Stopping the Enemy Running Away

[grahambriggs]

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.

Oh sorry yes my apologies it was hot yesterday. It was against Bruce Brown. He lined up for a proper battle but was met with the "Aztec Starburst" and had to chase me all over the table.

[Polkovnik]

Therefore a cohesian test for seeing friends moving away from the enemy might be appropriate.

Whilst that might be desirable, I think it would be impossible to correctly word and implement a rule to have the required effect.

[Polkovnik]

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.

Again, very difficult to word a rule like this that does penalise legitimate movement. What do you mean by facing ? Directly in front ? So you could turn and run away from a flank threat, but not from enemy in front ?

What if you have HF 5" away in front, but some knights about to charge you in the flank ? Shouldn't you be able to turn then to face the knights, without a cohesion test ?

[Cerberias]

Personally I think cohesion levels might be a bit harsh, you could have an entire army run from a few 180 degree turns and bad dice rolling, perhaps make turning 180 towards an enemy a complex move for drilled non-cav, and give an -2 for a threatened rear? Gives it a bit more unpredictability (turning some not turning others for example) without the over the top cohesion testing potentially shockwaving through an army before the battles even started really.

[Strategos69]

Again, very difficult to word a rule like this that does penalise legitimate movement. What do you mean by facing ? Directly in front ? So you could turn and run away from a flank threat, but not from enemy in front ?

I explained myself wrongly. I meant the enemies' front: your BG's facing would be meaningless. If you are within an enemies flank or rear, no need to check. Otherwise, yes. By the way, this rule also would mean that you have to check if you want to face an enemy aproaching from your rear. In general we are not very aware how limited movements of large bodies of men could be.

What if you have HF 5" away in front, but some knights about to charge you in the flank ? Shouldn't you be able to turn then to face the knights, without a cohesion test ?

Well, actually undrilled troops have to check right now to turn. And if they fail, they can't turn, which does not seem right to me given the situation you are describing. I am going beyond that and saying that CMT should be like morale tests. That way impossible movements can't be done and complex moves should require a test (turning when the enemy is closed by being considered as a Complex Move). If the testers fail, they drop levels of cohesion accordingly but perform the movement. If you spend your time marching and countermarching finally your troops will get disordered. From Ancient accounts of battles we even know that marching straight costed troops losing cohesion so I guess that turning would be even worse!

[spike]

Personally I think cohesion levels might be a bit harsh, you could have an entire army run from a few 180 degree turns and bad dice rolling, perhaps make turning 180 towards an enemy a complex move for drilled non-cav, and give an -2 for a threatened rear? Gives it a bit more unpredictability (turning some not turning others for example) without the over the top cohesion testing potentially shockwaving through an army before the battles even started really.

Cerberaias
Yes I thought your point before I wrote it down, and sorry its a spurious arguement that a few unlucky roll which could cause you problems. My thoughts were as follows

1. Its a risk to undertake such a strategem, it takes planning.
2. If you are outside "actual" charge range, there is no issue with the thretened flank "minus", and anyone stupid enough to do this without good reason while "inside" charge range deserves to lose
3. You should not attempt such a manovre without a general providing a "plus", preferably an IC (see 1)
4. You should probably only do it with troops you trust (superior and elite), not with average troops which could get the wrong idea and become disrupted, or poor who will get the wrong idea at some point.

So those with average auxillia and a clutch of TC's would be warned that this is not a strategem without its risk.....If such a rule existed, people would think twice before using it as a plan.

The question you should ask is at what point did I intend do you had to take such a test when and how often.....
Immediatly after the manovre, at the end of the manovre phase, in the JAP or at some other point.
and
should this be a once only test OR every turn that enemy are within their charge range plus 2 MU's of their flank or rear

S

[SirGarnet]

The pinning game mechanic now is that non-evaders face getting hit in flank or rear if they don't plan ahead and about face the turn before the enemy moves into charge range. Otherwise, faster troops can move away and try to persuade the enemy to pursue, limited by terrain and field size.

