[QST] FoG gameplay rules design problems

[cothyso]

the following images illustrate a faulty rules in FoG's design, or not?



two average drilled armored HC of the same type are attacking the same enemy superior undrilled protected HC, one in melee, one in a flank attack charge..





please make me understand, and believe, why the direct face to face cavalry melee fight has a better chance to succeed than a flank cavalry charge of a unit already engaged into a frontal melee with another BG (60%/15% vs 42%/29%), specially considering that the charge flanking cavalry unit has less loses and it's still in comand range of its leader (97% vs 79%) compared to the face melee fighting one?

maybe it's because it is fighting with a +PoA vs PoA draw in the second case, would you say.. but then..

why there's no armoured vs protected PoA applied on a charge? the armor wouldn't matter, you are saying?!!

even more, why there's no flanking PoA on the same charge, specially considering that the charged unit it's already pined up in a melee fight with another unit, so it can't react to face a flank charge?!!

it seems to me that the more I am looking int othe depth of the rules, the more faulty and arbitrary they seem to be..

[cothyso]

Another one..



a MF frontally charges an impact foot, swordsmen HF locked in combat with another HF.. why still the +2PoA for charge, when in fact the galatian impact foot swordsemen HF is already locked in combat with another BG, so it can't do a counter-charge?!!

[keithmartinsmith]

In the Field of Glory system PC and tabletop a unit that is charged always uses its impact factors e.g. lance rather than melee e.g. sword. It is assumed that the parts of a battlegroup that are not engaged and free to charge are also free to countercharge/throw impact weapons etc. at the last minute.
Keith

[TheGrayMouser]

Cothyso, you certainly have chosen a pretty fundamental part of FOG to critique.

The poa and concept of impact vs melee are an intregal part of the game (both pc and TT) and are not going to change or be modified.

If you read the core game philosophy, (in the tt forums) you can see it is the over all effect and a topdown aproach that was utilized.

I believe impact combat is represented by the point of contact by only the front rank troopsA(and not necasarily all of them) , ie do they break into the formation or not. Numbers do not matter. Whether you agree or not , armour is not counted at this stage

As for why can bg's impact into a a combat where a melee already exists: This is a little tougher, but a think the visual representaion in the tt where unit depth and frontage is considered (thru bases) makes it make more sense. The pc game does lose some of this in translation to a hex system. However , the principle still makes sense in that a small portion of the attacker is only contacting a small portion of the defender... next turn the units will expand the combat into melee (and a 2 to one advantage is reflected via the combat support mechanism in melee combat)

Your examples regarding flank attacks i admit do seem odd but then again , this is a hex based system. If i understand you , you would have the second cavalry unit charging into combat get a huge adanvantage over the lone enemy bg? If so think how gameplay would be altered? Eveyone would simply make sure he has a 2 to one advantge in every line up to gurantee success.
Also think how easy it is, in a hex based system igo ugo where you can move any of your units in any order you want, to get flank hits. Way to easy in fact and all combats, if you got a huge bonus would be resolved very very quickly. Enough players already feel combat doesnt last long enough as is.

[batesmotel]

BGs in FOG TT (and therefore in FoG digital) are assumed to represent groupings of maneuver units in an actual ancient army rather than one monolithic whole. Therefore while some of the component maneuver units, e.g Roman maniples, may already be engaged in melee, the design assumption is that other of the component maneuver units are not actively committed to the combat and can respond to new impacts. This may make more sense in the TT rules where individual BGs are generally larger than what one FoG digital BG represents, but this portion of the TT design also applies for the digital version. Due to this, a new impact initiated against a BG already in combat is treated in the same way as one on a BG not already in combat. In addition. impact combat represents the initial shock of two formations colliding and considers factors in a different way than those used for continuing melee where the units are considered to be much more closely in contact and potentially intermixed to some degree. For that reason factors such as lances, light spears, "impact foot", supporting bow fire, and horses impacting loose formation foot are dominant in impact. In melee, armour and unit training and equipment for close combat (generally represented by the sword POAs or by other weapons such as heavy weapons or spears that are effective after impact) are considered. In the end this is very much an abstraction but overall it does seem to give results that feel about right overall.

In the TT rules, being charged in the flank results in the same automatic cohesion drop as a rear charge does in both FoG TT and digital. The TT rules are relatively restrictive in what is considered to be a flank charge and therefore they generally only occur when an enemy unit is already behind the front line of it's target and facing the correct way to make a flank charge before initiating the charge. Due to the granularity of facing and movement imposed by the hex grid used for FoG digital, the decision was made to drop flank charges as a separate category equivalent to rear charges for playability since it is generally quite easy in the digital version to find an exposed "flank" hex side of a unit. The alternative would have been to have made flank charges too common and effective and to make frontal combat, the main type of action that occurred in historical battles, something to be engaged in only by the foolish and clumsy. There is still some advantage to be gained in contacting an enemy BG in a flank hex side if it is already engaged to the front since this give a +POA in melee if the enemy BG cannot turn to face this attacker.

Chris