Double move thoughts

[Xiggy]

Since double moves will be implemented in 1.2.7. I was wondering if you should be in command range of your general to use this ability. If a unit is out of command, I would think it should not be able to use double moves. That makes command range even more important. (You could make the generals/Subs be at least field level or greater to use the ability) Bad generals were known to negatively effect performance. Troops tend to not do anything unusual unless told to, so no general, no orders to double time. That is human nature.

[kujalar]

Well, I am very sceptical of this feature.

With only 1 light infantry you can slow down the whole army.

What about playing with Fog Of War? I guess the units you cannot see will halt your army also.

I would like to see this double move to convert to the forced march option which would not stop you closing the enemy. It would make the unit more vulnerable though if you would hit the enemy, or the enemy would attack the turn after your forced march. And you would propably need command radius to initiate forced march.

[Xiggy]

I agree. Possible cohesion loss when you force march, since there is no fatigue in the rules set.

[deadtorius]

Don't get all worried about double moves. It is in the TT rules and it only allows you to move up your line faster so you get into the thick of the fighting sooner. You can't double move if you are too close to the enemy, and if like the TT rules if you get too close you can't use the full double move distance. You are not going to see armies double move into each other, unless for some reason it is not like the TT rules, which since I have games running and I have open games I won't be doing the beta thing so haven't seen it in action so far so not sure exactly how it will be working.

Throwing in extra cohesion loss just for moving etc is not going to improve the game in any way.

[Xiggy]

The the PC version of FOG the maps are much larger than a table top. Double Moves are going to have a much larger impact than the table top.

[deadtorius]

Just means we get to mix it up sooner thats all

[76mm]

It is in the TT rules and it only allows you to move up your line faster so you get into the thick of the fighting sooner.

No one has ever explained why it is a good thing to get into the thick of the fighting sooner? The battles can hardly be described as slow-paced now. I also don't understand if this is intended to be "realistic" or just a mechanism to make the game play quicker? If it was intended to be realistic, I would think that you could double-move anytime you want, with a resulting hit to cohesion.

[jamespcrowley]

My take on this is that any BG intending to utilise double time should have to be in command range of a leader and should also have to take a cohesion test.

In other words it should be a calculated gamble on the part of the owning player, who has also had the foresight to keep his BGs in command range in the first place.

Anything other than this and I would not be happy to use it in any games that I play.

[76mm]

this might be one of the areas where the TT and PC rules should differ. In TT, you've got a bunch of people standing around a table, dinners getting cold, wives waiting, football games to watch--maybe it makes sense to speed up the game a bit with double moves.

In PBEM multiplayer the rationale or need for speeding up games goes away IMHO, although double moves could still be justified on realism grounds if it is indeed intended to represent "double time" movement, although so far it is not clear if this is the intended justification.

[MesaDon]

I enjoy the double moves. Getting to battle quicker is only one aspect. I like that I can pull back units from parts of the battlefield to regroup. I like the ability to move units to a beginning flanking position faster especially if you use fog of war to screeen these units. I disagree with the cohesion test but feel that a flanking column using double moves should have a commander with them for that benefit. As this is an option to use in the first place it should be a discuss more to the point of adjusting than eliminating as too frequently people attack something they don't like without concern for the enjoyment of others on ideas that would only be used with player agreement (I have also been guilty of that and regret it).

[Brigz]

Although I haven't played the latest beta, I think the double move addition sounds like a good idea. It was my understanding that this could only be done if you are more than five hexes from the enemy. Seems to me this would limit the use of double moves quite a bit. And it seems to me that it would be most useful for shifting troops from flank to flank behind the lines. It would also seem to be useful to shift commanders from one area to another.

For those that have played the new beta release, how exactly does this work? If you start to move a unit that is more than five hexes from an enemy unit, does it allow you to move the entire double move bonus once you get within five hexes or does it halt the friendly unit when you reach that five hex zone? In other words, can the double move only be used if the unit always remains more than five hexes from the enemy? I would hope the double move doesn't allow a charge to contact.

[MesaDon]

One interesting thing is that if you double move an archer unti to the 5 hex limit, while this is within range of his arrows, he can not shoot that turn.
A nice touch I think.

[Scutarii]

I dont test the beta but i dont like the "idea" of double move because FoG main problem isnt the speed (is a fast game, to fast for me) and the double move add more problems than beneficts, now flanking is like send your panzers to Paris, no fatige malus or some similar to limit the abuse of double move and i think in barbarians armies or armies based on numbers and in amounts of LF/MF taking your camp and attacking your back like if they use helicopters (in 1.2.7 take camp of MORE important in points number is a % of your army value!!! ) and dont talk about the use of LF as line breakers or STOP units... with more "ideas" like this i think that in tourneys we start to see tourney rules to prevent gamey situations.

