Cohesion Tests

[RichardThompson]

At the moment cohesion tests include:

-1 >2 more hits received than inflicted in close combat
-1 >=1 HP3B from close combat
-1 >=1 HP2B from shooting

I would suggest changing this to:

-1 >2 more hits received than inflicted in close combat
-1 >=1 HP3B from close combat
-1 >=1 HP2B
-1 >=1 HPB
[all cumulative]

Consider a unit of four elements losing a combat by 4 hits to nil. At the moment they have a penalty of '-2' on the CT. The change would mean they have a '-4' on the CT.

This would make the game faster and less predictable and give impact troops a better chance.

[philqw78]

It will encourage deeper formations, really hurt Kn, El, BWg and chariots; and encourage columns at impact as they have no possibility of 1HPB

[grahambriggs]

What is the problem that you are trying to fix with this? Seems like change for change's sake to me

[DavidT]

While on this topic, currently we have:
-1 for 1HP2B from shooting
-1 for 1HP3B from hand to hand

I would like this to be changed to:
-1 for 1HP2B from both shooting and hand to hand.

This is consistent and also improves the survivability of larger BGs in hand to hand slightly. Currently a 4 base BG and a 6 base BG will both suffer a -1 on CTs as a result of receiving 2 hits. With this change, the larger 6 base BG wouldn't.

[RichardThompson]

It will encourage deeper formations, really hurt Kn, El, BWg and chariots; and encourage columns at impact as they have no possibility of 1HPB

Would encouraging deeper formations be a bad thing?

In historical terms - The Thebans beat the Spartans by using deeper formations.

In game terms - cheaper troops in deep formations like protected warband and spearmen could do with a boost. It may help Pikes too much though.

really hurt Kn, El, BWg and chariots;

It would both help and hinder them.

Knights (for example) are more likely to win the melee by a wide margin (because they tend be superior and to have better POAs) so would be more likely to make their opponents drop a cohesion level. If they lost the melee, then they would be more vulnerable to dropping a level themselves.

and encourage columns at impact as they have no possibility of 1HPB

Columns at impact are already an issue under the current rules (which could be solved by allowing overlaps).

With my suggestion they could still suffer an extra -1 penalty.

[jlopez]

It will encourage deeper formations, really hurt Kn, El, BWg and chariots; and encourage columns at impact as they have no possibility of 1HPB

Would encouraging deeper formations be a bad thing?

In historical terms - The Thebans beat the Spartans by using deeper formations.

OK, that's one example. Any more?

Isn't this better simulated by the Spartan BG being unlucky in the impact and melee phase with a double drop in one of them?

[hammy]

While on this topic, currently we have:
-1 for 1HP2B from shooting
-1 for 1HP3B from hand to hand

I would like this to be changed to:
-1 for 1HP2B from both shooting and hand to hand.

This is consistent and also improves the survivability of larger BGs in hand to hand slightly. Currently a 4 base BG and a 6 base BG will both suffer a -1 on CTs as a result of receiving 2 hits. With this change, the larger 6 base BG wouldn't.

This is IMO not a bad idea. It would simplify things somewhat and also give an edge to a 6 base BG over a 4 base one.

[grahambriggs]

While on this topic, currently we have:
-1 for 1HP2B from shooting
-1 for 1HP3B from hand to hand

I would like this to be changed to:
-1 for 1HP2B from both shooting and hand to hand.

This is consistent and also improves the survivability of larger BGs in hand to hand slightly. Currently a 4 base BG and a 6 base BG will both suffer a -1 on CTs as a result of receiving 2 hits. With this change, the larger 6 base BG wouldn't.

This is IMO not a bad idea. It would simplify things somewhat and also give an edge to a 6 base BG over a 4 base one.

It would make hand to hand combat longer on average, particularly between evenly matched deep units. So for example, two spear units of 8 bases three wide. You'd need 4 hits out of 6 dice to cause the -1, rather than three as at present. And fighting a BG of 12 bases in 3 ranks you'd need 6 hits.

On the other hand that might give flank moves some more time to develop. At present combat can be over so quickly that a crumbling flank doesn't have an impact before the centre is decided.

[Polkovnik]

It will encourage deeper formations, really hurt Kn, El, BWg and chariots; and encourage columns at impact as they have no possibility of 1HPB

Would encouraging deeper formations be a bad thing?

In historical terms - The Thebans beat the Spartans by using deeper formations.

OK, that's one example. Any more?

Isn't this better simulated by the Spartan BG being unlucky in the impact and melee phase with a double drop in one of them?

