David53 raised a good point in another thread before it was hijacked by the grammar police, a lot is written about LH but at least they are doing what they did historically – scatter when threatened and prove hard to catch. There is plenty of evidence for that.
Drilled troops however seem manoeuvrable to a far greater extent than historical sources indicate. Is there really a historical precedent for English longbowmen, pikes, mediaeval mercenary knights (and their strange treatment as drilled), Immortals, Catalan Company almughavars to be able to do such battlefield manoeuvres as the rules permit?
The Household Division could learn a lot from these little toy soldiers…
Walter
Drilled troops in FoG – Trooping the Colour in miniature.
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
Re: Drilled troops in FoG – Trooping the Colour in miniature
Totaly agree partialy why i think 'enlarging' the ZOC would be goodwaldo wrote:David53 raised a good point in another thread before it was hijacked by the grammar police, a lot is written about LH but at least they are doing what they did historically – scatter when threatened and prove hard to catch. There is plenty of evidence for that.
Drilled troops however seem manoeuvrable to a far greater extent than historical sources indicate. Is there really a historical precedent for English longbowmen, pikes, mediaeval mercenary knights (and their strange treatment as drilled), Immortals, Catalan Company almughavars to be able to do such battlefield manoeuvres as the rules permit?
The Household Division could learn a lot from these little toy soldiers…
Walter
-
grahambriggs
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3073
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
In the case of the Immortals there is no particular evidence that they were manouverable. About the only thing they did in that vein was the flank march at Thermopylae. When it came to battle they were, if anything, less manouverable than most troops as they fought from behind a rigid "mantlet wall" in the same manner as the undrilled Persian infantry.
I believe that the need to cut down on manouverability has been raised a number of times. There certainly were some examples in the historical record of infantry showing significant manouverability. But it certainly wasn't usual. That suggests to me that either most generals were incapable of doing it, or there was enough risk that they decided not to.
In Fog every BG can try a complex move every bound. There is some risk if you do it too close to the enemy (turn and move so that someone can charge your flank is not a great move) or if you rely on doing it to get you our of trouble. But it's not really that much risk once you're played the rules a bit.
I believe that the need to cut down on manouverability has been raised a number of times. There certainly were some examples in the historical record of infantry showing significant manouverability. But it certainly wasn't usual. That suggests to me that either most generals were incapable of doing it, or there was enough risk that they decided not to.
In Fog every BG can try a complex move every bound. There is some risk if you do it too close to the enemy (turn and move so that someone can charge your flank is not a great move) or if you rely on doing it to get you our of trouble. But it's not really that much risk once you're played the rules a bit.
There's a clear consensus that turning 90 degrees and then moving your normal move distance is too much for infantry, and possibly for cavalry, too. Also, infantry turning away from a nearby, approaching enemy and plodding ahead of them safe in the knowledge that they can't be caught is another kind of move that most people think should be curtailed.
But the huge difference in useability between drilled and undrilled infantry either needs constraining or repricing. Given that the historical evidence for what particular troops could, or actually did, do on a battlefield is extremely patchy, it is a fair guess that MOST potential manoeuvres were considered too risky to be worth trying if there chaps from the opposition anywhere near. Therefore the difference between drilled and undrilled could be seen as more of a matter of degree than two totally different species.
Here's a thought: let undrilled troops attempt most, perhaps all, of what drilled troops can do, and let drilled troops throw the CMT before deciding what they do (as they already do); but undrilled troops only get to throw the dice AFTER they have committed to a plan that they might then fail to carry through...
Just how often a player would wait until the enemy were close before committing his undrilled infantry to either a short move; a wheel; a turn 90 and move; a 180 turn; or whatever – and then trusting to their deities – is another matter. So I don't know whether a bigger price difference than now would be justified.
But the huge difference in useability between drilled and undrilled infantry either needs constraining or repricing. Given that the historical evidence for what particular troops could, or actually did, do on a battlefield is extremely patchy, it is a fair guess that MOST potential manoeuvres were considered too risky to be worth trying if there chaps from the opposition anywhere near. Therefore the difference between drilled and undrilled could be seen as more of a matter of degree than two totally different species.
Here's a thought: let undrilled troops attempt most, perhaps all, of what drilled troops can do, and let drilled troops throw the CMT before deciding what they do (as they already do); but undrilled troops only get to throw the dice AFTER they have committed to a plan that they might then fail to carry through...
Just how often a player would wait until the enemy were close before committing his undrilled infantry to either a short move; a wheel; a turn 90 and move; a 180 turn; or whatever – and then trusting to their deities – is another matter. So I don't know whether a bigger price difference than now would be justified.
Seems a good idea for me but difficult to implement.GordonJ wrote:Here's a thought: let undrilled troops attempt most, perhaps all, of what drilled troops can do, and let drilled troops throw the CMT before deciding what they do (as they already do); but undrilled troops only get to throw the dice AFTER they have committed to a plan that they might then fail to carry through...
Just how often a player would wait until the enemy were close before committing his undrilled infantry to either a short move; a wheel; a turn 90 and move; a 180 turn; or whatever – and then trusting to their deities – is another matter. So I don't know whether a bigger price difference than now would be justified.
Again if you expand the ZOC you restrict those 'irrational moves', no more showing flank, no more wheeling except to get paralel to the ennemy.
And why not Expand ZOC to directly in front of the unit and 1 base on each side (overlap) and up to 6 MU
-
Strategos69
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
- Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain
I agree with Jilu. It is simple and it has some sense: 6MU is the arrow distance, also when double moves halt. Now we have normal movement of troops, zone of control and zone of interception, besides the non double moves zone. It is crazy to me to explain all those things to people and make them retain them. And if you think 6 is too much, standarise to 5MU for both halting double moves, zone of control and cavalry zone of interception and leave the zone of interception of infantry to 3, the same as their movement. In my opinion there are too many things for the same idea.
If CMT are turned into CT then people would risk less in doing fancy moves. Then the point is just which modifiers we choose for the different manouvers depending on the situation. For example, if your troops are 20MU away from any enemy, I can't see why we should be checking CMT and all that.
If CMT are turned into CT then people would risk less in doing fancy moves. Then the point is just which modifiers we choose for the different manouvers depending on the situation. For example, if your troops are 20MU away from any enemy, I can't see why we should be checking CMT and all that.