Field of Glory Ancients version 2

[lionheartrjc]

Scythed chariots should not be able to provide rear support.

[olivier]

My suggestions about the game:

* Troops

- suppress HF and MF and replace them by Determined foot, average foot and reluctant foot. move may be 4, 3 and 2 MU respectively.
- Permit to some CV/LH to change formation by CMT. Too many nations (turks, skythians, mongols etc..) doesn't have a specifically LH and CV in their ranks.
- Undrilled cost to much as protected for the infantry.
- Infantry LS is too cheap or must be the same as cavalry one.
- LF poor are too cheap.
- Fortified camp cost too much as Bwg


Commanders

- Death of commanders oblige test in command radius
- FC have half the bonus of the IC
- After death of commander permit to roll a dice and at 5,6 he just fall from the horse, trip etc... and may reappear at the nearest BG in range.
- Death of a CinC must give a general -1 to CT has in ancient time you fight for the great man and not for a cause

Movement

- LH move at 6 MU, LF move at 4
- Move in terrain by formation: Foot with spear or Pk as HF today other foot as MF
- Pike make CMT as other Undrilled even if drilled
- clarify moving through friendly troops, specially with LF.
- no more teleport with interpenetrations
- Troops who evade can't bump on the side edge and count as straggling, if they quit the table on their edge, they must count as routed.

Impact phase

- you must make a CT after an evade move ( give you a -1 if your are already fragged as testing for more than 1 reason)


Manoeuvre phase

- You don't have to conform if this place the BG in flank or rear attack position

Combat mechanism

- Give a ++ at lancer charging or don't give a + for LS against charging Lancers
- Commander may quit front rank but at the cost of a CT with their bonus as malus.

BG deterioration

- don't give a +2 protection against artillery shooting

Victory and defeat

Give a +3 scoring point to major victory and +1 to moderate victory

Elephant and camel

- Give Bw capabilities on certain SE asian
- give a +1 POA for Indian elephant against African ones

Scythed chariot

- They cost too much

Appendix

- Insert the index you have on the site
- Put the setting on the last page
- the terrain placing sequence may follow geological one:
a) Relief
b) Water
c) Open area
d) Natural
e) Construction
f) human influence (road, fields)
- Permit terrains overlaps on"Relief" and touching "Water"

that's all for the moment !

I'm ready to sign a NDA to test any change with my friend Gilles

[lionheartrjc]

This suggestion isn't so much a specific change, but an aspect of the rules that needs more playability.

Essentially it is where "heavy" non-missile armed foot/mounted meet "light" faster moving evading missile troops. The most extreme example is heavy foot vs light horse. Essentially this is not very interesting from a playing perspective. The heavy troops are not likely to catch the light troops, the light troops might disrupt/fragment/break the heavy troops. Tactically the heavy troops probably want to keep charging the light troops (mainly to reduce the shooting effect) but unless the edge of the world gets in the way, they have no way of winning.

In reality at some point the light troops start running out of ammunition. Unless they have a means of resupply, they probably pack up and go home or have to charge in to break the enemy.

Elsewhere there has been the suggestion that evading troops should have to take a cohesion test. Dropping a level might be seen as running short of ammunition (and a general bolstering the equivalent of resupply). This obviously affects play balance but does introduce some interest into an otherwise uninteresting situation.

To balance the situation somewhat, perhaps light foot and 1 rank camelry or cavalry should have the option of shooting before they evade, light horse or light chariots a shot after the evade (the Parthian shot) if they are in range. All shots during the impact phase being at a - POA.

This change might also speed up games.

[lionheartrjc]

My suggestion for Elephants would be to keep them in BG of 2 but on death rolls
+1 for elephants if shot at
+2 for elephants in melee

Thus an Elephant BG losing a melee with 4 hits against it and rolling a 3 would no longer autobreak. In my experience the problem for elephants is that the death roll is slightly too severe. Currently I will almost always engage Elephants without a second thought because I know I can always get lucky and break an elephant BG from its failing the death roll.

[lionheartrjc]

Alexander the Great is supposed to be an example of an Inspired Commander. Well, the thing about Alexander the Great was that he charged at the head of his army (if I understand my history correctly). The problem with doing that in FoG is that it in a melee a TC is almost as effective, an the chance of getting an IC killed makes most players very reluctant to throw in an IC unless the situation is getting desparate. Also if Alexander the Great is leading Elite companions there is a limit to how much better he can make them.

Perhaps a new category of inspired leader - who gives a POA (rather than extra re-rolls) to the battle group he is with, but must always fight in the front rank of the BG.

