Non swarm armies might do well

[david53]

And that is a typical example. Maybe someone else can figure out what you are saying here, but I certainly can't.

Stick and stones and all that

[nikgaukroger]

Its probably because you're typing in a Scottish accent, Dave

[lawrenceg]

Yes but the heavy foot are sitting on the centre line. So at game end they get the points for being closest. It doesn't matter that the LH are behind them.

YEs, but the LH/Cav are shooting at them from both sides for the whole game. The HF can't chase them off because they will move away from the victory locations.

I have my doubts that an infantry army that stands still stretched across the middle of the table would be able to hold its position for a whole game without losing 10 AP.

[Polkovnik]

And that is a typical example. Maybe someone else can figure out what you are saying here, but I certainly can't.

Stick and stones and all that

I wasn't saying it to be rude. If you are partaking in an online discussion, presumably you would like your posts to be understood ? So it might help to write in proper English sentences and reread your posts before you submit them.

[Polkovnik]

Yes but the heavy foot are sitting on the centre line. So at game end they get the points for being closest. It doesn't matter that the LH are behind them.

YEs, but the LH/Cav are shooting at them from both sides for the whole game. The HF can't chase them off because they will move away from the victory locations.

I have my doubts that an infantry army that stands still stretched across the middle of the table would be able to hold its position for a whole game without losing 10 AP.

If it was that easy for the Cav & LH, then they could just charge them in front and rear. Most decent Cavalry can take on most heavy foot if they have their rear rank turned.
And if it was that easy the Cav & LH would win through melee and we wouldn't have the whole issue of chasing LH around to try and get a win.

[lawrenceg]

If it was that easy for the Cav & LH, then they could just charge them in front and rear. Most decent Cavalry can take on most heavy foot if they have their rear rank turned.
And if it was that easy the Cav & LH would win through melee and we wouldn't have the whole issue of chasing LH around to try and get a win.

Granted that it is not that easy for Cav/Lh to win in practice, I still have my doubts that an infantry army that stands still stretched across the middle of the table would be able to hold its position for a whole game without losing 10 AP.

[dave_r]

And that is a typical example. Maybe someone else can figure out what you are saying here, but I certainly can't.

Stick and stones and all that

I wasn't saying it to be rude. If you are partaking in an online discussion, presumably you would like your posts to be understood ? So it might help to write in proper English sentences and reread your posts before you submit them.

Really? I thought Dave's post was quite clear - he is saying that if you want to see more Heavy Foot then Drilled Medium Foot will completely destroy them, so if you want to hamstring LH then you need to Hamstring Drilled MF as well.

Wasn't that difficult was it?

[azrael86]

I didn't say you were selfserving, only that it appears to be so. I maintain that reducing the movement of all MF is likely to harm as many 9th&10th cent armies as it helps -a lot of them have MF.

Sorry but i do disagree with you the fact that once in 6MU I have to pass a CMT to wheel, I can only at any time do a CMT to turn from a line to a coloum and next go i can expand if i pass a CMT and on the third go i can move out in the same formation i was in before i turned thats 3 turns.

So in that time Drilled troops can turn 90 three times and move 12 MU and you say cutting drilled down will harm undrilled you can't harm something that can't do something already ie turn and move? Stopping turning when your in 6 MU or dropping the movement or both are required IMO that is which may be wrong.

You see the problum as LH driven I see there are things that can be done to make them less powerful yes but at the same time if you do that and allow the drilled MF to carry on doing what they want they will if not already become a over powerful troop type to me.

I post about undrilled MF... you ignore that and say that drilled MF are too good compared to LH. Just to reiterate - most armies of undrilled MF don't get the terrain of their choice (at warfare I won initiative 0/4 with a mostly MF army). You said ALL MF should move only 3MU - or did I misunderstand that?

[dave_r]

I didn't say you were selfserving, only that it appears to be so. I maintain that reducing the movement of all MF is likely to harm as many 9th&10th cent armies as it helps -a lot of them have MF.

Sorry but i do disagree with you the fact that once in 6MU I have to pass a CMT to wheel, I can only at any time do a CMT to turn from a line to a coloum and next go i can expand if i pass a CMT and on the third go i can move out in the same formation i was in before i turned thats 3 turns.

So in that time Drilled troops can turn 90 three times and move 12 MU and you say cutting drilled down will harm undrilled you can't harm something that can't do something already ie turn and move? Stopping turning when your in 6 MU or dropping the movement or both are required IMO that is which may be wrong.

You see the problum as LH driven I see there are things that can be done to make them less powerful yes but at the same time if you do that and allow the drilled MF to carry on doing what they want they will if not already become a over powerful troop type to me.

