The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

MikeMarchant
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:46 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by MikeMarchant » Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:36 pm

edb1815 wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:28 pm
MikeMarchant wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:30 pm
Dare I suggest that part of the problem might lie in the fact the game doesn't model professional armies terribly well.

For the most part, the game deals with a collection of individual units, which might be apporpriate to an army of Gallic warband, but less apporpriate to an army like a late Republican or early Imperieal Roman one. I'm sure this must be true of many other professional armies too, but those are the ones I am most familiar with.

Ignoring all the many off-field advanatges, not least of which is superior logistics, there are on-field advantages, especially superior command and control, superior discipline and superior training. A Roman army can perform all sorts of maoeuvres at century, cohort and legion level, for example, even while under pressure, thanks to hours and hours of drill, that many other armies couldn't even dream of. I am sure there are other advantages too. If these advanatges are not represented in the game then clearly the smaller, higher quality armies, are not going to be as effective as they would have been on an historical battlefied.

This isn't intended as a criticsm, a game can only attempt to model so much, and if you were to ask me how these things could be modelled in the game I wouldn't have an answer for you.


Best Wishes

Mike
The game mechanic for this is giving the professional armies infantry Drilled status. They are then more manuverable. I suppose giving professional armies more superior generals might help with the command and control element. Although historically that wasn't always the case.
Yes, the superior generalship crtainly wasn't always the case. Perhaps the Drilled Status doesn't sufficiently represent the historical advantage?


Best Wishes

Mike

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22066
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:40 am

MikeMarchant wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:36 pm
edb1815 wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:28 pm
MikeMarchant wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:30 pm
Dare I suggest that part of the problem might lie in the fact the game doesn't model professional armies terribly well.

For the most part, the game deals with a collection of individual units, which might be apporpriate to an army of Gallic warband, but less apporpriate to an army like a late Republican or early Imperieal Roman one. I'm sure this must be true of many other professional armies too, but those are the ones I am most familiar with.

Ignoring all the many off-field advanatges, not least of which is superior logistics, there are on-field advantages, especially superior command and control, superior discipline and superior training. A Roman army can perform all sorts of maoeuvres at century, cohort and legion level, for example, even while under pressure, thanks to hours and hours of drill, that many other armies couldn't even dream of. I am sure there are other advantages too. If these advanatges are not represented in the game then clearly the smaller, higher quality armies, are not going to be as effective as they would have been on an historical battlefied.

This isn't intended as a criticsm, a game can only attempt to model so much, and if you were to ask me how these things could be modelled in the game I wouldn't have an answer for you.


Best Wishes

Mike
The game mechanic for this is giving the professional armies infantry Drilled status. They are then more manuverable. I suppose giving professional armies more superior generals might help with the command and control element. Although historically that wasn't always the case.
Yes, the superior generalship crtainly wasn't always the case. Perhaps the Drilled Status doesn't sufficiently represent the historical advantage?


Best Wishes

Mike
And yet historically, drilled or otherwise, most Ancient armies just marched straight forwards into contact.

The Battle of Ilipa is so remarkable because the sort of manoeuvring that the Roman army undertook in that battle was almost unheard of.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

General Shapur
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:25 pm
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by General Shapur » Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:16 am

Perhaps switching to hexes would help - then you can 3 frontal sides 2 flank and 1 rear. It would require more skill to really flank a unit. Actually - often wondered why this is a square based game rather than hexes. (Don't need to answer - thats probably off limits - lol)
Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future, too. M.A.

melm
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by melm » Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:48 am

The square game is actually octagon game, isn't it? It is true that the current octagon tile offers more flank/rear attack opportunity for 5/8 comparing frontal attack 3/8. The hexagon offers 3/6 for flank/rear and 3/6 for frontal attack.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9186
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:15 am

I know that I keep banging on about no automatic cohesion loss for flank attacks by infantry units, but maybe something like superior foot units do not suffer automatic cohesion loss when attacked in the flank unless it is by another superior foot unit; or turn it around and say that raw infantry units cannot achieve an automatic cohesion drop when attacking other infantry units in the flank unless the unit they are attacking is of the same calibre?

edb1815
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by edb1815 » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:13 pm

