Stopping the Enemy Running Away

[Strategos69]

1 I guess I don't share the authors point of view regarding that.

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?

My suggestion is that the movement is completed at the cost of losing cohesion. The whole point about cohesion, as I see it, it is that it involves at the same time morale, organization and casualties. I have played some video games where this feature was kept into account and some tabletop do so too. You were asked sometimes between getting in good order in combat or doing some risky decision to get the enemy in a disadvatage position, both with consequences. It might seem odd, but people with military trainning can tell that marching in formation is not that easy and gaps can appear (which the enemies could exploit, thus represented in game terms as lost of cohesion). Maybe troops did not break just for turning, but generals also knew when to stop due to the confusion generated by the orders given. An option to avoid this is that, when fragmented troops are asked to perform a movement which needs a CMT and they fail it, they don't make that movement.

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.

Unless you are thinking in tournament games terms, I can't see why one system will have less players. Most of the players don't play tournaments and are just casual players in clubs or with friends. The point is not about commands building and its explotation by players, but alternate sequence of activation of BGs. I have played some games with this alternate system and it makes you be more attentive and the games gets less boring because you don't have to wait that much till your next bound. Also games with reaction orders make you feel that you are playing the whole time.

[Cerberias]

In my opinion the rules are top knotch as it is. It is a great competitive strategy game, which is how I think about it, not so much as a 'fully historical' simulation game. To me FoG is like chess on cocaine.

[SirGarnet]

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.

FOG design involves a lot of keeping essentials and trimming fat. My guess on what the designers might say are things like this is a fringe issue not seen even once in most battles, and that this situation against battle troops is unstable and will resolve itself by the target moving clear, turning to face, or getting hit in rear.

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.

CMTs are basically about creating some uncertainty about how much you can rely upon your troops to do. You lose nothing by taking the test to make a complex move - the penalty for failure is not doing the move. Any serious trauma due to failing is exacted by the opponent's actions. Seems good to me.

One could have a system where a failed CMT means the move is made or may be made but accompanied by a cohesion loss, which is a major impairment. Impetus rules have disorder checks for multiple moving. The penalty for trying deters people from attempting it. Leads to a more plodding style of play.

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.

Impetus also does that - it can lead to surprises as move order flips around and fits the to-and-fro aspects of the design. In FOG it is liable to scramble the planful nature of the player-commander's role. Not a good idea for FoG.

[expendablecinc]

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

I agree. Its painful to ahve to chase MF with heavy foot - particularly when there is a lot of rough and uneven around, but mistakes get made often and its quite dangerous to be marching about all over the place. I just remind myself to keep a cohesive line and swing onto the enemy however slowly I have to without sacrificing the overall plan.

[hazelbark]

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.

Unless you are thinking in tournament games terms, I can't see why one system will have less players. Most of the players don't play tournaments and are just casual players in clubs or with friends. The point is not about commands building and its explotation by players, but alternate sequence of activation of BGs. I have played some games with this alternate system and it makes you be more attentive and the games gets less boring because you don't have to wait that much till your next bound. Also games with reaction orders make you feel that you are playing the whole time.

Fair point. I find the more cumbersome the rules the more they impact non-tournament gamers. I find especially multi-player games have their own natural command and control break downs.

"Don't cross that stream, support my attack"
yes sir
"Why did you cross that stream"
It looked like a good opportunity.
"When will you support my attack"
As soon as I've finished securing the far side of the stream.

[madaxeman]

Impetus also does that - it can lead to surprises as move order flips around and fits the to-and-fro aspects of the design. In FOG it is liable to scramble the planful nature of the player-commander's role. Not a good idea for FoG.

Oddly enough, that same sensation of having my own troops scramble my plan is exactly what I feel is missing in FoG. As tabletop generals we already have greater knowledge of historical tactics and also greater visibility of what our troops are doing on the battlefield than any historical counterpart - also being able to ensure that our troops carry out our exact orders more thoroughly than they would for our historical counterparts strikes me as just a little odd

[chubooga]

Same here, the game is far too controllable (sp?) and predicable for me.

And when I add in pointless games against armies that dont make a game of it, either because they are drilled Mf tournabouts, 18+ Bgs unbeatables, or LH nibblers..... puts me off investing the time into attending a tourney.... which for a set of rules written by tourney players, IMHO, for tourney players then the fact that they dont make me want to go to tourneys any more means theres something missing either in the rules or the way I interacting with them..... of course Im not a big loss to the tourney scene so who cares anyway!

apologies if Ive missed the point of the thread, but just had a couple of minutes spare and thought I would chip in!

jon

[philqw78]

apologies if Ive missed the point of the thread, but just had a couple of minutes spare and thought I would chip in!

jon

That is the point of the thread Jon. make people fight.

[SirGarnet]

Make them fight? You can take an army they can't get away from. Or take one you like and let them fight in their own way, which may mean luring you forward or enveloping your flanks. How much of this problem is "come, let me kill you" syndrome?

Seriously, how often does the enemy army scurry around the table without seeking to engage?

If someone is going to simply dodge engagement (rather than subtly manoeuvring you into a position where they have an advantage or provoking you to a reckless attack), they want a draw, so take a draw, refuse to play them any further, or mock them loudly for their Fabian strategy, or all of the above, according to the case and the customs of the place. Why can't tournament directors take a hand?

[philqw78]

Why can't tournament directors take a hand?

Because they do not want to upset people and have less people come, but it works both ways. There are those that like a skirmish and those that like to get punched on the nose. Finding a happy medium would be good. Its just those that like a toe to toe rumble seem to be complaining the loudest at the moment.

[hazelbark]

Do 900 point events in the UK seem to change these dynamics? I would think:

1) LH nibblers; drlled MF, etc are faced with more stuff to catch and corner them.

[chubooga]

tbh Im not a fan of toe to toe game at all.........I prefer balanced games where both sides go for it using most phases of the game to develop a win........prefer to win, and would prefer my opponent to prefer to win as well. but no shame in loosing a good game.

Just dont find that fog provides a balanced game against anyone who plays to not lose first and to win second........ I guess its the games where I know I cannot win, simply because my opponent can just move forward for an hour, then move away for another couple of hrs eating the availlble time up.

Same for LH armies, I dont really give a jot for any claims of what they could or not do strategically or over a period of days / weeks or months IRL. I just care that we enjoy a fun game with challenge and preferably clear conclusion in 3hrs..... if the LH cannot shoot/manouver me to submission in that time then they should be forced to make a fight of it, the rules dont do this atm, the LH can do its thing, and if it doesnt work out then they can just slip around the table.

Same for 16+BG armies, unbalances the game IMHO, too hard to mop up the benny hillers in the last hr available.

As I suspect that I would face at least one of those armies, possibly two, at a tourney, then its not worth my time (and brownie points) to attend.