Turn 180 and advance

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:16 am

Just a quick one, but what was the reasoning for having troops like 'Drilled Spear' not be able to turn 180 and advance, yet be able to turned 90 and advance?

It seems to me (this is with experience on the parade ground as well) that it is far easier to turn a line 180 degrees and advance than it is to turn 90degrees and advance.

A 'counter march' is quite a simple manouver. A turn as outlined in the rulebook is all but impossible. Anything remotely like a turn would be a left or right 'form', which is effectively a wheel. This assumes you want to keep the same file leaders in the same place. If you don't care about having the file leaders in the same place then an about face is far far easier than a turn and maintain rank frontage.

Just wondering what the game philosophy is.

To me, it seems to work, as if you allowed a 180 degree turn and advance it would be quite a pain as you would get ahistorical manouvering occurring, but you get that already with people turning 90.

Interested in feedback.

Regards

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:23 am

It makes it too easy for troops to run away

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:18 pm

In the FoG design a BG is not a unit. It represents several units under the same commander who is not represented. A turn of 90 degrees followed by movement might represent units in succession 'leading off' to a flank. A 180 degree turn would represent a lot of unit interpentration as the former front line units re-arranged to get back to the front line or the whole formation had to re-organise.

Alternatively, don't worry about it. FoG is a top down system. If it works for the game then it is correct. Wargame rules written by considering the bottom level drill mechanics as their basis have never worked. The question should always be, 'does it give the correct results', never 'what do the mechanics of the action represent'.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:43 pm

Personally I am glad I can turn 90 degrees and move my pike blocks, has set me up for some nice flank charges in the past. My thoughts on the 180 degree turn could be that your rear troops might be less armoured than the front rankers who now have to move up to the new front rank so they have to stay put. Just a thought but I like the system the way it is.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:05 pm

If you could turn 180 and move then it would be almost impossible to actually get into contact with drilled troops that didn't want to fight.

Your pike advance to within a short distance of their victims who promptly turn about and move away as fast as your pike can advance.

There is enough benny hill in the game at the moment without making it easier for heavy foot to get out of dodge.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:46 pm

If you could turn 180 and move then it would be almost impossible to actually get into contact with drilled troops that didn't want to fight.

Only if your opponent is a coward and doesnt want to play with the pikes. Fortunately for me Blathergut has more guts when it comes to facing pikes. Soon I will have to see how he is facing mass bows of the Graeco-Indian army.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:21 pm

deadtorius wrote:
If you could turn 180 and move then it would be almost impossible to actually get into contact with drilled troops that didn't want to fight.
Only if your opponent is a coward and doesnt want to play with the pikes. Fortunately for me Blathergut has more guts when it comes to facing pikes. Soon I will have to see how he is facing mass bows of the Graeco-Indian army.

Has his "umbrella" ready!

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:10 pm

ravenflight wrote:Just a quick one, but what was the reasoning for having troops like 'Drilled Spear' not be able to turn 180 and advance, yet be able to turned 90 and advance?

The authors underestimated the cheeziness that's possible by turning 90 and moving and accidentally left it in the rules, even though they spotted the "turn 180 and move" fromage

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:03 am

The authors underestimated the cheeziness that's possible by turning 90 and moving and accidentally left it in the rules, even though they spotted the "turn 180 and move" fromage

As someone who regularly uses the turn 90 and move with his pikes I don't find it cheesy at all let alone too fromageish. Obviously posted by some poor peon who uses undrilled masses that can't wheel let alone attempt fancy footwork, I am glad the authors put that one in the game.

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:35 am

Yes, I discussed all this with a friend of mine. I still think it's 'wrong' but justification can be made in any way. There is way too much manouver for a historical battle anyway, and really being able to turn 90 should be taken out of the rules just as much as turn 180.

It would be a logistical nightmare to get troops to move within reasonable distance of the enemy and turn 180 (or 90) exposing a flank or rear. Personally, I think that Drilled should probably have to test to do it, and if they fail are disrupted. Undrilled shouldn't be able to do it at all. So, sure, take the risk. Do your turn. Fail, and you're going to be screwed (unless you're so far away that you have time to reform).

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:41 am

deadtorius wrote:My thoughts on the 180 degree turn could be that your rear troops might be less armoured than the front rankers who now have to move up to the new front rank so they have to stay put. Just a thought but I like the system the way it is.

