Delbruck wrote:One possible radical solution (which would never be adopted) is to do away withe the LH category, and instead make LH a function of formation of the cavalry. For example, a BG Huns in more than one rank is treated as cavalry is today but a BG in one rank has the movement ability of LH. Shooting for the cavalry would remain the same as today. To act as LH the cavalry would have to be in one rank, usually four bases wide. This would greatly restrict the ability of LH to dance around and gang up on the end of a line, but would retain the other movement abilities of LH.
IIRC somewhere of a forum far far away Karsten and I came to some agreement that in an ideal world something along these lines would be a good idea. Cv in 1 rank move at 6MU not 5MU.
However, whilst I think it has merit for the steppe types (more or less the Bow, Swordsmen) I am not so sure about many of the Javelin type LH such as Numidians.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
david53 wrote:
True but I have read that the mongol bow was as powerful as the self bow used by there enemies. I'll go back and check the sources but I do think the steppe bow is quite strong.
The enemies of the Crusaders who were doing the shooting that ended up with crusader infantry walking around with loads of arrows embedded in their armour but otherwise not hurting them were Turks - who used an effective and efficient composite bow (i.e. your "steppe" bow). No idea where you've dreamed up the self bow from.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
hammy wrote:
I have just thought of another variation on the +1 CT idea. In a lot of ways the issue is light horse at close to their maximum shooting range having significant effect on solid troops. What about +1 on the CT for steady troops who are shot entirely by skirmishers from more than 2 MU?
If you were going to go with that sort of CT modified I think you're starting to get more complication that is really worth it there. 4 MU is after all effective bow range.
I suspect you are right. The next thing I will add to this frankenstein rule is something that only triggers in your own bound or something like that
However, whilst I think it has merit for the steppe types (more or less the Bow, Swordsmen) I am not so sure about many of the Javelin type LH such as Numidians.
Numidians and the like are light spear, unprotected, no sword
Assuming there is an impact disadvantage point fighting (for true LH) in impact (against cav) then they would make very poor cavalry if used in two ranks. If you use them as cavalry you are likely to suffers the consequences.
Huns et all , on the other hand, could be protected swordsmen which could make them somewhat more useful as true cavalry.
david53 wrote:
True but I have read that the mongol bow was as powerful as the self bow used by there enemies. I'll go back and check the sources but I do think the steppe bow is quite strong.
The enemies of the Crusaders who were doing the shooting that ended up with crusader infantry walking around with loads of arrows embedded in their armour but otherwise not hurting them were Turks - who used an effective and efficient composite bow (i.e. your "steppe" bow). No idea where you've dreamed up the self bow from.
I dreamed up the foot bow used by the poles and hungirians ie self bows what i was talking about, yes I did know that the turks used a simular type of bow since they did come from the steppes as we all know?
nikgaukroger wrote:
IIRC somewhere of a forum far far away Karsten and I came to some agreement that in an ideal world something along these lines would be a good idea. Cv in 1 rank move at 6MU not 5MU.
Something like that, though actually I consider those wide and shallow single rank formations a little odd and unwieldy. Personally I favour something like 50% of the BG comprised of LH bases, 50% of Cv bases then depending on formation put one or the other into the front rank (ok that breaks down if you actually go into single line, might need a marker then).
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
hammy wrote:
I would also suggest that skirmishing light horse should have next to no chance of hurting well armoured foot. Have you read the accounts of the battles in the Crusades? Infantry with a dozen arrows sticking out of their armour but no injury?
True but I have read that the mongol bow was as powerful as the self bow used by there enemies. I'll go back and check the sources but I do think the steppe bow is quite strong.
The thing is, with a powerful steppe bow and accuracy that comes from a lifetime of practice, the LH may have been content shooting from outside the range at which the crusaders' crossbows were accurate enough to be effective. They could have felt that they were doing something even if most of the shots failed to penetrate.
IMO this match-up (historically) has a lot of subtle interplay of range, accuracy, protection, type of projectile, penetration, rate of fire, lethality and self-preservation.
Which is not explicitly modelled in FOG. The closest you can get would be LH coming within 6MU to stop double moves, suffering long range shots and pulling out to bolster when they get disrupted.
