Suggested amendments

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Renaissance Wars.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

Post Reply
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22201
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Suggested amendments

Post by rbodleyscott » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:45 pm

timmy1 wrote:1, Formal request for Impact Mounted to be reduced in points cost from 3 to 2.

It has been agreed that these are 'slighly' overpriced and the lists that use them are not seen on the table as often as might be expected. The reduction is not a game changer but might better reflect their relative performance.

2, Option for non-allied Polish armies to upgrade a portion of Hussars to Elite in BGs of 2. This represents the quarter army. The small size is due to the number of unfilled portions in some of the banners. The specific lists to be agreed but probably not any much after 1683 AD. As an example, this army at Klushino (almost entirely mounted) attacks and wins while outnumbered 7:1, against an opponent with secure flanks and part of the front covered with anti-cavalry defenses. Superior does not cut-it. This army fought against the contemporary Gustavian Swedish army with some success - that list has Elite mounted and did not overwhelm the Poles so the Poles should be granted the same option.

If either or both of these proposals are accepted I will come back with more specifics proposal about which lists would need reviewing in detail and specific suggested changes for review.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22201
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by rbodleyscott » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:50 pm

I would suggest that it is probably Determined Horse (and therefore probably also Cavaliers) in general that are slightly overpriced, not Polish hussars in particular.

Anyway, we are not in a position to review points values at present, so that is something that will have to wait for some (undetermined) time in the future. And even then it would not be introduced without play-testing.

And there are other ways of dealing with the issue anyway - which really only arises because there are no Heavily Armoured Determined Horse.

So looking at the way that armour advantage works would be another way of dealing with the issue in the long term. (Which might be more acceptable to the publishers as it would not require any change to points values or army list books).

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

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by timmy1 » Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:43 pm

Richard

Fine with moving this.

While I don't totally agree with your conclusion I understand the rationale. Thanks

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by marty » Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:34 pm

As already mentioned elsewhere:

1)Lance armed cav. Worse then lance armed horse (and they aren't exactly great) but they cost more.

2) Elephants. Unpopular in FOG A, vastly worse in fog R but the same points cost.
I would suggest that it is probably Determined Horse (and therefore probably also Cavaliers)
And Gendarmes.

I would also suggest that Impact Pistol should cost at least as much as Impact mounted and more than lance. Lance should probably stay at 1 point and the others both be 2 points.

Martin

marty
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:26 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by marty » Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:30 pm

One possibility for making the 2 dice a base mounted better value without changing points would be to change overlaps from "only 1 dice per flank' to 'one base per flank" ie allowing them to roll 2 dice for each overlap. This would give these mounted a better chance of taking adavantage of the overlaps they sometimes get.

Martin

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

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by ravenflight » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:16 am

rbodleyscott wrote:I would suggest that it is probably Determined Horse (and therefore probably also Cavaliers) in general that are slightly overpriced, not Polish hussars in particular.

Anyway, we are not in a position to review points values at present, so that is something that will have to wait for some (undetermined) time in the future. And even then it would not be introduced without play-testing.

And there are other ways of dealing with the issue anyway - which really only arises because there are no Heavily Armoured Determined Horse.

So looking at the way that armour advantage works would be another way of dealing with the issue in the long term. (Which might be more acceptable to the publishers as it would not require any change to points values or army list books).
Would giving 2dice per base troops (inc elephants) 'self rear support) a la 'tercios' make them too powerful? My thinking is that it would 'reduce the cost' in comparison to other troops by giving the frontage AND rear support where other troops have to choose one or the other.

Just a thought.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:59 am

IMO currently there is an incentive for Swedish brigades to stand off at long range and engage in a fire fight rather than close and charge in (which is what we want the incentive to be) - I believe this is due to them counting as Armoured at long range to other firearms who then need a 5 to hit whereas the Swedes will need a 4 against other pike & shot types.