The problem is add things like this in PC game... TT is a totall different game, if you want port TT port ALL FEATURES and dont use hexagons, i want see PC game evolution independet of TT becuase PC game has his own problems.

EDIT: well, i read about double move is optional, great, read about cavalry flanking your troops in turn 2 sounds

[MesaDon]

I dont test the beta but i dont like the "idea" of double move because FoG main problem isnt the speed (is a fast game, to fast for me) and the double move add more problems than beneficts, now flanking is like send your panzers to Paris, no fatige malus or some similar to limit the abuse of double move and i think in barbarians armies or armies based on numbers and in amounts of LF/MF taking your camp and attacking your back like if they use helicopters (in 1.2.7 take camp of MORE important in points number is a % of your army value!!! ) and dont talk about the use of LF as line breakers or STOP units... with more "ideas" like this i think that in tourneys we start to see tourney rules to prevent gamey situations.

The problem is add things like this in PC game... TT is a totall different game, if you want port TT port ALL FEATURES and dont use hexagons, i want see PC game evolution independet of TT becuase PC game has his own problems.

EDIT: well, i read about double move is optional, great, read about cavalry flanking your troops in turn 2 sounds

I highlighted the incredible exaggeration of the double moves you typed without actually using it. I ahve been in a number of games now with the use of double moves. It actually did not speed up the game much more then it is. The stop at five hexes does not allow the panzers to paris from happening.
And my quick flank moves have been slowed down by light units getting in the way. It really is much ado about nothing in most cases and remember it is an option so you don't have to use it.

[Scutarii]

Well, at the game scale and features double move is like panzers to Paris, cavalry dont run all the time, in movies is cool but in real life is impossible and dont have a fatige feature in the game leave units as robots with infinite power or zombies flank in the game is easy because the units that flank dont have extra fatigue or malus after move all the time at maximum speed.

I am curious to know the number of hex that a cavalry unit (heavy) can move with double move.... 8 or 7??? and dont talk about HF VS MF 4 vs 6??? to have this diference without double move you need 2 turns now with 1 is enough.

Dont worry i dont plan use this feature, find it unnecessary because games over turn 10 are very few unfortunately (over turn 10 i play the most funny games and not necessary winning them) because if i want speed i have quake dawn, in a wargame i want think and can change ideas dont search win or lose in 5 turns a game for me FoG need other improvements no more speed.

EDIT: for me this "a Cavalry army, after the double move he was all around me by about turn two" isnt funny because + army points % per take camp dont help in the search of battle.

[Morbio]

I'm reserving my full judgement until I get chance to try out double moves, both to use them and to have them used against me.

However, at this point, I'd like to understand the rationale for them... please don't quote 'because we have them in the TT game'. What is the historical, perceived or otherwise, rationale for having them in the game.

[CaptainHuge]

I don't know specifically for FoG but in most other games I have played the rationale for double moves comes from the fact that troops that are not in the vicinity of enemy troops move in much more open marching formations and only close up and order ranks when they are closer to the enemy and need to be ready for combat. I suppose even the "barbaric" armies would gather in closer ranks when they felt the fight was imminent. I would think this would be the historical rationale behind allowing formations to move faster, though a good portion of why it is implemented is probably to increase playability instead of strict realism.

[Xiggy]

I find it interesting that a few patches ago, something was done to cut down on the mobility of troops to increase realism. Now we are doing something to reverse a lot of that. I will defer judgment till I see it. But I find it interesting.

[76mm]

I don't know specifically for FoG but in most other games I have played the rationale for double moves comes from the fact that troops that are not in the vicinity of enemy troops move in much more open marching formations and only close up and order ranks when they are closer to the enemy and need to be ready for combat.

Agreed, if the intent is to simulate double-time marches, I would think that the double-timing troops would lose cohesion. and the fact that they will not lose cohesion in this game seems to indicate that the objective is to speed up game play, for reasons that I don't understand...

[MesaDon]

I hate to have to go to a different era but as I am more familiar with other eras in the American Civil war, Stonewall Jackson was able to win many battles with the quick movement of hie troops including on the battlefield. He referred to these troops as "foot calvary" and it was effective. the best example was he took his column and rapidly on foot out flanked Hooker and ATTACKED WITHOUT STOPPING TO REST. I would consider that Roman Legioneers were probably in better shape then Jackson's men to accomplish this. Oh and don't mention all they had to carry because each era the troops had a burden to carry. Once again if you don't like it then just forget using it and let others have thier fun.