Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10267
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:59 pm

OK, here is a reworded version for your consideration.
Melee Table: Delete POA for better armour.

P.35

Section "Battle Group Quality Re-rolls":

Replace the bullet list and the first paragraph after with the following:

Quality Re-roll Scores

------------ 1,2,3
Elite troops can re-roll 1’s and 2’s
Superior troops can re-roll 1’s
Average troops re-roll no dice
Poor troops must re-roll 6’s

A dice is only re-rolled once.


A commander fighting in the front rank of the battle group in close combat allows the close combat “to hit” dice (but not any other dice rolls) of that battle group to be one re-roll level higher.

If a base has Better Armour than the enemy it is in combat with, and that enemy is not a type that ignores Better Armour (see below), the Melee close combat “to hit” dice (but not any other dice rolls) of that base are one re-roll level higher. This is cumulative with the re-roll effect of a commander fighting in the front rank.

Types that ignore Better Armour:

• Shot
• Troops armed with Heavy Weapons
• Elephants
• War Wagons
• Protected Horse, Protected Determined Horse, or Protected Cavaliers

As before any suggestions for improved wording most welcome.
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

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

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

Probably the last bullet needs to be "Protected Horse, Protected Determined Horse or Protected Cavaliers"; otherwise someone is sure to argue the adjective "protected" only applies to the first noun in the list.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10267
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:31 pm

Done 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

Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Vespasian28 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:02 pm

Again assuming I have understood correctly, this proposal means more hits being generated which appears to impact on the 1HP3B modifier on the close combat CT test and make more likely the 2 hits necessary to test for commander loss. Also a more heavily armoured BG is going to be more prone to death rolls when drawing or winning a melee combat than previously as their better armour no longer prevents hits but allows them to hit their lesser armoured opponents more.

So melee combat becomes more bloody whereas impact combat remains the same?

All in all, no thanks.

(Apologies for posting this twice as did not notice the updated thread.)

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by timmy1 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:00 pm

Nik

I am happy with this as written. Of all the changes this is the one that needs playtesting the most.

Regards
Tim

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Jhykronos » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:49 am

Looks a lot better.

I didn't really care one way or the other whether to count the reroll for higher or lower armor, but one consequence of doing it the way you have is that it is now possible to be rerolling 1-4 on the dice. Probably not a big issue, but there it is.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10267
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:59 am

I have been wondering about restricting the upper re-roll to the top line of the table - i.e. 1, 2 and 3's.

Would need a line adding to make that clear.

Any thoughts?
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: 10267
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:08 am

Martin posted this wording suggestion on the old thread so copying it here:
vexillia wrote:
A commander fighting in the front rank of the battle group in close combat allows the close combat “to hit” dice (but not any other dice rolls) of that battle group to be one re-roll level higher.
If a stand is in combat with enemy that has a lower armour rating and that is not Shot, Heavy Weapons, Elephants, War Wagons, Protected Horse, Protected Determined Horse or Protected Cavaliers, the Melee close combat “to hit” dice (but not any other dice rolls) of that stand are one re-roll level higher. This is cumulative with the re-roll effect of a commander fighting in the front rank.
Replace second paragraph on p35 with:

Close combat rolls to hit are re-rolled as above plus the maximum score re-rolled is increased by 1 for each of the following:
  • Commanders fighting in the front rank.
  • Battle groups (bar exceptions below) are fighting an enemy with better armour.
The armour re-roll does not apply if the Battle group is any of Shot, Heavy Weapons, Elephants, War Wagons, Protected Horse, Protected Determined Horse or Protected Cavaliers.
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

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: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by quackstheking » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:25 am

I've never had a problem with the Heavier Armour rules and therefore I'm not clear why we are revisiting them.

I'm also with Vespasian on this, in that as written, having heavier Armour helps me score hits on the enemy rather than prevent more hits on me -seems perverse!

The only "Armour" interaction that doesn't seem to ring true historically in the game is Heavily Armoured Curaissiers against Armoured Determined Horse. The historical progression/development to lighter charging cavalry over more heavily armoured Caracole Horse favours the Horse and ironically at Impact the Armour isn't reflected. We now when we face these situations, for the more expensive DH, a protracted melee will end in inevitable defeat. The extra dice for overlaps often does not apply as Horse BG's tend to fight shoulder to shoulder. The issue for me is that the DH get no benefit at impact!