Other inspired commanders (such as Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Julius Ceasar) tend to be inspired commanders because they are better at making plans and good deployments. They were prepared to fight on occasion but are more renowned for their organisational skills. Perhaps an inspired commander winning initiative should be allowed to move first (unless the enemy also have an inspired commander). Along with this I would perhaps reduce the initiative bonus of an inspired commander to +1.

Should any commander fighting in the front rank be allowed to bolster a BG? I have tried a variant where a commander can withdraw from the front rank but the BG must take a cohesion test.

[saltire]

I feel chariots (whether light or heavy) are unfavourably penalised by facing troops with swords. As only heavies get a single + then chariots are usually at evens or in the case of lights at a -.
Why not remove this i.e. swords don't count against all chariots or give the chariots a sword!

[azrael86]

I feel chariots (whether light or heavy) are unfavourably penalised by facing troops with swords. As only heavies get a single + then chariots are usually at evens or in the case of lights at a -.
Why not remove this i.e. swords don't count against all chariots or give the chariots a sword!

Because light chariots weren't designed to slog it out with heavy foot?

[gozerius]

I think the combat interaction between troops in column and chargers really needs some attention. As things stand, troops in column are the best defense against end arounds. (Charges that don't qualify as flank charges, but contact the side edge of a BG). The current rules interpretation allows each base contacted to defend as if a full depth file, regardless if it is the first middle or last base in the file. I have made the suggestion that we treat side edge contacts as counting as a contact on the front base of the file, but that doesn't address the problem of a column which is deeper than what could normally give support in impact/melee. I don't think it's right that hitting the last base in a deep column should force the contacting BG to have to teleport back to the front of the column. The FAQ muddies the water further by setting the depth of bases ineligible for charge targetting if already in melee at two. In spite of the fact that some troop types (pike) fight in deeper formations and some (knights, elephants, chariots, battlewagons) fight only one base deep.

I think that battlewagons really need their own special section.

[madaxeman]

Being able to embed a file (ie a couple of bases) of better quality (ie superior) troops into an otherwise average BG might allow some more subtlety in how units fight in combat.

You'd need a couple of minor rules to spell out whether they can shuffle around the unit when its in combat, when/if their base was removed, and whether it would affect cohesion tests, but nothing to onerous.

This would of course also allow the Vikings to get their berserkers back...

[azrael86]

Being able to embed a file (ie a couple of bases) of better quality (ie superior) troops into an otherwise average BG might allow some more subtlety in how units fight in combat.

You'd need a couple of minor rules to spell out whether they can shuffle around the unit when its in combat, when/if their base was removed, and whether it would affect cohesion tests, but nothing to onerous.

This would of course also allow the Vikings to get their berserkers back...

Sounds suspiciously old school to me. Front rank A, rear rank C.... though something to give an irregular charger a chance against legions would help. Presently they are down in quality even at impact.

One solution to the swarm could be to have detachments, so that legions or auxila have detachable LF , this wouldn't raise the army break pt, but would count against it if lost.

[Jilu]

Allow Bow or crossbow (non swordsmen) armed medium foot to evade. foot bows and crossbows are now pretty useless and serve little purpose exept to counter light troops.

A unit that was fragged or disrubted during combat but who manages to recover during that combat remains disordered untill it has made full turn without combat.

Make Fc usefull.

[sdaddino]

my first suggestions:
deployment system should be less easy...any general can command only a part of the army
so player before set up should assign each unit at a general and deply them.
deployment do not èpermit to mix unit from different command

----------------------
Sub general can command only the groups assigned in the army list, only c-in-c can give a + to all bg
----------------------
if Light troop make a flee...in the next round they cannot fire or charge enemy
----------------------
other things already said by other people before

Stefano

[VMadeira]

Hi,

I think this is my first post in the forum, so I will introduce myself, my name is Vasco I live in Lisbon, Portugal and play FOG since it's appearance and I find it a very good game, the best tabletop wargame I played, congratulations to the authors and contributors.

Here goes my small contribution to the debate:

- Swarm armies should be dealt with, it is annoying to face them, especially in tournaments, it is almost impossible to break these kind of armies in the time span of a competition game. This could be done in several ways, some of them already mentioned. I would suggest, “armies break at 50% AP’s or at a fixed AP number (for example 12 AP) if additionally it also lost more AP’s than the opposing army (or if you prefer, lost double AP’s than opposing army)”. The rationale being that in many battles, one side did break, with lots of troops (more than half anyway...) still not engaged, or at least still relatively intact. Another useful thing to do, would be to avoid small/poor BG over increase the staying power of an army as they do right now.

