Proposal for more restrained changes of facing

[batesmotel]

The current implementation of this issue seems to have come up in a number of threads but I think it really deserves one of its own. The current ability of drilled troops to do a complete change of face after a move and for undrilled shooters to get a free change of face when shooting have both been the points of comments especially when compared with the FoG TT rules.

My proposal as a change for this to some what limit the excessive abilities of some troops with facing changes is:

1) Allow skirmishers (LH and LF) to continue to function as possible.

2) Allow other drilled troops a change of 2 vertices (120 degrees) at the end of the move as opposed to the current 360 degrees. Possibly require a CMT/anarchy check for a change of more than 1 vertex/60 degrees.

3) Allow undrilled cavalry/camelry/light chariots a change of 1 vertex/60 degrees at the end of movement. Possibly require a CMT/anarchy check to do this.

4) Other undrilled troops would remain as currently.

5) Non-moving troops would retain the option to change facing in any direction as now.

A CMT/anarchy check would behave similarly to refusal to charge does now for certain troops but only at the point where they attempted to change facing, e.g. those failing would give the "No" message but would end their move with their final facing being that before the player attempted to change it. It would not be possible to undo the move after the failed facing change.

The rational for allowing undrilled cavalry/camelry/light chariots more freedom in changing face is both to reflect how these are handled in the TT rules and also based on the fact that historically many of these troops represent experienced horsemen in loser formations that should not be as rigid in their movements as a pike phalanx or an undrilled close order mass of foot. If the CMT/anarchy check is included this would also make it more likely that higher quality troops will do this more often than lesser quality ones and will encourage players to have troops attempting this stay within command radius of their commander when they need to do this.

Chris

[IainMcNeil]

Another option is to charge for facing changes.

This migth let you withdraw and face the enemy with drilled troops but maybe at 1 hex per turn for foot instead of 2.

The simplest thing woudl be to say that a 2nd change of facing for drilled troops costs 1 MP.

[TheGrayMouser]

Although maybe allowing formed units more flexibility that I personally think "ideal", I could live with Chris' suggestions. I personally feel all heavy foot should move as if they were undrilled.
Definetely agree the superior Spanish and Gallic horse that cant get to the flanks simply because they are undrilled need a boost...

The following is likly going too far but what if the status of a troops being drilled undrilled (in regards only to its movement capability as per Chis's suggestions )would be influenced by means of being in the command radius of a leader unit. The game would check this only once at the Start of your turn, requring one to plan ahead if fancy maneuvers are in your plan...
I think it would make leaders more valuable especailly in armies that need a combined arms aproach to win, vs say a gallic army that really just needs to press foward

[deeter]

I'd like to see the facing rules more faithful to the TT rules. Undrilled cavalry have their own category which falls between drilled troops and undrilled foot. It's way too hard to set up for a charge with Gallic cav and the like as it stands now. Drilled troops can only do one facing change a turn. Only skirmishers can turn, move and turn back and that's at a reduced movement rate after passing a test.

Also, keeping in mind that TT units are generally much wider than their PC brothers, units on the computer fly all over the place by comparison.

As a final thought, the would be a good place to insert some command/control rules, such as units out of command perform one maneuver grade lower with undrilled foot only allowed to move forward to their fullest extent. It would also be nice if there was a penalty for not keep a solid battleline, but I haven't figured out what that might be.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Deeter wrote "Also, keeping in mind that TT units are generally much wider than their PC brothers, units on the computer fly all over the place by comparison. "

Just to add, real life formations would have been even wider. For example alexanders phalanx might have had 15k men, and when deployed 16 deep would have had almost a 1000 men of frontage, the assumption of 1 man takes up rouphly a meter gives a frontage of over a mile. When you consider that the phalanx would have only had a depth of 15 meters at most, this is an incredibly linear formation.... It could move foward, possibly do an about face or advance at an oblique angle but certainly couldnt do all the things one can do in game (i think several posters have mentioned how battles often turn into a situation where both players battle lines are at 90 and even 180 degrees to each other w great frequency, or scattered across the map in little battle groups...

I think anthing that reduces the ability of heavy units acting like independant tank companies will go a long ways to making a great game even better

[Paisley]

I think any change of facing (wheeling a line being harder than about facing) coupled with a move should mean a CMT, failure resulting in a loss of one level cohesion (like the Spartans at Leuctra). this would allow the dreaded about face - move - about face but make it very risky unless supervised by an inspired general, and even then it would be chancy. Keep the difference between drilled and undrilled as it is now. Thus drilled have the potential to do all kinds of fancy marching (like pretty boy Alexander impressing the Triballans) but at some risk. Don't ban complex manoeuvres, make them more difficult and a matter for judgement.

