Better Armour - proposal (updated)

[spedders]

Okay, probably needs to be clearer on the wording. I didn't get it from the proposed wording.

[nikgaukroger]

We are always open to suggestions on the wording to make sure players can get it right

[nikgaukroger]

Pretty much last call for further comments on this proposal before we make up our minds.

Speak now or ...

[DavidT]

I like it and think that it is more logical now you are proposing to reduce re-rolls for troops fighting those with better armour. We used it in our play test tonight and it worked well.

[nikgaukroger]

The latest feedback we've had on this seems to support the last proposal. We'll be adopting it unless we hear otherwise pretty soon.

[Vespasian28]

Finally got a Flodden refight booked so will get back to you about that but I suspect I am the lone voice in the wilderness not happy about armour changes and autobreaks. Hey ho, it's only a game.

[gibby]

The latest feedback we've had on this seems to support the last proposal. We'll be adopting it unless we hear otherwise pretty soon.

How many games is this feedback based on.

Across the last few years I've played hundreds of games and I never thought there was anything wrong with the armour rules in fact i was of the opinion it worked pretty well and was so simple to understand. In fact not once prior to this exercise had I heard another player say the armour rules were broken.

I would prefer if the armour rules stayed as they were.

Its probably my most hated change and the one that would make me not adopt any of the changes.

cheers
Jim

[nikgaukroger]

The latest feedback we've had on this seems to support the last proposal. We'll be adopting it unless we hear otherwise pretty soon.

Across the last few years I've played hundreds of games and I never thought there was anything wrong with the armour rules in fact i was of the opinion it worked pretty well and was so simple to understand. In fact not once prior to this exercise had I heard another player say the armour rules were broken.

In terms of a game mechanism it does work, the idea behind the proposal to change is that the effect is over-stated.

It would be very helpful if you could point out any historical interactions that would become less well represented if the proposal was to be adopted as it is that side of things that are driving this suggestion.

[gibby]

"Another area for discussion.

A feature of the period of FoG:R is that armour fell out of use over the period - this is most clearly seen in the west, of course, however, it was also a feature in other parts of the world as well, albeit maybe to a bit of a lesser degree.

In FoG:R we have better armour giving a + PoA in melee (unless against shot) which makes it a very powerful attribute and, maybe, is a factor in some of the balance and army viability issues especially at the latter end of the rules period."


Nik
I'm not about to trawl through my books to prove or disprove the effects of armour on combat.
As far as I can tell this was introduced by your good self with a generalisation about armour falling out of favour. I don't disagree that it fell out of favour but there are a myriad of reasons for that which I'm sure has been debated before.

I thought the effect worked well in the rules and from my general reading of history from the 1500 to 1700. I didn't think I was alone in that and it seems to me you have ignored the representation of others before and asked for evidence but provided none yourself.
Personally I thought the horse interactions was more a costing and list issue than anything else.
History and the reading of it can be very subjective as I'm sure you know and sometimes you think a 25% bonus and I think 50%. Neither of us is wrong. I'm just saying I liked the effect, it was simple and seemed logical therefore no need to change.

Lastly.....You are the one proposing the changes not me so I would say the onus on the change maker to take people with them.
In this case I'm not persuaded and I'm not sure the friends I play with are either.
I would propose a poll but sometimes you don't get the right result and not all players read this.

I wish you luck with whatever gets decided but sometimes when it ain't broke don't try and fix it.
cheers
Jim

[nikgaukroger]

Fair comments.

And yes, reading of history is rather subjective - one of the things that makes it so interesting IMO, but make proof rather hard This case is very much one of interpretation and, essentially, subjective and beyond absolute proof.

Also be assured that the "it ain't broke, don't fix it" side of this is being properly considered.

[madaxeman]

I'm sort of leaning towards Jims thinking here too

If the basis for looking at the armour rule is that there was a long-term trend away from armour in the period covered by the rules which combined with the way Armour works as a game mechanic makes in-game interactions between Early and Later armies play out in a way that feels odd, that could just as easily be fixed by adding the word "strongly" to the sentence in the rules (I'm guessing it's in there) that says "it is recommended that historically matched opponents are used in games"...