- Skirmishers at too difficult to catch. The major example IMHO is cavalry (even the unprotected one) having so much trouble catching LF in open terrain. A simple solution or at least a little step in the right direction, would be that when a BG evades always applies a 1 MU penalty to its movement (but keeping the variable move test to preserve the uncertainty). Also it would help if units evade out of table in the short table edges.

- Some armies/generals prefer to move first, instead of choosing terrain, let the player who wins the initiative choose between move first and deploy first or deploy and move second.

- Camps should be more valuable, perhaps a fixed proportion of the total AP.

- Now, the controversy I know this was previously discussed in forum, don’t know to what conclusion, but anyway....my feeling is that ssw (namely Romans, but also Spanish sword and buckler) should beat pike and spearmen, after all it was one of their roles in battle. As it is now, in melee (considering impact phase had no results, which is not that rare) an average legionnaire is at -1 POA against an average armoured spearmen. I have difficulty in believing that the average unit of spearmen could hold the legionnaires so well .... Additionally, as far as I can remember, the only situations where Romans had trouble dealing with pikes, where the battles with Pyrrhus and this were very bloody victories for the Epirots, considering that Pyrrhus was a military genius and his elephants caused much more concern to the Romans than pikes, it shouldn’t be given as an example of pike superiority over the legion. It may be my ignorance, but I don’t recall any large battle that the Macedonians or Seleucids did beat the Romans. To replicate this, ssw could count a + POA against steady pike or spearmen, OTH ssw wouldn’t provide + POA against other foot swordmen, as already mentioned in the thread.

- I find good the idea of units being shot only by skirmishers having a +1 in CT, however to balance this, units that suffer 1 hit per base, could have an additional -1 to CT, this would increase the small units vulnerability to shoot and maybe put medium foot bowmen a little more interesting.

A couple of advice:

- Do not increase game length time.
- Do not make a 2nd edition of all those companions, in the medium term, the changes should be compatible to the current companion, a lot of people I know abandoned good product lines from some other companies, for the constant printings of new editions, that replaced recently printed but now totally useless previous editions.

That is all I can recall now, hope to see you soon, at least those that come to the ITC next month...

Cheers,
Vasco

[zocco]

Ah so here’s my shot at five minutes of fame.

For your delectation and consideration………..(apologies for the length).

1. Change Pre-Battle set-up and initiative.

a) The territory type is determined by each side rolling a single unmodified D6 die. The player with the highest score then selects the territory type from his own or opponents list. If both sides roll the same number the player with the most number of territory types (eg hilly, steppe etc) is the winner. If no winner reapply above procedure until there is.

b) Pre-battle initiative is then calculated as currently.
c) Terrain choice and placement is as currently but the player with the highest initiative gets to re-roll (once each) any of their terrain placement rolls if he so wishes. The re-rolled values must then be used.

Rationale:
The current system is too easy to bias towards certain armies (eg those with just steppe terrain). Territory type is more influenced by geo-political factors (ie who invades who and where) rather than by ‘tactical factors’ such as certain troop types or even good army commanders.

In this system the the geo-political factors (represented by the unmodified D6) and the ‘tactical factors’ (represented by terrain placement re-rolls) are separated as was the case in real life. As we have no knowledge of the geo-political factors involved (and many games are with unhistorical match-ups anyway) this is represented by each side having a straight 50/50 chance of choosing the territory type.


2. Changes to movement rates for HF and LH.

a) Increase movement (in MU) for Heavy Foot as follows;
4 (Open), 3 (Uneven), 3 (Rough) 2 (Difficult)

b) similarly change LH movement to;
6 (Open), 5 (Uneven), 4 (Rough) 2 (Difficult)

Rationale:
The current system makes HF very slow gamewise. At the very least they need to be speeded up in Open terrain. Rapid movement by HF was possible – for example at Marathon by Greek Hoplites and by Julian’s Roman infantry at Ctesiphon against Sassanian cavalry. The increase to 4 MU in open means that it would become possible for HF to force shooting Cv to fight or be driven off – which was certainly possible (ala Julian’s infantry). The rest of the movement increases in non-open terrain are conjectural (as it has to be said are those currently used) but would put them closer to those being used currently by MF (which I think gives a better game and historical balance).

The changes to LH are because I think they are simply too quick and prolong games too long having to chase them around with little chance of being caught. These changes help ease this problem a fraction by still giving the advantage in movement to the LH but just a little less so. It also has the advantage that LH could not charge foot archers without being shot at (even if at long range).


