (much like General fighting in the front rank)? Troops already counting as Elite would not see benefit - apart from that it works out at roughly 0.5 of a PoA.

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

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:16 pm

hazelbark wrote:
Granted, RBS says armor is 1/2 too much. But that is not an option. So you need to explain what else you would consider.

My suggestion is that for mounted to get the PoA for Better Armour one of the following must apply:

1. Two steps better armour, or
2. Enemy are Unsteady.


The reroll suggestion Timmy makes above is also worth thinking about IMO.

The Death Roll idea has problems as Ravenflight notes.

Better armour not counting against Pistols has also been suggested, however, that only covers a section of mounted (albeit probably the most popular) which I think rules that out.
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

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by ravenflight » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:03 am

My quick thoughts on this are that the ideas of that Nik has put up are of value, but I'm concerned about double changing.

I.e. If implemented, that other changes in the game for the improvement of 2 dice mounted may exacerbate any change and thus end up with uber troops or similar.

I do see that the proposed changes really help the Louis XIV & Hussar troop interactions with their historical enemies.

I would be comfortable running a Louis XIV DH into a League DH confident on victory. Their armour will not count unless I go disrupted and I'm less likely to have that happen, so all should be good.

So, as a soft start, I'm happy with this change.

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

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by Jhykronos » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:10 am

nikgaukroger wrote: My suggestion is that for mounted to get the PoA for Better Armour one of the following must apply:

1. Two steps better armour, or
2. Enemy are Unsteady.
I'm not certain armor is worth the bother in this case. The "two-steps" thing is going to be very rare in period (unlike in ancients, with the "protected" class between armored and unarmored), and the latter ability is generally a "win more" ability.
The reroll suggestion Timmy makes above is also worth thinking about IMO.
The only real issue I have is the "mounted only" thing. It would be a pretty inelegant kludge to have armor work one way for some troops and another way for others. Keep it simple.
The Death Roll idea has problems as Ravenflight notes.
It also has differing effects on large and small units (similar to the missile fire adjustment). It would be nice if there were an elegant way to handle it this way, though.
Better armour not counting against Pistols has also been suggested, however, that only covers a section of mounted (albeit probably the most popular) which I think rules that out.
Don't like this. Don't really like it for Heavy Weapons or Shot either.

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

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:42 am

ravenflight wrote: I.e. If implemented, that other changes in the game for the improvement of 2 dice mounted may exacerbate any change and thus end up with uber troops or similar.
Which other proposed changes for the improvement of 2 dice mounted are you thinking of 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

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by ravenflight » Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:32 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
ravenflight wrote: I.e. If implemented, that other changes in the game for the improvement of 2 dice mounted may exacerbate any change and thus end up with uber troops or similar.
Which other proposed changes for the improvement of 2 dice mounted are you thinking of here?
The bits you must have been referring to below. I DEFINITELY think I'' not alone in thinking that the two dice troops are not worth the money, so 'changes are needed'. You made it fairly clear in this post (to which I part quote below) that the armour has nothing to do with improving/making 2 dice mounted cost effective, so... I'm not sure about other changes, but if this isn't it, I'm unsure why you commented as you did.

nikgaukroger wrote:
The biggest reason I can see for mucking around with the armour rules is that DH are crap in comparison to Cuirassiers.
Not so. The reason for looking at this is that Richard and myself think that Better Armour for mounted as a whole does not properly reflect history. People are, IMO, muddying the water by getting the points cost of DH (etc) mixed in with this - to repeat, it is not to do with points value for money.

If I may remind you of Richard's comment that I posted at the start of this topic:- "I agree 100% that (cavalry) armour is over-rated in close combat in the game. It is the main reason I switched to 100 POA instead of 1 POA in Pike & Shot, because it allowed me to make armour advantage only count as 0.5 (50) POA. This simple solution, unfortunately, cannot be applied to FOGR because of the monolithic POAs. Definitely something should be done. "

So, maybe those who say 'no change is required' are correct, but the problem is with the cost effectiveness of 2 dice mounted.

So, maybe we're getting the tail to wag the dog.
Well I'm quite clear that they are different issues.

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

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:30 am

I wonder if you're reading things that are not there, or that I worded it badly.

In relation to not worth the money the changes I am on about are the points cost changes and not anything else.
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

donm2
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: FoG:R Update - Better Armour PoA

Post by donm2 » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:52 pm

I would prefer an improved saving throw where a looser has better armour. Armour is not an offensive weapon, it doesn't kill anyone.

LADG treats armour this way and I think it is one of the best things in the rules.

I spoke to RBS about this point last week and he was happy to consider.

Don

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”