Winning Games and Moving Heavy Infantry.

[mceochaidh]

As I understand it, each BG counts the same for winning or losing. I think, at the very least, LI BGs should count less or elite or superior heavy infantry and cav BGs should count more. Generals should also count more. However, generals counting more should be coupled with making generals more useful. Generals should be necessary to allow additional or more complex movement such as changing direction. Alignment and facing were critical factors.

Individual sub units which FOG calls BGs did not typically go charging off by themselves. Manipular Romans may have been an exception due to superior command structure but the great majority of armies moved in long lines and took pains to maintain alignment. Take a look at the Gaugamela battle scene of (the otherwise dismal) movie Alexander. Note the very long lines facing each other. Imagine each sub-unit wheeling on its own. It would be chaos. This is why I have always believed in a unit structure. For heavy foot BGs, a unit would be 3 or 4 BGs. The unit would move together and then, once an individual BG of the unit was in contact, then all of the BGs of a unit would fight individually. If enemy routs from one BG and other BGs of the unit were still in contact with other enemy, then the BG routing enemy would not pursue, but would remain and help the remaining BGs of the unit. This would help with the issue raised regading holding a line.

Wheeling a long line of troops is a slow process. I have commanded troops marching on parade ground. It is difficult under the best of conditions to maintain alignment while wheeling. To wheel properly, one edge of the formastion remains in place and the far edge pivots while maintaing alignment. Wheeling should take longer than moving straight. Even a battle group of 300 if the typical 8 ranks deep would be about 40 files wide, so the unit would be about 40 meters wide and 8 meters deep, assuming a man occupies a square meter. I think the following would be about right for close order foot:

Close infantry moving straight ahead in command radius - 3 hexes
Drilled Close infantry wheeling in command radius - 2 hexes - wheel and move 2 hexes.
Drilled Close infantry not in command radius and undrilled in command radius - 1 hex - wheel and move 1 hex.
All other close infantry wheels - can turn but not move.

Wheels that end in contact with enemy would not count as impact or charge unless they move at least 1 hex striaght ahead. No bonus for impact. Same would apply to impact cavalry.

Thanks for any comments

[TheGrayMouser]

The bg's being equal regardles of type and quality has been covered before, i think the synopsis (which i agree with) was that it prevents players from using hypothitical low end BP units as cannon fodder and or in unhistorical ways. Each man has value if only to himself and just because you, as the player, want to place a slinger into a a forlorn hope situation (because in game terms the unit has little value) doesnt mean the troops will obey...

Definately you have some valid points about formations and individual battle groups acting indivually and (because it is a turn based game) in the best optimised order only a player can have (but never a real life commander)

I guess a key ? is how are these formations to be implemented, especially considering the open ended nature of creating your own lists for the dag.... How many formations should an army get? Should it be list based or tied to the AP size of the army? Should units part of a formation need be of the same type? Quality?


I suppose you could tie it to the commanders (which would add xtra value to taking more leaders), for example an inspired CnC would allow say 4 formations, a field CnC 3, sub commanders of fleld quality maybe 2. That way , if you were fielding a mono type army like early Greeks you could get away with a field commander CnC and no other leaders and your army would be limited to basically moving three formations of troops foward at the enemy (which is likly two too many for most hoplite vs hoplite battles )
Armies that require a lot more finesse would of course require more leaders to get more formations and thus tactical flexibility.

I think a lot of players would like to see some sort of formations added to the game but it probobly is a really hard thing to balance in terms of realism vs playability

[Blathergut]

I don't think commanders in ancient battles had any sort of affect as described above. Those officers are down at a much lower level. Once the battle began, there was almost no control, except for reserve units perhaps.

[TheGrayMouser]

I don't think commanders in ancient battles had any sort of affect as described above. Those officers are down at a much lower level. Once the battle began, there was almost no control, except for reserve units perhaps.

Uh, why not? Even medieval armies organized in 2-3 "battles" Anyways, I think the point was to have individual Bg's need to operate in formations rather that commando style.... My point was if you are going to have formations, you need to decide how many.....

[Blathergut]

Take a Roman battle for example.

Once the first line was ordered to advance, and impact/contact made, there would no longer be any sort of command control capability. You could control second line units until the point of impact/contact was made. But the idea that a commander on a horse could control those troops once fighting started is false.

I do like the idea of units operating within command for movement. That is how the TT game works and was lost in the pC version with hexes and all the individual units. It's too bad that 4 or 5 units can't be grouped together and move as one battle line like in the TT version.

[TheGrayMouser]

Take a Roman battle for example.

Once the first line was ordered to advance, and impact/contact made, there would no longer be any sort of command control capability. You could control second line units until the point of impact/contact was made. But the idea that a commander on a horse could control those troops once fighting started is false.

