Stopping the Enemy Running Away

[dave_r]

Spartans did it at Thermopylae I believe

[grahambriggs]

Spartans did it at Thermopylae I believe

But not in the middle of a battle. When they heard the Persians had got round behind them they withdrew to the narrowest part of the pass for their last stand. And 300 + mates is hardly a FoG scale army.

[dave_r]

Didn't they do some feigned flight type thing to lure the Persians in?

[ethan]

Didn't they do some feigned flight type thing to lure the Persians in?

Is that the part of the battle when they oiled up their bodies, danced around without armor and yelled "This is Spartaaaaa!"?

Instead of just shooting arrows at them, the Persians sent in the rhinoceros or something right?

[Strategos69]

Didn't they do some feigned flight type thing to lure the Persians in?

Is that the part of the battle when they oiled up their bodies, danced around without armor and yelled "This is Spartaaaaa!"?

Instead of just shooting arrows at them, the Persians sent in the rhinoceros or something right?

The Lacedemonians meanwhile were fighting in a memorable fashion, and besides other things of which they made display, being men perfectly skilled in fighting opposed to men who were unskilled, they would turn their backs to the enemy and make a pretence of taking to flight; and the Barbarians, seeing them thus taking a flight, would follow after them with shouting and clashing of arms: then the Lacedemonians, when they were being caught up, turned and faced the Barbarians; and thus turning round they would slay innumerable multitudes of the Persians; and there fell also at these times a few of the Spartans themselves.

Herodotus (Hist., VII, 211)

Well, actually dave is right and it did happen, but I still say that it was very risky (some Spartans died in acting so). I wonder if just turning and moving represents it.

[ShrubMiK]

I always mention Manzikert at around this point in these discussions.

Is that the same Mankizert where the second line turned away and that was the critical point when the Byzantine's lost the battle? I suspect the front line thought "they're runiing! Let's react as if we've just lost 2 attriction points for each group of them!"

Or is that the Mankizert where the second line turned, Benny Hilled away for a bit to avoid stronger enemy, then turned back and gave the Turks a kicking?

Neither of them. You must have read a different account to me

My understanding was that the first line got into some sort of disarray as they turned, were then engaged and got into big big trouble, and yes the second line buggered off and left them to it. My point being though that regardless of whether or not the second line could have retrieved the situation, the turning away from the away did not go as smoothly as it would on a FoG table.

[madaxeman]

FWIW I still think the most elegant way around this is to introduce some uncertainty into the strict IGOUGO sequence inherent in FoG. Allowing some units the opportunity of moving twice before their opponents can move again adds a lot more risk to such manoeuvres, as well as enhancing other aspects of the game as well - hence the ideas posted on my site at the moment.

tim

[ethan]

FWIW I still think the most elegant way around this is to introduce some uncertainty into the strict IGOUGO sequence inherent in FoG. Allowing some units the opportunity of moving twice before their opponents can move again adds a lot more risk to such manoeuvres, as well as enhancing other aspects of the game as well - hence the ideas posted on my site at the moment.

tim

I think some of the minor rule changes are more interesting. The big IGOUGO change strikes me as too complex.

[Strategos69]

FWIW I still think the most elegant way around this is to introduce some uncertainty into the strict IGOUGO sequence inherent in FoG. Allowing some units the opportunity of moving twice before their opponents can move again adds a lot more risk to such manoeuvres, as well as enhancing other aspects of the game as well - hence the ideas posted on my site at the moment.

tim

Those are really big changes, but maybe worth it. I played the fantasy game Confrontation. The good part of it was that miniatures were activated with cards that every player ordered before the turn started. Then the turn was played following the sequence determined by the cards. There were some special ways too to activate two miniatures at once. The result is that you remained more attentive through the game and you did not have the impression "ok, those are the twenty minutes when I do nothing: where is my drink?"

I miss the DBM idea of commands that can be broken as a whole. These commands could be the ones ordered at the beginning of the turn and played in order starting by the one winning an initiative row, another reason to have an inspired commander or average commander instead of watching many 4 TC. Anyway, game could get more complicated.

[madaxeman]

I think some of the minor rule changes are more interesting. The big IGOUGO change strikes me as too complex.

I think it reads as being more complex than it actually is in practice.

The short version is that you activate a command at a time, each command does a full move sequence (which we all know), and there needs to be some added complexity to cover melees where units from multiple commands are engaged together.

[dave_r]

I think the rules are trying to graft a DBM style command and control mechanism onto FoG when it already has a different C&C mechanism. Having briefly glanced over them I suspect they won't work. FoG can't be split into commands - it simply won't work. It would mean that players would attempt to exploit notional gaps in "commands" by ganging up on one unit in the impact phase.

