DAG-Field Size & Troop Advantages/Disadvantages??

[petergarnett]

Provided the evade AI is fixed then surely LH armies should have plenty of room to evade.

Is the issue not that with the current map widths armies such as the Illyrians can form a line from one edge to the other?

Assuming 1000 points remains the max army size (and not all can reach that) then even they cannot stretch the line forever without making it wafer thin which I suspect it is anyway.

[Paisley]

How many ancient battles featured units turning a flank unopposed? Not many I suspect. I can't think of any offhand - all the great flanking manoeuvres (eg Cannae) involved defeating the enemy on that flank first.

Most ancient battles had the armies set up pretty much opposite each other, and the flank units engage those opposite them, not move into space to flank.

I'd suggest that any unit without a friendly unit adjacent should suffer at least -1 to CMTs. Any unit out of command should suffer another -1.

Allow non-light drilled units to change facing without a CMT if they don't move, but require a CMT to move and change facing. Non-light undrilled should require a CMT to change facing in all circumstances. An 'about-face and fire' by bowmen would count require a CMT too. Exceptions to both being a change of facing upon contact. Failure of the CMT means the move goes ahead, but the unit suffers a loss of cohesion. I see no evidence that undrilled cavalry were in any way easier to wheel than undrilled infantry, but if one inclines to the view they were, allow them to move and chage facing like drilled but with an extra CMT penalty.

I think that would put an end to endlessly retreating drilled infantry and also mean that sending units off to a flank would need greater planning and also supervision by a leader to avoid CMT penalties and manoeuvre induced CMT cohesion loss.

[petergarnett]

I agree on reducing maneuverability to the rear - always have done especially for undrilled foot.

[TheGrayMouser]

Paisley wrote:
How many ancient battles featured units turning a flank unopposed? Not many I suspect. I can't think of any offhand - all the great flanking manoeuvres (eg Cannae) involved defeating the enemy on that flank first.

I agree, wasnt suggesting that at all.... What i mean is that is too easy, once a flank attack is imminent, to have your main battle line feed units in to counter that threat by moving them obliquley, to the rear or whatver.
Ancient commanders needed to plan ahead when they knew a flank attack was likly going to happen , before the battle even started. Initial deployment was critical and for the most part was unchangable once the battle started...

[Paisley]

Yes.

So I think wider maps are unecessary. What needs fixing is the ease of manoeuvre and as a mechanism already exists (CMT) to restrict outlandish manoeuvre - without simply banning it (merely making it risky), I think it should be used.

Coupled with greater command-control requirements, I really think that would help make the battles feel more realistic.

[TheGrayMouser]

Yes.

So I think wider maps are unecessary. What needs fixing is the ease of manoeuvre and as a mechanism already exists (CMT) to restrict outlandish manoeuvre - without simply banning it (merely making it risky), I think it should be used.

Coupled with greater command-control requirements, I really think that would help make the battles feel more realistic.

I like those ideas. In some buried post I belive Iain indicated he was hoping for some kind of line command function.... Maybe we'll see something come out of that someday

[Morbio]

Funnily enough, I would ask for wider maps for some games. Maybe it's because I like to play with a good cavalry strength with my line of pikes, and I do favour flanking to try to get behind the enemy line.

Just of a counter-point to some of the suggestions. I do think that not everyone who plays FoG PC is striving for historical accuracy. I know I'm not, although I don't like things to be totally unrealistic (e.g. Horse being unable to catch LF... or poor LF being more effective than better LF). I like the maneuverability that Drilled units have, indeed, the only thing I'd be critical of is that undrilled cavalry is too slow to maneuver!

There are some points that I agree with, I think that some of the missile units are too mobile, whilst firing, they use the firing as an unfair advantage to change direction, and have an endless supply of missiles.

So, my vote, and I'm sure I'm not alone, is to have playability and fun over historical accuracy.

Whilst there is a lot in common with the TT game, it isn't sold and marketed as trying to be the same on the PC.

[Paisley]

I have never played the tabletop game and I'm all for fun. I don't think that making manoeuvre harder will necessarily detract from the fun. I don't see why it should. I'm not after historical accuracy either, just historical feel. At the moment manouevre doesn't even feel historical. And ask grumblefish how much fun it is playing against a force capable of exploiting ludicrous degrees of manoeuvreability.

That said, I find 700+ point games are far less susceptible to silly manouevres than the smaller ones.

[Blathergut]

The maps are too large generally. Given the manoeverability of drilled HF, armies with LH and LF bows + a core of HF just keep ducking and shooting while the heavies turn and twist away. Historically, the HF army opposed to this would just not offer battle. It would not keep marching across a battlefield, turning the line to 90 degrees or even 180 degrees from its original position while being pounded by bows on one end.

I guess I don't care how wide the field is. I'd like to see it narrowed in depth so that the main troops start closer together and centres wouldn't be able to turn and march away so easily. Or, as some have suggested, no turns once you turn and move back.

[Paisley]

In a way, any move toward one's own table edge by heavy infantry might be construed as a retreat and so should be penalised by morale checks for adjacent friends. The problem with that would be that the hex grid sometimes means some realigning is necessary and all in all I think it would be too heavy handed a mechanism. As I say, I think a CMT imposed for any move+turn for non lights would solve many of the problems. It wouldn't ban risky manouvres like withdrawing your line, it'd just make them dangerous. About-face + move + about face = 2CMT. Who'd fancy that as a standard tactic?

If you narrow the depth you run the risk of wheeling armies being able to completely cover the whole narrow side. Best to make the wheeling more difficult and keep the depth I think.