Game Balance

[bahdahbum]

cavalry vs cavalry combats tended to last less time than infantry ones in the overall time the battle lasted.

I suppose horses also got tired . But introducing that factor will change the game and is it necessary ? . Imagine playing the LH fleeing charges and having to rest because the horses got tired not to speak of heavily armored knights

I was wondering if deployment rules should not be changed and go on more similar lines with FOGR . For "regular armies" at least such as the romans, pike armies, heavy infantry should be in the center . The romans should have to deploy in more than one rank ( and not such as is the case , should deploy ( see mid-republican roman ) . Exception might be made if the CIC is inspirationnel .

But is it playable, is it necessary ? How will the "regular" armies be choosen ? How did a gallic army deploy ?

A very open question

[marty]

For "regular armies" at least such as the romans, pike armies, heavy infantry should be in the center .

Please God no!

This is only OK in FOG R because it is necessary to prevent a wall of Pike/shot foot rendering all cavalry helpless. In fog A the balance of power is such that anything further hindering HF (and making life even easier for LH) would be a disaster!

Martin

[dave_r]

For "regular armies" at least such as the romans, pike armies, heavy infantry should be in the center .

Please God no!

This is only OK in FOG R because it is necessary to prevent a wall of Pike/shot foot rendering all cavalry helpless. In fog A the balance of power is such that anything further hindering HF (and making life even easier for LH) would be a disaster!

Martin

The authors are quite competent at discarding the more ridiculous ideas. I still sometimes get very worried when reading this sub-forum though....

[bahdahbum]

Why is deploying in an historical fashion a " ridiculous idea" . It is noy very polite to say so unless you are prepared to say why and explain yourself so we can exange ideas .

HI/Pikes were deployed in the center and you also can have a wall of pikes in FOG . So the idea is not so ridiculous and would not hinder HI . The only thing that really hinders HI is lack of speed and moving only 2 MU in uneven terrain while MI moves 4 MU ..

So what is the aim of the changes . Be more historical, be more playable, find a good balance between both ... it has already been discussed

[dave_r]

Why is deploying in an historical fashion a " ridiculous idea" . It is noy very polite to say so unless you are prepared to say why and explain yourself so we can exange ideas .

You can deploy in a "historical" fashion in Fog now so why change?

HI/Pikes were deployed in the center

Except when they weren't. Obviously.

and you also can have a wall of pikes in FOG . So the idea is not so ridiculous and would not hinder HI . The only thing that really hinders HI is lack of speed and moving only 2 MU in uneven terrain while MI moves 4 MU ..

And Light Horse and Cavalry getting behind them almost immediately because they can't deploy on the wings.

So what is the aim of the changes . Be more historical, be more playable, find a good balance between both ... it has already been discussed

Quite so, this idea would destroy game balance. We aren't here to do a historical simulation we are here to play a game. What if's are just as good.

[waldo]

Quite so, this idea would destroy game balance. We aren't here to do a historical simulation we are here to play a game. What if's are just as good.

There is game balace at present? Is this comedy hour?

Waldo

[dave_r]

Quite so, this idea would destroy game balance. We aren't here to do a historical simulation we are here to play a game. What if's are just as good.

There is game balace at present? Is this comedy hour?

Waldo

Depends if you are a comedy player or not.

[bahdahbum]

Dave R wrote

Except when they weren't. Obviously.

I am not so sure it happened often, except when the general was an innovative one, such as Alexandre or Pyrrus . Same for HI under Hannibal or legions under Caesar . There was a tendancy to deploy INF in the center and CAV on the wings .

The game should not evolve in a way that you would have one big BG in the center . I just pointed out that maybe, for deployement, rules should be more strict .

As to : Cavalry and LH can outflank HI , flanks were always the problem . You have to cope with it and take some risks .

Manoeuver seems also to easy . But that has also been discussed .

As for game balance : it is obvious that some armies are quite " unbalanced" , even in their historical pool . The only funny game I had with Britons was again germans, all warbands ...all undrilled...very funny game . But both armies are quite hopeless against SSW or pikes, unless very lucky .