So you are suggesting that the deeper formation had nothing to do with their success ? They just got lucky and the outcome would have been the same if they didn't adopt the deep formation ?

[Ranimiro]

I like this idea and i think could accomplish (at least in part) what others; more complex or not very well received rules change suggestions, about improving "warbands" fail to do without substantial rule changes.

Thebans beated spartans TWO times after adopting deeper formations. Romans in deep columns where mauling the carthaginean center at cannae, only the envelope by the cavalry saved the iberians and celts. If you think that just having extra bases is enough of a bonus, just say that.

[jlopez]

So you are suggesting that the deeper formation had nothing to do with their success ? They just got lucky and the outcome would have been the same if they didn't adopt the deep formation ?

To be honest I suspect the Theban success at Leuctra and Mantineia had a lot more to do with other factors: Spartan cavalry routing through the phalanx with the Thebans in hot pursuit at Leuctra and disorganised and possibly demoralised hoplites facing the Thebans at Mantineia.

Leuctra, Xenophon, Hellenica 6.4.13-15

"Now when Cleombrotus began to lead his army against the enemy, in the first place, before the troops under him so much as perceived that he was advancing, the horsemen had already joined battle and those of the Lacedaemonians had speedily been worsted; then in their flight they had fallen foul of their own hoplites, and, besides, the companies of the Thebans were now charging upon them. Nevertheless, the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting in front of him been holding the advantage at that time."


Mantineia, Xenophon, Hellenica 5.2.1-3

"When the preparations were complete and he had led them out, his next movement is worthy of attention. First, as was natural, he paid heed to their formation, and in so doing seemed to give clear evidence that he intended battle; but no sooner was the army drawn up in the formation which he preferred, than he advanced, not by the shortest route to meet the enemy, but towards the westward-lying mountains which face Tegea, and by this movement created in the enemy an expectation that he would not do battle on that day. In keeping with this expectation, as soon as he arrived at the mountain-region, he extended his phalanx in long line and piled arms under the high cliffs; and to all appearance he was there encamping. The effect of this manouvre on the enemy in general was to relax the prepared bent of their souls for battle, and to weaken their tactical arrangements. Presently, however, wheeling his regiments (which were marching in column) to the front, with the effect of strengthening the beak-like attack which he proposed to lead himself, at the same instant he gave the order, "Shoulder arms, forward," and led the way, the troops following.

When the enemy saw them so unexpectedly approaching, not one of them was able to maintain tranquility: some began running to their divisions, some fell into line, some might be seen bitting and bridling their horses, some donning their cuirasses, and one and all were like men about to receive rather than to inflict a blow. He, the while, with steady impetus pushed forward his armament, like a ship-of-war prow forward. Wherever he brought his solid wedge to bear, he meant to cleave through the opposing mass, and crumble his adversary's host to pieces. "

[Strategos69]

OK, that's one example. Any more?

Well, basically the conception of the phalanx, that Philip II copied from the Thebans is the deeper the better. The reason why pikes are that tough is not the lenght of the pike by itself (it is easier to chop with a sowrd the tip of a pike than a spear, making this weapon less effective) but the depth of the formation and the pushing power.

More examples: the only two regiments/tribes that did not stand against the Persians in Marathon were the ones that deployed in a less deep formation so that the Greek front was at least as wide as the Persian line. The Persians had there a deeper formation.

Pompeii deployed the lines of his legions closer (thus, making the formation deeper) in Pharsalus to counter the power of Caesar experienced legionaries.

In Cannae Romans deployed doubling the depht of the maniples in the idea that this brute force would break the center of the enemy formation as in Trebia.

In the Bagradas plains, the consul Marcus Atilius Regulus deployed his legions with double depth to resist the charge of the elephants.

So, I think there is a fair case to say that deeper formations were used to counter an enemy superiority in quality or ito apply presure into a single point of the enemy line. The depth of the formation does count. Anyway, I will try to look for more examples.

[Ranimiro]

Interesting. But you know that noone in a reenacment of this battle would deploy his cavalry in front of the hoplites or grade his spartans as average. So the only just way to obtain an historical result without help of the dice is giving deeper formations some kind of bonus.

[Strategos69]

Well, Julián, even if the reason why they won was pure luck (which I don't think is the explanation), why did Epaminondas deployed in such a deep formation?

[dave_r]

Well, Julián, even if the reason why they won was pure luck (which I don't think is the explanation), why did Epaminondas deployed in such a deep formation?

Weren't the Thebans hemmed in by terrain?