I can't help but go back to my TT FOG experience on this since cohesion loss for a flank attack is just an integral part of the game. Maybe it is easier to achieve in the PC game because of the smaller unit footprint. It is a balance though because hitting infantry in the flank should be devastating or potentially so even for better units.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9186
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:51 pm

edb1815 wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:13 pm
I can't help but go back to my TT FOG experience on this since cohesion loss for a flank attack is just an integral part of the game. Maybe it is easier to achieve in the PC game because of the smaller unit footprint. It is a balance though because hitting infantry in the flank should be devastating or potentially so even for better units.
And then we get into the discussion as to whether flank attacks and rear attacks are actually separate things given the propensity for units to be deployed in extended lines throughout this period.

ianiow
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by ianiow » Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:24 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:15 am
I know that I keep banging on about no automatic cohesion loss for flank attacks by infantry units, but maybe something like superior foot units do not suffer automatic cohesion loss when attacked in the flank unless it is by another superior foot unit; or turn it around and say that raw infantry units cannot achieve an automatic cohesion drop when attacking other infantry units in the flank unless the unit they are attacking is of the same calibre?
Taking the view that we are really fighting on Octagons rather than squares, I would use Pete's idea that the 3 'rear sides' only are auto cohesion loss but add a compromise that the 2 flank sides could be tested for cohesion loss. Perhaps this will give the Superiors the little boost they need?

Geffalrus
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Geffalrus » Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:40 pm

Personally, I would seriously worry about messing with the mechanics of the flanking rules. Flanking is a key aspect of combat in this (and most) eras, and it's already a little nerfed compared historical examples of armies breaking and running at the mere sight of units on an open flank.

I think the issue of horde armies should be dealt with by changing the number and pricing of cheap units in armies. Historically, horde armies of garbage troops were rarely, rarely as effective as they seem to be in this game. Historical armies looked like the societies that spawned them and either were composed of similar proportions of rich, middle class, and poor, OR represented the wealth and power of the society by utilizing professional troops funded at state expense (mercenaries, royal guards, legions, etc).

Personally, I would advise taking a look at the "horde" army lists and reevaluating what units are auto-purchased, what unit numbers are possible, and what unit options are available.

Additionally, I like the idea of making Raw/horde units larger sized, more expensive, and fewer in total number. Small, mobile units that excel at flanking and infiltrating should really only be common options for professional military forces or armies that relied on guerrilla tactics. Raw units in particular should be purchased in order to afford Superior units - not - to overwhelm your opponent with a super swarm.

paulmcneil
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: Winchester, UK
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by paulmcneil » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:24 pm

I think the points system judges all units as individual units rather than the combined strength of similar units. e.g. one archer unit is pretty useless, but put a dozen of them together and you have something that punches way beyond the sum of the individual units, so maybe have an incremental cost for such units over a certain number. Similarly games are now won, between "equals" based on out flanking, double drops in morale, and rallies from rout, so perhaps again a surcharge for very high numbers of non-light troops, get rid of double drops in morale, and thin the tails on rallies from rout, i.e. take the extremes out of the rallies that give an incongruity between sides.
Paul McNeil

Geffalrus
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Geffalrus » Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:51 am

paulmcneil wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:24 pm
I think the points system judges all units as individual units rather than the combined strength of similar units. e.g. one archer unit is pretty useless, but put a dozen of them together and you have something that punches way beyond the sum of the individual units, so maybe have an incremental cost for such units over a certain number. Similarly games are now won, between "equals" based on out flanking, double drops in morale, and rallies from rout, so perhaps again a surcharge for very high numbers of non-light troops, get rid of double drops in morale, and thin the tails on rallies from rout, i.e. take the extremes out of the rallies that give an incongruity between sides.
You're absolutely right about the difference between 1 archer unit and many archer units. "Everything counts in large amounts." I'm not sure if a ramping cost scale is really the answer. I could see armies that rely on multiple expensive mainline units (pike armies, warband armies, etc) getting absolutely hosed by that sort of change. I'd argue instead for a rethinking of max unit numbers for certain armies and unit types.

Flanking, cohesion tests, and rallies from routing are all things that get exacerbated by horde armies, because to win against them, you have to CUT. THROUGH. SO. MANY. UNITS. OMFG. Sure, chain routs can help, and that's one area where mass raw infantry can get into trouble. But otherwise, having more units means more times you're rolling for routed units to rally, and more opportunities for you to work a unit around a flank. To the extent that it seems like the key strategy for many armies is to go whole hog around one type of unit. Mass skirmisher. Mass infantry. Mass cavalry. To the exclusion of other units and types, leading to very unbalanced unit compositions.

