Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

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 10:00 pm

As far as the rule in general... it adds a little convolution, but I think it gets us the exact outcome we are trying to achieve.

I would suggest including a couple of examples of the rule in action with the update.

In fact, maybe it would be good to have an examples section in the update just in general.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:01 am

Could be a good idea.
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: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:03 am

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.

Some more comments on this new suggestion would be appreciated :D

Impatient? Moi? :lol:
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: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by timmy1 » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:37 am

I like it (and I understand it)

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by spedders » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:04 pm

I like it too

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 » Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:09 pm

As requested, here are a few examples showing how the latest suggestion compares to the existing position.

Example 1
A - Louis XIV (Unarmoured, Superior) v B - L of A (Armoured Average). Both DH with Pistol/Pistol.
Currently: B has + POA for better armour. A will reroll 1s
Proposed: Neither have POA advantage. Both will reroll 1s.

Example 2
A – Swedish (DH, Armoured, Superior) v B – Imperialist (Horse, Heavily Armoured, Superior). Both with Pistol/Pistol.
Currently: B has + POA for better armour. Both will reroll 1s.
Proposed: Neither have POA advantage. A will reroll 1s, B will reroll 1s and 2s.

Example 3
A – Cuirassier (Horse, Heavily Armoured, Superior, Pistol/Pistol) v B Turk (Cavalry, Armoured, Superior, Bow/Sword).
Currently: If A is Steady they will have + for Pistol and + for better armour. Both will reroll 1s.
If A is not steady they will have + for better armour and B will have + for Sword. Both will reroll 1s
Proposed: If A is Steady they will have + for Pistol. A will reroll 1s and 2s, B will reroll 1s.
Proposed: If A is not steady B will have + for Sword. A will have + for better armour as they are otherwise at - POA. Both will reroll 1s.

Example 4
A – 8 English Men-at-Arms (HF, HW, Heavily Armoured, Superior) v B – 16 Scottish Pikemen (HF, Pike, Armoured, Average).
Currently – A get + POA for better armour. Pike get + for 4 Ranks of Pike. A will reroll 1s.
If B lose a base 1 file will lose POA and A will be at + for that file.
Once B has lost more than 4 bases, A will get an additional + for HW as the Pike will be in less than 3 ranks.
Proposed - Pike still get + POA for 4 Ranks of Pike. A will get + for having Better Armour and being otherwise at a net – POA. A will reroll 1s.
If B lose a base neither side will get a + POA. A will reroll 1s and 2s for that file.
Once B has lost more than 4 bases, A will get + POA for HW as the Pike will be in less than 3 ranks.

In summary, troops with better armour are the same as currently if at a disadvantage, but slightly worse off in even or better situations.
Last edited by kevinj on Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Vespasian28 » Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:05 pm

Much as you won't like it I think the solution has to be mounted only. The global fix only appears to work by messing with infantry interactions which appear to be OK.

Trying to think of something but in the meantime, is there an issue with Example 3 or is it there just as an example because I'm thinking the original rules make that about right as the Turk has no pistol.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:01 pm

Vespasian28 wrote:Much as you won't like it I think the solution has to be mounted only. The global fix only appears to work by messing with infantry interactions which appear to be OK.

Is this because you think there are specific examples where the interaction will no longer work, or a more general it is changing something you are happy with as it stands?

Asking mainly in case it is the former.

Trying to think of something but in the meantime, is there an issue with Example 3 or is it there just as an example because I'm thinking the original rules make that about right as the Turk has no pistol.

I think they are all just examples for illustration of what this scheme would mean so that the effect can be commented on.
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 » Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:04 pm

kevinj wrote:As requested, here are a few examples showing how the latest suggestion compares to the existing position.

Example 3
A – Cuirassier (Horse, Heavily Armoured, Superior, Pistol/Pistol) v B Turk (Cavalry, Armoured, Superior, Bow/Sword).
Currently: If A is Steady they will have + for Pistol and + for better armour. Both will reroll 1s.
If A is not steady they will have + for better armour and B will have + for Sword. Both will reroll 1s
Proposed: If A is Steady they will have + for Pistol. A will reroll 1s and 2s, B will reroll 1s.
Proposed: If A is not steady B will have + for Sword. B will have + for better armour as they are otherwise at - POA. Both will reroll 1s.
The last line should read: If A is not steady B will have + for Sword. A will have + for better armour as they are otherwise at - POA. Both will reroll 1s.

