effect of fort. on combat and various

[Munchausen]

1.
I always thought that fortifications did not have an effect on the owning army present in hex. Yet I stumbled on this apparent Q&A with GSI on "facade" web site (see links under Misc in forum) and I found this:

"
Q: When attacking an enemy army (not the population center at one of their fortified population centers), will they receive a constitution bonus from their fortification? Does the attacking army have to overcome the fortification?

A: The answer to the first question is 'Yes'. The answer to the second question is 'No' - because the enemy army would be gaining a defensive bonus because of certain available defenses associated with the fortifications - not the actual fortifications themselves.


Q: When defending against an enemy attacking army that is at their own population center (i.e. when you are planning to siege their population center and they attack you), does the attacking enemy receive the constitution bonus from their own fortifications?

A: Yes, if combat occurs in a hex with fortifications which are owned by one of the involved armies, then they will receive the bonus because they are still using the available defenses associated with the fortifications, even though they might also be attacking
"

This is interesting and more realistic. I always thought that fortification in the game (erroneously) had no effect on armies present who were fighting it out. Can someone confirm or deny this apparent quote from GSI?

2.
On a related field: I personnaly find that the bonus for nation terrain, attack formation, tactics etc.. were too small to have any real effect on gameplay when fighting other armies. basically I just built HI and HC and attack usually standard whereever the ennemy may happen to be without thinking of these issues because it seems to me a waste of time. Does anyone feel differently? Do old timers here find that these combat modifications play an important role?

3.
Finally, this brings me to the issue of HC and HI. Does anyone, tacking into consideration the above combat modifications and their opponents intentions, ever think it is worthwhile to build anything else than HC or HI?

A bit long winded but all related seems to me.

[Arthedain73]

The Q & A you found is accurate. From an examination of dozens of battles I estimate the defending army gets a random percentage of 15 to 20% the constitution of the fortifications added to the army's constitution. That is, a tower will add up to 400 pts of constitution, thanks to associated effects of the fortifications. Such as superior observation, extra cover & concealment, etc.

One of several weaknesses with the army combat system is an unrealistic view of light troops. Orders are the currency of the game. There is no escaping that, per order, you get more bang per order with HI and HC.

[Munchausen]

Very interesting, thank you for confirming this.


The quesiton of Light and Heavy troops is of course related to importance of number of orders you can issue per turn and I can only agree with you here.

If for a moment you forget about this point,


Does anybody out there entertain the possibility of using light troops or archers because they know how to maximise their use: nation ability in certain terrain + tactics + manoeuver order of choice for that type of troop.

In other words has anyone ever made the successful calculation as follows: "gee, I think I'll recruit some archers because since I'll be in the mountains, facing cavalry so I'll ambush etc... they will have a cumulative +30% attack strengh / constitution and my ennemy - 10% thus will let me win the battle at a cheaper cost."

(Maybe in 2950 games where money is tight, there is an argument for this type of calculation as it may cost orders but saves much needed cash).

[Player]

Navies are best run as combat vehicles with cheaper light troops, as are back-field threatening armies or blocking forces.

And economics. If you're broke and going for relatively effective attack forces, Archers might be worthwhile, as they're 60% of HI, not the 50% of LI, and you can manipulate the tactics.

But otherwise, it's HI and HC all the way.

[darrell]

Although I am not sure how accurate this is, here's a snippet from the very first issue of From the Mouth of Sauron:

- the defensive bonus provided by fortifications is 10%-20% of
the constitution value of the owning army. Towers give the
force a 10% bonus, citadels a 20%, with everything else falling
in-between.

This is in reference to a constitution bonus for an army in a hex with a fortification of the same nation.

[Brad Jenison]

I agree with player; bang for buck HC if you can afford it HI if not except in navies where the troop type really has no bearing and in armies that you expect to use to threaten with but expect no serious resistance. Keep in mind though they eat up just as much rations as HI which for your nation inventories is not a good thing.

[Harad138]

Don't forget that a very large MA army is a cheap powerhouse that can overrun tiny cav armies that could actually beat out the MA in a standup fight, and are a great way to threaten enemy pop centers that don't have defending armies. They're also great to use for interposing between other armies if necessary. Great for the nation on a shoestring budget that just needs a bit of insurance.