I do like the idea of units operating within command for movement. That is how the TT game works and was lost in the pC version with hexes and all the individual units. It's too bad that 4 or 5 units can't be grouped together and move as one battle line like in the TT version.

Well I agree with you, but dont know how it is relavent to the concept of moving bgs in formations as opposed to commando style????

As it is now a 50 BP army has 50 independent "borg" sub commanders moving each of his units according to the master plan.... Having formations, and a way to determine how many formations would be needed, would reduce the # of unrealistic independant actions to maybe 1/2 a dozen or so....

I dont think anyone is suggesting that BG's or formations can break off from combat, I guess I dont understand your ist sentance I quoted..... The TT game gives you a true BG , ie a formation with sub units it and in an 800 ap army , what is that, 12-16 tops maneuver elements? To me that is way too many "formations" for a commander to control, but it works for game purposes...

How many formations did a typical hoplite commander have realistically: 1! , the phalanx... William at Hastings: 3 , maybe 4 ..... Hannibal at Zama you could argue maybe 5? 3 lines of infantry and one flank formation of cavalry

[Blathergut]

I get you. (Welcome back to the land of FoG. Hope you didn't go through too many bubblettes on vacation! )

It's maybe a matter of game design. If players only had 3 things to control, it wouldn't be much of a game. FoG TT made this anywhere from 10-15 say for a nice sized battle with their BattleGroups. This shrinks to a few with the BattleLines. So it ends up giving a very good feel of an ancient battle. Ony controlling 3 would drastically reduce that "feel." The problem, if you see it as a problem, in FoG PC, is this turned, as you say, into 50! It lost that feel that the TT version captures so well.

Am hoping that FoG R (have my first unit of pikes/shot almost painted!) keeps that same feel. Am looking forward to it.

[TheGrayMouser]

I get you. (Welcome back to the land of FoG. Hope you didn't go through too many bubblettes on vacation! )

It's maybe a matter of game design. If players only had 3 things to control, it wouldn't be much of a game. FoG TT made this anywhere from 10-15 say for a nice sized battle with their BattleGroups. This shrinks to a few with the BattleLines. So it ends up giving a very good feel of an ancient battle. Ony controlling 3 would drastically reduce that "feel." The problem, if you see it as a problem, in FoG PC, is this turned, as you say, into 50! It lost that feel that the TT version captures so well.

Am hoping that FoG R (have my first unit of pikes/shot almost painted!) keeps that same feel. Am looking forward to it.

Thanks, I had fun (family fun, no bubblettes)

I do agree controlling a realistic # of formations ie 3, 5 or one would not be much fun, which is why i theoretically came up with the idea of tying # of formations to your commanders and leaders purchased ....

What Ren. army are you painting BTW?

[Blathergut]

Oh...English Civil War Parliamentarians. If I get tired of red coats I'll paint a couple units up with other coloured jackets and be early as opposed to New Model.

Deadtorius mumbled something about great-great-great-great-great-great-great (or so) grandfather being put to death for being a Royalist so he wants revenge!

It may eventually become some sort of German thing, but will have to wait for the rules and the army lists to see. At least this gets me painting and we'll have enough stuff to atleast work through the rules and see how they play once they come out.

[TheGrayMouser]

Oh...English Civil War Parliamentarians. If I get tired of red coats I'll paint a couple units up with other coloured jackets and be early as opposed to New Model.

Deadtorius mumbled something about great-great-great-great-great-great-great (or so) grandfather being put to death for being a Royalist so he wants revenge!

It may eventually become some sort of German thing, but will have to wait for the rules and the army lists to see. At least this gets me painting and we'll have enough stuff to atleast work through the rules and see how they play once they come out.

Well , there nothing like carrying on a blood feud over almost 4 centuries

I always thought Tilly's army was quite interesting, the Tercios, irregular Croats and the pistol toting Cuiriassiers

[mceochaidh]

Using Arrian's account of Gaugamela (as summarized in the Osprey account of Alexander's campaings) is instructive. Here I am focusing only on Macedonian movements:

1) Alexander led Companion Cav obliquely in column while infantry advanced in line of battle. Alexander effectively commanded the right wing.
2) Menidas, with Merc Cav, on Alexander's orders, tried to break thru Persian left. Thus Alexander effectively commanded this unit thru Menidas.
3) After Menidas was repulsed, Aretas attacked the Bactrians and Scythians. It seems that Alexander effectively controlled Aretas as well.
4) Aretas opened a gap. The Companions attacked in successive waves, breaking thru and scattering the enemy. Darius had launched a chariot attack that had been repulsed by Macedonian light troops and Hypaspists near Macedonian right centre. Then Darius dispatched Persian cav from his centre to block Alexander's constant move to Persian left. The Osprey account states "This left a gap in the centre, a fatal weak point, and it no doubt presented the opportunity for which Alexander had been watching - perhaps the false move he had sought to provoke. At once he changed direction and galloped leftwards. Converging with the right hand unit of his own infantry line, he then led them into the gap...very soon the Macedonian pikemen were following up." Alexander so effectively controlled the Companians that the units changed direction "At Once" on Alexander's order.

