BG Autobreak - proposal

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

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

BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:19 am

As we seem to have discussed this one thoroughly now we decided to run with the following as the official proposal for changes to the Autobreak rules.


Poor Battle Troops & Light Troops autobreak on 50% bases loses or if reduced to 1 base
Average & Superior Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 50% or if reduced to 1 base.
Elite Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 60% or if reduced to 1 base.

Army break point - suggestion removed
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: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by ravenflight » Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:40 am

nikgaukroger wrote:Army break point cannot exceed 1 point per 50 troop points of the army maximum size for that game - e.g. for an 800 point game the maximum army break point is 16.
I'm not so sure this one is so necessary with the proposed change in the Commanded Shot rules. The only time I've seen excessive break points is when Commanded Shot were used. Now, the points for a Commanded Shot are going to REDUCE the number of BG's as they will increase the overall cost OF that BG. Are there many (any) armies that can have tonnes of troops, and are they so all conquering that we need a rule to get around large break points? Are we weakening already weak armies whose only advantage is a big break point (Inca for example)?

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by timmy1 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:02 am

Nik

Agree with the proposal but with the same concern R expresses. I don't think that needs to be added UNLESS there are other changes that materially reduce the points values. The armies with 3 BG of Dragoons as filler might not take so many with the changes and you aren't going to get the CS abuse there was before. As for the armies where quantity IS the quality such as those far from civilisation including many non-European armies and the Scots, the high army break value is what makes them viable.

Regards
Tim

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by DavidT » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:07 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
Army break point cannot exceed 1 point per 50 troop points of the army maximum size for that game - e.g. for an 800 point game the maximum army break point is 16.
I have never come across this as a problem in FOG:R. I don't think that this change is needed.

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by kevinj » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:24 am

The issue regarding size is not generally found with 17th century western armies. It's generally eastern or African armies that can put down so many BGs that you just can't wade through them in a sensible timeframe.

urbanbunny1
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:54 am
Location: London

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by urbanbunny1 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:32 am

You can do a few horror western armies, but mostly they are the eastern ones.

At Warfare 2016, we had I think a Hungarian Kuric Rebellion army with 19 battle groups and I've seen a few Scot Covenant armies at a similar head count (all at 800 points)

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by ravenflight » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:46 am

urbanbunny1 wrote:I've seen a few Scot Covenant armies at a similar head count (all at 800 points)
Yes. But that is because of Artillery (already covered by minimum foot BG per artillery proposal) and Commanded shot (already covered by getting rid of the commanded shot as separate BG's)

vexillia

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by vexillia » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:51 am

nikgaukroger wrote:Poor Battle Troops & Light Troops autobreak on 50% bases loses or if reduced to 1 base
Average & Superior Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 50% or if reduced to 1 base.
Elite Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 60% or if reduced 1 base.
Here's what this means for the break points by BG size:

Code: Select all

Bases   50%     >50%    >60% 
   2    1       1       1 
   4    2       3       3
   6    3       4       4
   8    4       5       5
   9    5       5       6
  10    5       6       7 
  12    6       7       8
  14    7       8       9
  16    8       9      10
The difference between Poor & Lights and Average & Superior is clear.
The break point of Elites is the same as Average & Superior for BGs of 8 bases or less.
nikgaukroger wrote:Army break point cannot exceed 1 point per 50 troop points of the army maximum size for that game - e.g. for an 800 point game the maximum army break point is 16.
Good idea.

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:55 am

ravenflight wrote:
urbanbunny1 wrote:I've seen a few Scot Covenant armies at a similar head count (all at 800 points)
Yes. But that is because of Artillery (already covered by minimum foot BG per artillery proposal) and Commanded shot (already covered by getting rid of the commanded shot as separate BG's)

Point of order - Scots Covenanters do not have commanded shot.

As Light Art are (hopefully) going to be more useful with the proposed change they are more likely to be used and so the Scots (with cheap Poor BGs which are also getting a boost) are likely to be a possible issue in respect of size.
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

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:56 am

vexillia wrote: The break point of Elites is the same as Average & Superior for BGs of 8 bases or less.
I have no concerns about this.
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

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by DavidT » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:03 am

In western armies (ignoring mounted which have 2 and 4 base Elite BGs), Elite BGs come as 6, 7, 9 or 10+ bases. Only the 6 base BG does not benefit from the >60% rule, so this works fine (maybe not with those who like to play post 1635 Spanish).

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by ravenflight » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:56 am

nikgaukroger wrote:Point of order - Scots Covenanters do not have commanded shot.
Pretty sure the Marsden Moor version does. Or did I get the wrong army?

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:27 pm

ravenflight wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Point of order - Scots Covenanters do not have commanded shot.
Pretty sure the Marsden Moor version does. Or did I get the wrong army?
Well it optionally gets them (all 2 BGs) in the Parliamentarian troops.
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: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by kevinj » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:37 pm

Other than Light Troops, Superiors and Elites are not affected by this proposal.

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by ravenflight » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:58 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:Well it optionally gets them (all 2 BGs) in the Parliamentarian troops.
Yes, which is 3 BG's, and with the poor troops and artillery etc, meant that it was pretty easy to get to 17 (I think it was). Now, it would be 15. So... less than 16... so not necessary to make a rule about it.

quackstheking
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by quackstheking » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:10 pm

I agree with the Autobreak proposal.

I see no need to mess with the Army Break points - yes it may be tougher to get through larger armies but it is the size that makes them dangerous. I love using my Hawaiians but I have to accept substantial losses so that I can break the enemies units. If I become broken too early then the Hawaiians and other armies cease to be a viable option.

Remember Nigel Emsen used a 22 BG Scots Coventers army at Britcon one year composed of Poor BG's and he lost every game as the Poor units broke too easily. :D

I have only seen a couple of armies where an essentially sound army was "bulked out" by a few BG's of small poor units. The Chinese armies here are the most common. However people who use these armies tend not to win albeit their army may not be broken. Then they don't get used again!

Don

spedders
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by spedders » Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:55 pm

I agree with Don. You don't see large BG armies winning many tournaments and I think we addressing an issue that doesn't need addressing.

I think you are in danger of killing certain armies by this change.

Keith

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:30 pm

Following your feedback (thanks) we have removed the army break point suggestion.

Amendment noted in the original post.
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

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by timmy1 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:57 pm

[quote="nikgaukroger"]
Elite Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 60% or if reduced 1 base.
[/quote]

Nik

Do you mean this?

quackstheking
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by quackstheking » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:26 pm

Hi Nik/Kevin,

I'm not sure whether I should post this here or start a new thread - you decide!!

Changing the breakpoints for Average BG's (which I agree with) mean that both Cavalry and Infantry BG's will hang around for longer as that generally, they will each need one extra base loss before they Auto-break. This could actually mean that battles become less decisive as armies take longer to break!

I wonder whether therefore we should change the Cohesion Test wording for %age losses to:-

"For each 25% of original base losses"


At least then average 4 or 6 base BG's who were reduced to half bases and not now auto break, would have to test on taking 1 hit and would face an additional -1 on the CT - it may mean they break or face reduced effectiveness from CT's (which I think is good). I can't help thinking that any "average" troops who had seen 50% of their comrades rendered "hors de combat" would be a little shaky.

The benefit is that we stop the 50% break (which is critical in average cavalry/horse),but still force average troops to roll better than average to survive morale checks and more importantly restore the balance between BG survivability and Army Break!

Just saying!

Don

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”