Shorter sieges, emmy blocking, camp posting, whiter teeth, fresher breath, the benefits go on and on.


Ray

[Munchausen]

Okay so nobody takes the nation preference in terrain / prefered terrain of army/ tactics modifiers seriously, and it certainly is not possible to justify the recruiting of light troops (except for navy)

There may be some very exceptional cases where light troops might prove useful such as threatening or overunning , but basically, it is regretfully a poor game design.

I thought maybe someone could make the case that for instance that a none heavy unit might get the following benefits in combat compaired to adversary:
+10 % for terrain bonus of that troop type
+10% for proper tactics of that troop type
+10% for assumed tactics comparison modifier (winning side such as ambush of archers vs charge of HC)

ennemy with HI might get:
-10% in that same terrain
-10% for losing side of tactics comparison modifier

All this combined might make light troops economically sound choice.

Thank you for your imput.

[Arthedain73]

So, if all conditions are perfect the light troops are equal to heavy troops that took half the time to produce. That about wraps it up.

[Player]

See Laurence Tilleys 2nd Edition Web site. He's gone off the deep end in regard to nation/tactics etc. Part of the "2nd Edition" discussion on the mepbm list a couple of years ago.

[LGTilley]

You suggested the 2nd ed page before I did. Good chap. http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/2nded.htm

I disagree with some of the comments on troop types in this thread though. Archers, in mountains fighting a one round battle will be more effective than HI and large MA armies could be used under a high ranked commader to threaten. BUT how often can you be sure that your archerw will not move out of the mountains, and how often can you be sure that your threatening army will not have to fight? As soon as there is ANY element of doubt (i.e. the enemy not following your plan to the letter) archers or MA become a liability.

There is still a myth in circulation that over-run depends on numbers. This is not correct. I had 800 MA over-run by 2000 HC. So they're not even any good for blocking.

Someone did a good study on the cost effectiveness of HC over HI. Sadly I don't have the reference to the article. He concluded however that HC are almost always more cost effective than HI. That's not just because an HC fights as 1.6 HI, but because of the shortened time between recruiting an adequate force, and reaching and taking a target pop - the saving in maintenance is enough to offset the cost of extra food, and even the purchase of much of the mounts and leather. (But a lot more orders of course)

[smuller]

That's not just because an HC fights as 1.6 HI, but because of the shortened time between recruiting an adequate force, and reaching and taking a target pop - the saving in maintenance is enough to offset the cost of extra food, and even the purchase of much of the mounts and leather. (But a lot more orders of course)

response..
exactly...if your a nwest power in a post angmar word, recruiting hi is a fools errand. HC can move 14 hexes on the roads. now, if your going to recruit hc, and not feed the army, go to the closet, and get a bigger gun to shoot yourself in the foot.
however, not everybody can hire hc, due to money. for the dark side, nothing could be finer then conj hordes with a top shelf commander, running amok in the undefened heartland.
also, on a prior point, 800 m/a make a wonderful blocking force, permitting the defending nation to get an extra round of recruiting
to meet the "big attack."
finally, if your gonna go through the effort of making hc, put steel armor on them. but dont use 900 hc to smash the long rider camps in eastern mordor. its a waste economically, and they get dead when the long rider commits din othar to killing them. but 200 lc with 1500 food, now your making sense. seems easy to grasp, but many fail to understand this point.

sm
wandering about the forum

[Brad Jenison]

Excellent thread Munchausen, thanks for stimulating the conversations. Concerning the last two posts, both are in my opinion correct. Mr Muller however overlooked one point of Mr Tilley's post, that from personnal experience Mr Tilley's MA were over run by a force not 8 times as large as is the popular belief, but Laurence that cavalry force did have 20 times the combat power of your MA troop constitution so maybe that had something to do with the outcome.

Still Laurence's point is well made and valid 800 MA do not in all cases make a wonderful blocking force. Also if you are blocking that overwhelming force with your sacrificial MA you are placing that commander at risk of death, wound or capture because you are so badly outmatched.

