Bringing Balance to the Force(s) – a point system overhaul.

[TheGrayMouser]

Right , the TT has bases and the PC game has units... would really be difficult to address this in a hex based game though, you could easily do 2 hex units (as the GMT games did ) but beyond that you are limited...

I think limited moves outside of command range would mitigate horde army problems, ie your not going to be able to do vast eneveloments and micromange 60 odd units effectively if units outside the command range need to pass CMT 's to do basic maneuvers , like turn facing etc. hmmm.

[deeter]

A simpler solution would to be require units in the same BG to always have another unit of the BG adjacent. Thus, a barbarian BG with a minimum of 8 stands on the TT would be 4 units on the PC that always have to operate together in some sort of line or column. If a unit routes from the middle of such a formation, the other units would have to rejoin into a new line at the next opportunity or not move. No need for another layer of commanders or multi-hex markers. As for skirms and mounted, why not require the same of them?

Deeter

[stockwellpete]

however, similar to the TT, I think that bow, crossbow and longbow ranges should be divided into effective range at 3 hexes; and outside effective range at 5 hexes.

This an interesting idea that I would support. I would also say that the range of the medieval longbow should be 6 hexes and that its effective range should probably be 5 hexes.

[pantherboy]

A lot of interesting points have been mentioned on this thread. In my opinion though I wouldn't want to see any units decreased in cost as I don't feel it is justified. On the contrary some should be raised which would lead to smaller hordes. For example an undrilled MF prot LS is 5pts compared to an undrilled MF prot impact swordsmen for 7pts. Basically 3 LS MF for 2 MF impact with change. The LS will fight 1 POA down on impact and melee regardless of status. In general the 3 will be routed by the two. I feel a general increase by 1 point on a number of units is needed which in turn diminishes some of the hordes.

Also I'd prefer to see less extremes on the casualties so that formations don't collapse so rapidly and possibly indexed to a units protection. I much prefer units being forced to rout through cohesion tests rather than auto-rout. This in turn would increase the value of leaders as the units will rely more heavily upon cohesion tests to stay in line.

As for grouping units I can't see them doing a huge reprogramming so it would need to be somthing easily integrated. What about applying cohesion test modifiers that are based upon formation. For example if you have an identical unit or similar on each flank then you suffer zero cohesion modifiers. If one flank is left open then a -1 or -2 if both are open. You would still recieve a +1 for rear support. This would really make it a risky proposition breaking units off to go commando for if they should lose the impact or the ensuing melee then they are already down -2.

I also like the idea of unit paralysis should they be operating outside of a command radius. I understand that sub commanders operate in the individual units but overall a commander would never fragment his force for obvious reasons. A CMT to do anything except a forward move would be good. You will still have the option of sending a unit rogue or lights/mounted leaderless but will have less control over them. This promotes more commanders which in turn reduces horde armies as they suffer the most from purchasing an expensive leader.

Cheers,

Steve

[ianiow]

As for grouping units I can't see them doing a huge reprogramming so it would need to be somthing easily integrated. What about applying cohesion test modifiers that are based upon formation. For example if you have an identical unit or similar on each flank then you suffer zero cohesion modifiers. If one flank is left open then a -1 or -2 if both are open. You would still recieve a +1 for rear support. This would really make it a risky proposition breaking units off to go commando for if they should lose the impact or the ensuing melee then they are already down -2.

I like this idea. There would be a problem however with troops charging into combat. The first could be totally unsupported, the second and consequent units would only be supported on one side. A way around this might be to only apply this rule to melee and ranged CMT's. Impact combat would have to be exempt.

[pantherboy]

As for grouping units I can't see them doing a huge reprogramming so it would need to be somthing easily integrated. What about applying cohesion test modifiers that are based upon formation. For example if you have an identical unit or similar on each flank then you suffer zero cohesion modifiers. If one flank is left open then a -1 or -2 if both are open. You would still recieve a +1 for rear support. This would really make it a risky proposition breaking units off to go commando for if they should lose the impact or the ensuing melee then they are already down -2.

I like this idea. There would be a problem however with troops charging into combat. The first could be totally unsupported, the second and consequent units would only be supported on one side. A way around this might be to only apply this rule to melee and ranged CMT's. Impact combat would have to be exempt.

Your right. What about as long as you started the turn with the flanks covered? In this way it doesn't alter impact combats as long as you started in line which would then encourage you to attack all along the front to maintain the benefit in melee. Also if it checks at the start of the turn then units deployed alone could be charged and they would suffer the penalty for being isolated. Checking at start would also encourage people to form up before attacking so that no penalty is incurred.

[ianiow]

That will work. But I can foresee lots of 'camping' in defensive terrain because it will be easier to keep an advantageous formation from a defensive position. I'll have to have a think about this one!

[cothyso]

Slitherine can not change FoG too much compared with the TT version rules. This means that any core gameplay rules modifications will never happen (at least until they will be included into the TT version official rules).

And you must also remember that TT rules MUST be simple, in order to allow an acceptably simple and decent play times.

