The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

MikeMarchant
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 556
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: 22225
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 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 166
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
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 451
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: 9329
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?

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:32 am

I am not going to poll these as it is really an administrative adjustment on my part. In the earlier seasons of the FOG2DL, when there were a limited number of armies to choose from, I decided to put armies that straddled the various historical cut-off dates in both sections.

Biblical Age 3200BC - 600BC
Classical Antiquity 600BC – 100BC
Later Antiquity 100BC - 500AD
Early Middle Ages 500AD - 1000AD
High Middle Ages 1000AD – 1500 AD

So, for example, Indian 500 BC-319 AD has appeared in both Classical Antiquity and Late Antiquity and in this way the number of choices for players was increased. But with the release of more DLC's and the introduction of the Allies feature, I have now decided that there are sufficient choices and each army will only appear in one tournament section. One of the advantages of doing this is that it will prevent players from using the same army twice in a season in future.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:34 am

Classical Antiquity army list for Season 6

Achaemenid Persian 550-546 BC
Achaemenid Persian 547 BC (Thymbra)
Achaemenid Persian 545-481 BC
Achaemenid Persian 480-461 BC
Achaemenid Persian 460-420 BC
Achaemenid Persian 419-329 BC
Antigonid 320-301 BC
Apulian 420-203 BC
Armenian 331 BC-252 AD
Atropatene 320-145 BC
Bithynian 297-74 BC
Bosporan 348-85 BC
Bruttian or Lucanian 420-203 BC
Campanian 420-281 BC
Campanian 280-203 BC
Carthaginian 490-411 BC
Carthaginian 410-341 BC
Carthaginian 340-281 BC
Carthaginian 280-263 BC
Carthaginian 262-236 BC
Carthaginian 235-146 BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 218-217 BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 216-203 BC
Carthaginian (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC
Egyptian 405-343 BC (Rise of Persia DLC)
Etruscan 490-331 BC
Etruscan 330-280 BC
Galatian 280-63 BC
Gallic 390-301 BC
Gallic 300-101 BC
Graeco-Bactrian 250-130 BC
Greek 680-461 BC
Greek 550-461 BC
Greek 460-281 BC
Greek (Mercenary) 460-281 BC
Greek 280-228 BC
Greek (Western) 280-49 BC
Greek 227-146 BC
Illyrian 350 BC-25 AD
Indian 500 BC-319 AD
Italian Hill Tribes 490-275 BC
Jewish 167-111 BC
Kappadokian 260 BC-17 AD
Kyrenean Greek 550-461 BC
Kyrenean Greek 460-322 BC
Kyrenean Greek 321-276 BC
Latin 490-338 BC
Libyan 549-300 BC
Ligurian 480-145 BC
Lydian 550-546 BC
Lysimachid 320-281 BC
Macedonian 355-329 BC
Macedonian 328-321 BC
Macedonian 320-261 BC
Macedonian 260-148 BC
Mountain Indian 492-170 BC
Numidian or Moorish 220-56 BC
Pergamene 262-191 BC
Pergamene 190-129 BC
Pontic 281-111 BC
Ptolemaic 320-167 BC
Ptolemaic 166-56 BC
Pyrrhic 280-272 BC
Rhoxolani 350 BC-24 AD
Roman 490-341 BC
Roman 340-281 BC
Roman 280-220 BC
Roman 219-200 BC
Roman 199-106 BC
Saka 300 BC-50 AD
Samnite 355-272 BC
Sarmatian 350 BC-24 AD
Seleucid 320-303 BC
Seleucid 302-301 BC
Seleucid 300-206 BC
Seleucid 205-167 BC
Seleucid 166-125 BC
Skythian or Saka 550-301 BC
Skythian 300 BC-50 AD
Spanish 300-10 BC
Spartan 550-461 BC
Spartan 460-281 BC
Syracusan 421-281 BC
Syracusan 280-211 BC
Thessalian 404-353 BC
Thracian (Triballi) 700-351 BC
Thracian 680-461 AD
Thracian (Getae) 680-330 BC
Thracian 460-351 BC
Thracian (Hellenistic) 350-281 BC
Thracian (Triballi) 350 BC-46 AD
Thracian (Hellenistic Getae) 329-281 BC
Thracian (Gallic) 280-212 BC
Thracian (Getae) 279-46 BC
Thracian 211-51 BC
Umbrian 490-260 BC