On the Madeconian left, Parmenio had been hard pressed. He effectively controlled the Thessalians, Allied cavalry, Thracian cav and some light troops. In the centre, Craterus effectively controlled 6 units of the phalanx. During the battle, the left-most phalanx unit was moved to help Parmenio and the right-most unit moved to support Alexander's change of direction.

It is clear to me that command and control was important and used by the best drilled and disciplined troops. In this battle there were three Macedonian "commands", right, centre and left. The units in these commands were closely controlled during the battle by their commanders. I think something should be done in FOG to give troops in command radius more abilities than they currently have or reduce movement capbilities for units not in command radius.

[Morbio]

At the risk of being a naysayer....

If the game becomes reduced to 3 or 4 units to control, then the role of the player becomes fairly redundant quite soon because once these 3 units are engaged then there is nothing left to do but watch.

Now, this may be fine for all those that want to re-enact historical battles, or simulate new variations of them, but for people like myself, that want to play a game broadly based on ancient armies that allows some freedom and tactical manoeuvring then this would be a real turn off.

I like FoG as it is, there are some quirky issues and rough edges in a few places, but later versions of the game are refining it and making it better (IMO).

So, whilst I understand and appreciate the points being made about the unhistorical movement, etc. I really do hope these aren't built into the game.

[TheGrayMouser]

Dont get me wrong, i am not suggesting only having 3-4 formations to control would be the place to bring the game, just discourse on what was likly realistic vs what COULD be done.... If some sort of formation based movement/control was ever added, i think one prime decisions to be made was how many formations...
In the TT (I am guessing) there is maybe 16-20? Of course if you have a 40 BP army in the PC game having 20 formations would be quite pointless.... Maybe any kind of formation idea is really not altogether feasible in a hex based game?

[deeter]

My 800 pt. TT Seleucid army fields 12-14 Bgs depending on the configuration. At 20 BG army would be comparable to the 60 BG hordes on the PC.

Deeter

[pantherboy]

I feel the physical joining of units would firstly change all the coding for the game to such an extent that it wouldn't be feasible to continue with FOG PC and it would be recreated as FOG PC II. But what we can do is look at in game mechanics that can encourage said behaviour so as not to trample on players ability to play as they feel though provide benefits to those willing to use historical tactics. For example incorporate the CMT system for maneuvers so that if you change directin within a certain range of enemy units then it requires a test otherwise you flounder and don't move (as anarchy exists that will already have been tested for as their was a chargeable enemy in range for those shock troops). Have a penalty system added for unsupported flanks. If either flank is unsupported you recieve a -1 on morale/maneuver tests if both then -2. If both flanks are supported by identical troop types then you recieve a +1 (this would discourage checkerboard style deployment and encourage formations, though BG level is still capable of independant movement, as it won't be until over a thosand years later for such tactics). Obviously being within command radius will make a big influence for maneuvering but this radius should not exert through enemy bodies e.g. to the otherside of the enemy line.

I think making such simple modifications would result in a far more enjoyable game though what I propse are only musings rather than hard and fast changes I'd like to see.

[cothyso]

pantherboy, it is like you were reading from the game I've designed and started coding

[MasterChief81]

I think Pantherboy is really on to something here!! I am excited about his ideas and think it would draw this incredible game system closer to historical reality but still providing commanders maximum capabilities to adjust to circumstances and exercise micro control of BG’s.

Of course you would need to relook anarchy to! I think history would testify that it would be EXTREMELY rare for a hoplite, phalanx, or legionary BG to break line and go charging after the bad guys! Always a possibility but should be very, very rare, especially if they are drilled and adjacent to commanders. Some of the other nationalities such as Gaul’s’, Germans, Scots, etc should retain the current anarchy tendencies

[mceochaidh]

Like Pantherboy, I have been thinking about changes that would encourage historical behaviour without alterning the basic structure of the game. I like the ideas he has put forth. My goal would be to focus on the main battleline of heavy and medium troops, to make changes that would discourage the un-historical use of these troops. I would leave mounted and light troops alone for now.