I'd change the brigade rules and remove the counting as armoured at long range part and assume any benefit of the pikemen being armoured and leading are abstracted into the 7th base the formation gets (which itself is a significant benefit).
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: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:01 am

A small change I'd also make, a la FoG:AM v2, would be for HF to move at 3MU in Uneven.
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

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22201
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:44 am

My view on the Swedes is that I find the Early Swedes far more scary than the Late.

The reason is mainly them counting as Armoured against muskets at long range, which means that they outshoot any other foot at long range. This does not seem right.

In my view
1) Swedish brigades should not count armoured at long range. This, I think, is the only necessary change to them. The extra base (without increased vulnerability to artillery) is a significant bonus, as is the fact that they can take off 2 pike bases before they must remove a shot base. These benefits still justify the trivial +4 cost for Swedish brigades without the armour bonus.

2) The commanded shot hunter killer issue can be largely resolved by making them Musket rather than Salvo.
Alternatively a more general rule might be added to the effect that commanded shot must be deployed in contact with mounted troops or in non-open terrain. Also 2 base commanded shot BG should not get the movement bonus in terrain for being a column.

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by benjones1211 » Sun Nov 04, 2012 2:13 pm

1) Swedish Brigades: If going to stop armoured at long range, maybe reduce the +4 to +2 or even 0, as the +4 is supposed to be paying for the armouring. I would suggest +2 as this would be enough to pay for having the third base without being too expensive to make the brigades unworkable. At the moment they have the benifits of 7 men, so need three hits for a test, and even with the third base they are not susceptable to Artillery, and finally they can lose two pike before a shot goes from long range shooting. On the other side they rout after losing the same number of bases as a 6 man unit so are a little more fragile, as less units, and each unit costs more.

2) Commanded shot: If you make Swedes Musket rather than salvo I would also remove the ability to have regimental guns, (actually I would remove that anyway) as given the choice of 3 Commanded shot Salvo w Regimental gun or 3 commanded shot Musket w Regiumental gun I would go for the latter everytime, the fire power at short range is phenomanal. And I think its the use of the regimental guns rather than the fact they are salvo that makes the option so powerful. The fact they are salvo just means that you don't want to get to short range once they start shooting you. As for the initial deployment, alongside mtd or in terrain would be good. Finally the column problem, if you are going to stop Commanded shot getting the +1 for column in terrain you should specify it as any unit with only 1-2 bases , may not gain this bonus, this makes sure Generals and other small units of which there are a few, Lt Art, Elephants, some LH and Det Horse can also be in 2's, as well as a Superior 4 base cavalry unit after losing 2 bases.

ethan
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:40 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by ethan » Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:41 am

rbodleyscott wrote: 2) The commanded shot hunter killer issue can be largely resolved by making them Musket rather than Salvo.
Alternatively a more general rule might be added to the effect that commanded shot must be deployed in contact with mounted troops or in non-open terrain. Also 2 base commanded shot BG should not get the movement bonus in terrain for being a column.
I also favor making them musket, makes them more useful for their intended role as well. I would also not allow any commanded shot to have regimental guns.

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

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by hazelbark » Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:15 pm

The salvo commanded shot regimental gun needs to be fixed.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:18 am

Moved recent Det Hse posts to a separate topic to keep this one clear of discussions - viewtopic.php?f=70&t=39268
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: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:20 am

As it cropped up elsewhere I'd bring FoG:R in line with FoG:Am v2 by saying kinked columns cannot charge, evade or intercept.

Whilst I don't think it is an issue in the same way it was with AM v1 I'd change it because it is basically a good thing and would avoid an unnecessary difference between the rules.
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: Suggested amendments

Post by quackstheking » Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:38 am

Hi Nik,

I don't play FOGAM so I don't know what problems it's caused there, but can you explain the logic by which straight columns can charge and non kinked ones can't? The " move phase" is just our arbitrary imposition of a time break and the reality is that in theory all movement is continuous.