[kevinj]

The problem that we see is that it's not just the unhistorical matchups. Some examples:

Louis XIV cavalry, widely reported as the best among their contempories, currently don't perform anywhere near that due to being unarmoured.
30YW Cuirassiers totally outperform the troops that replaced them, who are principally Armoured DH.

Making these troops cheaper was considered, but if they don't work right it doesn't really help.

[viking123]

There is the simple answer of letting pistol to be treated like other shot weapons. Thus a pistol armed mounted unit would never be out armoured.

Bob

[benjones1211]

I to feel the new armour mechanism is a change I am not in favour of, too complicated to work out and easy to get wrong. I do like Bob's idea but it will make Western horse much more effective than most eastern horse, as steady unarmoured pistol pistol will fight better than armoured, lance, sword, being at a +, until disordered when the sword will come into effect, but the sword horse won't get the double+ of armoured and sword just the single + of sword.

Although this may be more accurate, it seems the eastern horse had real trouble beating the pistol/pistol horse unless they got in amongst them, ie disrupted their organisation. The one troop type it will particular hurt will be the armoured Polish winged lancers as they will become much less effective against western horse unless they disorder them at impact, after which they won't have the ++ just +.

So after this rambling I would suggest that Bobs idea is good, but could be expanded to steady pistol in melee ignore armour which enhances them until disrupted when it can go downhill very quickly.

[Jhykronos]

There is the simple answer of letting pistol to be treated like other shot weapons. Thus a pistol armed mounted unit would never be out armoured.

This "simple" answer is worse than doing nothing at all, IMO. Armor goes from being a "no-brainer" purchase to being completely pointless for most of the historical matchups in which it was used.

[Jhykronos]

If the basis for looking at the armour rule is that there was a long-term trend away from armour in the period covered by the rules which combined with the way Armour works as a game mechanic makes in-game interactions between Early and Later armies play out in a way that feels odd, that could just as easily be fixed by adding the word "strongly" to the sentence in the rules (I'm guessing it's in there) that says "it is recommended that historically matched opponents are used in games"...

I don't think that's the MAIN basis for looking at the armor rule, but rather one of the arguments for it. The main basis is the feeling that the effect of armor rating is too much, both in terms of game balance and historical interactions.

This isn't really a new criticism of the system, it goes back to the ancients rules as well (remember all the complaints about hoplites magically transforming from highly effective troops to mediocre filler, Romans cutting through barbarians like tissue, etc.).

[Jhykronos]

Also be assured that the "it ain't broke, don't fix it" side of this is being properly considered.

If it wasn't broke, it wouldn't have been identified as an issue to address on day 1.

I think the questions that need to be answered are:

1. Is it "broke" badly enough that it is worth fixing?
2. Is the proposed fix going to "broke" enough other things to make things worse.

FWIW, my answers are:

1. Maybe. Certainly reports of the TYW matchups where the proposals have been tested have been promising.
2. Don't know. The verdict's still out on the reroll proposal, and I strongly dislike all the others I have seen.

[gibby]

The problem that we see is that it's not just the unhistorical matchups. Some examples:

Louis XIV cavalry, widely reported as the best among their contempories, currently don't perform anywhere near that due to being unarmoured.
30YW Cuirassiers totally outperform the troops that replaced them, who are principally Armoured DH.

Making these troops cheaper was considered, but if they don't work right it doesn't really help.

Actually, I don't think we know that. What armies are you comparing this too ?
I think we are conflating different timelines and that against contemporaries LXIV do fine.
Comparing against TYW Cuirassier when they didn't really come up against them is more a cost issue in my view.

cheers
Jim

[DavidT]

From the playtests we have done, the current armour proposals appear to work well, although there have not been very many interactions were it has come into effect.
It is not overly complex, just different to how it works at present. I like it because it now makes unarmoured troops a viable choice. Previously my opponent would never have taken unarmoured cavaliers in his French army, however now he will.

[nikgaukroger]

There is the simple answer of letting pistol to be treated like other shot weapons. Thus a pistol armed mounted unit would never be out armoured.

This "simple" answer is worse than doing nothing at all, IMO. Armor goes from being a "no-brainer" purchase to being completely pointless for most of the historical matchups in which it was used.

Indeed.

To quote Phil Barker - the suggestion is simple, elegant, and wrong.