I would add a new leader type, called unit commander to command HI and MI. He would be visually depicted by some sort of different flag than a general would have. The unit commander would have a command radius of 2 hexes. The unit commander must be in an infantry unit and he could only control like infantry units. For example, a unit commander of superior HI pikes could only influence superior HI pikes. I would propse that each 3 to 5 BGs of heavy or medium foot must have a unit commander. I would propose a cost of 10 (same for allies). If a BG becomes separated from command radius, its movement capabilities would be limited to moving back into its unit command radius, unless within charge range of enemy or being charged by enemy. This would eliminate the common occurence of a HI BG moving off by itself and the main battle line would have a need to stay together and mutually support its units. This change can be handled in the army lists by automatically adding the unit leader when at least 3 BG's of a type are added. Once more than 5 are added, a new unit commander would be added. If less than 3 of a type are chosen, no commander would be required and these would be treated like light troops for command purposes. I am thinking here of peltast type MI (what we used to call LMI) to be used as flank protection similar to LI. Even tribal troops had tribal leaders that acted in a similar fashion, with these HI and MI types still maintaining close support for each other, with some exceptions.

I am really trying to create the look and feel of the main battle lines as they surge towards each other. I believe a typical army would have 4 or 5 infantry "units" composed of 12 to 20 BG's and the additional BGs of light and mounted troops that would still operate as they do now under the rules.

Since this unit commander represents the command structure of the unit, I would not allow him to be KIA. If the command BG routs, then his flag would be moved to the next closest unit. The goal here is to keep the unit together, as this is what would normally happen in battle. If the unit commander's BG is in command radius of a general, then all of his unit's BGs that are in his command radius would also be in command radius.

I would raise command radius of troop commander to 3 hexes and leave the others as is. I would consider lowering the cost of each type of general. If people are not using generals in competitive battles, then they probably cost too much or do too little!

I would combine this idea with Pantherboy's fine suggestions.

[deadtorius]

The biggest problem is your talking about the playing style of individual players not so much the game system. A recent game I had, Selucids vs Macedonian, we had a pike friendly map and both of us formed up in line and just went straight at each other. It turned out to be one of the best games I have had since FOG PC launched. We both ended up using historical tactics, my advantage came from offsetting my line to overlap his right and use my Cav to chew them up and then loop around his rear, which worked but his rear was full of routers and I could not fall on his pikes as I had planned quite as quickly as I would have liked. At the end of the battle we were both pretty much in lines still, he had collapsed my right and had bent his line as he reformed for an attack on my flank and rear, but we did not end up with a mess of stuff all over the map.
Some players like to dance about the map, move up shoot you with bows you move up they run off and shoot you again and keep running. You stop or back off from the ugly terrain they sortie out and shoot you again then run off if you around to face them again. Not how it appears to have happened but that is what wins games for them.
If you give players an ability, in this case mass moves and free turns galore, then they will use it to the max if they so choose. That is the major difference between TT play and PC play, on the TT you form lines and your armies tend to stay in such formations for the whole game.
As for your attempts at micro managing battle field control, I don't think it existed at the level you are all talking about. Even Alexander did not have micro control as stated above. If you look at his battles he used the same generals and units in the same roll in all his battles. His cav on the left was to pin the Persian left. His center would advance often on an angle forcing the Persians to move to align to him and cause the break in their line he sought so he could lead the companions into the gap and victory every time. Pretty much the same thing in all his Persian battles, and those orders were issued before the fighting started and he knew he could trust his generals to do their jobs. It was a well oiled machine that perfected its fighting style and repeated it, not sudden battlefield decisions that Alexander made and issued on the spot as it happened.

[mceochaidh]

deadtorius' description of his recent pike battle, in a way, proves my point. The players used historical tactics and the game was fun as well. The army type used combined with terrain should dictate tactics. Parthians will tend to dance and use finesse. Macedonian pike units could not dance and were not designed to move without support. If they were caught without support, they were decimated. Pike units were designed in files facing to the front. If they were hit in flank, they really could not turn as file leaders were in the front rank, not in subsequent ranks, not to mention that the whole tactical design of any phalanx is to have multiple spear points facing forward. To change direction, it would have to wheel! There was no left face to change direction, though it was possible to form a hollow square, if given the time to do it.

I am suggesting only changes to HI main battle lines, not to cav or lights. Perhaps it would be better to really penalise especially pikes and spear HI for lack of support to encourage historical tactics. However, all HI would be affected. The game already has benefits for supporting BGs. I am suggesting, as Pantherboy did, that perhaps a greater penalty needs to be imposed.

As for Alexander's army, it was among the most highly trained of ancient times, with probably the best commanders. Witness how many of Alexander's commanders became army leaders after his death. I submit that in each battle, Alexander and his commanders had to make swift decisions and not all of his battles were exactly alike. The Hydaspes is an example. His troops were able to follow the commands he and his commanders gave and some of these commands took place during the heat of battle.

Having said that, I am actually trying to REDUCE the ability to micro-manage 50 or 60 BGs because I do not think that is historical. I recognize that any simulation of real life events requires compromise and that a game must first be playable. I also believe FOG is a great product with many accurate historical elements. I just believe that moving an individual pike BG off into the distance by itself is not one of the historical parts of the game.