As for the post Angmar Northwest. I would say that the second Angmar is subdued or even the turn before there should be Emisarries booking flights from Angmar to the MT of both S Gondor and N Gondor while representatives of both these nations are sending their smooth talkers north. A quick exchange of population centers and the powers of the Northwest, especially Cardolan with it's hire armies at no cost are once again in the fight. Army costs are now spread over more nations in the key sector near Mordor, and the Gondors if hard pressed get better survivability by having secure pops in the NW. Arthedain and Cardolan can now retire those deserving veterans in the NW and concentrate resources and funds in the fight against Mordor. Gondor has fewer places to defend and can commit more troops to the offense. Using Lawrences logic as explained in his post allows for an effective force to be raised more quickly using HC.

Mr Muller, I agree with you about the use of LT Cavalry as a raiding force. It however would be just as vulnerable to Din Ohtar as the Hvy Cav force, but it would be cheaper to maintain.

Good discussion gentlemen, Munchausen again thanks for getting it started.

[Player]

Interesting thought that combat strength influences overrun's. But it's always been related to "Size" and, while I don't have my rules handy, I'd hazard a guess that maybe they increased the "Size" of a typical Cavalry "troop" compared to a Foot "troop". The DO tend to eat twice as much...I'm about twice the "size" of my wife eating as such...

[smuller]

Mr Muller, I agree with you about the use of LT Cavalry as a raiding force. It however would be just as vulnerable to Din Ohtar as the Hvy Cav force, but it would be cheaper to maintain.

response..

[smuller]

Mr Muller, I agree with you about the use of LT Cavalry as a raiding force. It however would be just as vulnerable to Din Ohtar as the Hvy Cav force, but it would be cheaper to maintain.

response..

to clarify.. that lc force is expected to number about 300. the theory being that if din othar is running about trying to eliminate 300 lc killing camps, then the game for the evils is going really good, or will be going really bad.

as for the m/a. i have never had the privillage of getting that many( 800 m/a) overrun. an interesting point though about power vs size. rumor has it, in mepbm as in the real world, size matters. and i'll leave it at that. :eek:

sm

[LGTilley]

Originally posted by Brad Jenison
but Laurence that cavalry force did have 20 times the combat power of your MA troop constitution so maybe that had something to do with the outcome.

Still Laurence's point is well made and valid 800 MA do not in all cases make a wonderful blocking force.

Yes, that's what I was saying (perhaps no so clearly as I thought). The example I cited proved to me that the over-run equation is about relative army strenth (or constitution, or strength vs constitution) and thus dispells another myth i.e. that over-run is based on relative army size. It was on the "advice" of a team mate and against my better judgement that I was pursuaded to have my cash strapped ClL capital recruit MA for 2 turns while we could see the SGo cav donkey derby trotting south of Mordor.

ME is FULL of many myths like these (though the chap who "advises" you will think they are "great tips"). I like to debunk them when I can.

[Brad Jenison]

Originally posted by smuller
Mr Muller, I agree with you about the use of LT Cavalry as a raiding force. It however would be just as vulnerable to Din Ohtar as the Hvy Cav force, but it would be cheaper to maintain.

response..

to clarify.. that lc force is expected to number about 300. the theory being that if din othar is running about trying to eliminate 300 lc killing camps, then the game for the evils is going really good, or will be going really bad.

as for the m/a. i have never had the privillage of getting that many( 800 m/a) overrun. an interesting point though about power vs size. rumor has it, in mepbm as in the real world, size matters. and i'll leave it at that. :eek:

sm

I did not mention the size of the light cavalry force. You're post mentioned 900 HC, this post 300 LC. The number of troops is unimportant as long as it is enough to threaten camps away. My point was simply that beside the maintenance cost savings there is no difference in the two forces if they are being used to threaten and that's all. If it is decided to deal with that threat by the use of Din Ohtar or Ji, or any other agent capable the light force commander can be dealt with in the same way as the heavy force commander. LC is cheaper, that all there is, it is not more survivable to character action.

[lionatus]

Forts are funny animals. So funny you don't wanna know half of it. Just worry about their level and the pop centre loyalty. Its mind-numbing what I know. So bad in fact that I ignore it.

[JRoberts]

question:

What has become of the 2nd ed rules? This was something, from what I read, that had some support. Just curious if this is a serious issue with the company and players or just musings that will not see fruition.

Curiosity abounds,

[Arthedain73]

What happened is that GSI will not give the source codes to Harley. My speculation is that GSI believes that Harley will make the game into something that it is not. Minor tinkering with the combat modifiers is one thing. Changing the intent of the game is something else. Stassun and Feilds are justly proud of their baby, it is a great game. Someone, for example, who does not understand the moralistic base of the game will turn it into another 'off the shelf' computer game.

