anti Benny-Hill measures

[lawrenceg]

Not sure if the Benny-Hill issue has been solved in FOG2 now. Last I heard, which was quite some time ago, there was an extra cohesion test requiring two pages of text to define when it should be taken.

the following ideas occurred to me so I thought I'd throw them into the pot:


1. Any BG that evades counts as an attrition point at the end of that phase only and only if not fragmented or broken by then.

2. Any BG that moves in the manouevre phase from where it could be charged on its rear including rear corner (and possibly flank) to where it cannot be charged at all must take a CT (after the move, so no -1 for a rear charge threat).

The second one would still apply to BGs that are able to evade. IF they want to avoid the test they can turn wait to be charged and evade, or turn to face the threat and move away in a later turn if not charged. I suggest it probably should not apply to battle troops that could be rear charged by skirmishers but maybe it should.

These ideas have the merit of simplicity and essentially penalise you if you keep running away with no attempt to make a stand or fight back.

While it is theoretically possible to break an army simply by making it all evade at the same time, I suggest that if you are being charged and you look around and see the whole army apparently running away from charging enemy, then you would be unlikely to hang around; so this is realistic. Just keep something in reserve if you want to avoid this.

[ravenflight]

1. Any BG that evades counts as an attrition point at the end of that phase only and only if not fragmented or broken by then.
.

I cautiously like this idea.

I say 'cautiously' because I'm wondering if it would open a can of worms.

A skirmishing army should be able to skirmish. If you're close to break point you can break your whole army just by evading... which may not necessarily be such a bad thing. It might be exactly what it would look like - "Sir, the whole left flank is in retreat, the cause is lost"

[philqw78]

What about the MF armies that 'benny hill'?

[lawrenceg]

What about the MF armies that 'benny hill'?

If you can get within charge range of them the second idea forces them to stand and fight or take a cohesion test.

Getting into charge range could be tricky with HF. I'm not sure how things turn out in practice when there are other BGs around on the field (i.e. it's not just a 1 on 1 chase in an empty space) but if necessary it could be tweaked so you assume a "charge range" of 7 MU so you can still double-move close enough to cause the effect. Or alow skirmishers to exert the effect. If the concept of the idea looks helpful then it is up to the authors/testers to nail down the details.

(Should I infer from your comment that it is still a problem in the current beta version?)

[jlopez]

Armies that used skirmishing tactics and feigned flight tactics would not have been phased by the entire army evading. Besides, a BG wouldn't be able to see beyond the BGs on its flank. They would have little idea of what was going on beyond their immediate vicinity. Not happy with the first idea.

Second idea is good. However, it does not prevent a unit outside charge range from turning around, moving away and staying out of harm's way. Players will just do the Benny Hill one turn earlier.

Resolving the "Benny Hill" issue is delicate because restricting playability too much is a good way of losing players and killing a ruleset. Fundamentally, you need a system whereby you can do pretty much what you want for the first two hours of the game to gain an advantage (playability) and that includes avoiding battle but equally in the last hour and a half you need a device that forces players into forming a battle line and fighting it out (realism).

The problem with FOG is that refusing battle for the duration of the game is possible, reasonably easy to do, tedious and a turn-off. As someone has already pointed out in another post, playing a standard FOG game assumes both armies have decided to fight it out on the field of battle. There is little point in playing games where the steppe zoophiles retreat to Urals shooting all the way or pusillanimous Romans hide behind entrenchments. That's fine for a campaign game at the local club but not for a 3.5 hour game. Not unless FOG wants to compete with train spotting as a hobby.

[lawrenceg]

Armies that used skirmishing tactics and feigned flight tactics would not have been phased by the entire army evading.

Yet crusader knights seem to have routed entire Islamic armies with a single charge that could easily be evaded.

In any case, this would be practically impossible to achieve in a game with an uncooperative opponent.

Besides, a BG wouldn't be able to see beyond the BGs on its flank. They would have little idea of what was going on beyond their immediate vicinity. Not happy with the first idea.

If you use that logic then army rout concept is completely wrong as the remaining BGs would only know about attrition points in the adjacent BGs.

Second idea is good. However, it does not prevent a unit outside charge range from turning around, moving away and staying out of harm's way. Players will just do the Benny Hill one turn earlier.

That is true, but would the one turn earlier, and the extra safety distance that is needed, be enough to make the tactic significantly less viable?

Resolving the "Benny Hill" issue is delicate because restricting playability too much is a good way of losing players and killing a ruleset. Fundamentally, you need a system whereby you can do pretty much what you want for the first two hours of the game to gain an advantage (playability) and that includes avoiding battle but equally in the last hour and a half you need a device that forces players into forming a battle line and fighting it out (realism).