Maybe we should turn this around and give PP Horse a negative POA when fighting DH!

However, on the Armour front I'm not in favour of change.

Don

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10267
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:36 am

quackstheking wrote:The issue for me is that the DH get no benefit at impact!
I hope you will excuse me picking just one thing from what you posted, however, IMO it is quite important.

There is, as far as I could see when researching for the original rules, absolutely no evidence to support Determined Horse having an inherent benefit at Impact over Horse.

If you know of any please start a new topic with that evidence and we can look at it.


EDIT - actually I've started one so please contribute 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

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: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by quackstheking » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:05 am

It was suggested as a potential game mechanic to balance up the DH/Curraisier interaction which is the only really broken bit of the armour rules. This was not based on any historical evidence of an advantage at it impact although once introduced by Gustavus, the other 30YW enemies rapidly adopted the tactic!

Equally, I would ask what your evidence is, that having heavier armour makes it easier for me to hit an opponent rather than tougher for him to injure me! :D

Don

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10267
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:18 am

quackstheking wrote:It was suggested as a potential game mechanic to balance up the DH/Curraisier interaction which is the only really broken bit of the armour rules. This was not based on any historical evidence of an advantage at it impact although once introduced by Gustavus, the other 30YW enemies rapidly adopted the tactic!
Not just the DH/Cuirassier interaction but all the mounted interaction which feature Better Armour - the DH/Cuirassier is just the one most mentioned. Trust me, if it were just DH/Cuirassier interaction we'd be looking for a different solution. Obviously the proposal has moved to encompass infantry as well and that is because no suggested mechanism for just mounted seemed OK and we thought that making re-rolls just mounted would be over-complex (and nobody posted of any foot interactions that would be broken by it when we asked.

On the DH at impact - please post to the new topic created, thanks :)

Equally, I would ask what your evidence is, that having heavier armour makes it easier for me to hit an opponent rather than tougher for him to injure me! :D

Don

Bugger all :D This is about getting the right effect - sometimes you end up with something that is a bit illogical but we feel that the "side effects" are worth it in this case. The alternative, as mentioned, is to drop a re-roll level when facing Better Armour, however, as that slows down combat we feel that it is not the best way forward. If you'd prefer that option please say so - this is still just a proposal and not yet fixed and input is valuable. (and we do recognise that your base position is no change is necessary)
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

Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Vespasian28 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:26 pm

We have refought Flodden a couple of times and come up with the right result both times.

The Impact mechanism remains the same but now we will have 16 Average Armoured Scots pike hitting 8 Superior Heavily Armoured Billmen on 4's and the Billmen hit on 5's and 6's but re roll 1's and 2's still needing 5's and 6's. Sorry but I'm not a mathemetician but I would like to know how this changes the odds. Even before knowing I now need to kill 9 Scots before they kill 5 of me with the new autobreak levels.

I know it's only a game mechanic but better armour not reducing likely hits to such units will effect when we risk Generals or throw in small better armored units against bigger less armoured ones as the risk of losing casualties has gone up.

From an initial statement of not wanting to impact on infantry combats, as no perceived issues, we are now doing exactly that to fix mounted armour.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10267
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:39 pm

Vespasian28 wrote:We have refought Flodden a couple of times and come up with the right result both times.

The Impact mechanism remains the same but now we will have 16 Average Armoured Scots pike hitting 8 Superior Heavily Armoured Billmen on 4's and the Billmen hit on 5's and 6's but re roll 1's and 2's still needing 5's and 6's. Sorry but I'm not a mathemetician but I would like to know how this changes the odds. Even before knowing I now need to kill 9 Scots before they kill 5 of me with the new autobreak levels.
A very pertinent example - as it stands the Superior billmen are equal PoA's re-rolling 1's which is a 0.5 PoA to the billmen, the proposal makes the fight equal (leaving aside the losses to break bit of course).

A tad embarrassing it didn't spring to mind before :oops:

Much appreciated :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

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by DavidT » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:50 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
Vespasian28 wrote:We have refought Flodden a couple of times and come up with the right result both times.

The Impact mechanism remains the same but now we will have 16 Average Armoured Scots pike hitting 8 Superior Heavily Armoured Billmen on 4's and the Billmen hit on 5's and 6's but re roll 1's and 2's still needing 5's and 6's. Sorry but I'm not a mathemetician but I would like to know how this changes the odds. Even before knowing I now need to kill 9 Scots before they kill 5 of me with the new autobreak levels.
A very pertinent example - as it stands the Superior billmen are equal PoA's re-rolling 1's which is a 0.5 PoA to the billmen, the proposal makes the fight equal (leaving aside the losses to break bit of course).