I've used the turn and walk away tactic several times using MF and I've been on the receiving end of it. Its very handy for forcing your opponent to react to you. I've had a battleline of pike BGs advance towards a battleline of MF and in one turn the outside MF BGs turned to flank and moved into rough terrrain while the BGs in the centre of his line turned around. next move they moved away then next bound turned to face. In the meantime the outside BGs have advanced onto my flanks. Lost that game quickly.
I've used it with Chinese MF Xb units who advanced, got one bound of shooting when the opposing foot got within range and in my turn turned and moved away before they got within charge range. I've also mistimed it gloriously and ended up with MF XB in charge range of Armoured Cv Lancers. Did no damage in my shooting phase and in his impact I fragmented the lancers through inspired dice throwing.

regards
Brent

Sounds about right. Other than accumulation of turns and player annoyance trudging after a retiring foe with room on the table, and the separate question of whether troops should be able to both turn and move, what is the actual design problem for game play?

Mike

[Strategos69]

Sounds about right. Other than accumulation of turns and player annoyance trudging after a retiring foe with room on the table, and the separate question of whether troops should be able to both turn and move, what is the actual design problem for game play?

Well, first, that these tactics did not happen very often historically speaking and, sometimes, when put into practice, they led to disastrous effects for the side doing turns and monouvers in front of a steady enemy. Marching back and forth with infantry in close order did disorder troops and other troops could see it as a general retreat.

[SirGarnet]

Sounds about right. Other than accumulation of turns and player annoyance trudging after a retiring foe with room on the table, and the separate question of whether troops should be able to both turn and move, what is the actual design problem for game play?

Well, first, that these tactics did not happen very often historically speaking and, sometimes, when put into practice, they led to disastrous effects for the side doing turns and monouvers in front of a steady enemy. Marching back and forth with infantry in close order did disorder troops and other troops could see it as a general retreat.

Your statement applies I think to troops in close proximity to the enemy front -- the more risky the closer the enemy is and the more manoeuvrable the enemy is. This is already reflected in the game - you dare not turn once the enemy is close enough to prevent you from moving away, and if not well drilled need to plan a withdrawal in advance to avoid fatal delays.

Armies able to do so often declined battle or removed to a preferable position, even lured foes forward. Faster troops could get away from slower ones, but a retirement could become a rout under pressure from enemy or terrain or if thrown into confusion. It can do so on the table, and is limited by the table edge. Most players will not advance on and then retire from the enemy line of battle except as a strategem to draw them into an unfavorable position, or because they realize it was a mistake.

Maybe the distances are too small (or the table too big), but the restricted area is a clear rule and the tactical pinning mechanism and range works very well and is driven by practical tactical considerations on the table. Don't break the mechanism.

Alternatives that build on that mechanism would be allowing extra charge distance into the rear of an enemy that turned 180 its last move either, a variable move or just a bonus.

[Skullzgrinda]

I am unsympathetic with attempts to reduce the game to a cage fight.

Fabian tactics, Parthian shots, feigned retreat etc. were real. They happened. They happened a lot. They were often successful.

Attempts to eliminate these tactics are retrograde game design, and savor of the 1970's.

[grahambriggs]

I am unsympathetic with attempts to reduce the game to a cage fight.

Fabian tactics, Parthian shots, feigned retreat etc. were real. They happened. They happened a lot. They were often successful.

Attempts to eliminate these tactics are retrograde game design, and savor of the 1970's.

Indeed they did happen, and were often successful. That should be replicated in the rules. The problem we have is that "often" is "always, and with no downside".

[Strategos69]

I am unsympathetic with attempts to reduce the game to a cage fight.

Fabian tactics, Parthian shots, feigned retreat etc. were real. They happened. They happened a lot. They were often successful.

Attempts to eliminate these tactics are retrograde game design, and savor of the 1970's.

I agree with you in the fact that they should be allowed. The problem is that monouvering is too easy in certain contexts and there is no penalty for getting your troops to turn and turn around. The CMT was a good idea, but its main failure was not conecting it with the cohesion system. In fact, cohesion levels especifically do not represent casulaties, but loss of cohesion and morale. If you give your back to the enemy or start looping around, unless you are a experienced troop or drilled, it is not that unthinkable that you lose your cohesion. There are many accounts of troops losing cohesion while charging, pursuing, turning close to the enemy.

The only thing we are claiming here is that FoG allows with no penalty that slow armies never catch their enemies. And I think that it is a fair proposal and backed historically that, if you evade, turn in front of an enemy or manouver close to the enemy that you have to test and maybe lose cohesion. In fact I would let the movement to be completed and there would be a loss in cohesion. That way players will have to confront the decision of getting their troops unprepared for the clash because they asked them to do things they were unprepared or unwillling to do.