The problem with FOG is that refusing battle for the duration of the game is possible, reasonably easy to do, tedious and a turn-off. As someone has already pointed out in another post, playing a standard FOG game assumes both armies have decided to fight it out on the field of battle. There is little point in playing games where the steppe zoophiles retreat to Urals shooting all the way or pusillanimous Romans hide behind entrenchments. That's fine for a campaign game at the local club but not for a 3.5 hour game. Not unless FOG wants to compete with train spotting as a hobby.

I don't think there is much historical evidence for armies avoiding battle at any stage except for shooty light horse/cavalry armies. In the development of FOG1 it was pointed out that in real life a 180 degree turn of a battleline was much easier than turning it 90 degrees, yet drilled BGs were permitted to turn 90 and move but not turn 180 and move. IIRC RBS response was that historically, troops did not simply turn their backs to the enemy and withdraw, so they are not permitted to do it in the game. In practice in FOG most troop types do do this, it just takes them 2 moves to get started (or they use a 90 degree turn), and it is still unhistorical even in the first 2 and a half hours of the game. If you want to manoeuvre like Mongols you should have to use a Mongol army.

Taking the idea in a different direction, we already have restrictions on fragmented troops moving not away from enemy, would it work to place the opposite restriction on unfragmented troops? I can't remember the exact wording.

[wildone]

Resolving the "Benny Hill" issue is delicate because restricting playability too much is a good way of losing players and killing a ruleset. Fundamentally, you need a system whereby you can do pretty much what you want for the first two hours of the game to gain an advantage (playability) and that includes avoiding battle but equally in the last hour and a half you need a device that forces players into forming a battle line and fighting it out (realism).

The problem with FOG is that refusing battle for the duration of the game is possible, reasonably easy to do, tedious and a turn-off.

Maybe instead of changing the rules to force combat we should look at changing the scoring to penalise inactivity. At present if you win you get plus 5 points. Maybe if you draw you should lose 5pts. gives players especially cometition players are reason to get stuck in.

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

Maybe instead of changing the rules to force combat we should look at changing the scoring to penalise inactivity. At present if you win you get plus 5 points. Maybe if you draw you should lose 5pts. gives players especially cometition players are reason to get stuck in.

I think you need to consider the implications before suggesting a rule. It would reduce the number of draws as if its going to be a draw you just point out to your opponent that if one will concede it is 10pts better for one side and 5 pt better for the other than a draw. As it got near the end of the alloted time at a comp all you would hear would be 'heads or tails'.

Paul

[hazelbark]

Not sure if the Benny-Hill issue has been solved in FOG2 now. Last I heard, which was quite some time ago, there was an extra cohesion test requiring two pages of text to define when it should be taken.

I don't every recall this and certainly this does not appear to be under author consideration. The atuhors seem very keen on keeping simple or making simpler. Not adding complexity.

[hazelbark]

What about the MF armies that 'benny hill'?

(Should I infer from your comment that it is still a problem in the current beta version?)

You may also ask Phil if he thinks its a real problem in version 1.

[expendablecinc]

having temporary attrition for an evades I like at first thought.

I think the general restricitions to manouverabiliy are a good idea too,

something along the lines of in a 'turn and move' manouver the turn takes up half of the movement rate.

ie skirmishers take longer to get back into the action after an evade
any troops can just turn and move off to the flank but have to be much more careful (much easier to catch them with a slightly slower BG)

[ShrubMiK]

Temporary attrition for evades is an interesting idea, but I think the impact needs to be limited.

i.e. if you have currently suffered no attrition points, and your whole army evades simultaneously, that shouldn't cause an army break. Your troops are full of confidence and doing what they are trained to do, and they see their colleagues doing what would be expected.

if you are one AP from army break, and one or two of your remaining BGs evade, that shouldn't cause an army break. Your troops are suffering a loss of confidence and it won't take much to push them over the breaking point, but a small number of troops doing what they are expected to do wouldn't be that alarming.

if you are one AP from army break, and a large proportion of your remaining BGs evade, then perhaps it is enough to cause the remainder to lose what confidence they have left and do a runner, which in turn would persuade the evaders they should keep evading to infinity.

Not sure how to formulate a rule to capture that sort of idea. Maybe something along the lines of the temporary APs to be applied is (number of evaders) - (number of non-fragmented non-evaders) - 2, and cannot exceed the number of AP which has been permantently lost?