A tad embarrassing it didn't spring to mind before :oops:

Much appreciated :D
16 Armoured Average Armoured Pikemen will cost you 96 points while 8 Superior Heavily Armoured Billmen will cost you 80 points. Considering that the pike have other advantages (auto support, better in impact and better v mounted) is this a fair points difference? The combat between these two units is not straightforward. If the pike lose a base, they lose a POA for that file while the billmen don't lose POA for casualties - instead they lose dice. I am tending towards the opinion that maybe this armour change should be for mounted only.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Jhykronos » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:32 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:A very pertinent example - as it stands the Superior billmen are equal PoA's re-rolling 1's which is a 0.5 PoA to the billmen, the proposal makes the fight equal (leaving aside the losses to break bit of course).
I agree, this was the kind of scenario I was interested in when I asked the question myself.

But your figures are wrong. A reroll is worth half a POA -IF- the POAs are equal. It's worth less if you are disadvantaged, and more if you have a POA advantage...

In this example, the Billmen would be - POA, so would hit on 1/3 of their dice, miss with 1/3 of their dice, and reroll 1/3 of their dice. 1/3 of the reroll dice would also hit, so the Billmen would expect to inflict 4/9 hits per dice, while the Scots would be inflicting 1/2 hits per dice.

Looks like we have a legitimate unwanted consequence here. Which is unfortunate, because I was feeling good about the infantry interactions when DavidT posted this in his playtest report:
However, it did make me consider taking my Swiss as unarmoured rather than armoured and using the points on something else - normally it is a no brainer to take armour.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by kevinj » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:59 pm

I think some of the examples have shown that the reroll option won't do the job on its own, so we've had another think. This one is somewhat inelegant but we think it may provide the fix we're looking for without breaking anything else. So, the next suggestion is (and if people like it I know we'll need to word it properly):

If the BG with better Armour is at an overall - or -- POA they get a + POA *
If the BG with better Armour is at an overall + or Even POA* they get the improved rerolls as proposed earlier.

*Except against troops who negate better armour.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Jhykronos » Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:08 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
quackstheking wrote:Equally, I would ask what your evidence is, that having heavier armour makes it easier for me to hit an opponent rather than tougher for him to injure me! :D

Don

Bugger all :D This is about getting the right effect - sometimes you end up with something that is a bit illogical but we feel that the "side effects" are worth it in this case. The alternative, as mentioned, is to drop a re-roll level when facing Better Armour, however, as that slows down combat we feel that it is not the best way forward. If you'd prefer that option please say so - this is still just a proposal and not yet fixed and input is valuable. (and we do recognise that your base position is no change is necessary)
Actually, the thinking is justifiable both ways. Having heavier armor may not make it easier for me to hurt my opponent, but him having less armor than me certainly does.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Jhykronos » Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:21 pm

kevinj wrote:I think some of the examples have shown that the reroll option won't do the job on its own, so we've had another think. This one is somewhat inelegant but we think it may provide the fix we're looking for without breaking anything else. So, the next suggestion is (and if people like it I know we'll need to word it properly):

If the BG with better Armour is at an overall - or -- POA they get a + POA *
If the BG with better Armour is at an overall + or Even POA* they get the improved rerolls as proposed earlier.

*Except against troops who negate better armour.
It would require a minimal wording change. Put the existing better armor POA back on the chart, changing the last field to read: "Except vs. types that ignore better armor. Only applies if they would otherwise be at an overall disadvantage after all POAs of both sides have been totaled and netted out."

Note, I essentially copied the wording from the protected horse line. Actually, you may want to group these lines together under that disclaimer, and indicate that they are not cumulative.

On the reroll wording, add a sentence to the end of the "Better Armor" paragraph: "This only applies if the base did not benefit from a Better Armor POA for its melee dice."

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Jhykronos » Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:59 pm

Here's an example of what I'm talking about for the melee chart :

|If they would otherwise beat an overall disadvantage after all POAs of both sides have been totalled and netted out|
|Protected Cavaliers, Protected Horse, or Protected Determined Horse | + | Against any mounted |
|-or- | | |
|Better Armor (Front Rank) | + | Except against troops that negate better armor|

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”