I post about undrilled MF... you ignore that and say that drilled MF are too good compared to LH. Just to reiterate - most armies of undrilled MF don't get the terrain of their choice (at warfare I won initiative 0/4 with a mostly MF army). You said ALL MF should move only 3MU - or did I misunderstand that?

Undrilled MF don't seem to be a problem, but Drilled MF do - that is why Dave is posting about them I think. Why don't most armies of undrilled MF get the terrain of their choice - that is simply complete garbage, most armies get 10 or more bases of LH or Cv and with an IC that gives them a PBI of 3 - that will gain initiative 3 games out of 4??? You don't provide any facts - what was your PBI at warfare?

I think we are all still waiting for the historical facts regarding MF moving faster than HF - care to provide any?

[david53]

Yes but the heavy foot are sitting on the centre line. So at game end they get the points for being closest. It doesn't matter that the LH are behind them.

YEs, but the LH/Cav are shooting at them from both sides for the whole game. The HF can't chase them off because they will move away from the victory locations.

I have my doubts that an infantry army that stands still stretched across the middle of the table would be able to hold its position for a whole game without losing 10 AP.

I have to agree with you an infantry army only has to fail two tests and its game over as I have played a game just so. Wall to wall Greeks shot the unit nearest table edge down twice and charged.

[david53]

Its probably because you're typing in a Scottish accent, Dave

Maybe thats why I win my games then they just can't understand me

[dave_r]

Its probably because you're typing in a Scottish accent, Dave

Maybe thats why I win my games then they just can't understand me

And if they do, they don't want to

[lawrenceg]

Really? I thought Dave's post was quite clear - he is saying that if you want to see more Heavy Foot then Drilled Medium Foot will completely destroy them, so if you want to hamstring LH then you need to Hamstring Drilled MF as well.

Wasn't that difficult was it?

I still can't see how you can easily get that from:

Not at all don't play them much whats not great for foot armies(not me don't use them) is the majacial Drilled armoured medium foot in 4 base BGs dancing around like fairies. I don't mind them I dance around them and then run them down with a lances but once again for undrilled foot that you've said you want to see more on the table allowing less dancing by Medium foot will alow them to come out to play that is heavy foot undrilled.

......there are in one breath say they want more undrilled foot armies on the table and I say that medium drilled foot will run rings around them unless something is done me as I have said play mostly mounted(not always LH) you then for some reason think I want to pick on a Drilled Medium foot army not me I fought one last weekend so what, I was honestly thinking of those that want to play undrilled 9th and 10th century armies with some chance of success.

There is no mention of hamstringing LH in either post. In fact the only mention of LH was to say that he doesn't always use them.

Given that Dave (Ruddock) has managed to clearly express in two lines what David53 didn't quite manage (for at least some of us) in 9, perhaps the latter would benefit from some literary style advice from the former.

[azrael86]

I post about undrilled MF... you ignore that and say that drilled MF are too good compared to LH. Just to reiterate - most armies of undrilled MF don't get the terrain of their choice (at warfare I won initiative 0/4 with a mostly MF army). You said ALL MF should move only 3MU - or did I misunderstand that?

Undrilled MF don't seem to be a problem, but Drilled MF do - that is why Dave is posting about them I think. I think we are all still waiting for the historical facts regarding MF moving faster than HF - care to provide any?
[/quote]
His proposal was to reduce the movement of all MF to 3MU. This does little to stop drilled dancing, and to be fair you are asking the wrong question - the rules presently define MF are faster than HF, so I do not need to provide supporting evidence. The authors (Nik?) presumably have such evidence already. Alternatively, if you are saying 'change and redcue MF move to that of HF' you need to show that the rules are incorrect. Personally I don't think it unlikely that a man with a 16' spear, large shield and wearing metal armour, in formation would move more slowly than a chap with a 8' spear and a leather tunic, but doubtless someone will quote an (extremely selective) instance where they did.

Why don't most armies of undrilled MF get the terrain of their choice - that is simply complete garbage, most armies get 10 or more bases of LH or Cv and with an IC that gives them a PBI of 3 - that will gain initiative 3 games out of 4??? You don't provide any facts - what was your PBI at warfare?

My PBI was 0, not boosted by commanders but I had the maximum mounted possible for the list/period. I guess you just don't notice the large number of lists where less than 10 cv/lh are available - there are literally dozens of european lists this applies to, and of course an entire book as well.
The lowest PBI I fought was a +2, two +3's and a +4 - so even if I had had an IC I would have been unlikely to win initiative more than once.

