Skirmisher issues

[Strategos69]

Also the actual battle was about five times the size of an 800 point FOG game, so the dynamics would be rather different.

Repeating Phil's claim, we were promised a campaign book to deal with those issues and know what fit with what historically. Until that we don't know.

According to the design philosophy FoG should be enough to deal with any battle size given its design precisely. If not, we would be considering FoG as a skirmishes game, which sometimes it seems to be though.

[Jilu]

Also the actual battle was about five times the size of an 800 point FOG game, so the dynamics would be rather different.

Repeating Phil's claim, we were promised a campaign book to deal with those issues and know what fit with what historically. Until that we don't know.

According to the design philosophy FoG should be enough to deal with any battle size given its design precisely. If not, we would be considering FoG as a skirmishes game, which sometimes it seems to be though.

well indeed when you see some 'Top ranked' armies these favor the Skirmisher/Test system and the kill the rest ....

Look at French Ordonance and Santa Hernandad....these armies are used that way the LF is there to force Cohesion tests .... and IMHO these LF should be delaying, annoying but for sure NOT frag or brake units

[lawrenceg]

Also the actual battle was about five times the size of an 800 point FOG game, so the dynamics would be rather different.

Repeating Phil's claim, we were promised a campaign book to deal with those issues and know what fit with what historically. Until that we don't know.

According to the design philosophy FoG should be enough to deal with any battle size given its design precisely. If not, we would be considering FoG as a skirmishes game, which sometimes it seems to be though.

OK, what I really mean is the distance moved by the cavalry crossing from one flank to the other would be at least five double moves in a FOG game. With or without "turn-and-move" it would still take around 5 turns (as in game-turns, not chages of direction). So the historical evidence that they did that overall movement on the battlefield in however long it took them (and we don't know how long that was) does not tell us much about what a BG should be able to do in a single move. Meanwhile, our experience on the table does not equip us to judge how long other events of the wargame would take when there are 80 x 4-base battle groups of Romans on the table and 40 of Carthaginians.

[madaxeman]

I think that this was a rather exceptional circumstance and it would not be a good idea to base a general rule on it.

Let me put Graham words differently: infantry does not last much to allow many times any encircling strategy. And there he has a better point. Most of Hellenistic battles are described as the result of the victorius cavalry wing as being able or not to come back to the battlefiled again in time to help their infantry in the center. That is why I suggested in other post that infantry (especifically heavy non poor infantry, maybe with differences depending on troop quality) should have one extra steady or disrupted cohesion point (maybe that can't be bolstered, as a marker you quit once it is lost) and that CMT should be forced in order to stop pursuits.

By the way Cannae is only one more of many battles with encircling manouvers, some succesful, some not: Zama, Gaugamela, Ipsos, Bagradas plains, Magnesia, Trebia, Raphia...

If you could bolster anyone, or even anyone fighting opponents of equal or less density (ie HF vs MF, HF vs HF, but not MF vs HF) in the same turn they dropped cohesion it could help a little.

[ethan]

If you could bolster anyone, or even anyone fighting opponents of equal or less density (ie HF vs MF, HF vs HF, but not MF vs HF) in the same turn they dropped cohesion it could help a little.

Interesting idea. Could also be used to downgrade Romans a bit vs. MF warband types as they would benefit from this as well.

[Strategos69]

I agree, it is an interesting point to note, but I would only restrict it to MF and HF. The point is that usually the infantry battle usually does not last long enough to see any of your successes (or defeats) in the flanks count. That would also should be linked with some ways to effectively use reserves in your main infantry line other than the column support. For example, letting interpenetration between Romans with no drop in cohesion levels and other troops checking for a CT.

[dave_r]

If you could bolster anyone, or even anyone fighting opponents of equal or less density (ie HF vs MF, HF vs HF, but not MF vs HF) in the same turn they dropped cohesion it could help a little.

Interesting idea. Could also be used to downgrade Romans a bit vs. MF warband types as they would benefit from this as well.

It would make shooting utterly ineffective, so is unlikely to happen.