[jasonab]

My speculation is that GSI believes that Harley will make the game into something that it is not.

I think that's giving GSI way too much credit. From where I sit, they're just living off the fruits of their effort 10 years ago, without doing anything to improve it. Heck, they don't even bother to actually run games anymore!

As to the "moralistic" base of the game, I'm not sure I follow. The original design of the game practically has the two sides fighting each other as much as they fight their enemies. That's why you can dislike an ally and take all his pop centers with emmys and kill his characters. Fortunately (I would argue), the game has evolved into more of a standard wargame that is more clearly moralistic than the back-stabbing morass that is the first draft.

[Arthedain73]

Let me suggest the game was intended to be a'back stabbing morass". It was NOT intended to be a standard wargame. In the struggle between Good and Evil we are all given temptations and moral choices. This is a Free Will morality play. A level, among many, this game possesses.

[Player]

I don't see the Nazgul singing union songs linked arm in arm, and I certainly don't believe many of us remember much inter racial cooperation amongst the so-called Free People in any of the books.

Let's see, the Noldo pissed off the Sinda from the beginning, age old vows and hatred there. I believe there was the time the Dwarves of Belegost were slaughtered by some more Noldo, can't quite recall if the Dwarves started it...of course, the Dwarves of Noegrod wouldn't come to the aid of Belegost, so there are Dwarven "city-states" feuding... Much of man, originally all "Easterlings" until the "West" slithered into the sea, followed Morgoth and then Sauron. The Dunedain were the worst of the mercantilist colonialists when they happened over into Umbar, until Isildur and company - they were the supposed righteous Dunedain, and look what happened to selfish and vain him?

While the game "play" has "generally" evolved into a more standard war game where teamwork is essential, I wouldn't equate the socialistic utopian ideal of self sacrifice for the benefit of the team as "moral" necessarily. And we don't need fantastical Middle Earth stories to tell us why....

[JRoberts]

I think the 4th age scenario adequately puts the back stabbing morass back into the game....to many players, the icon means simply is a means to an end...better emis, commanders, agents, or mages....and placing starting popc's in mountains or not....

I do like the combat modifiers and such for troop types and I agree that in 1650 and 2950 the nations should get a troop type that is fitting their national design and the significance of the troops as evidenced in the books.

For my money anymore, I'll play a variant where things are shaken up a bit...like the WOTR I'm in now, I'll play a neut in 1650 and do whatever the >>>>> I want....or I'll play 4th age and join up with a few buds and declare war on the world.....which has been done in my game 44 btw, three alliances and several undecided neuts to start the game...interesting if nothing else.

I like the freedom of 4th age nation design and I like that everyone basically starts out the same, give or take....I have yet to play a Kingdom, for now....

but I'd love to see 2nd ed rules game...but from what I've read it won't happen.

so my next question is...and uh oh it's off topic....does anyone play another war game like this via email? Any for modern day warfare????

I have some desire to play something else as well as the Middle Earth scenario but can't locate anything as well moderated or organized on the web.

my two cents and the 50 dollars as a tip,

JMR

[jasonab]

Let me suggest the game was intended to be a'back stabbing morass". It was NOT intended to be a standard wargame. In the struggle between Good and Evil we are all given temptations and moral choices. This is a Free Will morality play. A level, among many, this game possesses.
No doubt. I took your statement more on the "good vs evil" level than what you meant. Still, I prefer what it has become over what it started out as (and this coming from a regular Diplomacy player).


While the game "play" has "generally" evolved into a more standard war game where teamwork is essential, I wouldn't equate the socialistic utopian ideal of self sacrifice for the benefit of the team as "moral" necessarily. And we don't need fantastical Middle Earth stories to tell us why....
Why do I get the feeling I just got called a commie? :D

Actually, I didn't mean anything like that. The books do have the sides warring against each other, but I prefer the game where it's team vs team.


so my next question is...and uh oh it's off topic....does anyone play another war game like this via email? Any for modern day warfare????
Check out flyingbuffalo.com - they run Battle Plan (and a 1939 variant) that is more modern. I played a while ago, and it was fun.