Second moves

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

zocco
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:42 am

Second moves

Post by zocco »

The current second move having to cease at 6MU from enemy seems too restrictive.

At present this allows a small number of BG(s) - frequently skirmishers - to potentially delay an opponents Battle Line and unduly slow the game. This is particularly so if the Battle Line is composed of slower troop types (eg HF).

From an historical viewpoint I don't believe that skirmishers were able to significantly delay an advance by heavier troops in open going unless the skirmishers were at least partly to the opponents flank or rear.

We need to ask for example whether such an intervening line of enemy skirmishers could have stopped the Greek hoplites rapid advance at Marathon or Julian's Roman infantry at Ctesiphon (363AD). Given that in both those instances the enemy battleline had a high proportion of missile troops (Persian foot and Sassanid Horse archers respectively) which generated much more firepower than skirmishers were able to muster and they were unable to hold back the closing HF) it seems unlikely that a line of skirmishers could have significantly slowed the opposition in such cases - either by their physical prescence or by their shooting.

The above premise can also be supported I believe by the battles of the Second Punic War. Psiloi were not there to slow the opposition heavy foot - once they started advancing the psiloi cleared out of the way. Rather they were there to snipe at the opposing heavies forming up in deployment, whilst protecting their own heavy troops from being inconvenienced in the same manner.

With the above in mind I'd therefore like to propose the following rule change;

If a BG or battleline is making a second move it must stop when within;

a) 3 MU of enemy skirmishers that are entirely to the front of the second movers BG or BL's leading base edge.

b) Otherwise when they approach to with 6 MU of enemy.

(NB - I admit 3 MU is a bit arbitrary but chosen as this is would allow HF in open going to move to charge range of the skirmishers. If HF movement is increased in V2 then the above rule could be amended appropriately).


I now await the inevitable howls of anguish :D
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

Its a nice idea. It would change some interactions a though. For a start stuff approaching skirmishers would take far less shooting. And under your rule can skirmishers approach within 3MU of skirmishers. LH rule again. As LF approached by LH failing a CMT must turn and move to get away. LH, if they have to turn, can shoot to their rear as they get away.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
zocco
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:42 am

Post by zocco »

philqw78 wrote:Its a nice idea. It would change some interactions a though. For a start stuff approaching skirmishers would take far less shooting. And under your rule can skirmishers approach within 3MU of skirmishers. LH rule again. As LF approached by LH failing a CMT must turn and move to get away. LH, if they have to turn, can shoot to their rear as they get away.
In regards skirmishers approaching to within 3MU of skirmishers the answer would be yes. It may give LH an bit of an advantage over LF in theory but one answer (reasonably historical I think) is to support the LF with heavier troops. If supported properly the LF could shoot at the LH (and visa versa) and if charged by the LH they could scoot back through their supporters. Also of course LF tend to be abit cheaper than LH so there's probably a points balance about these things.

I put this up for discussion and as one way of increasing the speed of play which I think has to be one of the priorities for V2. I'd also (as I've mentioned elsewhere) like to see HF move increased to 4MU in open (and perhaps even to 3MU in uneven). I know from comments posted in other topics that I'm not the only one who feels that HF armies are too pedestrian. A friend of mine playing a Chinese army recently said during a game that 'I'm going back to cavalry armies - this is too slow' - and all his foot were MF and LF :D
Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 »

zocco wrote:
philqw78 wrote:Its a nice idea. It would change some interactions a though. For a start stuff approaching skirmishers would take far less shooting. And under your rule can skirmishers approach within 3MU of skirmishers. LH rule again. As LF approached by LH failing a CMT must turn and move to get away. LH, if they have to turn, can shoot to their rear as they get away.
In regards skirmishers approaching to within 3MU of skirmishers the answer would be yes. It may give LH an bit of an advantage over LF in theory but one answer (reasonably historical I think) is to support the LF with heavier troops. If supported properly the LF could shoot at the LH (and visa versa) and if charged by the LH they could scoot back through their supporters. Also of course LF tend to be abit cheaper than LH so there's probably a points balance about these things.

I put this up for discussion and as one way of increasing the speed of play which I think has to be one of the priorities for V2. I'd also (as I've mentioned elsewhere) like to see HF move increased to 4MU in open (and perhaps even to 3MU in uneven). I know from comments posted in other topics that I'm not the only one who feels that HF armies are too pedestrian. A friend of mine playing a Chinese army recently said during a game that 'I'm going back to cavalry armies - this is too slow' - and all his foot were MF and LF :D
I like this idea, although it is not certain that skirmishers always slow down the enemy in FoG. I recall a battle where I counted with my skirmishers and a 6MU gap to have a couple of turns before the Romans would show up and they rolled 6 twice in the VMD. The result, the Romans arrived too quickly, before my cavalry could come to the rescue. It is true that the opposite could have happened too. If there is a fear about side effects, why not limit this movement to HF/MF or non skirmishers ignoring skirmishers so that skirmishers can't ignore other skirmishers?

