Observations after first few games.

[Polkovnik]

I've just bought this game and played four games - the first two scenarios as each side. I'm an experienced player of TT FOG, and so far I like FOG Digital, but there a few things that don't feel right in the computer game, compared to the tabletop game.
- Light Horse never seem to be able to catch Light foot. The LF come within javelin range in the open, which would be suicidal in TT FOG. Yet when I charge them with LH I can't catch them.
- missile troops only shoot in their own turn. This means you can't chase off LF to stop them shooting.
- rout moves and break offs seem to be able to go anywhere, weaving in and out of friendly and enemy units. It seems impossible to stop a routing unit and thus destroy it.
- maybe I've missed it but there doesn't seem to be a -ve POA for fighting in two directions.

I'm sure I'll be posting with more comments / questions when I've played some more games.

[batesmotel]

A couple other differences from TT.

1. It is much easier for troops to back up/retrograde in FoG PC, especially for drilled troops but even for undrilled. This may be the biggest difference from TT. Troops don't get stuck close to the enemy the way they do on the table. Drilled troops can do the equivalent of turn around, back up and then turn around again that only skirmishers can do on the table.

2. Undrilled cavalry is much more restricted in terms of maneuvering compared to drilled cavalry in FoG PC while there isn't that much difference on the table.

3. Handling LH skirmishers in front of other mounted troops on the table is much simpler in FoG PC since all mounted can interpenetrate LH and vice versa. (I've just been watching LH evade through Parthian cataphracts in the Carrhae scenario.)

Chris

[deadtorius]

Another major difference is the MF bows who get an auto facing change with their 360 degree shooting arc in the PC game where on the TT they can only shoot in the direction they are facing and turning them during the move is not that easy, especially if undrilled. In the PC game the facing of the archers will never cause them to lose dice on the TT if you did a 90 degree turn you would go from line to column and only have 2 dice for shooting in effective, 1 for long range.
A major difference in the two versions with the Indians now in the PC game.

[Polkovnik]

So am I right in thinking that Light Horse cannot catch Light Foot ?

[batesmotel]

So am I right in thinking that Light Horse cannot catch Light Foot ?

Not by chasing them in my experience. One thing to note is that normally a BG cannot evade a second time so you may then be able to catch it with another BG. Also worth noting is that normally a BG won't evade if charged by another BG that has a lesser chance of "winning" as shown in the game. This ignores effects for being charged in the rear which can be frustrating. For example, I've had average cavalry evade from the equivalent enemy unit which is superior and charging them frontally, but not from an equivalent enemy unit which is charging the cavalry in the rear. I can just picture the troops sitting there thinking "I wish there were superior enemy charging us because then we could run away before we get routed!".

Chris

[deadtorius]

If you chase off an enemy that evades you will notice an "E" over the unit, once they have evaded they will not move for the remainder of the turn so if you can contact them you can catch them. However if you end up in a situation where you have lights that for some reason were not a target of a charge but ended up beside a unit that pursued for example, unless you attack that light unit and lock it into combat they will evade away if they are charged later in that same turn. Hope that came out clear enough, just something I have noticed in some games.
If you want to lock down light troops you can send in your own lights with slings or bows against the enemy with javelins and the javelins will not normally run away since they should win any melee. Once locked in combat you can charge those lights with any other heavier nastier troops in range and kill them.

As for rear charges more than once I have seen enemy cavalry evade off from a rear charge with no drop in cohesion, double disappointment there.

[Blathergut]

But also remember that if the LF survives, it can, in its turn, just fight the opposing LF...I've had LF survive two or three or more rounds, despite being hit by 2 or 3 enemy, because I could do more damage to the poorer enemy LF

[Polkovnik]

So am I right in thinking that Light Horse cannot catch Light Foot ?

Not by chasing them in my experience.

Well this is a real negative point about the game then IMO. Light Horse should be able to catch light foot. It's one of the main uses of light horse with javelins. It doesn't seem right that they can't and it would put me off recommending the game, especially to players of the tabletop game.
I'd like to hear from the designers as to why this is the case.

[batesmotel]

If you chase off an enemy that evades you will notice an "E" over the unit, once they have evaded they will not move for the remainder of the turn so if you can contact them you can catch them. However if you end up in a situation where you have lights that for some reason were not a target of a charge but ended up beside a unit that pursued for example, unless you attack that light unit and lock it into combat they will evade away if they are charged later in that same turn. Hope that came out clear enough, just something I have noticed in some games.
If you want to lock down light troops you can send in your own lights with slings or bows against the enemy with javelins and the javelins will not normally run away since they should win any melee. Once locked in combat you can charge those lights with any other heavier nastier troops in range and kill them.