[nikgaukroger]

His proposal was to reduce the movement of all MF to 3MU. This does little to stop drilled dancing, and to be fair you are asking the wrong question - the rules presently define MF are faster than HF, so I do not need to provide supporting evidence. The authors (Nik?) presumably have such evidence already.

I'll just remind you I am not an author of FoG:AM - FoG:R, which I am co-author of, has MF moving the same as HF..

Alternatively, if you are saying 'change and redcue MF move to that of HF' you need to show that the rules are incorrect. Personally I don't think it unlikely that a man with a 16' spear, large shield and wearing metal armour, in formation would move more slowly than a chap with a 8' spear and a leather tunic, but doubtless someone will quote an (extremely selective) instance where they did.

You described as ah historical fact MF (or the troops so classed) having a faster move than HF - I take it from this that you cannot actually provide anything to support this?

IMO there is nothing in the historical record that shows the troops FoG classifies as MF moving materially faster than those classed as HF and that in the game they should move the same.

[azrael86]

I'll just remind you I am not an author of FoG:AM - FoG:R, which I am co-author of, has MF moving the same as HF..

Alternatively, if you are saying 'change and redcue MF move to that of HF' you need to show that the rules are incorrect. Personally I don't think it unlikely that a man with a 16' spear, large shield and wearing metal armour, in formation would move more slowly than a chap with a 8' spear and a leather tunic, but doubtless someone will quote an (extremely selective) instance where they did.

You described as ah historical fact MF (or the troops so classed) having a faster move than HF - I take it from this that you cannot actually provide anything to support this?

IMO there is nothing in the historical record that shows the troops FoG classifies as MF moving materially faster than those classed as HF and that in the game they should move the same.

Fair point.

I gave two examples, one of which you agreed with. I am unwilling to get into a longdebate on MF/HF because some of the classifications thereof are rather arbitrary (possibly this is unavoidable). But again, the status quo is what it is, so I'd like to see the evidence that Dave (any Dave) has for a dismounted knight wearing full plate and carrying his greatsword being as quick as a gallic warrior, say.

[nikgaukroger]

But again, the status quo is what it is, so I'd like to see the evidence that Dave (any Dave) has for a dismounted knight wearing full plate and carrying his greatsword being as quick as a gallic warrior, say.

Well I can assure you from personal experience that even a fat bloke like me can march around just as fast as a less well equipped bloke whilst wearing full armour & kit, although I'd easily lose a spring, however, most of the time in battle you aren't running around - also you are moving as massed bodies which have different dynamics, often slowing ones, so individual performance is not as much of an issue as may be thought.

[IanB3406]

again, the status quo is what it is, so I'd like to see the evidence that Dave (any Dave) has for a dismounted knight wearing full plate and carrying his greatsword being as quick as a gallic warrior, say.
---------------------------

This of course would be completely meaningless comparing Gauls and Medieval knights.

A better comparison of contemporary troops types - Longbow Medium foot and dismounted Knights. Physically Longbow are loaded up with a large amount of extra arrows, stakes and the like, and I know of no example of them moving faster than "foot knights".

Now we could compare Gauls to Romans, certainly they will not out march them. On the battlefield I doubt they would have any gain either, you could argue their lack of training would make it much harder to keep formation at a faster pace so maybe Legions should move faster (haha, just kidding)....

For the most part I've come to believe medium foot as fictional, in particular their ability to move faster. Maybe if you wanted to give them some type of advantage in terrain for looser order I could buy it....

And of course is there really any difference in the equipment of a Gaul and Briton? But one moves slow and the other faster...


Ian

[timmy1]

azrael86

Today we have armoured MF spearmen such as Catalan in the SNHC moving faster than protected HF pikemen IN THE SAME ARMY. If the speed was different based upon open order MF not having to dress the formation as much I could see the point. If it was based upon armour weight differences I could see the point. Even protected HF halberdiers move slower than armoured MF spearmen. My reading of the (secondary) sources is that the halberdiers were in a looser formation than the spearmen yet today they move 75% of the speed despite less armour.

It is clearly broken today and the status quo is not viable. Now what we have to do is have the authors go back to the sources and determine what is viable to change without breaking something else. We then playtest that.

Regards
Tim

[lawrenceg]

I'm with Nik. I suspect there is no information in the historical record on the absolute speed of any troop type, and precious little even on the relative speeds (Hoplites vs psiloi is the only example I can think of). I think we have the Roman legionary pace length, but probably not the paces per minute.

Probably the only hard number we have is the official 1 day's march for a Roman army, which should apply to all troop types in the army if they want to arrive in some semblance of order.

SO should all non-light foot move 3 MU or 4MU in the open?
(It might be reasonable to maintain a speed differential in non-open terrain)