[nikgaukroger]

OK, that's one example. Any more?

Well, basically the conception of the phalanx, that Philip II copied from the Thebans is the deeper the better. The reason why pikes are that tough is not the lenght of the pike by itself (it is easier to chop with a sowrd the tip of a pike than a spear, making this weapon less effective) but the depth of the formation and the pushing power.

Philip, in all probability, created his phalanx to be the equal and equivalent of the hoplites of the city states. He needed to do this as Makedon had no hoplite class of its own. The depth would come back to the point I made about depth in the Strategikon.

More examples: the only two regiments/tribes that did not stand against the Persians in Marathon were the ones that deployed in a less deep formation so that the Greek front was at least as wide as the Persian line. The Persians had there a deeper formation.

Pompeii deployed the lines of his legions closer (thus, making the formation deeper) in Pharsalus to counter the power of Caesar experienced legionaries.

In Cannae Romans deployed doubling the depht of the maniples in the idea that this brute force would break the center of the enemy formation as in Trebia.

In the Bagradas plains, the consul Marcus Atilius Regulus deployed his legions with double depth to resist the charge of the elephants.

So, I think there is a fair case to say that deeper formations were used to counter an enemy superiority in quality or ito apply presure into a single point of the enemy line. The depth of the formation does count. Anyway, I will try to look for more examples.

Let me see:

Marathon - the deeper parts were in normal formation, the thinner parts in an unusually thin one.

Pharsalus - failure.

Cannae - pretty much failure even though facing off far fewer gauls and Spanish.

Bagradas - failure, the legiones became a denser target for the nellies.

You forgot Magnesia with the double depth phalanx - failure.

[Ranimiro]

I think you are missing a point Nick. The failure can be due to other factors, as the enemy overlapping or flanking the deeper formations, the disorder in extra deep formations preventing it from gaining it´s suposed advantage and simply bad luck. All of this factor already exist in FoG, why don´t give extra deep it´s bonus and try to reproduce the other factors instead of assuming thay it NEVER existed.

[nikgaukroger]

I think you are missing a point Nick.


The failure can be due to other factors, as the enemy overlapping or flanking the deeper formations, the disorder in extra deep formations preventing it from gaining it´s suposed advantage and simply bad luck. All of this factor already exist in FoG, why don´t give extra deep it´s bonus and try to reproduce the other factors instead of assuming thay it NEVER existed.

I don't believe that a depth bonus as being suggested reflects any material difference that needs to be represented.

[jlopez]

To follow up on Nik's comments:

1. "More examples: the only two regiments/tribes that did not stand against the Persians in Marathon were the ones that deployed in a less deep formation so that the Greek front was at least as wide as the Persian line. The Persians had there a deeper formation."

You can simulate that by having the wings two bases deep (8 ranks at Marathon) and the centre one base deep (4 ranks). No need for a rule change

2. "Pompeii deployed the lines of his legions closer (thus, making the formation deeper) in Pharsalus to counter the power of Caesar experienced legionaries."

Deeper BGs in FOG are less likely to take casualties so it makes them less vulnerable to one form of unit loss (attrition).

3. "In Cannae Romans deployed doubling the depht of the maniples in the idea that this brute force would break the center of the enemy formation as in Trebia."

As above. Current POAs should give armoured Romans a fair chance of winning in the long run. No recoils in FOG mean you cannot replicate Cannae unless you assume the Carthaginian centre actually routed rather than fell back.

4. "In the Bagradas plains, the consul Marcus Atilius Regulus deployed his legions with double depth to resist the charge of the elephants."

Legionaries vs elephants would work now as at Bagradas without changes.

[RichardThompson]

I think you are missing a point Nick.

The failure can be due to other factors, as the enemy overlapping or flanking the deeper formations, the disorder in extra deep formations preventing it from gaining it´s suposed advantage and simply bad luck. All of this factor already exist in FoG, why don´t give extra deep it´s bonus and try to reproduce the other factors instead of assuming thay it NEVER existed.

I don't believe that a depth bonus as being suggested reflects any material difference that needs to be represented.

No depth bonus, as such, has been suggested in this thread.

The benefit would come as a side effect of penalising troops that take more HPB in the cohesion test.

IMO, a unit of 4 cavalry would be more likely to lose cohesion if it took 4 shooting hits than if it took 2.

IMO, a unit of 8 HF would be more likely to lose cohesion if it lost the melee 8-1 or 4-1 than if it lost 3-1.

This is what my suggestion was primarily trying to simulate.