Rear support

[Strategos69]

Perhaps only the first two ranks of the column should be able to offer rear support?

Perhaps each supporting element should have to decide which BG it is supporting?

I like the idea of only the first two ranks counting for rear support. A column is no rear support, especially if the rooting movements do not allow to form in line.
I also think that the idea of automatic disorder should be considered for some cases, not all of them, and in other cases a CMT should decide. Another problem in this regard is to what extent FoG is planned to have reserves, which in my opinion is the really key point of Ancient Battles, or only two lines clashing. If we opt for the second, then BG are given an incredible capacity to manouver that they did not have historically.

Perhaps each supporting element should have to decide which BG it is supporting?

Simply, count the number of bases for rear support purposes. If the number equals the number of bases in front (equal or lesser quality of the supporters) or is up to half (better quality), then there is rear support. By the way, I think that cavalry should not benefit from rear support from infantry and viceversa.

[madaxeman]

This is far better than the columns we see now. If the support passes the CT the router is removed, if not it continues routing and bursts through.

Im not convinced this would stop people using columns. if the routers can shift past the column there is no reason to take a CT at all.

But a more solid 2nd line would be better to wade into combat with ... would be an interesting choice anyway, whereas at the moment an (ahistorical) column is the only choice.

[shadowdragon]

Rather than the routers being removed if the supporters pass a CT I'd prefer that supporters are not disrupted if they pass a CT. If it unbalances things too much a -1 on the CT can be considered. But, given the option of being in column versus removing the routers if supporters passing a CT seems like a damned if you do and damned if you don't. My preference would still be columns as (1) impact dice versus pursuers will be based on the column's width, (2) you can expand in the manoeuvre phase, (3) there's always the possibility that a fresh unit can charge into the pursuers and (4) I still have the option of rallying the routers.

With a don't lose cohesion by passing a CT if burst through I have a choice (1) stay in column to avoid the CT or (2) stay in line for maximum fighting power but risk losing cohension by losing a CT.

I agree that currently there is only one choice - support with columns.

[Strategos69]

I think that shadaowdragon is right. As I said in another post, the real problem is that columns perform too well in combat at impact, especially if they would be performing horribly in a normal confrontation. My suggestion is that overlaps provide one die each (or even more) to discourage this kind of behaviour. A column should be very weak against any enemy and right now it does not seem the case to me in certain circumstances.

[GHGAustin]

Please just adopt the support rules from FOG-Renaissance.

1) Troops offer support for friend who are one grade higher.

2) They don't have to be directly behind. (See FOG-Ro for the details.)

[nikgaukroger]

Please just adopt the support rules from FOG-Renaissance.

1) Troops offer support for friend who are one grade higher.

2) They don't have to be directly behind. (See FOG-Ro for the details.)

I don't believe either of those are really suitable for the ancient/medieval period - the FoG:R rules were written that way to get the feel of the period not because it was felt that the FoG:AM rules were wrong in some way.

[hazelbark]

Nik I can see the one grade higher being an issue.

But why do you think the slightly behind is a problem in the ancient period?

[GHGAustin]

I think both are issues. For example, a lot of dark ages cavalry are represented as better warriors in superior BGs and lesser warriors in average. My understanding is that historically the superiors deployed in the front with the lesser warriors in support in the rear. There is no reason to do this at all in FOG. Here I am referring to armies like the Lombards and others of that ilk.

Also, as others have mentioned, the columns of support seem rather odd. But there are two reasons people use them. First to get support for two BGs with a smaller unit at the junctions (often the case with Early Rep Romans). Second to avoid having the front units burst through the supporting units.

Another problem with the current system is that even if you do set up supporting units and do not put them in tidy little columns, the routing BGs will burst through. This happens even if you are far enough back that it is not the initial, but subsequent flee moves that carry through the supporting BGs.

All of this seems to work against supporting lines of BGs in FOG Ancients. Was that the goal?

[kdonovan]

I think allowing an equal number of bases of troops one grade lower to provide support is a good idea, maybe even of any grade.

What about allowing routers to pass through any friends without penalty during a joint phase but not the initial route phase? Or maybe allow routers such interpenetrations without bursting through after their first 3 MUs of movement.

Any troops who are contacted by by pursuers in the same phase routing friends burst through them should have to take a cohesion test.

Only the front two ranks of supporting troops should count, columns providing support is absurd.

While it is true that superiors supported by average would be a big beneficiary of this change, such a change would lead to more average troops being fielded and committed to fights when the supports were needed to cover a flank or the like, so we might actually see more average cavalry and the like actually fighting.

[GHGAustin]

I think allowing an equal number of bases of troops one grade lower to provide support is a good idea, maybe even of any grade.

I like that.

And maybe allow support if any portion of the supporting BG is directly to the rear of the supported BG, not based on how many bases are actually to the rear. This would be somewhere between FOG and FOGR.

What about allowing routers to pass through any friends without penalty during a joint phase but not the initial route phase? Or maybe allow routers such interpenetrations without bursting through after their first 3 MUs of movement.

Any troops who are contacted by by pursuers in the same phase routing friends burst through them should have to take a cohesion test.

I was thinking about something like this too. My thought was in the initial rout (and maybe any rout from an enemy in contact) the rules remain unchanged. In other rout moves, the routers interpenetrate without causing the friends to drop a level. This represents the less panicked routers flowing around of filter through friends without disrupting them.

While it is true that superiors supported by average would be a big beneficiary of this change, such a change would lead to more average troops being fielded and committed to fights when the supports were needed to cover a flank or the like, so we might actually see more average cavalry and the like actually fighting.

Absolutely. And Poor troops, too. We use Poor a lot more in FOG-R than we ever have in FOG. But they are different that Inferior troops in DBM, since they actually have to be close enough to the front line of BGs to actually support them.

[Polkovnik]

I think allowing an equal number of bases of troops one grade lower to provide support is a good idea, maybe even of any grade.

What about allowing routers to pass through any friends without penalty during a joint phase but not the initial route phase?

I like both these ideas, but I think the routers should only be able to interpenetrate if facing the opposite direction, i.e. routing directly through the front of the friendly unit.

[philqw78]

I think allowing an equal number of bases of troops one grade lower to provide support is a good idea, maybe even of any grade.

What about allowing routers to pass through any friends without penalty during a joint phase but not the initial route phase?

I like both these ideas, but I think the routers should only be able to interpenetrate if facing the opposite direction, i.e. routing directly through the front of the friendly unit.

Just make them take a CT. If they pass the routers go through extra cohesion loss, if they fail lose a level.