They look a bit like the 6th edition turn quarters and would just end up a train wreck.

Charges/Evades: Any 6:1 VMD roll means the evaders are caught (at the chargers move distance plus 2 MU), irrespective of how far away they actually start or how far they move.

Bad Luck Insurance Flag: Seen this in Warhammer. Didn't like it then either.

Dead Generals : I like the idea that when a general is dead he is dead. In a battlefield situation there simply isn't time to come back again.

Go Get 'Em! : Too much luck.

Panic! : Too much luck.

Pursuing a fleeing Enemy : I have personally put forward a suggestion that troops never get a -1 for a threatened flank for being within 6" of the enemy base edge.

Driven from the Table : Why not just count them as 2ap's and make it easier?

Unaccompanied March Movement: Units would dawdle if not being watched.

Spears - Increased Resilience: Like this idea.

Vulnerable Skirmishers : If anything given their ability to spread out they should get a +3 not a +2.

[madaxeman]

I think the rules are trying to graft a DBM style command and control mechanism onto FoG when it already has a different C&C mechanism. Having briefly glanced over them I suspect they won't work. FoG can't be split into commands - it simply won't work. It would mean that players would attempt to exploit notional gaps in "commands" by ganging up on one unit in the impact phase.
They look a bit like the 6th edition turn quarters and would just end up a train wreck.

The C&C sequence is largely nicked off Impetus not DBM

Having tried them a few times, they seem to deliver either the same game experience, or a better one.

FoG cant be split into DBM style commands, as there are simply too few units to make command based break points viable. But some way of breaking up the IGOUGO means splitting the move sequence for each army down into chunks - and a unit by unit split is unworkable, so a 3-4 chunks split is a compromise. Calling it Commands is tidy and sort of historical too.

It's actually incredibly hard to achieve any "ganging up" in practice - and even when it does happen, it just means that some combats are more decisive and end more quickly that at present. And once you add in adding unpredictability to the move sequence, adding unpredictability to the length of time any given combat might take is arguably a logical progression.

Charges/Evades: Any 6:1 VMD roll means the evaders are caught (at the chargers move distance plus 2 MU), irrespective of how far away they actually start or how far they move.
Bad Luck Insurance Flag: Seen this in Warhammer. Didn't like it then either.
Dead Generals : I like the idea that when a general is dead he is dead. In a battlefield situation there simply isn't time to come back again.
Go Get 'Em! : Too much luck.
Panic! : Too much luck.
Pursuing a fleeing Enemy : I have personally put forward a suggestion that troops never get a -1 for a threatened flank for being within 6" of the enemy base edge.
Driven from the Table : Why not just count them as 2ap's and make it easier?
Unaccompanied March Movement: Units would dawdle if not being watched.
Spears - Increased Resilience: Like this idea.
Vulnerable Skirmishers : If anything given their ability to spread out they should get a +3 not a +2.

Bad Luck - not sure I like it either, but you can always keep the flag
Dead Generals - Probably agree, however the mechanic is needed to make the command based stuff work
GGE/Panic! - yep, too much luck for some. Or more randomness, fun and comedy value for others
Driven: Didn't want to be too harsh to LH armies and deprive them of the ability to use appropriate tactics
Unaccompanied: Aren't generals elements just an abstract representation of command and control in standard FoG .... ?
Vulnerable: You are having a laugh here right? Skirmishers increased resilience & ability to spread out is modelled by their ability to freely turn 180, move out of enemy range and be rallied in complete safety in standard FoG. This is really a mod to make close formation bowmen more viable, it doesn't make skirmishers any less good other than when facing formed shooters

Anyways, these are a list of house mods I've tried out a few times and quite like - they do provide one answer to the turn and move away issue as well, but house mods are just that, mods for groups to use at home.

[spike]

I've been reading this with interest, and it is obvious to me that while most agree there is a "Game play" problem, we are aware it is a valid historical tactic to feign retreat.
So me the problem and solution requires that it should be allowed, but there must be a risk to undertaking the strategy.
So I suggest a 3 fold solution.

1. That the 6 MU restriction to second move etc, only applies to the front edges/corners of units, If you turn your back you cant be a threat.
2. A variable movement "option" for all troops with a general
3. Cohesion tests for units, who have enemy non-skirmisher units within charge reach (including the plust for the variable) of their flank or rear

What do others think

[grahambriggs]

Didn't they do some feigned flight type thing to lure the Persians in?

Is that the part of the battle when they oiled up their bodies, danced around without armor and yelled "This is Spartaaaaa!"?

Instead of just shooting arrows at them, the Persians sent in the rhinoceros or something right?