[philqw78]

I am unsympathetic with attempts to reduce the game to a cage fight.

Fabian tactics, Parthian shots, feigned retreat etc. were real. They happened. They happened a lot. They were often successful.

Attempts to eliminate these tactics are retrograde game design, and savor of the 1970's.

Fabian Tactics are surely something we are trying to remove from a tabletop game where we want to fight.
Parthian shots. LH can shoot to their rear.
And feigned retreat is all too easy. And not very feigned as there is nothing to tempt the enemy in, so why bother following. Especially when there is no way of catching up with the enemy.

I remember wedge, cantabrian circle, african, skirmish formation, there may have been more. These were all present in the late 70's and made the game far more complicated for no real gain. Unless you were Norman Knights in wedge, or Spanish with HTW v Pike

[Skullzgrinda]

I am unsympathetic with attempts to reduce the game to a cage fight.

Fabian tactics, Parthian shots, feigned retreat etc. were real. They happened. They happened a lot. They were often successful.

Attempts to eliminate these tactics are retrograde game design, and savor of the 1970's.

Indeed they did happen, and were often successful. That should be replicated in the rules. The problem we have is that "often" is "always, and with no downside".

That is due more to several anachronisms inherent in ancients gaming than any flaw in the rules.

1) The sheer abundance of army lists which can evade, and that any player can pick one;

2) that while Genghis or Subodai were rare, almost unique commanders, and thus were exceptions in history, whereas all of us have read of them and many of us take their examples and try to emulate them;

3) most of us think of ancients as Westerners - shcok, shock, and more shock. This thinking and approach had a long shelf life in the Mediterranean and Northern Europe, where somne mountain, coast, forest or swamp might serve as an obliging anvil to the shock hammer, but it is actually the most primitive and limited of military doctrines, and is now virtually extinct. Mobility and firepower should win, because it did win. Not always, but more often than not.

[Skullzgrinda]

The only thing we are claiming here is that FoG allows with no penalty that slow armies never catch their enemies. And I think that it is a fair proposal and backed historically that, if you evade, turn in front of an enemy or manouver close to the enemy that you have to test and maybe lose cohesion. In fact I would let the movement to be completed and there would be a loss in cohesion. That way players will have to confront the decision of getting their troops unprepared for the clash because they asked them to do things they were unprepared or unwillling to do.

This is reasonable. Many though seem to want jousting. Or sumo wrestling. Or bumper cars. Or to mate with does.

On balance though, slow armies did not catch fluid armies, until the fluid army decided it was the right time and place to be caught.

As it stands, the confines of a table already benefit the slow shock army, and the bowfire capabilities of the advanced horse armies are in no way reflected in the rules.

[Skullzgrinda]

Fabian Tactics are surely something we are trying to remove from a tabletop game where we want to fight.
Parthian shots. LH can shoot to their rear.
And feigned retreat is all too easy. And not very feigned as there is nothing to tempt the enemy in, so why bother following. Especially when there is no way of catching up with the enemy.

I remember wedge, cantabrian circle, african, skirmish formation, there may have been more. These were all present in the late 70's and made the game far more complicated for no real gain. Unless you were Norman Knights in wedge, or Spanish with HTW v Pike

Maybe I don't want to fight you. Or don't want to fight you yet. Or don't want to fight you on one flank. I should have that option in a tactical contest.

Parthian shots are there in an ineffectual way.

Feigned retreat or taunting out of position is viable in the game. You may recognize it for what it is, but your shock troop bulls may still oblige the matador anyway.

You disdain the old gimmick formations as useless and needless complications. So do I. I disdain the newer attempts as well, for the same reasons.

I think the rules as they stand are just fine. My main problem with them is my own incompetent application of them.

[Strategos69]

This is reasonable. Many though seem to want jousting. Or sumo wrestling. Or bumper cars. Or to mate with does.
On balance though, slow armies did not catch fluid armies, until the fluid army decided it was the right time and place to be caught.
As it stands, the confines of a table already benefit the slow shock army, and the bowfire capabilities of the advanced horse armies are in no way reflected in the rules.