3. Make Light Horse roll to charge a non-skirmishing unit (even in flank or rear).

For Light Horse to charge a unit of non-skirmishers they have to pass a cohesion test even if charging flank or rear of the target unit.

Rationale:
The current system is too generous here in letting LH switch between battlefield roles. Light horse are primarily skirmishers and so would be reluctant (or perhaps sometimes they or their commander are just unsure) about charging an enemy unit. Given the chaos and fear of battle things go wrong and getting perfectly timed flank or rear charges in just when a player wants them by skirmishers should be discouraged by the rules.



4. Make non-shock cavalry in single rank roll to evade.

For non-shock cavalry in single rank to evade they have to pass a cohesion test.

Rationale:
Again the current rules are too generous here in giving single rank non-shock cavalry the ability to evade whenever they feel like it - supposedly on the grounds that they are in a ‘looser’ formation. It is interesting to note however that this ‘looser’ formation doesn’t seem to have any detrimental effect when charging enemy units! This is in some sense the flip side of the LH case I made above. Namely that yes it is possible for cavalry to evade but should we let them flip between battlefield roles quite so precisely. As I mentioned battle is about chaos and fear – so things don’t always go to plan – maybe the cavalry unit commander didn’t see the enemy getting ready to charge or maybe he decided to be a hero and fight it out (ie failed his evade test) or just maybe he actually got things right (passed the cohesion test!) – and evaded.


5. Give some HF and MF a ‘shieldwall’ bonus !

This one is last as it’s a bit complicated (or perhaps I should say Romanesque).

The Shieldwall rule:

a) In the melee phase: Foot deemed to be in a 'Shieldwall' may add a + POA if after applying all other POA's the enemy has a higher net POA.

b) For foot to be deemed in a 'Shieldwall' they must be: STEADY drilled Heavy or Medium Foot that are also either impact foot/swordsmen or Light spear/swordsmen foot.

Note that the rule can only give a defensive benefit (ie it cannot improve an already net positive POA).

Rationale:
You’ll notice I used the word ‘Romanesque’ – this is because this rule is meant to address some of the current problems with Roman heavy and medium foot (in particular those of the later Principate and Dominate lists, but also possibly earlier). There is, as I will outline below considerable evidence that they used shieldwall tactics and so should get some defensive benefit from them (although perhaps not as much as Spearmen do). Please note this rule is not about strict troop definitions but about giving the troops using it a tabletop capability more in line with their historical battlefield performance.

It may be that the rule could also be given to undrilled foot too, but I don’t have definite historical evidence to justify it at present (although it’s a temptation to give it to undrilled HF to represent some Goths, Franks etc). I should also mention that Spearmen do not receive the bonus as they already have the shieldwall aspect factored into their basic POA etc.

The problems I mentioned are basically that Roman foot are overly vulnerable to cataphracts (and some of the better quality armoured mounted) and compare unfavourably with Spearmen (especially the well regarded Offensive Spearmen). The rule would mean;

a) Less vulnerability to Cataphracts - such as at Carrhae - this is often given as an example of cataphract superiority over legionaries but provided the legionaries maintained good order this was not so.

Currently cataphracts get a +POA advantage in melee due to their heavier armour. The shieldwall rule would make this an even POA combat (provided the foot are steady) – so likely to stimulate usage of historical tactics by the mounted – namely use Light horse to shoot at the infantry to make them unsteady and only then charge in with the cataphracts.

b) Roman infantry had a good record against armoured cavalry (eg Sassanians) provided they were not disordered by their shooting.

c) It would also help to even up the balance between drilled impact foot/swordsmen and Light spear/swordsmen foot in combat when compared to Spearmen (especially Offensive Spearmen). Currently Offensive spearmen are often the foot of choice as they must lose cohesion before the swordsmen POA can be used.

Historical evidence for shieldwall usage.


1. Literary evidence.

Ammianus Marcellinus (AM) - his description of Roman infantry at the battle of Strasbourg (357AD) specifically states them using a formation where their ‘shields, closely interlaced in tortoise formation’… He subsequently describes a legion at the battle being drawn up in a close formation 'like a wall'.

I would also mention AM's description of a unit of auxilia making a foray at the siege of Amida as being in 'close' and 'very close' order.
.
This does not sound like either impact foot or light spear to me or at least not a particularly good interpretation of it as currently applied in the rules.


