Flank Shooting

[spikemesq]

Although this is not how the rules work, it struck me as an interesting possibility for a rule in the future. It also may have been tested and rejected v0v. Anyway here goes:

Currently, shooting targets only count the first three ranks for HPB purposes. Thus, a column is more vulnerable to missle fire than a line.

Why not apply similar logic to shooting from the flanks?

IOW, shooting into the flank of a line could be more effective than the front, if that line is thin. The mechanic might be:

IF shooters are in "flank/rear position"

AND no frontal shooters contribute

THEN HPB are calculated from the number of bases in the two files of that flank.

I'd cancel the benefit if the flank shooters are supporting other shooting, as that feels a bit too powerful. Also, it makes sense that a BG suffering fire from the front and side is fully aware of the shooting such that the shooters need no increased power. OTOH, just as a column does not benefit from distant ranks (because the BG is suffering a lopsided amount of shooting and the rear of the column adds no positive boost), a line being shot only from a flank suffers similarly focused fire that the far end of the line might not affect.

Effects

Increases the power of skirmishers on the flank (perhaps a con?)

Prohibits BGs from ignoring those skirmishers.

Favors deep formations on the flanks.

Some of this stems from frustrations of facing an open flank of an 8-base BG and being frustrated by the ineffectiveness of LH/LF in that position. E.g., a LH unit in what feels like a pretty good spot cannot even force a test with 2 shooting dice AND does not threaten a flank to augment any test caused on that BG.

Could be that I just need to shake the DBM cobwebs and get used to the fact that skirmishers are different now.

To be clear, I don't submit that "FoG is broken" in this regard, nor do I have super strong feelings in favor of the idea. Instead, I am mostly interested in whether this was considered/rejected in the past.

Spike

[hammy]

I don't know if it was ever in the rules, I can say that it wasn't in any versions I was involved in testing.

To be honest making skirmishers shooting more effective is not IMO a good thing. If anything I would be in favour of a +1 to CT rolls for non skirmish BGs only shot at by skirmishers or something like that.

I think the reduction in bases for HP3B when in a column is more to reflect a denser target or something like that.

[spikemesq]

I don't know if it was ever in the rules, I can say that it wasn't in any versions I was involved in testing.

To be honest making skirmishers shooting more effective is not IMO a good thing. If anything I would be in favour of a +1 to CT rolls for non skirmish BGs only shot at by skirmishers or something like that.

I think the reduction in bases for HP3B when in a column is more to reflect a denser target or something like that.

Skirmisher shooting is already hampered by the reduced dice, so I don't think a CT bonus would work. Against 8-stand BGs, most skirmishers can only cause a test if all dice hit (from 6-stand LF) or cannot cause a test at all (from 4-stand LH). And that's OK.

The only quibble I have (and it is a small one) is that so many BGs can all but completely ignore skirmishers to their flank and rear. Even in what seems an ideal position (behind the enemy's flank), LH merely plink away with mild shooting, cannot charge w/o a CMT, will hit with only 2 dice if they do charge, and even then face pretty grim results if they exploit that position (e.g., loads of combat dice in return, terrible combat odds in melee, etc.).

Ultimately, I agree that the suggestion for augmenting skirmisher flank shooting could make them too powerful. That could be reason enough not to do it.

Spike

[ShrubMiK]

I do kind of agree with your main point - that it feels wrong that shooting somebody up the bum doesn't get some sort of benefit. In older rulesets the target would be more vulnerable because shields would be ignored, obviously there is no such mechanism possible in FoG. Reducing the effective armour rating by one would be possible, but truns into the problem it would perhaps unfairly penalise troops for whom shields do not constitute a part of their armour rating.

And I've thought exactly the same w.r.t. the way the effective number of bases is calculated being a bit odd in some circumstances. I rationalise it to my self as being more a representation of psychological effects than physical ones - i.e. when in column the unit is more nervous because it is aware its fighting capability and ability to withstand threats is reduced, and this applies whther it is threatened from front or flank.