And bowmen - foot and mounted (but not lights) who move should roll less dice for shooting than currently. And the dread 'about face - fire' should count as a move (and yes, CMT involved too).

In fairness, the large phalanx formations must have had gaps between sub-units. If they were monolithic wholes they could noth have advvanced even a few metres without falling into hopeless confusion. It's a military impossibility.

[batesmotel]

I'd like to see the facing rules more faithful to the TT rules. Undrilled cavalry have their own category which falls between drilled troops and undrilled foot. It's way too hard to set up for a charge with Gallic cav and the like as it stands now. Drilled troops can only do one facing change a turn. Only skirmishers can turn, move and turn back and that's at a reduced movement rate after passing a test.

Also, keeping in mind that TT units are generally much wider than their PC brothers, units on the computer fly all over the place by comparison.

As a final thought, the would be a good place to insert some command/control rules, such as units out of command perform one maneuver grade lower with undrilled foot only allowed to move forward to their fullest extent. It would also be nice if there was a penalty for not keep a solid battleline, but I haven't figured out what that might be.

Deeter

Requiring CMTs/anarchy checks for facing changes after movement would certainly encourage anyone trying something complicated to have a commander around to assist.

Chris

[IainMcNeil]

I dont think we'll be doing a CMT - the main reason is it will break the undo function.

[Paisley]

To encourage proper lines give any non light unit that has not at least one non light adjacent at least one flank a hefty morale penalty.

[ the main reason is it will break the undo function

which LoS has broken anyway...

[batesmotel]

I dont think we'll be doing a CMT - the main reason is it will break the undo function.

Undo is already broken if you use Fog of War and you can't undo other anarchy results such as a refusal to charge or an anarchy charge. So I don't see it being a big issue here. Just means you would need to undo the move before trying that facing change that might fail.

Chris

[petergarnett]

I agree with Chris here - since LOS came in I'm now far more careful when moving so the undo is not used.

[omarquatar]

The current implementation of this issue seems to have come up in a number of threads but I think it really deserves one of its own. The current ability of drilled troops to do a complete change of face after a move and for undrilled shooters to get a free change of face when shooting have both been the points of comments especially when compared with the FoG TT rules.


Chris

Of all the problems this beautiful game has, this one seems to me to be a secondary issue. There aren't that many drilled troops and those who are certainly knew how to make a wheeling movement. It could cost a MP at best (are there MPs at all in the game?). One of the problems I find here is that the PC system is always confronted with the TT rules. I for one don't play miniature games, don't own or have played FOG TT and don't care if the pc game is a faithful rendition of the TT rules, as long as it is a good game (what it certainly is) and an acceptable historical simulation (more doubtful here).
By the way, how much time is a game turn? how long do you think it took to a javelin skirmishing unit to run away from the enemy then turn and shoot? And drilled troops usually are slower than undrilled in the movement phase, this shoould account for their ability to make a turn when moving.

[batesmotel]

The current implementation of this issue seems to have come up in a number of threads but I think it really deserves one of its own. The current ability of drilled troops to do a complete change of face after a move and for undrilled shooters to get a free change of face when shooting have both been the points of comments especially when compared with the FoG TT rules.


Chris

Of all the problems this beautiful game has, this one seems to me to be a secondary issue. There aren't that many drilled troops and those who are certainly knew how to make a wheeling movement. It could cost a MP at best (are there MPs at all in the game?). One of the problems I find here is that the PC system is always confronted with the TT rules. I for one don't play miniature games, don't own or have played FOG TT and don't care if the pc game is a faithful rendition of the TT rules, as long as it is a good game (what it certainly is) and an acceptable historical simulation (more doubtful here).
By the way, how much time is a game turn? how long do you think it took to a javelin skirmishing unit to run away from the enemy then turn and shoot? And drilled troops usually are slower than undrilled in the movement phase, this shoould account for their ability to make a turn when moving.

By choosing to use the same name for the PC game as for the table top rules, the publisher has chosen to attract those who are fans of the TT rules. Arbitrary departures from the TT rules seem to me to be a degree of false advertising. I don't expect the PC game to duplicate the TT rules in all respects but where it makes sense to use mechanisms closer to those of the TT rules, I think there is a strong argument for choosing those over ones that are a complete departure from the TT rules.

Chris

[omarquatar]

[

By choosing to use the same name for the PC game as for the table top rules, the publisher has chosen to attract those who are fans of the TT rules. Arbitrary departures from the TT rules seem to me to be a degree of false advertising. I don't expect the PC game to duplicate the TT rules in all respects but where it makes sense to use mechanisms closer to those of the TT rules, I think there is a strong argument for choosing those over ones that are a complete departure from the TT rules.