The Lacedemonians meanwhile were fighting in a memorable fashion, and besides other things of which they made display, being men perfectly skilled in fighting opposed to men who were unskilled, they would turn their backs to the enemy and make a pretence of taking to flight; and the Barbarians, seeing them thus taking a flight, would follow after them with shouting and clashing of arms: then the Lacedemonians, when they were being caught up, turned and faced the Barbarians; and thus turning round they would slay innumerable multitudes of the Persians; and there fell also at these times a few of the Spartans themselves.

Herodotus (Hist., VII, 211)

Well, actually dave is right and it did happen, but I still say that it was very risky (some Spartans died in acting so). I wonder if just turning and moving represents it.

It's also only 300 men. And very good quality men at that. So only part of a battle group, with a general attached. And the spartans had a specific drill "Laconian countermarch" to cover it. The drill could be used to turn the line round if the enemy got behind them - at Cornea in 394bc for example. It was imperfect, as the previous left was now the right and that was important in hoplite battles. However, all the Spartan army level drills (I believe) are for turning towards the enemy.

I don't have a problem with small, quality units with generals attached doing this. I just can't see the whole centre of an army doing this easily. Wellington's comment on the difficulty of getting large numbers of men to do something complicated seems apt: "If thirty thousand men were drawn up in close order in Hyde Park there are not three men in Europe who could get them out again."

[dave_r]

It's also only 300 men. And very good quality men at that. So only part of a battle group

There were only 300 Spartans. How many thousands of other Greek troops were there?

I don't have a problem with small, quality units with generals attached doing this. I just can't see the whole centre of an army doing this easily

I would qualify this by stating I can't see the centre of a foot army doing this - mounted armies did it frequently.

[ethan]

3. Cohesion tests for units, who have enemy non-skirmisher units within charge reach (including the plust for the variable) of their flank or rear

Something like one of the following (depending on whether you want to allow options to "fix" the problem in the same move):

- Any non-skirmisher unit that moves in such a way as to create a threatened flank (not counting one created by the board edge), for the purpose of this cohestion test assume the enemy troops have movement distance 2 MU greater than usual, must take a cohesion test.

or

- If at the ened of a player's movement phase any troops have been moved into a position that creates a threatened flank (not counting one created by the board edge), for the purpose of this cohestion test assume the enemy troops have movement distance 2 MU greater than usual, must take a cohesion test.

The second option would allow you to bring up supporting troops to "cover" the threatened flank but would require some mental record-keeping at least.

[grahambriggs]

It's also only 300 men. And very good quality men at that. So only part of a battle group

There were only 300 Spartans. How many thousands of other Greek troops were there?

I don't have a problem with small, quality units with generals attached doing this. I just can't see the whole centre of an army doing this easily

I would qualify this by stating I can't see the centre of a foot army doing this - mounted armies did it frequently.

There were (IIRC) bout 6,000 other troops. But only the spartans did the fancy stuff I believe. Of course the Persians should have thought to about turns and march off with the Immortals themselves but somehow didn't.

Yes I agree with your qualification: light horse and cavalry armies (maybe not cataphracts and Knights) could retire the army quite quickly I suspect ("saracens" vs crusaders is perhaps a good example). I was really thinking of drilled MF and HF. At least HF are slow enough that it's often not a good plan.

The drilled MF armies are the silly ones IMHO. Witness my Aztecs who started the game against your French Ordonnance facing them in the open but were able to scatter to the four winds. The aztecs seemed quite manouverable historically against the Spanish but not to that degree surely.

[dave_r]

The drilled MF armies are the silly ones IMHO. Witness my Aztecs who started the game against your French Ordonnance facing them in the open but were able to scatter to the four winds. The aztecs seemed quite manouverable historically against the Spanish but not to that degree surely.

Not me surely? Don't think I've actually played you at FoG Graham.

[Strategos69]

At least from this discussion it seems that there is a problem with this type of movement (especially for medium and heavy foot). Now in FoG all troops almost behave like the drilled Spartans. I like Spike's proposals but I would get it simpler. Troops performing a 90 or 180 degrees turn when facing an enemy within 6 MU have to check for morale. If they fail, they drop cohesion levels accordingly as if checking from a combat. In fact, in my opinion, all troops should be allowed to perform any permited movement and drop levels instead of not being let to move as they wished.

[DavidT]

At Grandson, Charles the Bold ordered his main block of Burgundian infantry in his vanguard to withdraw slightly to try and draw the Swiss vorhut forward. The Burgundian centre and rear, seeing this manoeuvre, thought that the Burgundian vanguard was in retreat and promptly turned and fled (there was also a Swiss flank march arriving). Therefore a cohesian test for seeing friends moving away from the enemy might be appropriate.