As for the 4 MU for heavy foot, I also agree. In my opinion it would be better 4, 4, 3, 2 for HF. Right now getting into difficult going is wasting a BG
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark »

zocco wrote:
philqw78 wrote: A friend of mine playing a Chinese army recently said during a game that 'I'm going back to cavalry armies - this is too slow' - and all his foot were MF and LF :D

A little daft that. :D

MF and LF are perrfectly fine vs mounted. As you said the HF are the issue.
rpayne
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:57 pm

Post by rpayne »

I think this is a really good idea, and solves a current issue much cleaner than the ideas posted in the "Deeper Deployment" thread.

I think the original suggestion is a little too broad, though. I would clip it down to something like:

'Elephants and Non Skirmishing Foot can double move within 3" of Skirmishers that are not at least partially to their flank or rear at the beginning of the move.'

I'd keep it to MF and HF (elephants so they can move in line with MF) since mounted doesn't really seem to have an issue of being unable to close currently. Pair this with letting HF move 3" in Uneven and I think these two changes could solve the foot unable to close with a Benny Hill mounted army issue.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

rpayne wrote:..... Pair this with letting HF move 3" in Uneven and I think these two changes could solve the foot unable to close with a Benny Hill mounted army issue.
How? Benny hill takes place simply because it is a ugo Igo game, and the mounted move faster. Moving to 3 MU of skirmishers would not stop that.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
rpayne
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:57 pm

Post by rpayne »

It would save you that initial 3" as you close on them.

If you are chasing them with bows they would have to choose to either let you double move every turn, or let you advance while in shooting range.

It would give the mounted player less room for mistakes, fewer angles for clean evades, etc. For example, if the mounted player accidentally leaves his one LH keeping your line back inside charge range, common practice is to charge it with one BG so the others can double move and close faster. As is, it's not very likely for the LH to evade far enough away that it lets the rest of the line double move unless they roll up. With this, it would be very likely for the line to be able to double move after.

It wouldn't be a complete 180 degree change, but it would certainly help.


The issue with the benny hill strategy is not necessarily that it exists, but that tournament games don't have the time limit necessary for the foot to push the mounted off the board. That 3" saves you an entire turn, and I have had many games in that situation where 1 more turn would have gotten me several points.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

rpayne wrote:It would save you that initial 3" as you close on them.
If you have a general to double move.
If you are chasing them with bows they would have to choose to either let you double move every turn, or let you advance while in shooting range.
Not really. LH move to 10 and a bit MU away. The shooters musts still double move so cannot shoot. The LH then move to 10 and a bit away again next time. No gain.
It would give the mounted player less room for mistakes,
But it will only close down LH, not Cav
fewer angles for clean evades, etc. For example, if the mounted player accidentally leaves his one LH keeping your line back inside charge range, common practice is to charge it with one BG so the others can double move and close faster. As is, it's not very likely for the LH to evade far enough away that it lets the rest of the line double move unless they roll up. With this, it would be very likely for the line to be able to double move after.
Yes
It wouldn't be a complete 180 degree change, but it would certainly help.
It will but I do not think it will change the way you think it will. Or have at least explained. And if I want to block stuff now I'll just add a BG of unprotected Cav to the mix. Same points.
The issue with the benny hill strategy is not necessarily that it exists, but that tournament games don't have the time limit necessary for the foot to push the mounted off the board. That 3" saves you an entire turn, and I have had many games in that situation where 1 more turn would have gotten me several points.
The problem with the end game of Foot v's lights and mounted is they can never catch the LH and may just catch the cavalry in an endless game, never mind in a competition
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

Another side effect it will have is keeping the foot in battles lines for longer so they are more easily bypassed.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
rpayne
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:57 pm

Post by rpayne »

philqw78 wrote:
rpayne wrote:If you are chasing them with bows they would have to choose to either let you double move every turn, or let you advance while in shooting range.
Not really. LH move to 10 and a bit MU away. The shooters musts still double move so cannot shoot. The LH then move to 10 and a bit away again next time. No gain.
This is not true. There is a gain, if you do the math to figure it out.

Say we have MF bow advancing on a unit of LH. Currently, the LH moves to just outside 10" away. The MF moves to just outside 6", cannot shoot and cannot double move.

Say the restriction is reduced to 3". If the LH moves to just outside 10", the MF's first move takes them to just outside 6", they can then double move, albeit only 3".

To reduce the move distance, the LH has to be closer than 10" away, and any closer than 10" the MF can advance and shoot.

For non-shooters it is not as much of a benifit, but it still gains you the initial 3".
The problem with the end game of Foot v's lights and mounted is they can never catch the LH and may just catch the cavalry in an endless game, never mind in a competition
There is a board edge you know.