No, if the manouver was to be completed it would be a countermarch. What that means is that th front rankers turn 90 degrees, take a pace, turn 90 degrees and interpenetrate their formation... the rest follow suit. It's a very simple manouver, and one that any battlefield drilled formation would have done.

...And before anyone says 'but they would be too tight packed' - that's how they manouver - that's how it's done. Look at existing manuals from Seven Year's War and Napoleonic era. The formation manouvers in a more open formation to allow for these sorts of things, and then closes ranks... usually by having 'a front rank soldier' in the second rank and then moving in to fill the gap by a one pace diagonal march to the left. This reduces your depth but not your width.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:17 am

Examples of it being carried out on the battlefield, in proximity to the enemy?

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:16 am

You can still do it, it just takes two game turns. So not a manoeuvre to carry out near non-skirmishing enemy in charge distance, which seems reasonable to me

IanB3406 · Post by **IanB3406** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:39 am

Examples of it being carried out on the battlefield, in proximity to the enemy?

Phillip at Charonea?......the whole attack was a feint on the flank opposite Big A, so how do you do this without having a mechanism for feigned flight or running away?

Note: There is at least one set of rules based on 6th Ed that allows Elite units only to turn 180 and move (Might of Arms I think).

Of course Mongols could do it, and I don't think it mattered if they were the "armoured Cav" classification of FOG or not......I'm pretty sure any Mongol formation could do it.

Ian

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:15 am

Cavalry can in effect do it if they are in a single rank. Turn 180 and don't move but if you are charged you evade and then move further away in your next movement phase.

Infantry can do it by turning 180 when the enemy is out of charge reach and then moving in the next turn.

For infantry to be able to do it when the enemy is just about to contact them is IMO plain wrong.

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:43 am

hammy wrote:For infantry to be able to do it when the enemy is just about to contact them is IMO plain wrong.

Oh, I don't doubt that you're right about that, but my comment is that it is far easier to do it than it is to do a 90degree turn, yet you're allowed to do a 90 degree turn!

Just to clarrify, as it seems my original point is being missed somewhat. I'm not saying that you should be allowed to do a 180 and move... but if you can do a 90 and move (which is a far far more difficult task) then why not a 180? The answer (from my reckoning) is that it makes for a better game. That's ok, but lets throw the whole 'example of it happening on the battlefield' out the window, because it's not a simulation, it's a game.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:53 am

ravenflight wrote: The answer (from my reckoning) is that it makes for a better game. That's ok, but lets throw the whole 'example of it happening on the battlefield' out the window, because it's not a simulation, it's a game.

I would say that is exactly the right answer.
But in a points game, where armies should have reasonably equal fighting power it would become very boring to limit manouver even more than it is. And silly to make manouver even easier.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:59 am

[quote="ravenflight]Just to clarrify, as it seems my original point is being missed somewhat. I'm not saying that you should be allowed to do a 180 and move... but if you can do a 90 and move (which is a far far more difficult task) then why not a 180? The answer (from my reckoning) is that it makes for a better game. That's ok, but lets throw the whole 'example of it happening on the battlefield' out the window, because it's not a simulation, it's a game.[/quote]

It may have happened on a battlefield but do we really know that it happened when the enemy were really close and could have charged or did it happen when the enemy were slightly further away which is perfectly possible in FoG as the rules stand.

If the enemy is outside 6 MU you can turn 180 and advance. If they are outside charge you can turn 180 and then move away the following turn. If the enemy are close enough to charge then if you are single ranked cavalry you can relatively safely turn 180 then evade or move away the next turn.

In your real world example do we know how close the lines where then the about face and run away happened?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:19 am

IanB3406 wrote:Examples of it being carried out on the battlefield, in proximity to the enemy?

Phillip at Charonea

I think not.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:22 pm

I was thinking of Manzikert as an example showing that it might not be as easy to carry out successfully in practice as it would be on a (very very large) parade ground with nothing much at stake.

>because it's not a simulation, it's a game.

I don't really agree with that reasoning at all in this case. Surely the key point of a *historical* miniatures game is that it bears a reasonable resemblance to reality, whilst still being possible to play it in a reasonable amount of time and have fun doing so?

I do agree however that the turning 90 degrees seems a little off to me in the game - not so much that you can do it, but rather that (with the right sort of formation) you can turn 90 degrees and be instantly in optimal battle deployment.

Turn 180 and advance

Turn 180 and advance

Re: Turn 180 and advance