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 » Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:12 pm

Thank you for spotting that. I've fixed it now.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Vespasian28 » Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:50 pm

Is this because you think there are specific examples where the interaction will no longer work, or a more general it is changing something you are happy with as it stands?
I can actually see where people are coming from in respect of the mounted armour issue, especially the classic DH vs Cuirassier conundrum as despite what happened to Haselrig at Roundway, as in reality you would just shoot the unarmoured horse. But I don't want to interfere with the infantry interactions as a price of fixing it.

Would it be that complicated to have some kind of change whereby in purely mounted combats pistol negates better armour but the better armour gets the re-roll or whatever works out mathematically?

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 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:58 pm

Is there a specific Foot interaction that you think would be irreparably affected?

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 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:38 pm

Vespasian28 wrote:Much as you won't like it I think the solution has to be mounted only. The global fix only appears to work by messing with infantry interactions which appear to be OK.
I disagree. See:
DavidT wrote: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.
If something is a "no brainer" option, then there is a balance problem, either with the simulation or the point costs.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by ravenflight » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:47 pm

Jhykronos wrote:If something is a "no brainer" option, then there is a balance problem, either with the simulation or the point costs.
True, but just because someone says it doesn't mean it's true.

I've often pondered armour. In certain situations it most definitely would be a no-brainer, but in other situations less so. One example was my thoughts on 'increased quality of Swiss, or giving the armour'. It's not straight-forward 'no brainer'.

I've decreased the armour of my ashigaru to get an extra BG. So, again, it's not a no-brainer.

Having said all that, I feel that ANY solution has to be universal.

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 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:16 pm

ravenflight wrote:True, but just because someone says it doesn't mean it's true.
Of course... that's should be the unwritten disclaimer on everything you or I or anyone else posts.

In terms of infantry combat interactions, you really have the same problem as with the cavalry... the system doesn't provide a whole lot of resolution, and 1 POA in melee is a significant jump. They struggled with this in the ancients rules, and their solution in the PC game was to use fractional POAs (IIRC PIke and Shot uses something like 33% of a POA per difference in the armor).


- OFF TOPIC
As far as the Japanese, just the fact that the lists allow "Ashigaru units" or "Cavalry units" at this scale(*) is a bit suspect, so I'm not certain the troop interactions there are of huge concern, other than in terms of game balance.

(*) Well, for whatever scale we have anyway. The weapon ranges more or less indicate the ground and figure scale, and the system itself is essentially "Grand Tactical", but the lists run the gamut between the largest Ottoman hordes (100+ men per figure) and certain colonial forces (2+ figures per man). At the lower end of this range, I guess this unit classification could make sense.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by Vespasian28 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:21 pm

Is there a specific Foot interaction that you think would be irreparably affected?
Just the Flodden thing again. Your revised amendment makes the HA Bill "slightly worse off in even or better situations." That combined with the new, even just revised, autobreak rule makes it much more difficult for the English. We did the refights a couple of years ago so I cannot remember how close it was.

Interestingly, we have done refights of Flodden, Pavia, Edgehill, Lutzen and White Mountain with the rules as written and come up with a historical result every time. That, plus our club's propensity to only do historical match ups in our games, probably explains why the vast majority are unaware of any issues- period.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by ravenflight » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:38 am

Jhykronos wrote:Of course... that's should be the unwritten disclaimer on everything you or I or anyone else posts.
Sure, and I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise, but what I was trying to say in a round-about way was 'I don't think that's true' :).
Jhykronos wrote:As far as the Japanese, just the fact that the lists allow "Ashigaru units" or "Cavalry units" at this scale(*) is a bit suspect, so I'm not certain the troop interactions there are of huge concern, other than in terms of game balance.
I was merely saying that 'from a game perspective' I buy unarmoured ashigaru quite willingly. Sure, I understand that in reality they would have all been mixtures of Samurai and Ashigaru, but what I was mentioning is where I have an option to take ALL my Ashigaru as Armoured, I don't necessarily do so, meaning (for me) it isn't a no-brainer.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by hazelbark » Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:22 pm

I do think this change represents a pretty substantial one and for existing players does require more thinking.

Do I understand that better armor gives that side (A) a re-roll and its opponent (B) no longer suffers a POA?

Thus the change would look like:

6 dice each
v1
Side A 6 needing 4s = average of 3 hits
Side B 6 needing 5s = average of 2 hits.

proposal
Side A 6 needing 4s and re-rolling 1s = average of 3.08 hits
Side B 6 needing 4s = average of 3 hits

If this is a right, its a big change to weaken armor effect. Why not just each level of better armor is a +1 on death roll? Simpler.

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 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:30 pm

Your understanding is correct.

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

Re: Better Armour - proposal (updated)

Post by hazelbark » Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:07 pm

This armor effect seems like a lot less than 1/2 POA now then.

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”