As for rear charges more than once I have seen enemy cavalry evade off from a rear charge with no drop in cohesion, double disappointment there.

If the cavalry evades without being contacted, then it wouldn't drop in cohesion in the table top rules so this is consistent with that. If you have ever tried to disengage cavalry that are close to enemy in the table top game, this is exactly what they do assuming they are already deployed in one rank facing the enemy. The first turn they have to run around and expose their rear to the enemy since they are unable to move after facing 180 degrees. The next turn they can move away or they can evade away if they are charged before their next move.

What bothers me in the PC game is that while cavalry often evades when I would choose not to if under my control, I have seen them often fail to evade when they are being charged in the read by other troops where they will obviously be fighting at a major disadvantage. The program does not seem to take into account the modification of the chance of winning due to being charged in the rear when deciding to stay and fight or to run away. I've seen the same thing happen when slingers or archers have charged javelinmen in the rear. Although the javelinmen would be fighting at a double minus, they still seem to think they have an advantage over the missile LF so the program chooses to have them stand and take it up the arse .

Chris

[deadtorius]

Yes it is the curse of the javelin that they seem to think they are tougher than other light foot and will stand and take it, only to be smashed by heavier troops. I wish we could issue a general run away order for all our lights or have the option to somehow make them stand. I lost some army points in the tournament due to having regular lights with javelins being charged by poor lights with slings and then followed up by pike units when I would rather they just ran away in the first place. My lights will almost always run away on the TT unless I feel I really need them to stand for some reason.

[deeter]

It's a big flaw that can be exploited. I call it "rope a dope" and generally don't do it unless my opponent does so first. And with those velites it's such a liability that I no longer send the out to drive off enemy LF which is what they should do. Rather, I keep them close to my HF so that they're less vulnerable.

Deeter

[batesmotel]

It's a big flaw that can be exploited. I call it "rope a dope" and generally don't do it unless my opponent does so first. And with those velites it's such a liability that I no longer send the out to drive off enemy LF which is what they should do. Rather, I keep them close to my HF so that they're less vulnerable.

Deeter

The problem with not exploiting that behavior is that otherwise LF are pretty much impossible to catch and kill. Since it seems that you can't catch them even with LH that starts 2 hexes away, which is as cloce as you can be, LF are pretty much uncatchable. The evade rules in the game seem to still need some tweaking as well as a better general explanation of when a player should and should not expect troops to evade.

Breaking off would also benefit from a more complete description and maybe some tweaking as well today. I saw a fragmented Macedonian cavalry general break off thagt was only fighting against some Indian cavalry which is certainly inconsistent with the table top rules and from how I thought it worked in the game.

Chris

[jamespcrowley]

Related to this is something that I am finding more and more annoying, the more I play.

That is BGs, 'chasing' after evading and routing BGs. While this behaviour is understandable with lower quality units, it is much less acceptable with elite and superior units who, one assumes, would be trained to do exactly the opposite.

In a recent game Alexander and his attatched companion cavalry chased after a routed unit and this outcome felt completely unhistoric, at least in so far as my limited knowledge of the period exists.

I am not suggesting that this cannot ever happen, with even elite units, but it should be exception rather than the rule, which it currently appears to be. Veteren Roman legionnaires were tactically trained to stand their ground and, for the most part, that is what they should do.

Perhaps it would be possible to have a percentage chance for this behaviour to happen, based on quality level, such that for Poor BGs it would happen, say, 90% of the time but, for Elite units, maybe only 10% of the time?

[deadtorius]

In the TT game if your opponents rout you have to chase them. If you catch them you keep pursuing unless you can rally your troops and get them under control. If the pursuers lose contact with the routers than they are free to do what they want. That is where cav pursuing foot becomes an issue, its almost impossible not to catch them and unless you end up in a position to engage a new enemy you will continue to pursue until the enemy is destroyed or runs off the edge of the map.

Training and troop quality has nothing to do with it, human nature is that if your enemy runs you will chase them down its an easy kill and easy spoil for those who are doing the chasing. If the majority take off the rest will follow.

[honestabe]

So am I right in thinking that Light Horse cannot catch Light Foot ?