If anything, march columns themselves should not be allowed to charge but this would then cause problems attacking through gaps, for 2 base units etc

I'm also not sure why we need the rule sets to align - "vive le difference" :wink:

The bigger issue may be that of evading as you try to determine the rear- however I'm not clear why troops who normally evade wouldn't just turn around and run "directly away" from the direction of the charge - I can't believe those light troops at the head of the column (where the officers presumably are) would be thinking -"oh we're being charged. Normally we'd run away but x yards behind us our colleagues are kinked. I know - let's stand here and take it!!!"

Having said all of that, I'm not aware that this is an issue in FOGR - therefore why change other than clarifying the direction a kinked column would evade.

Don

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:43 am

quackstheking wrote: I'm also not sure why we need the rule sets to align - "vive le difference" :wink:

Joking aside as AM and R are so similar it is a basic principle that we only had differences between mechanisms where is was justified to get the period look and feel, or where we could correct an obvious flaw in AM that we hoped would then be updated in AM in line with R.
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

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

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by kevinj » Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:44 pm

can you explain the logic by which straight columns can charge and non kinked ones can't?
[Facetious Mode]Straight and non-Kinked columns should be able to do the same things...[/Facetious Mode]

Seriously, this was something that was abused in Fog AM to the extent that it has now been prevented in V2. I haven't noticed it causing the same problems in Fog R (maybe because there are more reasons not to be in such a deep formation) but I wouldn't have a problem with Fog R maintaining consistency.

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by bahdahbum » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:32 pm

I'd change the brigade rules and remove the counting as armoured at long range part and assume any benefit of the pikemen being armoured and leading are abstracted into the 7th base the formation gets (which itself is a significant benefit).
I think you guys are much too afraid of the swedish army . it cost a lot, has few real fighting units if compared to other armies . Now few people complain and you want to take the advantages of the swedes . A bit too easy .

Perhaps you should try playing the swedes and see how you do against a much bigger army . Once you are locked in melee there are no bonuses .

Taking the armour advantage away will simply kill the swedes as they will have to advance against the ennemy and not force the ennemy to advance . They will loose all advantages and on more base is nearly nothing .

For the attached shot, I will admitt they arehelpfull but very very brittle . never forget that .

Do I play swedish, yes a year ago . :D

ethan
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:40 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by ethan » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:57 am

bahdahbum wrote: For the attached shot, I will admitt they arehelpfull but very very brittle . never forget that .
That it is a viable tactic, even if it were marginally viable, is IMO bad for the game. It encourages extremely ahistorical play with little hunter killer columns of commanded shot - which are supposed to be supporting mounted - becoming highly effective anti-infantry formations. When an innocent bystander walks by and you say "those are all my 30YW Swedish commanded shot brigaged together with an ahistorical density of light artillery being used to attack enemy infantry instead of my Swedish colour brigades" you have a problem with the game.

When game mechanics create tactics that are that obviously ahistorical, effective and silly looking it makes the game look bad even when there are possible counters. If someone was trying it as a last ditch kind of thing or a newbie who got slaughtered giving it a shot then whatever. When it is something that is even marginally viable it needs to go - especially when there are relatively simple modifications that would get rid of it.

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by bahdahbum » Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:11 pm

that are that obviously ahistorical
How do you know it ? I was not there so I ask questions because I am looking for information . I only use detached shot with cavalry which is historical and once they had to go away to protect a flank . An urgent mesure for deseperate times . I am sure such things did happen on the battlefield .

Now did you know that the swedish artillery of that time was similar to Napoleonic artillery . Better and quicker than all the rest . The technology for sme reason was not widely used and forgotten till near napoleonic times . But , even if historical it is not reflected in the game and we all play the same game :D .

We are so sure we know what happened and I am sure there are many many things that happened that we do not know . Even from recent history .

So what is historical ?

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Renaissance Wars : General Discussion”