Taking another example, in FOG 4 MU so-called "effective range" is not effective range for bows versus heavily armoured foot (in the sense that shooting at that range will normally have no effect) . 1 MU is not effective range either, but it possibly should be.
I think a reason for unsatisfactory endings to games is that the system assumes that the battles are even points engagements between armies whose only objectives are destruction of the enemy and self preservation where both sides are equally happy with a draw. In practice this was often not the case. For operational, logistical, political or morale reasons there was often a side which would win if it merely held the ground at the end of the day.
Consider Issus where Alexander had been outmaneuvered by Darius and had his lines of communication cut. Darius just had to hold his river line to gain an operational victory. Or Agincourt (and similarly Crecy or Poitiers) where Henry would be happy to be able to march away unmolested in the night but the French for political reasons would not find that an acceptable outcome. Or Hastings where all Harold had to do was have a shield wall (and both of his eyes) on top of the hill come nightfall as every additional day would see more more men flow into his army.
In these cases Darius, Harold or Henry as the operational defender just had to hold their position through the day to obtain an acceptable result, though if the opportunity presented itself routing the enemy army would be even better. However a draw would be a serious setback for Alexander, William or the Armagnacs, only defeat of the enemy army or at least forcing it off the ground it held would be satisfactory.
I think our tournament games could be structured to incorporate this concept and made the better for it. Perhaps something like the following:
1. Prior to the tournament each player writes up two lists.
a. List A will be 800 points. This will be used if the player is the Operational Attacker or in an Encounter Battle.
b. List D will be 700 points. If he spends 50 points he may use a (randomly determined) Decisive Terrain Feature. This will be used if the player is the Operational Defender. (Obviously the point values will have to be determined by experience.)
2. Both players roll a die. If there is a tie there will be an encounter battle exactly like the current system. Otherwise the player with the higher roll will be the Operational Attacker and the one with the lower roll the Operational Defender. If the Defender bought a Decisive Terrain piece and his die roll was even the piece will be a transverse river, if odd a large bare gentle hill.
3. The Operational Defender chooses the terrain type.
a. If he has a transverse river as his Decisive Terrain feature he places this running from one short edge of the table to the other. This will be treated as uneven if the defender's die roll above was a 2, otherwise rough. It is still restricted to 2 bends.
b. If the Operational Defender has a large gentle hill as his Decisive Terrain feature he places it anywhere he would like.
c. The attacker does not get a chance to move, pivot or remove either of the above features.
d. Place terrain as normal for the terrain type chosen with the Operational Defender counting as the player with the initiative however no impassable, difficult or rough feature (other than the river above) may be placed within 12MUs of the center point of the table.
4. Camps, fortifications, ambushes and flank marches are handled as normal with the Operational Attacker now being treated as the player with the initiative except for where ambush markers may be placed. Players may place fortifications anywhere on their side of the table provided they are at least 4 MUs from any enemy fortifications.
5. Players now alternate deploying with the Operational Defender placing his first 25% batch first. Unless behind fortifications the Operational Defender may deploy up to 21 MUs from his table edge.
6. The Operational Attacker moves first.
7. If either (or both) player breaks the enemy army he wins a decisive victory (or they tie in the event of a mutual break). (Use the current 25-0 scoring system for any of these . If suing win-lose-draw then this would be a 4-0 for a win or a 2-2 (or 1-1?) for a draw. )
8. If at the end of the game neither player has broken the enemy army and the Operational Attacker has at least twice as many steady or disrupted non-skirmisher bases at least partially beyond the center line and at least partially within 12MUS of the center point of the table as the Operational Defender has steady or disrupted non-skirmisher bases within 12 MUS of the center point of the table then he is assumed to have carried the position, overcome his inferior logistical, political or military position and wins an Operational Victory. (Note that the Defender can count bases on the Attacker's side of the table but not vice-versa.) (If using the 25-0 scoring, then score as normal but transfer 3 points to the Attacker. If using win-lose-draw this would be a 3 for the Attacker and a 1 for the Defender.)
9. Any other result is treated as the Operational Defender having foiled the Attacker and now being in a strong logistical, political or military position resulting in an Operational Victory for the Defender. (If using the 25-0 scoring, then score as normal but transfer 3 points from the Attacker to the Defender. If using win-lose-draw this would be a 3 for the Defender and a 1 for the Attacker.)