Chris

well, what's in a name?
hope the game is not aimed only at miniature gamers.
i hope the designers can depart from the TT rules, if they achieve a better simulation value. i think that there are other priorities, for example to adjust the combat mechanics (less random, flank attacks, sequential combats etc), reasonable cavalry evades and rout movements, possibly a more structured combat system. judging from the pc version, FOG TT Rules don't seem to be the best in realism, i'm afraid, but the playability and fun are great and it's a pity if the game as a whole cannot be made better.

[deeter]

Unfortunately, most of the problems with FoG PC come from where they have deviated from the TT rules which are less random and don't allow for sequential attacks and have reasonable route and evade routines.

Deeter

[batesmotel]

[

By choosing to use the same name for the PC game as for the table top rules, the publisher has chosen to attract those who are fans of the TT rules. Arbitrary departures from the TT rules seem to me to be a degree of false advertising. I don't expect the PC game to duplicate the TT rules in all respects but where it makes sense to use mechanisms closer to those of the TT rules, I think there is a strong argument for choosing those over ones that are a complete departure from the TT rules.

Chris

well, what's in a name?
hope the game is not aimed only at miniature gamers.
i hope the designers can depart from the TT rules, if they achieve a better simulation value. i think that there are other priorities, for example to adjust the combat mechanics (less random, flank attacks, sequential combats etc), reasonable cavalry evades and rout movements, possibly a more structured combat system. judging from the pc version, FOG TT Rules don't seem to be the best in realism, i'm afraid, but the playability and fun are great and it's a pity if the game as a whole cannot be made better.

I assume your list is things you consider broken. All of these are currently better handled in general in the TT rules (with the possible exception of the role of luck which is pretty much the same). Not all of the TT mechanisms are ones for these are ones that would translate well to the PC due to factors like the hex grid and the lack of unit formations, but others may well. In cases where the latter is true, there is no good reason to not at least look at the TT mechanisms as possible solutions for issues with FoG PC. I'm not arguing that FoG PC must be the same as FoG TT, just that in the case where the TT rules have a solution for a problem, it ought to be given first consideration as a possible solution for FoG PC. It may be rejected in favor of a better solution for the PC platform but should at least be given due consideration.

Chris

[SRW1962]

[

By choosing to use the same name for the PC game as for the table top rules, the publisher has chosen to attract those who are fans of the TT rules. Arbitrary departures from the TT rules seem to me to be a degree of false advertising. I don't expect the PC game to duplicate the TT rules in all respects but where it makes sense to use mechanisms closer to those of the TT rules, I think there is a strong argument for choosing those over ones that are a complete departure from the TT rules.

Chris

well, what's in a name?
hope the game is not aimed only at miniature gamers.
i hope the designers can depart from the TT rules, if they achieve a better simulation value. i think that there are other priorities, for example to adjust the combat mechanics (less random, flank attacks, sequential combats etc), reasonable cavalry evades and rout movements, possibly a more structured combat system. judging from the pc version, FOG TT Rules don't seem to be the best in realism, i'm afraid, but the playability and fun are great and it's a pity if the game as a whole cannot be made better.

I like so many others I would imagine actually bought the game because I enjoyed the TT rules so much and the name and the company that make the game are inextricably linked to the TT game. Whilst I understand there has to be some deviation due to the way the pc version plays I do agree that the best points (of which there are so many) should be included in the pc version. Obviously the problem of actually implementing this is dealt with by the designers and only they know the scale of the problem with that. But I wouldn't want any further departure from the TT version for whatever reason as this would totally defeat the object of making the game the way it is. If that were the case it would most probably have been far easier for the designers to use an existing model of a PC wargame (of which there are so many)to base the game on. But then, those types of games are ten apenny and FOG is totally unique in its concept and I would imagine that like myself most of the TT gamers wouldn't have bothered buying the game.

The simulation aspect is fine to me as with the TT version, as for realism, well who defines it? All we really know from most of history is that a battle may or may not have happened at x with this army or that resulting in a victory for a or b, as for details, we may have glimpses, but nothing worth shouting about. Any simulation worth its salt can only be appraised from the overall result really, so if that is about right then the best games should be judged on their playability, after all it is a game and as such it is there to be enjoyed. If Romans always beat nation x in every battle historically then in a total simulation we should look to get the same result, but as wargamers either PC or TT we really want to deal with the what if's which is why we have points systems and armies that fight against non historical opponents etc. How would Alexanders Companion Cavalry really do against Norman Knights? Nobody can realistically answer that question as it could never have happened.