[Strategos69]

I liked the deployment rules used in Armati. They define a group of core units, that must deploy in the center (not only HF, but also some MF and other units depending on how they were used historically) and other "auxiliary" units that can deploy on both flanks. Some units had the option of deploying on the wings or the center and skirmishers being allowed to be everywhere and a little ahead of the army. If tournament players do not like that as they think it can be less fun, then the correct place for this kind of rules should be the promised campaign book, optional deployment rules or some home rules in the meantime. In my opinion, the game would be better with historical deployment rules.

[spikemesq]

Dave R wrote

Except when they weren't. Obviously.

I am not so sure it happened often, except when the general was an innovative one, such as Alexandre or Pyrrus . Same for HI under Hannibal or legions under Caesar . There was a tendancy to deploy INF in the center and CAV on the wings .

The game should not evolve in a way that you would have one big BG in the center . I just pointed out that maybe, for deployement, rules should be more strict .

So the rules should deny players the right to innovate?

We already live in the fiction of a 4x6 board. Why should the rules further constrain the universe to the central sector of that space?

When I play an infantry force or combined arms outfit, the "center" is wherever I deploy my heavies. That may be the middle of the board or one side. If my opponent wants the "center" to be elsewhere, he deploys accordingly. Then we maneuver to position ourselves in the best "center" we can achieve from our respective deployments.

"Stricter deployment" rules just aggravate the "edge of the world" problem. Guaranteeing that the middle sector of the table is the focal point of the game creates a gravity well to prop up unskilled infantry players and provoke stupid engagements, where a mounted force is sucked into a central charge because some phantom barriers funnel them into the middle.

[ValentinianVictor]

The vast majority of military manuals that survive from the Western 'classical' world upto and often including the 'Byzantine' period has the infantry forming the centre of the formation with the cavalry on the flanks. Yes, said manuals also include other formations with the cavalry sometimes forming the first line, but the initial starting formation appears to be infantry centre with mounted on the wings.

The question is, why did the ancients think that this was the 'standard' formation and stick with it religiously, as it appears most Western armies did?

[dave_r]

The vast majority of military manuals that survive from the Western 'classical' world upto and often including the 'Byzantine' period has the infantry forming the centre of the formation with the cavalry on the flanks. Yes, said manuals also include other formations with the cavalry sometimes forming the first line, but the initial starting formation appears to be infantry centre with mounted on the wings.

The question is, why did the ancients think that this was the 'standard' formation and stick with it religiously, as it appears most Western armies did?

If we look outside the classical period then certainly skythians deployed with Cavalry in the centre and the heavy infantry on the flanks. Swiss were known to be innovators.

[philqw78]

The vast majority of military manuals that survive from the Western 'classical' world upto and often including the 'Byzantine' period has the infantry forming the centre of the formation with the cavalry on the flanks. Yes, said manuals also include other formations with the cavalry sometimes forming the first line, but the initial starting formation appears to be infantry centre with mounted on the wings.
The question is, why did the ancients think that this was the 'standard' formation and stick with it religiously, as it appears most Western armies did?

Because deployment started at the centre and if you waited to get your infantry to the flanks the enemy mounted would beat them there and have outflanked you before the battle even began. Also if the enemy tried to further outflank they would only be moving as fast as your mounted so would achieve nothing.
Screening light horse and light foot move forward of the army then out to the wings. Then the faster moving heavier cavalry. Then the foot. Seems like common sense to me, so worth sticking with as it was easiest. Without good comms and leadership why complicate it? But if you wanted you could move the heavier cavalry forward, instead of to the wings, as a first line. Oh, just like the manuals.

But we are playing to test our leadership and have no problem with comms as, apart form the odd failure by a BG commander, our orders always get through. But I suppose the rules writers could change this. Design your army, roll a dice, highest wins. Not too far from what we do now, but not as much fun. And theres scope for more ones at the moment

[Strategos69]

So the rules should deny players the right to innovate?
We already live in the fiction of a 4x6 board. Why should the rules further constrain the universe to the central sector of that space?