Cunningcairn
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Cunningcairn » Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:34 pm

ianiow wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:24 pm
stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:15 am
I know that I keep banging on about no automatic cohesion loss for flank attacks by infantry units, but maybe something like superior foot units do not suffer automatic cohesion loss when attacked in the flank unless it is by another superior foot unit; or turn it around and say that raw infantry units cannot achieve an automatic cohesion drop when attacking other infantry units in the flank unless the unit they are attacking is of the same calibre?
Taking the view that we are really fighting on Octagons rather than squares, I would use Pete's idea that the 3 'rear sides' only are auto cohesion loss but add a compromise that the 2 flank sides could be tested for cohesion loss. Perhaps this will give the Superiors the little boost they need?
Good idea!

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9186
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Skirmishers!!

Post by stockwellpete » Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:11 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:27 am
Cunningcairn wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:37 am
I think a bigger problem is mismatched opponents like heavy foot versus armies consisting entirely of a horde of skirmishers. The game thankfully doesn't model this type of conflict very well and I believe there does need to be a restriction on the percentage of skirmishers in an army. Not as restrictive as in FOG1 digital league but maybe no more than 50% of an army or 15 elements?
How many armies are there where the number of skirmishers are a problem? Which armies are they?
Cunningcairn replied,

"I think over 15 to 20 skirmishers per 1200 points army list can lead to pointless and frustrating games. To the best of my knowledge there are 21 lists with 20 or more skirmishers. They follow below. The number is the total of LH and LF.

Indo-Parthian – 25
Libyan - 28 and 32
Moorish – 52
Navarrese – 22
Numidian or Moorish - 42 and 52
Palmyran 272 to 273 AD – 24
Parthian – 34
Skythian 750 to 551 BC – 23
Spanish 300 to 10 BC – 25
Spanish Sertorius – 28
9 of the 11 Thracian lists have between 20 and 30."

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9186
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by stockwellpete » Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:12 am

Can I have opinions about the numbers of skirmishers in some of the armies please? Does there need to be some sort of limit set on them? I have not set up a poll yet as I am not sure how much of an issue this is at the moment.

Morbio
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1821
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by Morbio » Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:57 pm

I think skirmishers are just another part of the game. I can understand that they can be frustrating to play against, but often they are beatable with the right unit selection and the right tactics. I recently beat Rex's Numidian/Moorish army with the LA Ptolemiac army, it was a close run thing, but an interesting challenge. I accept there are probably some armies that couldn't win (but may not lose) against skirmisher armies, but that's just another facet of the game. I like the idea that armies should be like rock, paper, scissors, with some armies more challenging than others and some match-ups will be one sided. My preference is to keep the variation. The archer based armies were nerfed, now we are considering nerfing skirmishers, horde armies and superior impact foot armies. Let's please keep the variation in the game because I want to avoid games where armies armies are lined up and then march to melee and then a few rounds later someone wins.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the frustration (and the challenge) but I reckon I face maybe 1 or 2 of these armies per season. So I accept the frustration to have the variation.

SnuggleBunnies
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:44 pm

I am wholly of Morbio's opinion

harveylh
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:32 pm

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by harveylh » Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:56 pm

I agree with Morbio. I hate playing skirmisher armies but on average I have played one a season and as he puts it, the frustration is worth the variation.

devoncop
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by devoncop » Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:26 pm

I agree with the a above.

Please can we not nerf medium foot, skirmisher, horde or any other armies.

Thanks 👍

PS.....by the same token I don't think armies should be restricted to one or two from the same category per Division in the League but that is a different debate.

Nosy_Rat
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:00 pm

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by Nosy_Rat » Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:10 pm

While somewhat annoying, skirmisher-based armies are pretty easy to deal with once you got the idea of what to do.
Those armies are barely played in the league, anyway, so I don't think they are in need of regulation.

Triarii
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by Triarii » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:02 pm

Same opinion as Morbio.
Please do not regulate/adjust lists.
Learning to cope with clouds of lights It is just another example of the varied learning/experience in the game. They can certainly be beaten.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”