Well, now it is more complicated than that. FoG should be a tabletop battles game and some of the tactics you are describing are not within the scope of battles but more likely skirmishing or guerrilla warfare. Now my drilled heavy or medium infantry can turn around and move appart in front of the enemies' noses. And if I get out of charge distance, which is going to happen, the enemy shock troops will not have to check to charge without orders. It is impossible now to represent a feigned retreat unless the enemy is caught in the rear (which will turn a feigned into a real one retreat).

Rules need to be improved, especially for the shake of historicity. In most games manouvering is too simple while in real life it is quite hard to make a bunch of well trained troops to perform all the turns and wheels perfectly in formation, without resenting the cohesion. I know it is more fun to be given the possibility of looping around (and I am the first one enjoying that part of the game) but this has its consequences like some players end up having some very boring games just because they can't do anything at all. And I see two very simple mechanisms to solve this situation:
1. Shooting enemies into their rear should have one or two PoA in the shooting phase. Receiving arrows without a shield to cover makes the troops unprotected to what they receive.
2. CMT test should be like morale tests and if you fail them, you drop levels of cohesion and you complete your move as foreseen. Evading troops should check a CMT and drop cohesion levels if failed. The game would remain the same, but improved, in my opinion.
3. I like what madmazeman propose of activation of BG by commands, which can cause that these dangerous tactics can end up more badly than now.

[ethan]

3) most of us think of ancients as Westerners - shcok, shock, and more shock. This thinking and approach had a long shelf life in the Mediterranean and Northern Europe, where somne mountain, coast, forest or swamp might serve as an obliging anvil to the shock hammer, but it is actually the most primitive and limited of military doctrines, and is now virtually extinct. Mobility and firepower should win, because it did win. Not always, but more often than not.

I am sorry, I think this is a very simplistic view of the evolution of warfare. I don't know what time scale you are thinking on, perhaps it doesn't matter but it really seems to be very limited.

I would also argue that much of this argument IMO seems to start to confuse strategic tactics, which have virtually no place in the current FoG rules, versus battlefield tactics which is what FoG is about.

Fabian tactics? they mostly involved IIRC not actually fighting. Dog Hannibal and retreat to invite a siege but never actually fight. Sieges are not part of the rules. Now if you want a campaign system grafted on, which might be quite fun, then sure. But that isn't here now and is a seperate issue from fighting on table. Roman legions closing to withing a couple hundred yards of Hannibal and then turning around walking away? That isn't what I recall being commonplace during Hannibals campaigns in Italy, but that is what the "problem" that is being addressed in this thread concerns.

[hazelbark]

1. Shooting enemies into their rear should have one or two PoA in the shooting phase. Receiving arrows without a shield to cover makes the troops unprotected to what they receive.
2. CMT test should be like morale tests and if you fail them, you drop levels of cohesion and you complete your move as foreseen. Evading troops should check a CMT and drop cohesion levels if failed. The game would remain the same, but improved, in my opinion.
3. I like what madmazeman propose of activation of BG by commands, which can cause that these dangerous tactics can end up more badly than now.

1 Long discussed in the early beta testing. Authors were of opinion that it is not needed for two reasons.
A The principle of no double negatives. You are behind, therefore not being shot at and you also have potential flank attacks, etc.
B More people think Shooty Cav armies do not need more advantages.

2 The whole idea is CMT is NOT like Morale. So my enemy is a long way away and I tell my troops to right face, not only they not do this they start to get ready to flee the battle?

3 The lesson of the command rules ala DBx was good players still mastered winning with them and the exagerated the differences between strong players and average players. My concern is it would detract from the playing pool not add to it.

[ethan]

1 Long discussed in the early beta testing. Authors were of opinion that it is not needed for two reasons.
A The principle of no double negatives. You are behind, therefore not being shot at and you also have potential flank attacks, etc.
B More people think Shooty Cav armies do not need more advantages.

I think partly it was also difficulty in crafting a rule that was simple and easy to follow. The gain from having it was thought not to be worth the trouble of writing it and having everyone understand it.

In any case it is not the shooty armies that have a problem here. It is marching up to 200 yards away, then about facing and walking away.

How about something like:

- You can declare a charge as usual.
- After declaring the charge you can make a CMT to automatically count as charging +2MU if the charge will contact one of the original charge targets on a rear edge or corner.