Any good examples of them actually doing it rather than us thinking they did it.

Clearly I could read up on all warfare covered by FOG but I would be in the library until retirement ... can anyone who has done so post a few bits that might trigger thinking?

Me very interested if anyone can.

Si ...

I'm hardly a regular player but, around these parts (NZ), the Joint Action Phase is often ushered in by a mimed drag on a 'cigarette'.........

As a complete FoG newbie this has been an intriguing thread to follow with some thought provoking viewpoints being shared.

However, what strikes me is that this sort of thing could well become the sort of maneuver that 'ruthless' veterans pull on unsuspecting novices. On the one hand you can ...

Benny - the rules are designed to give an appropriate simulation between 600 and 1,000 points per side with a representational scale of 200 men per base (15mm) or 300 men per base (28mm).

If you choose to use the rules outside these parameters, yes, it will stretch the simulation aspects but will ...

While tha above is the origin of the BG concept I don't think one needs to limit an army size much. Up to 20 BGs is fine. I have played up to 1400 points a side in testing and the mechanisms are fine. In fact I am contemplating a 1200 points triples format for a comp where you play 3 a side with a ...

We looked at lots of battles and how they seemed to be set up. While sizes of armies varied there was a very clear pattern of C&C pyramid that came through.

1 c-in-c
2-3 senior generals
8-15 junior generals with troops clustered under them

Then it also seemed pretty clear that similar troops ...

Hi Simon

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. A combination of lots of interesting stuff to digest coupled with the inevitable distractions of 'real life'.

Your point about push backs often leading to collapse and rout is well made and not one that I generally disagree with. A good ...

It appears to me that you see the push back as an important factor (the important factor even) in the Pydna battle and so feel that it should be explicitly represented in the game whereas I see it as just one of the factors and so am comfortable with it being more abstracted.

If it were just me ...

The passage, which is about the way the Romans gain an advantage over the phalanx due to the latter becoming disordered, starts with mentioning the uneveness of the ground and the difficulty of keeping a cohesive line over the length of a long battle line. It then goes onto also mention the break ...

At Kynoskephalae the Makedonians never formed a continuous line, their left was hit by the Romans as it was still marching up to catch up with the deployed right - the pushing back of the Roman left did not creat this but it was not until the right was won that the tribune took the 20 maniples ...

At Kynoskephalae the breaking of the makedonian left wing was the real reason that the Romans could attack the rear of the right. It was only after this had happened that the un-named tribune led the 20 maniples to the final attack.

At Pydna it was the uneveness of the ground that disrupted the ...

It was a decision to simplify the game. We originally had recoils but they caused major complications in multi-BG combats. The rationalisation, as you say, is that at this scale, falling back 50 meters wouldn't be noticeable.

The downside is that the traditional explanation of Hannibal's plan at ...

Unfortunately it is rather hard to answer your queries whilst bound by a NDA which means that the actual rules cannot be quoted to you :cry: [/quote]

While I do understand and accept the restrictions you are under, what elaborations you are providing just aren't adding up for me so I'll have to ...

Troop definitions for a set of rules attempting to represent 4500 of warfare are better thought of as guidelines as you cannot realistically have unbendable definitions and keep the number of troop categories managable IMO.

So, yes, you will have some troops who are fitted to a troop type because ...

Celtiberrians are recorded as being at a disadvantage vs Legionaries in rough going by someone of the era IIRC - however I also seem to recall it was because of their lack of individual armour as much as anything.


It was Livy, and if both are HF it is their better armour that will give ...

Some troops are further affected by terrain as their fighting style may require good order to work well (spears and pikes for example).


Hammy

Maybe this is where I am getting confused. HF are more 'cohesive' than MF but this 'cohesion' is not the same as 'good order'? So what is it? I'm sorry ...

So, again, why then are Celiberians (and for that matter Romans) 'heavy'? Surely, as primarily individual fighters within a close formation they should be 'medium'? Certainly that is the impression I get reading Polybios's comparison of legion vs pike phalanx.



Heavy does not mean that they ...

Heavy Foot is not a description of their armour

Why weren't the decriptions of foot formations used called; close, loose and open. It would save some initial confusion and be, IMHO, more descriptive as there are lots of heavy, unprotected foot and probably medium, armoured foot.

Because loose ...

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Fair enough :D


The evidence for the late 6th century would seem to
indicate metal thorakes in the large majority, but it is far from
clear if this was still true by 480 even in the (less prevalent)
artistic depictions; given the 480 ...

The bronze bell corselet was replaced by the composite corselet, comprised of leather covered with iron scales.

Iron? I hope you really mean bronze. A minor point I know but I'm not aware of iron being used in Greek body armour for a good 150 years after the Persian Wars. And to suggest that ...