Field Fortifications and Pursuit

[Trajanius]

Question

It seems like battle groups that break an enemy in battle must pursue even if they are currently in field fortifications.

This seems a bit strange.

Would troops defending a fortified camp charge out from behind the walls even if doing so meant certain death? This rule makes me think about Cicero's camp, they successfully defended the walls of the camp, but did not pursue broken Gallic units that tried to disengage. It would play out quite differently using FoG

Has this been discussed before? am hoping I just missed a section in the rule book, but if not, is there some historical justification for this rule?

Thanks,

Matt

[david53]

Question

It seems like battle groups that break an enemy in battle must pursue even if they are currently in field fortifications.

This seems a bit strange.

Would troops defending a fortified camp charge out from behind the walls even if doing so meant certain death? This rule makes me think about Cicero's camp, they successfully defended the walls of the camp, but did not pursue broken Gallic units that tried to disengage. It would play out quite differently using FoG

Has this been discussed before? am hoping I just missed a section in the rule book, but if not, is there some historical justification for this rule?

Thanks,

Matt

How many times in history have troops left a defended location because they have broken/seemed to have broken the troops to their front only to be run down later. I'll give on easy example 1066 the english wing charged off the hill sure others have others. Troops once they have the bloodlust training/orders goes out the window.

[Trajanius]

How many times in history have troops left a defended location because they have broken/seemed to have broken the troops to their front only to be run down later. I'll give on easy example 1066 the english wing charged off the hill sure others have others. Troops once they have the bloodlust training/orders goes out the window.

I'm not denying that troops have left a position, but are you going to say that troops will always abandon a safe ground because they've gained the upper hand on their opponent?

Shouldn't there at least be a test to restrain yourself?

[david53]

<q>How many times in history have troops left a defended location because they have broken/seemed to have broken the troops to their front only to be run down later. I'll give on easy example 1066 the english wing charged off the hill sure others have others. Troops once they have the bloodlust training/orders goes out the window.</q>

I'm not denying that troops have left a position, but are you going to say that troops will always abandon a safe ground because they've gained the upper hand on their opponent?

Shouldn't there at least be a test to restrain yourself?

There is if foot are fighting and have beaten mounted in which the foot do not have to pursue defeated enemy mounted

[Trajanius]

There is if foot are fighting and have beaten mounted in which the foot do not have to pursue defeated enemy mounted

I am aware of this rule. But this is not what I am talking about.


Here's my point: Shouldn't troops have a chance to restrain themselves when defending a pre-set position like a fortified camp or a walled city?

Seems like an oversight to not have a rule to cover this.


Matt

[philqw78]

The answer is not to defend your temporary fortifications with shock foot. Non-shock can test not to pursue, or indeed may need to test to pursue. If you put troops that are expected to charge, due to their nature, behind temporary fortifications they are likely to sally out.

Walled cities and permanent fortifications are not within the remit of the rules. Fortified camps do not contain troops that can sally out anyway.

[Trajanius]

The answer is not to defend your temporary fortifications with shock foot. Non-shock can test not to pursue, or indeed may need to test to pursue. If you put troops that are expected to charge, due to their nature, behind temporary fortifications they are likely to sally out.

Not the answer I was looking for,but the next statement has promise.

I guess the rules are not clear what Field Fortifications are supposed to represent. In my mind I just assumed they were something equivalent to the legions daily marching camp.

What do field fortifications represent?

Walled cities and permanent fortifications are not within the remit of the rules. Fortified camps do not contain troops that can sally out anyway.

We've used the FoG rules to simulate camp engagements which turned out to be enjoyable, but it seems as if that is not how they were intended to be used.

[fgilson]

Temporary Field Fortifications are intended to represent things like Stakes (sharpened wooden sticks, naughty end pointing towards enemy), Emplaced Chains, makeshift barriers (overturned carts, etc.) Something that a body of troops could carry with them and set up quickly in front of their body to slow or damage attacking enemy.

[philqw78]

I guess the rules are not clear what Field Fortifications are supposed to represent. In my mind I just assumed they were something equivalent to the legions daily marching camp.

They aren't particularly clear. But the game is meant to represent field battles. Not sieges, even such as ceasars at Alesia. Since the fortifications there were practically permanent and the battle was certainly not decided in a day.
They were going to do some seige and campaign rules. But I thnk they are just busy jumping on the band wagon to make money at the moment. Or possibly write rules for freaky wargamers who play with soldiers that have gonnes.

What do field fortifications represent?

The sort of stuff you can knock up overnight to hide your artillery behind or block up an advance. The ancient equivalent of a slit trench. A fortified camp is again an overnight thing. Not a full on marching camp IMO. And they do not contain fighting troops they are just harder to loot.

We've used the FoG rules to simulate camp engagements which turned out to be enjoyable, but it seems as if that is not how they were intended to be used.

Not really. For more permanent fortifications and sieges you would need to add some of your own rules.

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/forum/viewt ... e57c6a4887

is a past thread with a lot of stuff on it.

[Trajanius]

Temporary Field Fortifications are intended to represent things like Stakes (sharpened wooden sticks, naughty end pointing towards enemy), Emplaced Chains, makeshift barriers (overturned carts, etc.) Something that a body of troops could carry with them and set up quickly in front of their body to slow or damage attacking enemy.

Aren't stakes portable defenses? Longbowmen's stakes?

[fgilson]

Sorry...yes, Stakes are portable defenses...Temporary Fortifications would be a 'next step' of a set of immobile but short term constructions. If you had time to build a Ditch and Line it with stakes, mounding the earth atop your side...that would be a Temporary Field Fortifications.

Just the stakes themselves, carried by the unit, would be Portable Obstacles.

[nikgaukroger]

Temporary Field Fortifications are intended to represent things like Stakes (sharpened wooden sticks, naughty end pointing towards enemy), Emplaced Chains, makeshift barriers (overturned carts, etc.) Something that a body of troops could carry with them and set up quickly in front of their body to slow or damage attacking enemy.

Aren't stakes portable defenses? Longbowmen's stakes?

Indeed they are.

Field Fortifications are those things that cannot be moved in the context of a battle - I think "fgilson" has got a bit mixed up somewhere

[philqw78]

Aren't stakes portable defenses? Longbowmen's stakes?

Yes. They do not give cover to missiles. And can be set up in minutes.

But the Romans had the same sort of thing. They, IIRC, all carried a stake. But they lashed theirs together and dug a ditch in front of them to make their 'walled' camp. If they stayed longer they would start chopping down the forest or unpack the prefab fort.