[gozerius]

And yet, there are plenty of examples of a feigned flight being misinterpreted by nearby troops and resulting in loss of cohesion. If evades and routs were treated exactly the same in the imact phase, this would A) eliminate the counterintuitive inability of a charger to VMD to pursue the broken target of its charge and B) add a bit of uncertainty for troops near evaders. With no other changes to the rules, this would not affect skirmishers too much, but would make life more interesting for armies with shooty cav.

[ravenflight]

What about the person who wants to get stuck in. Their whole idea is to get stuck in. They LOVE the idea of being stuck in. They believe that you should win or die in the attempt. They are 1 attrition point away from losing the game. The enemy charge a unit of light horse in their impact phase. The other player (the one about to break) says 'kewl, I'll roll to stand' and then roll a couple of 2's. The light horse evade against the players wishes and thereby rout the entire army.

[philqw78]

And yet, there are plenty of examples of a feigned flight being misinterpreted by nearby troops and resulting in loss of cohesion. If evades and routs were treated exactly the same in the imact phase, this would A) eliminate the counterintuitive inability of a charger to VMD to pursue the broken target of its charge and B) add a bit of uncertainty for troops near evaders. With no other changes to the rules, this would not affect skirmishers too much, but would make life more interesting for armies with shooty cav.

I don't think the Mongols would have got much furthere than the suburbs of Ulan Bator with such a rule.

[ShrubMiK]

What about the person who wants to get stuck in. Their whole idea is to get stuck in. They LOVE the idea of being stuck in. They believe that you should win or die in the attempt. They are 1 attrition point away from losing the game. The enemy charge a unit of light horse in their impact phase. The other player (the one about to break) says 'kewl, I'll roll to stand' and then roll a couple of 2's. The light horse evade against the players wishes and thereby rout the entire army.

See my suggestion above

Of course, you could argue that somebody who lives only for getting stuck in would not have an army with lots of evading troops in the first place And if you are close to breaking, managing any skirmishers you do have to keep them away from trouble might be prudent. They are usually going to be faster than anything that can force them to test to stand.

[wildone]

I think you need to consider the implications before suggesting a rule. It would reduce the number of draws as if its going to be a draw you just point out to your opponent that if one will concede it is 10pts better for one side and 5 pt better for the other than a draw. As it got near the end of the alloted time at a comp all you would hear would be 'heads or tails'.

Paul

Maybe. A simple question by the umpire of did he break your army or were you going to draw might fix that. And if players are going to lie that blatantly i don't think I want to compete against them.

[lawrenceg]

Not sure if the Benny-Hill issue has been solved in FOG2 now. Last I heard, which was quite some time ago, there was an extra cohesion test requiring two pages of text to define when it should be taken.

I don't every recall this and certainly this does not appear to be under author consideration. The atuhors seem very keen on keeping simple or making simpler. Not adding complexity.

Must have been a case of Chinese Whispers.

[lawrenceg]

What about the person who wants to get stuck in. Their whole idea is to get stuck in. They LOVE the idea of being stuck in. They believe that you should win or die in the attempt. They are 1 attrition point away from losing the game. The enemy charge a unit of light horse in their impact phase. The other player (the one about to break) says 'kewl, I'll roll to stand' and then roll a couple of 2's. The light horse evade against the players wishes and thereby rout the entire army.

As opposed to fighting the impact at half dice and probably no POA, rolling a couple of 2's on the cohesion test and fragging, thereby routing the entire army.

[lawrenceg]

Temporary attrition for evades is an interesting idea, but I think the impact needs to be limited.

i.e. if you have currently suffered no attrition points, and your whole army evades simultaneously, that shouldn't cause an army break. Your troops are full of confidence and doing what they are trained to do, and they see their colleagues doing what would be expected.

if you are one AP from army break, and one or two of your remaining BGs evade, that shouldn't cause an army break. Your troops are suffering a loss of confidence and it won't take much to push them over the breaking point, but a small number of troops doing what they are expected to do wouldn't be that alarming.

if you are one AP from army break, and a large proportion of your remaining BGs evade, then perhaps it is enough to cause the remainder to lose what confidence they have left and do a runner, which in turn would persuade the evaders they should keep evading to infinity.

Not sure how to formulate a rule to capture that sort of idea. Maybe something along the lines of the temporary APs to be applied is (number of evaders) - (number of non-fragmented non-evaders) - 2, and cannot exceed the number of AP which has been permantently lost?

If you have not suffered many losses yet, how difficult would it be to keep one or two BG in reserve, out of enemy charge range, so if everything else evades it will still not rout the army?

If you are 1 AP off breaking, then 1 BG fragged, not even running away will tip it over, so I think it quite reasonable that a BG apparently running off would do the same. "Those LH are escaping and leaving us here to die!"