Winning Games and Moving Heavy Infantry.

[deadtorius]

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.

Too true, I believe it is the cost of the hex based system, but it is what we have and so we try to make it work.

[claymore58]

Just had an idea. After playing a game of medieval total war 2, I found that the grouping of units was very simple. It allows the player to group troops together and gets them into a reasonable formation quickly. I usually group them into left & right flanks, a centre and a reserve. This could be applied to FoG. Each formation must be commanded by a general. The formation gets a bonus of some sort to make it worth-while (+1 movement and/or combat bonus). The formation must move together until 1 or more units engage in combat (these effectively means that the formation combat bonus only lasts one turn). Having this simple grouping function (with some sort of auto-formation) would make the large BG games easier to play. Potentially something that could be coded into the current FoG rules?

[Blathergut]

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.

Too true, I believe it is the cost of the hex based system, but it is what we have and so we try to make it work.

Iwould think so. It's a nice idea to imagine grouping 8 pike BGs together and moving them as one, but it's probably an impossibility!

[TheGrayMouser]

Just had an idea. After playing a game of medieval total war 2, I found that the grouping of units was very simple. It allows the player to group troops together and gets them into a reasonable formation quickly. I usually group them into left & right flanks, a centre and a reserve. This could be applied to FoG. Each formation must be commanded by a general. The formation gets a bonus of some sort to make it worth-while (+1 movement and/or combat bonus). The formation must move together until 1 or more units engage in combat (these effectively means that the formation combat bonus only lasts one turn). Having this simple grouping function (with some sort of auto-formation) would make the large BG games easier to play. Potentially something that could be coded into the current FoG rules?

Have you ever tried to pay those games wiith Commander View only, and reduce the HUD (no minimap or unit cards)??
Makes the tactical battles almost impossible sometimes vs the AI

[Morbio]

Just had an idea. After playing a game of medieval total war 2, I found that the grouping of units was very simple. It allows the player to group troops together and gets them into a reasonable formation quickly. I usually group them into left & right flanks, a centre and a reserve. This could be applied to FoG. Each formation must be commanded by a general. The formation gets a bonus of some sort to make it worth-while (+1 movement and/or combat bonus). The formation must move together until 1 or more units engage in combat (these effectively means that the formation combat bonus only lasts one turn). Having this simple grouping function (with some sort of auto-formation) would make the large BG games easier to play. Potentially something that could be coded into the current FoG rules?

Have you ever tried to pay those games wiith Commander View only, and reduce the HUD (no minimap or unit cards)??
Makes the tactical battles almost impossible sometimes vs the AI

I can imagine that that would be close to realism! Probably the only way to get more realism is if you toggled on the minimap and unit cards for say 5 seconds every minute. that would probably simulate some information you are receiving from scouts, aide-de-camps, other officers etc. You'd be getting the feel for how a unit is holding up, and roughly where it is, without all the detail. I know when I used to play it, I'd pause the battle every 10-20 secs to allow me to digest what was going on and send reinforcements etc.

[claymore58]

No, I haven't. But I am intrigued. I'll give it a go this weekend. Thanks for the advise. Actually, I enjoy playing Rome Total War with the EB mod: http://www.europabarbarorum.com/

Give it a go if you haven't already.

[TheGrayMouser]

No, I haven't. But I am intrigued. I'll give it a go this weekend. Thanks for the advise. Actually, I enjoy playing Rome Total War with the EB mod: http://www.europabarbarorum.com/

Give it a go if you haven't already.

I never tried that one, I was always more into the BI mods (ie Late Roman empire)
Unfortunaley I had to uninstall most of my TW games as I literally was running out of hard drive space, I kep Medieval TW 2 as the thought of some day needing to reinstall over 14 gigs of game and mods makes my head cringe.

I am currently try to figure out a way to incorporate FOG SoA tactical battles , somehow, into the campaign game of Med TW2 .. I think by clever use of switching back and forth with hot seat play mode/ ai control for the majority of the factions and judicious use of the save as function and reloads I can devise something...

