BG Autobreak - proposal
Moderators: hammy, terrys, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
BG Autobreak - proposal
As we seem to have discussed this one thoroughly now we decided to run with the following as the official proposal for changes to the Autobreak rules.
Poor Battle Troops & Light Troops autobreak on 50% bases loses or if reduced to 1 base
Average & Superior Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 50% or if reduced to 1 base.
Elite Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 60% or if reduced to 1 base.
Army break point - suggestion removed
Poor Battle Troops & Light Troops autobreak on 50% bases loses or if reduced to 1 base
Average & Superior Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 50% or if reduced to 1 base.
Elite Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 60% or if reduced to 1 base.
Army break point - suggestion removed
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
"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
-
- Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
I'm not so sure this one is so necessary with the proposed change in the Commanded Shot rules. The only time I've seen excessive break points is when Commanded Shot were used. Now, the points for a Commanded Shot are going to REDUCE the number of BG's as they will increase the overall cost OF that BG. Are there many (any) armies that can have tonnes of troops, and are they so all conquering that we need a rule to get around large break points? Are we weakening already weak armies whose only advantage is a big break point (Inca for example)?nikgaukroger wrote:Army break point cannot exceed 1 point per 50 troop points of the army maximum size for that game - e.g. for an 800 point game the maximum army break point is 16.
-
- Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
- Posts: 3436
- Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
- Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Nik
Agree with the proposal but with the same concern R expresses. I don't think that needs to be added UNLESS there are other changes that materially reduce the points values. The armies with 3 BG of Dragoons as filler might not take so many with the changes and you aren't going to get the CS abuse there was before. As for the armies where quantity IS the quality such as those far from civilisation including many non-European armies and the Scots, the high army break value is what makes them viable.
Regards
Tim
Agree with the proposal but with the same concern R expresses. I don't think that needs to be added UNLESS there are other changes that materially reduce the points values. The armies with 3 BG of Dragoons as filler might not take so many with the changes and you aren't going to get the CS abuse there was before. As for the armies where quantity IS the quality such as those far from civilisation including many non-European armies and the Scots, the high army break value is what makes them viable.
Regards
Tim
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
- Location: Northern Ireland
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
I have never come across this as a problem in FOG:R. I don't think that this change is needed.nikgaukroger wrote:
Army break point cannot exceed 1 point per 50 troop points of the army maximum size for that game - e.g. for an 800 point game the maximum army break point is 16.
-
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Derbyshire, UK
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
The issue regarding size is not generally found with 17th century western armies. It's generally eastern or African armies that can put down so many BGs that you just can't wade through them in a sensible timeframe.
-
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:54 am
- Location: London
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
You can do a few horror western armies, but mostly they are the eastern ones.
At Warfare 2016, we had I think a Hungarian Kuric Rebellion army with 19 battle groups and I've seen a few Scot Covenant armies at a similar head count (all at 800 points)
At Warfare 2016, we had I think a Hungarian Kuric Rebellion army with 19 battle groups and I've seen a few Scot Covenant armies at a similar head count (all at 800 points)
-
- Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Yes. But that is because of Artillery (already covered by minimum foot BG per artillery proposal) and Commanded shot (already covered by getting rid of the commanded shot as separate BG's)urbanbunny1 wrote:I've seen a few Scot Covenant armies at a similar head count (all at 800 points)
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Here's what this means for the break points by BG size:nikgaukroger wrote:Poor Battle Troops & Light Troops autobreak on 50% bases loses or if reduced to 1 base
Average & Superior Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 50% or if reduced to 1 base.
Elite Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 60% or if reduced 1 base.
Code: Select all
Bases 50% >50% >60%
2 1 1 1
4 2 3 3
6 3 4 4
8 4 5 5
9 5 5 6
10 5 6 7
12 6 7 8
14 7 8 9
16 8 9 10
The break point of Elites is the same as Average & Superior for BGs of 8 bases or less.
Good idea.nikgaukroger wrote:Army break point cannot exceed 1 point per 50 troop points of the army maximum size for that game - e.g. for an 800 point game the maximum army break point is 16.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
ravenflight wrote:Yes. But that is because of Artillery (already covered by minimum foot BG per artillery proposal) and Commanded shot (already covered by getting rid of the commanded shot as separate BG's)urbanbunny1 wrote:I've seen a few Scot Covenant armies at a similar head count (all at 800 points)
Point of order - Scots Covenanters do not have commanded shot.
As Light Art are (hopefully) going to be more useful with the proposed change they are more likely to be used and so the Scots (with cheap Poor BGs which are also getting a boost) are likely to be a possible issue in respect of size.
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
"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
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
I have no concerns about this.vexillia wrote: The break point of Elites is the same as Average & Superior for BGs of 8 bases or less.
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
"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
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
- Location: Northern Ireland
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
In western armies (ignoring mounted which have 2 and 4 base Elite BGs), Elite BGs come as 6, 7, 9 or 10+ bases. Only the 6 base BG does not benefit from the >60% rule, so this works fine (maybe not with those who like to play post 1635 Spanish).