[omarquatar]

I like so many others I would imagine actually bought the game because I enjoyed the TT rules so much and the name and the company that make the game are inextricably linked to the TT game.

If Romans always beat nation x in every battle historically then in a total simulation we should look to get the same result, but as wargamers either PC or TT we really want to deal with the what if's which is why we have points systems and armies that fight against non historical opponents etc. How would Alexanders Companion Cavalry really do against Norman Knights? Nobody can realistically answer that question as it could never have happened.

As usual, we don't agree.
We should ask the designers/publisher if they intended to sell their product to FoG TT users only. I certainly wasn't asked when i bought it. So for me it's clear that FoG PC must be judged for his own merits, not whether it is a high fidelity rendition of a miniature rules set of the same name or not.
As for simulation/realism value, as a historical simulations gamer, i'm not at all interested in depicting macedonians against normans or parthians against aztecs; what i'd like to have is an acceptable simulation of historical (really happened) ancient battles or what-if situations that remain within the realm of historical plausibility. In this respect, the game does its job, but it is perfectable, like all human things; and i find that the change of facing problem is rather a secondary issue if confronted with other, i dare to say, bugs or at least questionable mechanisms (odd combat results, unpredictable evades and routing paths, slingers shooting across friendly units and others). Maybe the perspective of a miniature gamer is a different one.

[SRW1962]

As usual, we don't agree.
We should ask the designers/publisher if they intended to sell their product to FoG TT users only. I certainly wasn't asked when i bought it. So for me it's clear that FoG PC must be judged for his own merits, not whether it is a high fidelity rendition of a miniature rules set of the same name or not.
As for simulation/realism value, as a historical simulations gamer, i'm not at all interested in depicting macedonians against normans or parthians against aztecs; what i'd like to have is an acceptable simulation of historical (really happened) ancient battles or what-if situations that remain within the realm of historical plausibility. In this respect, the game does its job, but it is perfectable, like all human things; and i find that the change of facing problem is rather a secondary issue if confronted with other, i dare to say, bugs or at least questionable mechanisms (odd combat results, unpredictable evades and routing paths, slingers shooting across friendly units and others). Maybe the perspective of a miniature gamer is a different one.

I don't think the designers ever intended only to sell the game to FOG TT users, and I never implied that they did either. But the advertising blurb certainly made me believe that FOG PC was a copy of the TT game especially the sentences I have highlighted. What do you think? Having said that it should be judged on its own merits but these merits do include the fact that it basically uses the same rule mechanics as the TT system.

I would agree that my own preference is to play what if and historical battles, but many people do like playing non historical games, and as such especially in the Ancient/Medieval wargames periods most rules allow in not actually encourage this. I think we both agree that the game is good then and yes there are some areas that can be improved, but this happens to be one of them. As for the other areas you mention I believe in posts it has been said that some of those will be addressed and fixed. And I would agree it seems that miniature wargamers do seem to have a different perspective on these things



The PC version of the Field of Glory Gaming System is now available!

Field of Glory is an approachable and fun wargame system for your PC that covers the ancient and medieval worlds. It's intuitive user interface makes it an ideal game to pick up for new comers to the hobby, while it's subtlety and depth ensure long term interest for the grognard. Find out what it is like to be a Caesar at the battle of Philippi against Pompey. Command from the rear or imspire your men and risk death and injury from the front line. The initial release covers during the Rise of Rome from Zama in North Africa to the battles of Boudicca’s revolt in Britain. Later releases will expand to new periods and new areas of the ancient and medieval world. Based on the popular Field of Glory tabletop wargaming system from Slitherine (www.fieldofglory.com), the PC version takes care of all the calculations and measurements and just leaves you to make the important and fun decisions. Click the Buy Download link on the left to command your army now!
Inspired by the Field of Glory tabletop wargaming system the PC edition has an easy to use interface with a focus on having a fun game. In particular it is very easy to play multi-player against other users across the internet.

[omarquatar]

I don't think the designers ever intended only to sell the game to FOG TT users, and I never implied that they did either. But the advertising blurb certainly made me believe that FOG PC was a copy of the TT game especially the sentences I have highlighted. What do you think? Having said that it should be judged on its own merits but these merits do include the fact that it basically uses the same rule mechanics as the TT system.

[/b]

well, it certainly attracted in the first place FoG TT users, but now the PC game lives its own life, doesn't it?
So, if the designers, with testers' and players' support, can find a better way to simulate what happened on the ancient battlefield in the critical areas of the game, i hope it will be implemented, even if it differs from the TT rules.