[Lysimachos]

Just had an idea. After playing a game of medieval total war 2, I found that the grouping of units was very simple. It allows the player to group troops together and gets them into a reasonable formation quickly. I usually group them into left & right flanks, a centre and a reserve. This could be applied to FoG. Each formation must be commanded by a general. The formation gets a bonus of some sort to make it worth-while (+1 movement and/or combat bonus). The formation must move together until 1 or more units engage in combat (these effectively means that the formation combat bonus only lasts one turn). Having this simple grouping function (with some sort of auto-formation) would make the large BG games easier to play. Potentially something that could be coded into the current FoG rules?

The idea of Claymore is simple and seems quite easy to port it into the FoG PC system without altering its basic fittings but giving a more historical flavour to the game.
In fact the ancient battlefields were ruled by the principle of the "line" and the troops tended to form up in sucha manner just in order to gain mutual protection, help and a strong psychological sense of moral support.

Also another old game, the "Great Battles of Alexander, Hannibal and Ceasar" (by I-Magic), used this function, giving the player the chance to make a single "group move" (movement, attack, restore cohesion), where all the units acted as a whole, or to move individually his units.
This could be the answer to the actual painful lack of a "line system" in the game.

[Scutarii]

The classic crtl+number to form a group, select one, move it but really the group move at the same time. For example i form minigroups of 3 HF units + 1 or 2 LF for move purpouse and can do it at the same time could be great but are a little problem, LF, if you move then at the same time only can shoot one of the units, after move a LF unit you can shoot (same for other fire units) but if you select other unit before shoot and then return to fire unit cant shoot is like you miss the shoot.

I think that the first step is form groups, second is add some rol for commanders in the groups, maybe troops commanders can command... x units, field 2x and superior 3x

[TheGrayMouser]

well, with GboH series of games, each leader had only x amount of command points (or called something similar) You could either use the "line command" to move all troops in his command radii (and give no further orderes) at once, or you could move units individually, one per command point... Problem is each leader only had 2-4 points , in general, but usually had many more troops in command radii
It certainly made the game , uhh, more "relasitic" in the sense that you couldnt micro manage all your troopies, but often the pathfinding for the group move was less than stellar....

How would a line xommand work in FOG, considering your opponenet will have all kinds of LF in front of your line... You give the line move fowrd 2 hexes order and what will happen? The progam has to roll for chasing after evaders (and is a variable distance) and your battle line might become really really messy.....
No against some change to the commnd structure/line move, just not sure how it would work in practice

[Lysimachos]

The suggestion is just a "ballon d'essai" and it should be surely refined.
But, at the moment, it doesn't seem to me that difficulties in pathfinding for a goup move should be seen as something negative, but in case as one of the tactical problem that a general has to solve when leading his men on the battlefield.
On the other hand, moreover, the problem of chasing evading units could be easily be solved by ruling out this chance for units moving as one "battle group".
A rather historical solution, in my opinion, given that it was really unusual for single HF or MF units deployed in a line to surge forward in order to chase evading LF.

[mceochaidh]

At this risk of repeating myself, working within the existing structure of FOG, I think the following system would be possible:

1) Create a new commander (called unit commander) with a command radius of 2.
2) Group 3 to 5 BGs under his command - each HI or MI BG must be grouped under such a commander. Grouped BGs should be of the same type; Superior pike BGs should be grouped with other superior pike BGs.
3) Cost of this new commander is 10 points
4) BGs which start the turn in command radius may move normally.
5) BGs which start the turn out of command radius must either remain in their present position or move to get back into command radius. In other words, out of command HI or MI BGs would not be able to continue to move farther out of command radius.
6) BGs in such a group which come into charge distance of enemy would be allowed to charge. Once enemy were out of charge radius, the above rules would then apply again.
7) The new unit commander would be assigned to a BG just as any commander is. If the BG routs, the unit commander's "Flag" is automatically moved to the nearest remaining BG of the unit. Unit commanders would not be subject to combat casaulty as would normal commanders.
If a unit commander is in command range of a higher commander, then his BGs would receive normal movement and command bonuses. Thus, this would be a two tiered system of command.
9) I would increase command radius of a troop comander to 3 hexes.