Overall I do find that skirmisher shooting causes enough problems for my sense of realism not to be offended, perhapps too many problems some times!, and I think extra bonuses would be unbalancing.

[RobKhan]

How about changing the CT hits per base number to make those receiving any missile fire in the rear more nervous. And if they are in combat to front AND being shot at in the rear it could count as fighting in 2 directions.

I haven't played much but it seems sensible that in most periods of war (and piles) the rear is a particularly sensitive area.

The role of lights, especially horse, is to gain these positions to unnerve the enemy, not necessarily machine gun them down. It is also where you find a lot of the lower level command and control of a formation.

So is anyone willing to try "Must do a CT if 1 hit per base from missile weapons from the rear" The thing that matters is that the fire has had some effect. A 4 stand LH or 8 stand LF can do this sort of thing and it fits the role and historical sense. English longbows, Italian crossbows in the rear would also have the same effect plus the effect of more casualties and the minus for threatened flank in the CT.

My quick and hasty €0.02 cents worth.

RobKhan

[ShrubMiK]

I think you've got it the wrong way round - it is harder to cause 1 hit per base than 3 hits per base, so unless I am misunderstanding you, you are proposing it would be harder to cause a cohesion test by shooting from the rear

Interesting ideas though...

I like the idea that somehow being shot at from the rear whilst in combat to the front would have a chance of impacting morale in some way. The problem being that in many cases it is impossible to shoot at a unit already in melee. Note that the English longboes would cause -1 on cohesion test if within 4MU of the rear of the embattled enemy unit, because they would count as threatening flank/rear regardless of whether they shoot or not. The same is not true of lights, who do not ever count as threatening flank/rear of enemy.

My suggestion would be that the lights could shoot into the rear of the melee but not directly cause a CT or death roll. If they cause a certain number of hits per base, the effect would instead be a -1 on any CT taken for losing the melee. As you say, roughly equivalent to "fighting in more than one direction", and for similar reasons.

Shooting at something from front and rear...I don't think you can change the number of hits per base required to cause a test, or the number of effective bases counted by the target BG for each firing BG, because the results should all be wrapped up into one cohesion test. The simplest approach would be to impose -1 on the normally resulting CT in such a situation. Again, equivalent to "fighting in more than one direction", except vs. shooting not hand-to-hand weaponry.

Shooting at the rear of something not engaged to or being shot at from the front doesn't seem like something that needs any special rules - just assume that the targets are smart enough to turn around and point shields behind them, or be able to see incoming fire and dodge in the normal way.

The downside (other than possibly making lights too powerful, which would be a matter of testing and - inevitably! - of opinion ) would be complicating the rules. Especially having to remember hits caused by shooting and take account of them when doing a CT, some significant time later.

A simpler alternative might be to simply say that lights within effective shooting range of the rear of troops engaged to the front count as "threatening flank/rear"...the enemy would be nervous of the potential effects of shooting even if confident the lights would not dare to enter hand-to-hand fighting. Again, the objection would be, does it make lights too influential to the outcome of the battle? Personally I feel that light troops maruading around in your rear with no reserves avaialble to chase them off should be a slightly worrying situation for the battle line troops, but again opinions may vary

[philqw78]

I think lights are too pwerful already.

[MatthewP]

I think the balance is just right as it is. Lights are really only effective if shooting on mass, unless they get lucky. Any attempt to change them one way or the other would result in thme being too weak or to powerful. Laissez-faire.

[spikemesq]

Actually, my initial point would NOT add a bonus for flank shooting when combined with frontal shooting. In those cases, the extra dice are probably enough of a bonus.

As to changing armor/POAs for flank shooters, this would not really address the problem (or minor irritant) that provoked my OP. Having an easier time hitting is worth little when hitting on all your dice will not cause a test to begin with.