It can be done many ways. It is not just that cavalry has to be deployed on the wings and infantry on the center. Each army (or a generic definition per book) can define a group of troops that can only deploy in the center or the wings and other troops that can choose between both. There can be some exceptions to that, as for example, players with IC can be allowed to deploy 3 BG's anywhere (maybe the same as ambushing markers), FC 1, TC none. Then the choice of the commander would be done in several basis. TC as commanders in chief are right now more a set of points rather than reflecting the differences in quality. They are allowed ambushing, flank marching and many other options that really require someone with experience and ability to be performed.

[philqw78]

It can be done many ways. It is not just that cavalry has to be deployed on the wings and infantry on the center. Each army (or a generic definition per book) can define a group of troops that can only deploy in the center or the wings and other troops that can choose between both. There can be some exceptions to that, as for example, players with IC can be allowed to deploy 3 BG's anywhere (maybe the same as ambushing markers), FC 1, TC none. Then the choice of the commander would be done in several basis. TC as commanders in chief are right now more a set of points rather than reflecting the differences in quality. They are allowed ambushing, flank marching and many other options that really require someone with experience and ability to be performed.

Are you going to define and write these deployments for each army? People have enough problems agreeing with the classification of troops in the lists, now we can argue about where they are deployed. Good luck with your new 44 volumes of army lists. And extra 10 pages of rules.

[ValentinianVictor]

"Quite so, this idea would destroy game balance. We aren't here to do a historical simulation we are here to play a game. What if's are just as good."

This reminds me of that story where a famous film producer is supposed to have said in response to someone querying why a historically based film was ignoring the history and was complete fantasy- 'Why let facts get in the way of a good story!'

As I said in another post, if your going to ignore the fact that the game is based on real historical armies you might as well just play a game where you push around bits of card and roll dice, after all, 'We aren't here to do a historical simulation we are here to play a game.'

[philqw78]

if your going to ignore the fact that the game is based on real historical armies you might as well just play a game where you push around bits of card and roll dice, after all, 'We aren't here to do a historical simulation we are here to play a game.'

Based on what we believe armies were based around. Our way is prettier, but not as pretty as Warhammer. But we can look down on them as at least our games are based on history. Some of which may only be as real as Tolkeins books though.

We do need a Campaign and scenario book as promised. Those that play points games and care little for reality can continue and those that want a more historical feel can add the extras from the campaigns book. Specific campaign rules and deployments, special terrain and weather rules, sieges, naval, river crossings, attacks on marching enemy, night attacks, etc. But there's obviously no money in it as far as Slitherine are concerned.

[spikemesq]

So the rules should deny players the right to innovate?
We already live in the fiction of a 4x6 board. Why should the rules further constrain the universe to the central sector of that space?

It can be done many ways. It is not just that cavalry has to be deployed on the wings and infantry on the center. Each army (or a generic definition per book) can define a group of troops that can only deploy in the center or the wings and other troops that can choose between both. There can be some exceptions to that, as for example, players with IC can be allowed to deploy 3 BG's anywhere (maybe the same as ambushing markers), FC 1, TC none. Then the choice of the commander would be done in several basis. TC as commanders in chief are right now more a set of points rather than reflecting the differences in quality. They are allowed ambushing, flank marching and many other options that really require someone with experience and ability to be performed.

This smacks of the old DBM deployment orders that, while simple in theory (left to right and front to back) became a mess of gamey conflicts (how much of a command must be behind another, etc.).

Would we write in the innovations that break this rule?

What are we trying to fix here, anyway? Is there chronic problem with people deploying irrationally AND succeeding from it? If a Roman player wants to deploy his legions on the wing and present a naked flank, it should be his funeral.

If the problem (noted elsewhere IIRC) is that mounted are too successful against heavy infantry, then fix that interaction. Tackling that problem through deployment protocols to reduce the chances of mounted/HF interaction is foolish. It creates far more problems than it would solve.

Finally, if the thrust of all this is HF bemoaning the need to engage enemy somewhere other than the "center" -- tough titty. The "center" is where you make it, not a zone marked by fences under the rules.