2. Evidence in art.

Some examples here from Dixon & Southern's 'Roman Military Equipment';

a) Roman infantry in formation with overlapping shields are shown both in the Exodus fresco from Dura Europos and on the Tyne shieldboss. Both of these seem to portray a shieldwall and correspond closely with AM's literary description given above.

b) There is also some examples that give a clue to weaponry and notably the type of spears/pila carried - namely a picture of a soldier from a Syracuse catacomb painting (here the spear has been artistically shortened so as to fit within a drawn border), the Exodus fresco from Dura, the Stilchio dyptich and so on. All these show spear/pila of around 6 to 7 feet in length being used or to put it into perspective, of a similar size to those used by Anglo-Saxon warriors which are classified in FOG as spearmen precisely because, as stated in Wolves of the Sea, they used shieldwall tactics.


3. The Dutch Late Roman army re-enactment group Fectio

This site shows both a standard shieldwall and a Late Roman Fulcum – which is a more defensive form of shieldwall particularly useful against enemy mounted.

4. Modern studies

a) Rance's description and analysis of the Byzantine Fulcum indicates that the Romans used shieldwall tactics (just like those shown by the re-enactment group) in Late Roman times and even likely back to at least the late republican period (ala Mark Antony’s use of a Fulcum/Testudo like formation in 36 BC against the Parthians).

b) Ospreys recent book 'Roman Army tactics.109 BC – 313 AD

The author points out roman tactics had become somewhat less aggressive in the later period (sometime after 313 AD). This is a view that is pretty much accepted in the academic community (eg Nicasie, Barbaro, Rance etc) although the date is somewhat conjectural (I’d suggest somewhat earlier – probably in the mid --late 3rd century with the widespread usage of the large oval shield). However as mentioned previously shieldwall tactics were used much earlier when circumstances suited their usage (including Arrian’s description of a phalanx type formation against the Alan’s).

[Lamachus435]

I know this was previously discussed in forum, don’t know to what conclusion, but anyway....my feeling is that ssw (namely Romans, but also Spanish sword and buckler) should beat pike and spearmen, after all it was one of their roles in battle.

I do not think that all sorts of swordsmen should have advantage over pikemen/spearmen. While the Romans did prevail over Macedonian/Greek phalanxes, it was mainly due to their peculiar multi-line formation and discipline rather than armament, as they smashed enemy swordsmen as effectively as spearmen, pikemen, axemen etc.

[TimSnoddy]

Some random thoughts.

Superior is too cheap. You will always take superior over average.
Pike are too cheap, especially superior pike. Pike should be disadvanted in manoeuvre compared to other heavy foot. I don't believe for a moment a 16 rank formation can change facing as well as a 3 or 4 rank one.
The interaction between Romans and Barbarians is broken. There should be separate abilities, not both impact foot. It would seem logical to reward barbarians for being in deeper formations, this is what rehabilitated them in another well known rule set.
Battle groups of four should be disadvantaged in some way. except for skirmishers.

[thefrenchjester]

Hi Tim ,


Pikes are'nt too cheap, few bases in front contact few dice in combat;
for me the cost of troops is fairly good apart perhaps for Battlewagons and Artillery ;

my proposals for helping the barbarians is below , it will absorb the better armour giving only a + in melee for the 4 bases super legionnaries against an 8 or 10 bg of hairy guys
giving them a+1 to their cohesion tests could help them to stand in open against the legion , could also give a chance in melee against the swarm Dom Romans

Page97: Melee POAs:

Fighting enemy in two directions or an opponent twice time more numerous (–)

Page113: Cohesion test:
-1 any troops shot at Artillery or firearms(only if the firearms actually hit)
+1 battle group has rear support or twice time more numerous than their opponent(count all bases in the front 3 ranks only).

tried to give some others ideas in the message"point ...."
give me an answer and your advices please

Best Regards
thefrenchjester

[TimSnoddy]

Too powerful or too cheap. Take your pick. I recently played in a medieval tournament. Every army fielded was pike or light horse based. If other unit types represented equally good value for money why were there no medium foot, or alternative types of heavy foot based armies fielded? Poor pike are the bargain of the century. If any list allowed large numbers it would become what Scots Common was in the DBM world for a while.

[philqw78]

Poor pike are the bargain of the century. If any list allowed large numbers it would become what Scots Common was in the DBM world for a while.

Err, rubbish?

[olivier]

Poor pike are the bargain of the century

ROTFL!!!
I'm the only one to take it in the late Britcon and each time I must engage them in melee, it's because I haven't any other choice and with a rear support, a general in the BG and the IC not very far away !!! Not the best invest but as I have not other fighting troops in the list they make the work