I would probably be okay with the rule also reducing the distance to 3" vs. Cavalry that are in skirmish formation. That seems fair. But even as is, Cavalry are worse to do this tactic with than LH, because they cannot benny hill a guy while shooting, and run a greater risk of being caught.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

rpayne wrote:
The problem with the end game of Foot v's lights and mounted is they can never catch the LH and may just catch the cavalry in an endless game, never mind in a competition
There is a board edge you know.
You've obviously never played a good LH player.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

rpayne wrote:Say the restriction is reduced to 3". If the LH moves to just outside 10", the MF's first move takes them to just outside 6", they can then double move, albeit only 3".

To reduce the move distance, the LH has to be closer than 10" away, and any closer than 10" the MF can advance and shoot.
The LH is still moving away at seven and the foot forward 7 and the, normally not very well armoured, MF shooters then get shot without returning fire, as they have marched. If I had a LH army I'd be happy. If they disrupted I'd stay put and shoot them again. They have got to test to charge me. There are lots of pro's and cons. Providing they equal out people would be happy.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
zocco
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:42 am

Post by zocco »

rpayne wrote:I think this is a really good idea, and solves a current issue much cleaner than the ideas posted in the "Deeper Deployment" thread.

I think the original suggestion is a little too broad, though. I would clip it down to something like:

'Elephants and Non Skirmishing Foot can double move within 3" of Skirmishers that are not at least partially to their flank or rear at the beginning of the move.'

I'd keep it to MF and HF (elephants so they can move in line with MF) since mounted doesn't really seem to have an issue of being unable to close currently. Pair this with letting HF move 3" in Uneven and I think these two changes could solve the foot unable to close with a Benny Hill mounted army issue.
Just a couple of points rpaynes suggestion isn't bad - however I'd like to see my original suggestion playtested before we see any restrictions put on it - hint 8)

I also have come round to HF moving 4-4-3-2 . To my mind movement wise they currently have the consistency of wallpaper paste :cry: Given the mechanics of FOG this makes it too easy to take them out of th eequation - something which I recall DBM got canned for (and rightly so). This is something that needs to be seriously addressed in V2.

Whilst possibly my final V2 rant I'd also (in the need for Speed) suggest that a look be taken at impact combats and increasing th eFRAG threshold for these (to 3 or even 4). The chances of fragging a unit currently is too low. Historically units would often break before impact - something which is not possible in FOG.

Ok rant over :oops:
muz177
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 9:42 am

Skirmishers

Post by muz177 »

Not sure if this has been suggested.

One of the items I think needs confirming is whether skirmishers would have closed to as close to an enemy as is common in FOG. I am happy with superior troops like Mongols closing to as close as they like, but reckon that poor skirmishers would need heaps of encouragement to get closer than their maximum range, and average skirmishers any closer than effective range.

Suggest a CMT needed to allow this - would make skirmishers less effective but more realistic (IMHO). Would also reduce the tricky moves that the really good tournament players use to move heavy foot out of line
player
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:41 am
Location: Northampton, England
Contact:

Post by player »

Talk of the heavy foot movement rate being increased to 4" in open means then that mounted troops are relatively slowed down. e.g. heavy chariots would then move at the same speed and cavalry only 1" more than heavy foot. It is pretty obvious that chariots must move faster than heavy foot, so if heavy foot movement is increased then others such as chariots need to go up. This then affects other factors such as missile ranges. The list goes on. I therefore are not in favour of increased move for heavy foot
terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4233
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Post by terrys »

Talk of the heavy foot movement rate being increased to 4" in open means then that mounted troops are relatively slowed down. e.g. heavy chariots would then move at the same speed and cavalry only 1" more than heavy foot. It is pretty obvious that chariots must move faster than heavy foot, so if heavy foot movement is increased then others such as chariots need to go up. This then affects other factors such as missile ranges. The list goes on. I therefore are not in favour of increased move for heavy foot
As you've identified every change has a knock-on effect. Every time we improve one troops type we downgrade all other troop types relative to them. Its going to be a fine juggling act.......
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

player wrote: It is pretty obvious that chariots must move faster than heavy foot,
Why? When further from the enemy the HF can open up their formation and move in a more relaxed style. Jogging if neccessary to get to position then as they approach to combat distance slowing down to stay in combat formation. Making them outside combat range much like MF.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
player
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:41 am
Location: Northampton, England
Contact:

Post by player »

Why? because Chariots and indeed all mounted are designed to work tactically at speeds greater than heavy foot. If the heavy foot are jogging etc. then we should be classing them as medium foot. Anyway, the rules as they stand are that all, particulary mounted all move faster than HF. That is the way it should stay.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

player wrote:Why? because Chariots and indeed all mounted are designed to work tactically at speeds greater than heavy foot. If the heavy foot are jogging etc. then we should be classing them as medium foot. Anyway, the rules as they stand are that all, particulary mounted all move faster than HF. That is the way it should stay.
But outside 6MU is not tactical. It is not in "effective" range. I'm not sure who designed the horse but people can run longer distances faster. Mounted are faster for short periods. And are so in the game at combat ranges. And at effective combat distances in the game everything still moves faster than HF under the proposal.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”