Again, the only quibble I have is that a typical 4-base BG of LH that gets around a number of enemy units (especially foot) can do little or nothing to that unit absent other pressures. They either cannot shoot (because 2 dice won't cause a test on an 8-base BG) or can (at best) cause an even test if both dice hit.

Another possibility might be to permit skirmishers in flank/rear position to forgo shooting (even where the shots will not cause a test) in favor of causing a -1 CT modifier akin to threatened flank. So our noble horse archers in the backfield can either add dice normally OR decline those dice in favor of hindering any CTs. This, of course, still makes the lone BG ineffective if there are no other troops to cause a CT in the first place, but gives some benefit to getting into what IMO should be a more threatening position.

I am still interested in the reasoning behind the HPB rules for narrow formations. Some have suggested that the rule addresses a denser target because base depths overstate troop positions and more troops are at the front of the column. I had assumed that the rule reflected a reduced morale benefit of troops separated from the shooting. IOW, in a column of 8 bases, the lead 3 are facing missile fire without much encouragement from the rear ranks who don't know what's going on up front, such that losses and other shooting effects are exaggerated in the fog of war.

"What's going on up there?"

"Not really sure."

"Oh shit! Our guys are dropping like whores!"

"What are they fighting?"

"Can't tell, and I don't think I want to find out."

"Mommy!"

By contrast, troops in a line are girded for fighting, focused on the task at hand, and are in position to help and be helped. Consequently, they are less distracted by missile fire and/or recognize it for what it is.

"What's going down the line?"

"Bunch of pansy light cavalry harassing the boyz."

"Oh shit, looks like they got Johnson."

"Whatever, I never liked that douche anyway."

To me, shooting from beyond the flank/rear has more in common with the first scenario. Although the troops are in an active formation, most of the line does not know why their pals on the other end are getting shot. So the impacts of that shooting would have an exaggerated effect.

Am I completely off the rails in this regard? (wouldn't be the first time)

Spike

[kevinj]

"Oh shit, looks like they got Johnson."

"Whatever, I never liked that douche anyway."

OI! There's no call for that!

[philqw78]

"Oh shit, looks like they got Johnson."

"Whatever, I never liked that douche anyway."

OI! There's no call for that!

[petedalby]

This could be a first - both Hammy & Phil agreeing with each other.

FWIW I agree too - shooting from lights is already too powerful IMO. Personally I'd like to see skirmishers drop to 1 shooting dice per 3 bases. LH & LF are nigh on impossible to catch if used well and yet can still inflict horrendous damage on formed troops. I don't believe skirmishers were battle winers in their own right - arguably in FOG they can be.

[hammy]

This could be a first - both Hammy & Phil agreeing with each other.

FWIW I agree too - shooting from lights is already too powerful IMO. Personally I'd like to see skirmishers drop to 1 shooting dice per 3 bases. LH & LF are nigh on impossible to catch if used well and yet can still inflict horrendous damage on formed troops. I don't believe skirmishers were battle winers in their own right - arguably in FOG they can be.

I think 1 dice per 3 bases would mean that most battle troops or at least any BG of 8 bases would be almost impossible to affect with skirmish fire. That is why I feel that a +1 on the CT for a CT caused only by skirmisher shooting would be more reasonable.

[SirGarnet]

I don't believe skirmishers were battle winers in their own right - arguably in FOG they can be.

Given time, space, and ammunition they could be and can be. Half a die per base, lots of ammo, +2 to Death Rolls against shooting, the edge of the world, and that they get no "skirmishers shot at" bonuses limits the favorable circumstances they can achieve this. It's very frustrating to score decent hits with a shooty light horse army but never being able to make a CT or death roll stick (curse you, ICs!).

Has anyone tried Carrhae on an extra-large table?

[MatthewP]

"I don't believe skirmishers were battle winers in their own right - arguably in FOG they can be."

I am no expert but Carrhae springs to mind .

