FoG:R Update - BG autobreak

[nikgaukroger]

OK, as promised here is a topic to get us going with working towards an update. Starting with this one and not points cost as this may well impact on points so having an idea about what people think about this before we start that topic may be sensible.


Change autobreak to all BGs break on greater than 50% loses (or when they reach 1 base).

As Superior/Elite troops fight, shoot and pass tests better than Average, and Poor do all worse, having different autobreak points is both a double whammy and a complication.

It is possible that this would make skirmishers (including Dragoons) a bit good, unbalancing the game, so it might be best if it only applied to Battle Troops with Light Troops breaking on 50% loses so they aren’t as tough as Battle Troops for this. One to discuss.

This suggested change is partly driven by the view that Average mounted are not that viable in 4 base BGs, and hopefully this would make them more sustainable and, thus, more likely to be chosen (remember we will also be looking at points so this isn't the only thing that will affect this issue). Also by the view that it would give more reason to use Average and Poor troops in general.

However, there may be a risk that by (significantly) improving the survivability of Poor troops we open the door for "unbreakable wall o'crap" armies which would cause frustration. To counter this it has been suggested that limiting the maximum army size to (say) 16 regardless of the number of BGs would be a suitable mitigation (as in FoG:AM IIRC). This would (hopefully) mean that an army with lots of Poor troops (Scots Covenanter obviously springs to mind) would be a more viable option, but not to the detriment of the "playing experience".


We look forward to your comments and ideas on this - fire away

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Could you also limit the survivability of Poor troops by having them automatically drop a level in morale, once they pass the current autobreak point?

[Akbar]

At first glance this seems like a good idea. I'd need to see the changes in points though, but I like the thought of more mediocre troops on the battlefield.

[spotteddog]

I like the current set up where superior and elites can take more punishment before breaking. Being in favour of minimising change consistent with seeing more average mounted on table I would prefer to see this done through the points system.
HH

[benjones1211]

I Like the idea of making Average a bit more playable.

Keep the current break points, but use them as the point below which the BG cannot be steady.

So 6 p+S Average going to 3 would be auto Disrupted (can never be higher may be lower) would automatically cause a drop in cohesion, which would be added to any drop caused by a failed test, so if the failed test is one drop would go Fragmented, if a double drop would rout.

So Average Mtd in 4 would be disrupted when they got to 2, so at would be still fighting but at lower ability.

This would make Average and Poor hang around a little longer but at reduced effectiveness due to their loss of size.

This would mean large BG's would last longer, but once they get below the Steady/Break point they are easier to beat.

It would also mean you could bring back an Average BG on more than 1 base, but will be difficult due to the 25% -1, although I would make it -1 for every 25% loss.

Everyone auto breaks on 1

[kevinj]

I agree with Nik that changing the Autobreak levels is preferable to adjusting points in order to make Average/Poor troops more viable. Slightly cheaper crap is still crap! However, we also need to consider the other end of the scale. The table shows current and proposed autobreak levels for larger Average and Poor BGs:



Ben's suggestion would provide some balance to this, but does it introduce too much complexity? I like the simplicity of Light Troops autobreaking on losing 50%, Battle Troops on over 50%.

An alternative would be to adjust the Cohesion Test -1 modifier from 25% Lost to Each 25% lost.

As Nik mentioned, we would also need to guard against the unbreakable wall o' crap armies. The solution adopted in Fog AM for those who don't know it was to restrict the army break point to 1 per 50 points of army size, so a 700 point army breaks on a maximum of 14 AP losses (if it has 14 or more BG, otherwise as now). 800 point armies have a corresponding maximum of 16 and 900 have 18.

[ravenflight]

Generally in favour of this change.

(naturally, with the proviso of play-testing).

One thing that I think it would assist is the 'shooting to destruction' of foot by artillery. Currently, if you have a P&S formation you go belly up at 3 lucky hits. This does mean you need to get the 4th lucky hit, which isn't much, but is certainly something.