Not by chasing them in my experience.

Well this is a real negative point about the game then IMO. Light Horse should be able to catch light foot. It's one of the main uses of light horse with javelins. It doesn't seem right that they can't and it would put me off recommending the game, especially to players of the tabletop game.I'd like to hear from the designers as to why this is the case.

Agreed and I was put off by more than that. The ai is horrible as well.

[jamespcrowley]

In the TT game if your opponents rout you have to chase them. If you catch them you keep pursuing unless you can rally your troops and get them under control. If the pursuers lose contact with the routers than they are free to do what they want. That is where cav pursuing foot becomes an issue, its almost impossible not to catch them and unless you end up in a position to engage a new enemy you will continue to pursue until the enemy is destroyed or runs off the edge of the map.

Training and troop quality has nothing to do with it, human nature is that if your enemy runs you will chase them down its an easy kill and easy spoil for those who are doing the chasing. If the majority take off the rest will follow.

Although my reading in Ancients is quite restricted and my knowledge sparse, I find it difficult to agree with your last statement. It may well apply to poor or average troops or those with poor leadership but I find it hard to accept that it applies to superior or elite troops or those with inspired leaders. Training and troop quality had everything to do with how, for instance, the Roman Legions conducted themselves in battle. It simply feels wrong for a single Roman legionary BG to break away from the line to chase a routing unit. I'm not saying that it never happened but that it should be an unusual occurence.

You cannot convince me that a leader of Alexanders' stature would not have been able to exert sufficient influence over his own companion cavalry so as to be unable to stop them persuing a routing enemy BG. At Issus, for example, having shattered the Persian left (i.e they were routed) he swung his cavalry away from the pursuit to reinforce his threatened centre. In FoG, he would just chase the routed BGs off into the sunset!

[keyth]

I'm not a historian but I've read a fair bit from a lot of different periods. It would seem that in most cases once there is a general rout, i.e. all the bad guys heading off into the sunset, then troops pursue whoever is in front of them or head for the baggage train (if there is one). When only elements of an enemy force are breaking, it seems to be mostly down to troop discipline and command & control. Tribal 'barbarian' cultures tended to pursue whoever was in front of them, while citizen or professional armies tended to get the whole job done first.

Cheers,

Keyth

[Examinondas]

The way pursues work now is ok for me, although I agree that perhaps it could be better to have some percentage chance of stopping it.

Anyway, just to add some counter examples to the one of Alexander at Issos, here comes a couple of quotes from Duncan Head's Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, with above-average generals which pursued routed enemies and forgot about the rest of their armies:

- Demetrios at Ipsos, 301BC

Demetrios led a strong right wing of cavalry which opened the battle by routing Seleucus' son Antiochos on the allied left (unless the flight of Antiochos' cavalry was a deliberate ruse), and pursuing him dangerously far off the field. This exposed the flank of Antigonos' phalanx. [...] Surrounded and under constant fire, some of Antigonos' infantry surrendered; the rest were at last charged and routed, Antigonos dying amongst them, hoping to the last that Demetrios would return to save him

- Antiochos III at Magnesia, 190BC

Antiochos, commanding his right wing, outflanked the Roman left, [...] [and] also attacked frontally with his cataphracts, breaking the whole Roman left wing, and pursuing it a considerable distance towards the Roman camp. Here he was held up by the camp commandant Marcus Aemilius with his camp guard [...] [Antiochos] seeing the rest of his army broken, retired with his own right wing.

Note that although Antiochos was held by the Roman camp guard, he got to there because he pursued too far.

[MesaDon]

Hello all,

I scanned thru all the replys and as while I am not a TT player and don't quite understand all you write i am amazed with the negativity. First after around 30 MP games I find that the fun factor is high and the game allows the beginner to quickly become competative. I figure that with the incredible amount of information in the rule books for TT slitherine might have some teething problems and that should be acceptable. Love the game even convinced my brother to buy, bought the expansion. Do I love everything about it ... No but there is more to love than hate. Gripes .... yes ... one. easier to find info in the help "book." Would you TT players recommend buying the hard cover TT book for the explanations?

[deadtorius]

The TT game and the PC game have enough differences that you will not find design reasons in the TT rules for why everything in the PC game is the way it is.
If you are interested in playing miniatures then yes get the FOG rules they are a great set of rules. If you want it as a guide for the PC game, no don't do it. The online manual is there for the PC game and hopefully it will answer your questions regarding the PC game.