Probably the most successfull player with skirmishers at competition is Dave_R and IIRC his modus operandi is to target enemy skirmishers with his own while delaying the main enemy bgs. For me the Ancient British are my most skirmish heavy army with six bgs of slingers. These are almost universally un-effective against a solid battle line as they just cant get enough hits. The only way they can break a non skirmisher BG is if they can isolate and surround it AND there is no General in range.

[ShrubMiK]

The apparently popular perception of Carrhae involving a few Parthian horse archers dissolving a large Roman army in just an hour or two of shooting is slightly mistaken IMO Played out realistically in FoG it would surely involve several battles, each being a minor victory for the Parthians, and at the end a complaint that the Romans still hadn't actually broken and that FoG is a flawed rule system because it doesn't give enough decisive results

If you consider the balance of results in all Roman vs. Parthian encounters you might also conclude that Carrhae could be reproduced quite nicely by some luckier than average shooting dice. Plus of course the Roman commander sending one or two BGs charging out piecemeal to get surrounded and destroyed.

One thing that I think is being missed in discussion of how ineffective "skirmishers" are when the get behind the enemy line is the distinction between LH and LF. LH may not be able to shoot into the melee, but the option of charging into the rear of the already engaged enemy could be decisive.

Skirmishers generally need time or luck to make things happen on the table. Which either means a static target, or (shock horror!) they have to live up to their name and actually skirmish. Last week, on one side of the table my BG of 6 cataphracts which had broken through the enemy battle line and was feeling like a game winner was quickly routed purely by shooting from 2 BGs of 4 shooty LH. And that despite them being superior and having a general hurry over to them to try bolstering. fortunately on the other flank, having spent most of the game completely failing to do anything to the elephant BG chasing them, my own 2 BGs of shooty LH finally remembered which way round to nock the arrows and in 2 turns fragmented the elephants, then charged them and broke them in impact, and pursued into the rear of an enemy cavalry BG already engaged to its front. And hence won the game. So don't try telling me that skirmishers are ineffective

[MatthewP]

I agree with you here ShrubMiK. The two bg's you mention broken by skirmishers were both mounted and had two bg of skirmishers attacking them. Mounted, especially hephalumps, are more vulnerable to shooting as you would expect being bigger and they were isolated and surrounded by more skirmishers. These conditions are exactly what skirmishers need to be effective, which seems historically right to me.

[spikemesq]

My suggestion would not make skirmishers more powerful in the examples cited (e.g., vs. Elephants or mounted). Those enemies are almost always in groups of 4 or less, so counting only the first 2 files for a flank shot would yield the same results as the current rules.

Instead, the scenario that struggle with in the OP is the naked flank of a large (8+ BG) against skirmishers to the flank/rear. These BGs currently can pretty much ignore flanking LH/LF. Counting HPB for the closest 2 (or 3) files would simply add another potential test from flank/rear shooting. I do believe that a BG of LH/LF shooting from flank/rear positions should be marginally more effective than the same shooting from the front.

Again, I recognize that many believe that skirmishers have significant power under the RAW, perhaps too much. I don't agree that they are too powerful at present, but they certainly are not gimped either. Thus, the change I present is pretty narrow and is aimed only at giving a small amount of value to a skirmishing BG that does what it should -- get into position around the naked flank of the enemy line.

Indeed, because I would eliminate the flank/rear benefit if the enemy is also facing frontal shooting, the impact of this change could be easily avoided. If your infantry is suffering flank shots, it can turn to address them OR press onto the enemy in front. Once that enemy is engaged or in range, then the flank benefit fades to the current rules.

OTOH, the current rules permit a line to ignore LH/LF that are doing their job and achieving good position. Although the gimmicky flank snipers of DBM LH(F) were too powerful, infantry should be sensitive to exposed flanks. The present rules do a good job of eliminating the exaggerated effects of flanking skirmishers of DBM. IMO, the scale tilts too far against them, if only in this narrow situation.

Spike