[nikgaukroger]

I agree with Nik that changing the Autobreak levels is preferable to adjusting points in order to make Average/Poor troops more viable. Slightly cheaper crap is still crap! However, we also need to consider the other end of the scale. The table shows current and proposed autobreak levels for larger Average and Poor BGs:

Thanks Kevin, I had wondered about this but hadn't done the maths

Thinking about it I believe nearly all Poor BGs max out at 12. IIRC there are a couple of lists that allow larger ones such as the early Elizabethan oddity infantry (suspect if there are others they are also in Trade & Treachery), but not many. However, certainly worth thinking about and possible mitigation if it would be an issue.

[kevinj]

Yes, most are in T&T. As well as the Elizabethans there are (as far as I know):

Italian Wars French (0-32 Pike or Pike/Arquebus, max size 16)
Irish (0-48 Pike, max size 16)
Aviz Portuguese (0-70 Pike/Arquebus in Keils or ETs, max size 14)

I think if someone wants to try 5 poor Early Tercios it would be mean to stop them!

[donm2]

The solution adopted in Fog AM for those who don't know it was to restrict the army break point to 1 per 50 points of army size, so a 700 point army breaks on a maximum of 14 AP losses (if it has 14 or more BG, otherwise as now). 800 point armies have a corresponding maximum of 16 and 900 have 18.

I like this idea, as it would reduce the effect of armies padded out with small units of dragoons.

Don

[timmy1]

Like the proposed Autobreak changes. Make Poor and Average Battle troops break on >50%, Lights on 50%. The rest of the Autobreak levels unchanged, please.

Maximum of 1 ABP per 50 points or part thereof I can live with.

[nikgaukroger]

Like the proposed Autobreak changes. Make Poor and Average Battle troops break on >50%, Lights on 50%. The rest of the Autobreak levels unchanged, please.

Which would only be Elite as >50% is the current autobreak for Superiors. As there are not that many Elite, and they have other advantages, I don't think it is worth having them as an exception.

[timmy1]

I do - unless you do Swiss will disappear as 15mm armies.

[kevinj]

The only types who are worse as a result of this are Elite BGs of 8 bases or more, which really boils down to the Swiss (and the Aztecs). 8-10 base BGs would break on losing 1 base less than currently, larger on 2 less. To be honest, most Swiss armies (or contingents) I've seen have found Superior to be perfectly adequate.

I think that a blanket 50% autobreak level for Light troops would be more controversial as that worsens Superior LF and LH, which are far more widely used than Swiss.

[timmy1]

Swiss Elite GBGs are really hurt by this. I vow to form PETS (People for the Ethical Streatment of Swiss) unless Elites are protected from these vile experiments...

[nikgaukroger]

Leaving aside the Elites just for a moment (we can ponder them later) - is this suggested change generally acceptable?

[Akbar]

Aye.

[quackstheking]

For my pennyworth I agree that all Battle groups (including Elites) should break on >50% and Lights on 50%.

Whilst accepting this is a backward step for superior lights, what we see now is that Superior Lights once they've lost 2 bases, with their unique turn and move, they run away very quickly and skulk on the baseline so never break! It will mean more careful planning and commitment of lights which is surely a good thing! Equally, there are not too many superior lights and if we let them have the >50% benefit not only will superiors skedaddle but the averages will too which is not a good thing!

With regards to Elites on only 1 occasion I can recall in competition games has been Elites broken on base loses rather than morale. They won't lose too many combats!

Don

[timmy1]

Don

Agree with you other than the last point. Nick and Richard rather tastefully shot a Swiss Keil to bits without me even reaching contact when using their Napoleonic Grand battery and Tercios at the Rollcall Beta tourney... but I am over it now...

[quackstheking]

Don

Agree with you other than the last point. Nick and Richard rather tastefully shot a Swiss Keil to bits without me even reaching contact when using their Napoleonic Grand battery and Tercios at the Rollcall Beta tourney... but I am over it now...

Well I wasn't there so lets call it twice! TBF it was RBS who shot a Swiss Keil to bits (cant remember whose). Still almost as rare as hens teeth!

Don