BG Autobreak - proposal

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

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 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:28 pm

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

"For each 25% of original base losses"
This was introduced into Fog AM in V2. The last I heard they were proposing to revert to the original in V3. It would be worth checking with Terry why that is.

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 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:32 am

timmy1 wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote: Elite Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 60% or if reduced 1 base.
Nik

Do you mean this?

Yes.
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 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:15 pm

So an elite BG of 6 bases autobreaks as soon as it loses 1 (i.e. is now 5 bases remaining). You might as well remove the '>60% or' part.

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 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:42 pm

Oh I see, there was a missing "to". Just read it as if it were there :)

Would have been easier to just say that as it is so mind blowingly obviously wrong.

Amended.
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 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:58 pm

I was working on the assumption that you had some clue as to what you were doing...

Won't make that mistake again... :)

Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by Vespasian28 » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:06 pm

Coming to this a bit late but didn't want to just repeat my mantra of no change necessary without having something else to add.

I do not believe having different autobreak levels is a complication at all. More complaints have been heard from newbies in their first few games about POA's than autobreak levels.
I also understand the desire to make Average and Poor troops a bit more viable but going to >50% and 50% is a bit much in my view. Very few troops would fight even close to this casualty level (whether dead, wounded or slipping away) and I am a firm believer in Superior troops being so for their steadfastness and resilience when under pressure not just their skill at arms.

My own preference would be to retain the old Autobreak levels for Average and Poor troops, but call them something else like Break Point for purposes of illustration, and then do one of two things:

1. When reaching Break Point a unit failing a CT autobreaks... or

2. Having reached Break Point a unit testing for CT suffers a -1 (which would be my preference)

This allows Average and Poor troops to hang around longer as long as it is not required to test which is invariably because it has suffered from shooting, lost a combat or seen friends break or commander lost all of which would cause troops already having lost 30-40% casualties to have second thoughts. But not irredeemably so if supported, with a general etc.
They would Autobreak at the new levels.

I don't believe this to be introducing any further substantial level of complication either.

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 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:52 am

Been pondering autobreak for Poor troops as people seem concerned that 50% may be over egging it for the very large BGs.

As an alternative we could say >40% (i.e. as Average are now) - this gives the same autobreak as 50% for BG up to 8 bases, 1 less for BGs of 9, 10, 12 and 14 bases, and 2 less for 16 base BGs.

Apart from 4 base BGs which remain the same, this means BGs autobreak 1 base later than the current >30% level (please check I have that correct though).

Are there any Poor Light Troops that can be fielded in BGs larger than 8 bases? If so we would have to specify that Poor lights autobreak on >40%, if not it doesn't matter if we leave it as all lights autobreaking on 50%

RE: the alternative suggestion above I think we'd rather not have another significant change in the way things work over the ones we are already suggestion; just changing the autobreak as is but with different levels keeps things in line.
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 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:12 pm

Right, given the concerns about the larger BGs we have had a look at an alternative to the current proposal.

Here are 3 tables for how many bases need to be lost to trigger autobreak for comparison.

1. The rules as published.

2. The current proposal.

3. A mitigating suggestion which for larger BGs sits between the two.


Image
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

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by Jhykronos » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:55 pm

OK, so the formula for option 3 is basically:

Poor: Break at > 40% losses
Average: Up to 8 stands, break at > 50% losses, more stands break at > 4 + (unit size - 8 )*40%
Superior: Break at > 50% losses
Elite: Break at > 60% losses
Last edited by Jhykronos on Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by DavidT » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:59 pm

It is easier to think of Average as
Up to 8 stands, break at > 50% losses, more stands break at =50% loss

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 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:03 pm

Jhykronos wrote:OK, so the formula for option 3 is basically:

Poor: Break at > 40% losses
Average: Up to 8 stands, break at > 50% losses, more stands break at > 4 + (unit size - 8)*40%
Superior: Break at > 50% losses
Elite: Break at > 60% losses

I calculated Average as > (40% +1) FWIW - and fudged the 10 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

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 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:04 pm

DavidT wrote:It is easier to think of Average as
Up to 8 stands, break at > 50% losses, more stands break at =50% loss
Up to 9 if you're looking at it that way.
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: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by DavidT » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:18 pm

9 is one of those quirky ones which works either way. Whether it is >50% or =50% a 9 base unit still breaks on 5 base losses (unless you are really pedantic, in which case it would never break in the latter case - another plus for Later Tercios :D ).

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by Jhykronos » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:27 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:I calculated Average as > (40% +1) FWIW - and fudged the 10 8)
Bah, stupid smilies messing up my equation. Anyway, at least there is a mathematical expression that that fits it, fudging or no.

Whose idea was it to express this game mechanism in terms of multiples of 10%, in a system where the majority of the units are 4 or 6 stands? :P :P

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 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:27 pm

Mitigation propsal too complex for Average. Keep option 2 for all EXCEPT Poor where I like option 3.

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 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:34 pm

Our thought was to replace the percentages with the table so you don't have to work it out.

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 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:35 pm

Girl.

martymagnificent
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:22 am

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by martymagnificent » Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:19 am

I think any change that makes a broad range of units more resilient will tend to result in the game taking longer.

It is probably best to avoid this

Martin

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

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Post by Jhykronos » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:18 pm

martymagnificent wrote:I think any change that makes a broad range of units more resilient will tend to result in the game taking longer.

It is probably best to avoid this
Well, to be fair, as far as the cavalry goes, the game takes longer right now anyway because nobody takes the Average horse with the smaller breakpoints.

I suppose they could try to address this from the other direction (reduce the BP of Superiors), but somehow I suspect that's not likely to be popular, and -is- likely to make 4-stand mounted completely unviable.

As with the armor proposal, we don't have a lot of resolution to play with here.

Here's a brainstorm:

What if the auto breakpoint depended on the unit's cohesion? For example: Steady average troops would break on >50%, but if they were disrupted or fragmented it would drop to the old 40%.

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 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:38 pm

I believe people are looking at this slightly the wrong way round. Today if I have a 4 base Average Mounted BG it is going to spend a lot of the game staying out of harms way. With the change it will commit earlier and be willing to break off and charge again. I know it might seem counter intuitive but it is what will occur. As for the lower Autobreak levels for Superior Nik and I playtested such a proposed change under FoG:AM V2 and we saw that the game took longer while people considered if the charge was REALLY necessary.

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”