[Strategos69]

Are you going to define and write these deployments for each army? People have enough problems agreeing with the classification of troops in the lists, now we can argue about where they are deployed. Good luck with your new 44 volumes of army lists. And extra 10 pages of rules.

Actually it strikes me that you raise this point as actually campaign books would be the perfet fit for this. To agree with people that do enjoy that freedom of deployment and fantasy battles is not possible and in my proposal these would be better as optional rules. Deployment this way is much simpler than right now. You don't have to distribute evenly in 4 groups all your army (why 4 and the players are not given the freedom to do 3 groups to be innovative?), but most of your troops are assigned beforehand. Regarding the army lists, it is simple too: line infantry in the center, medium infantry the option for wings, cavalry on the wings, skirmishers everywhere, elephants everywhere. In Armati they cover that in 20 pages including the lists covering from 3000BC to 1500AD.

What are we trying to fix here, anyway?

That battles look like somehow as historical battles did. I don't have much time to research everytime about a new historical scenario and it would be nice to gather with people I can only meet once in a while and have a game that could be described as the Ancient sources did. On the left there was this, on the right that.

Besides that, now the "end of the world" helps some armies to anchor a flank with troops that are not easily beaten. The table is so large (especially when playing few points) that your HF center might end up in a position where it will not take part in most of the battle. Battles easily degenerate in one BG trying to chase another. You can mix cavalry and heavy infantry units to maximize the power of both. And there is also the problem you mentioned about the power of cavalry.

Regarding complexity, the deployment rules mentioned are way less complex. You first deploy the center (you know which troops you have in there partly because it is indicated in the list), then one flank (the same) and finally the other. There is no need to evenly distribute BG's or anything like that.

[spikemesq]

Regarding complexity, the deployment rules mentioned are way less complex. You first deploy the center (you know which troops you have in there partly because it is indicated in the list), then one flank (the same) and finally the other. There is no need to evenly distribute BG's or anything like that.

So, you want the DBM deployment order. Let's recap the problems that system gave us (plus some other bonus problems adapting it to FoG).

I assume that you wish to scrap the quartile deployment entirely, and replace it with dividing the army into center/left/right, further limiting what must be in the center portion (HF) and what must be in a wing (Cv). You state that skirmishers can be anywhere.

1. What are the boundaries? In DBM, many pixels died in the agony over when a command was sufficiently to the left or rear of another command for deployment. It was a lot of fun. Early gimmicks were to write deployment for 3 commands (A,B,C) as:

A
B
C

then deploy them as (X = empty space)



AAAAAAAAAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXBBBBBBBBBXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCCCCCCCC

OR

XXXXXXXAAAAAAAAXXXXXXXX
BBBBBBBBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXCCCCCCCC

etc.

Then came rules about drawing a line between commands so they did not intermingle. It was really awesome, and beyond ASCII representation.

2. Deploy second FTW. Assuming you get past the question of intermingling, if both sides have to deploy their center first, the first to deploy shows a ton of information about his army. The first group reveals (a) where his other two groups will be and (b) whether and how much HF is in the army. Those two information items will be enough for most players to stymie things with their deployment. If your center goes down anywhere but the middle of the table, I can deploy to one side to lock you into a bad match up, or box you out of a good match up. I can also deploy to one side, knowing that I can gang up on one third of your army. So, even if the proposed rule does not explicitly limit deployment of the center group in the middle sector, there will be too much risk in placing it elsewhere.

3. Reserves. Where do they go? Must I commit to a reserve force before deployment? If I want to reinforce the center, I have to deploy them deep. I also cannot reinforce them with a mounted reserve, absent more complex exceptions to "mounted on the wings."

4. B-b-b-but it's historical. Not really. Your "center" first rule will lead to a bunch of offset engagements where maneuver will be even more important because more games will require armies to redeploy to break out of stupid initial placements. Moreover, how would your system account for:

Taginae 552AD



Poitiers 1356



Mohi 1241



Hastings 1066



None of these follow the mounted/foot/mounted orthodoxy you want to build into deployment rules.