-
- Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Pretty sure the Marsden Moor version does. Or did I get the wrong army?nikgaukroger wrote:Point of order - Scots Covenanters do not have commanded shot.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Well it optionally gets them (all 2 BGs) in the Parliamentarian troops.ravenflight wrote:Pretty sure the Marsden Moor version does. Or did I get the wrong army?nikgaukroger wrote:Point of order - Scots Covenanters do not have commanded shot.
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
"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
-
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Derbyshire, UK
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Other than Light Troops, Superiors and Elites are not affected by this proposal.
-
- Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Yes, which is 3 BG's, and with the poor troops and artillery etc, meant that it was pretty easy to get to 17 (I think it was). Now, it would be 15. So... less than 16... so not necessary to make a rule about it.nikgaukroger wrote:Well it optionally gets them (all 2 BGs) in the Parliamentarian troops.
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
- Location: Hertfordshire, England
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
I agree with the Autobreak proposal.
I see no need to mess with the Army Break points - yes it may be tougher to get through larger armies but it is the size that makes them dangerous. I love using my Hawaiians but I have to accept substantial losses so that I can break the enemies units. If I become broken too early then the Hawaiians and other armies cease to be a viable option.
Remember Nigel Emsen used a 22 BG Scots Coventers army at Britcon one year composed of Poor BG's and he lost every game as the Poor units broke too easily.
I have only seen a couple of armies where an essentially sound army was "bulked out" by a few BG's of small poor units. The Chinese armies here are the most common. However people who use these armies tend not to win albeit their army may not be broken. Then they don't get used again!
Don
I see no need to mess with the Army Break points - yes it may be tougher to get through larger armies but it is the size that makes them dangerous. I love using my Hawaiians but I have to accept substantial losses so that I can break the enemies units. If I become broken too early then the Hawaiians and other armies cease to be a viable option.
Remember Nigel Emsen used a 22 BG Scots Coventers army at Britcon one year composed of Poor BG's and he lost every game as the Poor units broke too easily.
I have only seen a couple of armies where an essentially sound army was "bulked out" by a few BG's of small poor units. The Chinese armies here are the most common. However people who use these armies tend not to win albeit their army may not be broken. Then they don't get used again!
Don
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
I agree with Don. You don't see large BG armies winning many tournaments and I think we addressing an issue that doesn't need addressing.
I think you are in danger of killing certain armies by this change.
Keith
I think you are in danger of killing certain armies by this change.
Keith
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Following your feedback (thanks) we have removed the army break point suggestion.
Amendment noted in the original post.
Amendment noted in the original post.
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
"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
-
- Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
- Posts: 3436
- Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
- Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
[quote="nikgaukroger"]
Elite Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 60% or if reduced 1 base.
[/quote]
Nik
Do you mean this?
Elite Battle Troops autobreak when loses reach > 60% or if reduced 1 base.
[/quote]
Nik
Do you mean this?
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
- Location: Hertfordshire, England
Re: BG Autobreak - proposal
Hi Nik/Kevin,
I'm not sure whether I should post this here or start a new thread - you decide!!
Changing the breakpoints for Average BG's (which I agree with) mean that both Cavalry and Infantry BG's will hang around for longer as that generally, they will each need one extra base loss before they Auto-break. This could actually mean that battles become less decisive as armies take longer to break!
I wonder whether therefore we should change the Cohesion Test wording for %age losses to:-
"For each 25% of original base losses"
At least then average 4 or 6 base BG's who were reduced to half bases and not now auto break, would have to test on taking 1 hit and would face an additional -1 on the CT - it may mean they break or face reduced effectiveness from CT's (which I think is good). I can't help thinking that any "average" troops who had seen 50% of their comrades rendered "hors de combat" would be a little shaky.
The benefit is that we stop the 50% break (which is critical in average cavalry/horse),but still force average troops to roll better than average to survive morale checks and more importantly restore the balance between BG survivability and Army Break!
Just saying!
Don
I'm not sure whether I should post this here or start a new thread - you decide!!
Changing the breakpoints for Average BG's (which I agree with) mean that both Cavalry and Infantry BG's will hang around for longer as that generally, they will each need one extra base loss before they Auto-break. This could actually mean that battles become less decisive as armies take longer to break!
I wonder whether therefore we should change the Cohesion Test wording for %age losses to:-
"For each 25% of original base losses"
At least then average 4 or 6 base BG's who were reduced to half bases and not now auto break, would have to test on taking 1 hit and would face an additional -1 on the CT - it may mean they break or face reduced effectiveness from CT's (which I think is good). I can't help thinking that any "average" troops who had seen 50% of their comrades rendered "hors de combat" would be a little shaky.
The benefit is that we stop the 50% break (which is critical in average cavalry/horse),but still force average troops to roll better than average to survive morale checks and more importantly restore the balance between BG survivability and Army Break!
Just saying!
Don