Armies that will only appear in Late Antiquity in Season 6

Arab 312 BC-476 AD
Armenians, Tigranes 83-69 BC
Atropatene 144 BC-226 AD
Caucasian 320 BC-476 AD
Iberian or Colchian 331 BC-252 AD
Indo-Greeks 175 BC-10 AD
Jewish 110-64 BC
Kushan 130 BC–476 AD
Nabataean 260 BC-106 AD
Parthian 250 BC-225 AD
Pontic 110-85 BC
Roman 105-25 BC
Seleucid 124 BC-63 BC

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:38 am

Late Antiquity army list for Season 6

Alan 25-650 AD
Ancient British 60 BC-80 AD
Arab 312 BC-476 AD
Arab (Bedouin) 300-636 AD
Arab (City) 300-633 AD
Armenian Tigranes 83-69 BC
Armenian 253-476 AD
Atropatene 144 BC-226 AD
Bosporan 84-11 BC
Bosporan 11 BC-375 AD
Breton 411-579 AD
Caledonian 50-225 AD
Caucasian 320 BC-476 AD
Dacian 50 BC-88 AD
Dacian 89-106 AD
Dacian (Carpi) 107-380 AD
Frank 260-495 AD
Galatian 63-25 BC
Gallic 100-50 BC
Germanic Foot Tribes 105 BC-259 AD
Germanic/Gothic Foot Tribes 260-476 AD
Germanic/Gothic Horse Tribes 260-476 AD
Hephthalites 350-570 AD
Hunnic 250-375 AD
Hunnic 376-476 AD
Hunnic (Western) 376-454 AD
Iberian or Colchian 331 BC-252 AD
Indian 320-545 AD
Indo-Greeks 175 BC-10 AD
Indo-Parthian 60 BC-30 AD
Indo-Skythian 95 BC-50 AD
Jewish 110-64 BC
Jewish 64 BC-6 AD
Jewish Revolt 66-135 AD
Kingdom of Soissons 461-486 AD
Kushan 130 BC-476 AD
Libyan 300 BC-70 AD
Nabataean 260 BC-106 AD
Numidian or Moorish 55 BC-6 AD
Palmyran 258-273 AD
Parthian 250 BC - 225 AD
Pictish 210-476 AD
Pontic 110-85 BC
Pontic 84-47 BC
Ptolemaic 55-30 BC
Roman 105-25 BC
Roman 24 BC–196 AD
Roman 197-284 AD
Roman 285-378 AD
Roman 379-424 AD
Roman 425-476 AD
Sarmatian 25-375 AD
Sassanid Persian 224-349 AD
Sassanid Persian 349-476 AD
Scots-Irish 50 BC-476 AD
Seleucid 124-63 BC
Slave Revolt 73-71 BC
Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70 BC
Vandal 442-499 AD


Armies that will only appear in Early Middle Ages in Season 6

Anglo-Saxon 449-599 AD
Armenian 477-627 AD
Byzantine 493-550 AD
Frank 496-599 AD
Gepid 493-567 AD
Hunnic (Western) 455-559 AD
Hunnic (Sabir) 463-558 AD
Lombard 493-567 AD
Moorish 350-698 AD
Ostrogoth 493-561 AD
Pictish 477-850 AD
Romano-British 407-599 AD
Sassanid Persian 477-590 AD
Scots-Irish 477-846 AD
Visigoth 419-621 AD
Welsh 477-599 AD