I believe this system would not require any major changes to FOG, while imposing more realism on HI and MI movement. It would stiill allow individual BG movement, subject to the new restrictions and would not change LI, or mounted troops.

[deeter]

I too would like to see more emphasis on units larger than individual BGs and agree with many of the suggestions above. I don't like seeing superior pike intermixed with average pikes, for example. They should move and fight as they did -- as a single unit. However, I don't agree with buying lower grade officers. They should be free and mandatory with no other purpose than to denote the center of a unit. The concept should, I believe, also be applied to mounted and skirmishers -- just give them a wider command radius so they can operate in looser formations.

Deeter

[Lysimachos]

The point of deeter is also mine.

Although the proposal of mceochaidh looks really impressive, it also seems to be a bit much complicated and quite difficult to manage, while a similar result could, in my humble opinion, be reached in a faster way with the simple grouping function envisaged by Claymore.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, the thing is though, the simple grouping in the TW games was really just to make it easier for a player to move (and grab) 20 units easier in a fast paced real time environment, it really didnt do anything to portray a command and control structure or anything like that (although i think units next to eachother provided some type of moral boost, that was accomplished whether or not they were a group or indvidually controlled) Bascially , if you were a fast enough clicker, you didnt need to have units in a goup at all!

I personally dont like the idea that units cant move because they are out of range of an artifical command structure. Epecially now where it appears to have been formally awknowledged that a hex is aprox 50 yards across.. a unit cant move because its 200 yards from it fellows in a battle line?

Also, having units forced to be the exact same type would be very problematic in lists that have decent heavies but that are mult types, especially the medieval lists with def spears, offensive spears, heavy wepons guys some pikes etc . Also even some of the ROR pike armies have 3 or 4 types of heavy infantry that wouldnt be able to coordinate or benefit from being grouped together ..

Hmm there has to be a way of having some type of line or "phalanx" structure that doesnt drastically alter the basics of the game....

[kujalar]

If you are looking for a turn based hex game which uses command and control mechanism, you should check out how the Steel Panthers III did it. I think the same kind of a system could work with FOG also.

If you do not know the game I can make a very quick brief. Every leader has command rating. Every unit can be assigned a target. Moving towards target does not cost command rating. Moving away from the target or changing the target does.

[TheGrayMouser]

If you are looking for a turn based hex game which uses command and control mechanism, you should check out how the Steel Panthers III did it. I think the same kind of a system could work with FOG also.

If you do not know the game I can make a very quick brief. Every leader has command rating. Every unit can be assigned a target. Moving towards target does not cost command rating. Moving away from the target or changing the target does.

Ahh, i forgot all about how CnC worked in Steel Panthers 3
Something like that could work, methinks......

[mceochaidh]

To the Grey Mouser's point on combining different types in a unit, I think this could be designated in the army lists, if historically accurate. For example Swiss pikes could be combined with halberds. Both are HI. I think combining LI with Hi, for example, would be more problematic and create unforseen consequences due to evading and the generally different role LI played.

Relating to BGs not being able to move, I was trying to envision a cimcumstance whereby a BG may be ordered to stay put to block a gap, but if it did want to move, it should move closer to its commander, not away. It could always be allowed to change facing. A 200 yard gap in a line, in my opinion, would not be readily allowed by a unit commander. Even tribal type undrilled troops would not likely go charging off completely without support and would tend to congregate around their tribal leader.

If a BG starts a turn in the command radius, it could move in any direction. The limitation would only be if the BG starts the turn out of command radius. If it is in the command radius of a higher commander, it could also move as it wishes, simulating the "taking over" of a BG by that higher commander.

As regards paying for these new "unit commanders", because I would give players flexibilty to choose how many BGs to be in a "unit", I think this should have some cost. Otherwise, a player could choose 25 unit commanders, defeating the purpose of the command structure. From a practical standpoint , most would choose 4 or 5 Bgs per unit, because of the 2 hex command range.

I believe these changes would generally make the need for commanders of all types more necessary and reduce or eliminate the un-historical use of the commanderless armies I have read about in the forum. It would also compel players to be very careful where commanders are placed during battle.