Obviously all the details would need to be tested and tuned. Maybe the decisive ground should be squares and rectangles rather than circles and semi-circles. Maybe knights, heavily armored types, elephants and chariot bases should count double for determining whether the attacker has carried the position or maybe it should be BGs rather than bases that count. The size, cost and type of Decisive Terrain the defender gets will need to be play balanced. Set up positions will have to be checked. Is an 800-700 point advantage enough (or 800-650 if crossing a river or going up a hill) an overwhelming advantage for an attacker or not nearly enough? However, I think such a system, extensively tweaked and refined, would yield tournament games and other one off battles that are more varied, feature unequal army sizes and different objectives with discernible attackers and defenders.
Strictly speaking, the idea of particular areas of the battlefield being strategic objectives doesn't seem quite right for the period. Generally it was about who held the battlefield as a whole...which of course corresponds fairly closely to the idea of army break.
I also had a bad experience with a similar scoring system in the final round of a tournament way back in 6th edition. I routed most of the enemy army and as time was called had a unit one move away from the centre of the table, whoever "held" the centre of the table at the end of the game getting a fairly heft chunk of victory points. No enemy unit within several moves of the centre. Yet my opponent got the points on the basis of one of his units having been the last to occupy the centre, when it passed right through early in the game on the way to getting destroyed!
Fortunately it was a knockout tournament and I got enough points by other means to still win the game, but as you can tell the scars live with me to this day
I had a wonderful thought on this whilst hypoglycemic last night. It does not need a rule amendment, just tournament rules. The main complaints are hard to catch, boosted BG numbers, hard to finish games, unrealistically manouverable armies.
Here's the rule:
Only 2 minimum size battle groups of LH, LF or Poor/Average MF/HF are allowed to be fielded in each army. 4's of LH are great. 4's of LF are great, 4's of drilled Foot are great. They all boost BG numbers and are difficult to catch. Put them up to 6's and the whole dynamic changes. Shooty undrilled cavalry would appear more often, BG numbers would drop. 6's of LH are no where near as squirmy or hard to catch.
I have some of my best ideas whilst semi-consciouss
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
But I think you are right in that the rules don't need no changin'. The idea of a tournament rules page is a good one. Now...to get everyone to agree...
It does not need a rule amendment, just tournament rules.
I think you may be on dodgy ground here. A scoring system would be a Tournament rule, changing how people are allowed to use army lists would be a rule change.
It does not need a rule amendment, just tournament rules.
I think you may be on dodgy ground here. A scoring system would be a Tournament rule, changing how people are allowed to use army lists would be a rule change.
It may be a list change I suppose
kevinj wrote:
And it's still too cold for naked fanaticism!
I blame that on Global warming
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Just a bit off infomation over the mass swarn/LH shooty armies that has been talked about.
In the event in Scotland this weekend 26 teams entered:
there was
1 x Dom Rom army
6 x Shooty Cavalry Armies( but only one a true LH army a Skythian army, 4 x Ottoman Turks and one Mamluk)
So that means there was 24 proper armies, don't know the percentage but it does seem to show that the events arn't been overrun by them. Just a thought mind you.
Redoing army lists might help, e.g. there seems to be a fair bit of support for 4 base foot BGs much rarer. But forcing all or a large proportion of thier LH to clump into less manoeuvrable blocks seems like it would impact how the largely LH armies play, even if they want to skirmish aggressively and not just stay out of trouble.
I too have a few random thoughts on relatively simple changes that might help.
1. Make the points for sacking camp proportional to number of BGs in the army. Which seems fair enough - the psychological impact on the troops of having their ipod nicked should not be lessened just because there are more troops. Might discourage players from fielding all hard-to-catch fluff. Or at least will mean that less fluff has to be caught than at present to break the army, and even if this is not achieved it is easy to make a winning draw score more.
2. People talk about introducing the idea of "command points" to discourage using large numbers of small BGs. We already have an element of this in the rules as they stand...more BGs means more generals to service them effectively. It could be made stricter - e.g. each army must have at least 1 general per 4 BGs. This might well have no effect on any currently fielded army with 16 or less BGs (hmmm...does anybody have 13BG armies with an IC and 2xTC?). If 16 BGs is still regarded as being potentially abusably swarm-ish, tweak the coefficient to produce the desired results.