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:42 am

Early Middle Ages army list for Season 6

Alan 651-1049 AD
Andalusian 756-1049 AD
Anglo-Saxon 449-599 AD
Anglo-Saxon 600-949 AD
Anglo-Saxon 950-1016 AD
Arab (Conquest) 629-637 AD
Arab (Conquest) 638-684 AD
Arab (Umayyad) 685-750 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 747-793 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 794-814 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 815-835 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 836-873 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 874-946 AD
Arab (North Africa) 789-999 AD
Arab (Syria/Iraq) 890-1008 AD
Armenian 477-627 AD
Armenian 639-717 AD
Armenian 885-1045 AD
Avar 553-557 AD
Avar 558-631 AD
Avar 632-826 AD
Breton 580-1072 AD
British 600-1030 AD
Bulgar 631-679 AD
Bulgar (Volga) 675-1237 AD
Bulgar (Danube) 680-851 AD
Bulgar (Danube) 852-1018 AD
Byzantine 493-550 BC
Byzantine 551-578 AD
Byzantine 579-599 AD
Byzantine 600-649 AD
Byzantine 650-739 AD
Byzantine 740-903 AD
Byzantine 904-962 AD
Byzantine 963-987 AD
Croatian 625-849 AD
Croatian 850-1102 AD
Dabuyid 642-760 AD
Dailami 928-1055 AD
Frankish 496-599 AD
Frankish 600-750 AD
Frankish 751-887 AD
French 888-1049 AD
Gepid 493-567 AD
German 888-932 AD
German 933-1049 AD
Huns, Western 455-559 AD
Hun, Sabir 463-558 AD
Indian 546-599 AD
Indian (Hindu North) 600-1049 AD
Indian (Hindu South) 600-1049 AD
Indian (Rajput) 650-1049 AD
Irish 900-1049 AD
Khazar 650-737 AD
Khazar 738-969 AD
Khorasanian 821-1003 AD
Lombard 493-567 AD
Lombard 568-569 AD
Lombard 570-649 AD
Lombard 650-775 AD
Lombard 776-1049 AD
Magyar 830-1049 AD
Moravian 833-907 AD
Moorish 350-698 AD
Navarrese 778-899 AD
Navarrese 900-1049 AD
Norman 923-1040 AD
Ostrogoth 493-561 AD
Pecheneg 850-1122 AD
Pictish 477-850 AD
Romano-British 407-599 AD
Rus 860-959 AD
Sassanid Persian 477-590 AD
Sassanid Persian 591-628 AD
Sassanid Persian 629-651 AD
Saxon (Continental) 600-804 AD
Scots-Irish 477-846 AD
Scots 851-1051 AD
Serbian 625-849 AD
Serbian 850-1039 AD
Slav 500-599 AD
Spanish 718-899 AD
Spanish 900-1049 AD
Turkish 552-599 AD
Turkish 600-1036 AD
Vandal 500-534 AD
Viking 780-899 AD
Viking 900-1049 AD
Viking (Ireland) 780-899 AD
Viking (Ireland) 900-1049 AD
Visigoth 419-621 AD
Visigothic 622-717 AD
Welsh 477-599 AD
Welsh 600-1049 AD


These armies will eventually be available in High Middle Ages

Anglo-Danish 1017-1041 AD
Arab North Africa 1000-1160 AD
Arab Syria/Iraq 1009-1150 AD
Byzantine 988-1041 AD
Fatimid Egyptian 978-1073 AD
Georgian 1008-1049 AD
Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD
Polish 966-1057 AD
Rus 960-1053 AD

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:43 am

The Biblical list will remain unchanged until we get the next Biblical DLC.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:25 am

If you see any errors, or if you have any questions then please let me know.

edb1815
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 280
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: 9329
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: 1087
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
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 516
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 - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 433
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

Cunningcairn
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by Cunningcairn » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:39 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:43 am
The Biblical list will remain unchanged until we get the next Biblical DLC.
Are you staying with 1600 points and TT Mod for the Biblical section?

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:01 pm

Cunningcairn wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:39 pm
stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:43 am
The Biblical list will remain unchanged until we get the next Biblical DLC.
Are you staying with 1600 points and TT Mod for the Biblical section?
I expect so until we get the other Biblical DLC and then I'll take the hoplite armies out.

Cunningcairn
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by Cunningcairn » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:45 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:01 pm
Cunningcairn wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:39 pm
stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:43 am
The Biblical list will remain unchanged until we get the next Biblical DLC.
Are you staying with 1600 points and TT Mod for the Biblical section?
I expect so until we get the other Biblical DLC and then I'll take the hoplite armies out.
Excellent! I still firmly believe the larger armies go a long way in preventing games being determined by 1 or 2 disasters. Should all the allies available to an army in the standard FOG also be available in the TT mod?

Geffalrus
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 516
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.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”