Yet, most of the things were said in here are true, and should be in any ancient battles (computer) wargame. Most of them are already present in the design of the Ancient War Game personal project I am working on:
- 2 hexes units (phalanxes)
- recoiling units
- morale as the lead factor measure in winning/losing a battle
- army groups (wings/center) and battle lines morale and support (a BG having flanks covered, or in contact with friendly BGs will get a morale bonus, or a BG not having them will get a morale penalty -> strong morale BG's + leaders are needed to keep the extremities of the battlelines stand and fight, specially when enveloped)
- local army morale - different local morale for left wing, center and right wing
- general army morale - reflecting all army's local morales
- morale battlefield sweeps - modification of the BGs morale (and therefore local morale and general morale) sweeping the battlefield due to important battle moments
- BG machine states (marching, charging, evading, fighting (melee), fighting (skirmishing), waiting (standing), waiting (ambush) and so on)
- user setable BG battle behavior (battle orders/states: push-kill/stand/defend/drawback) (a BG's starting to get casualties means it can't face it's current opponent anymore, so the unit may stand and fight until dies (IF ordered and having strong morale, experience/loyalty), slowly give terrain (again depending on orders and morale, experience, etc), or be routed, etc)
- LBGs - BG's can be "melted" into larger battlegroups LBGs (2/3/4/.. BGs), trading speed/maneuverment vs solid battleline (continuous line bonuses/combat support/morale, etc)
- battleline penetration - units having gaps between them, gaps which ca be forced by enemy BGs to break through (gaps which are not free hexes, but disordered adjacent BGs from a battleline, or between LBGs)
- battle map generation/pre-battle modification (the players may add/block/move some map features)
- realistic fog of war based on scouting reports (enemy units in the distance at deployment can only be recognized and seen as general prototype units cavalry/big shields/ spears, etc; and can be wrongly reported too) and will turn into real units once armies start to close up
- deployment reconnaisance
- realistic deployment (each army will have a list with possible units of the other army - like in the full army list units/numbers; no ancient army was entering a battle without that kind of knowledge), deployment in simultaneous turn
- LBG's additional command structure (a 3rd command level; lower than army/wings commanders 2 levels structure)
- real-time multiplayer option (as in not playing in turns only)
- cooperative multi-player (battles can have more than 2 sides, and each side may have more than one player)

and many, many others.

Having all of these features added into FoG would have been nice, but frankly, I don't see it happening as business game development is primary a business.

At this moment, I am working on the 3D engine, but maybe I will take some time and post a complete game concept on the web site (as the concept it is already done)

[pantherboy]

That will work. But I can foresee lots of 'camping' in defensive terrain because it will be easier to keep an advantageous formation from a defensive position. I'll have to have a think about this one!

People already camp in terrain especially if they are MF heavy. I don't see this changing anything.

[TheGrayMouser]

That will work. But I can foresee lots of 'camping' in defensive terrain because it will be easier to keep an advantageous formation from a defensive position. I'll have to have a think about this one!

People already camp in terrain especially if they are MF heavy. I don't see this changing anything.

I dont see it stopping players from "camping " on terrian either, but my concern is it could encourage much more defensive style play. The reason is this: if units suffer penalties simply for being on the "flanks", noone is going to be able to attack as effectivley as before, since we all know what happens when units rout an enemy BG , they follow.... When battle lines clash there is a tendancy (especially considering the large #'s of bg on th map) for units to very quickly get seperated from eachother, even if only by a hex .
What happens when a unit in contact w an enemy to its front has a friendly unit to its left rear? (or right rear , remeber we are dealing w hexes) So it get rear support bonus but a double wammy for no flank "support"? Kinda of counter intuitive. Also look at smaller "formations" say a line of 4 Legion BG's . 50% of the unit is now going to be suffering mal effects for "open flanks" or a two by two formation, 100% of the bg's gets a single wammy


I dunno , i like the concept of units way out near the end of the line having a possible concern for being outflanked, but to have every bg in game suffer for not having evey flank connected seams too much .

Also a concern is would BG facing effect support ?

An idea has just sprung to mind which is partially based off the REN TT rules for flank threats as well as other turn based/hexbased pc games

Maybe introduce the concept of "threat zones" that units would project from their frontal arc (range would be there move/charge distance) A unit at the "end of the line" on a flank might suffer a cohesion penelty if with in the arc of a threating enemy battle group?
(maybe this would best be accomplished by cavalry )

So somewhat like the Ren rules a BG that has an exposed flank, no rear support will suffer the cohesion test penalty if an enemy cavalry unit COULD charge into the exposed flank or rear (the penalty would exist when testing for anything and not necasarily if that cavalry unit impact or not)

[cothyso]

TGM, of course the concept of penalties for open flanks should only apply if the reason to be worry about them appears. If there's no enemy BG trying to outflank, or already outflanking, there should be no penalty applied for that.

The concept of battleline ZOC is the logic extension of the concept of BG ZOC (ZOC is the Zone of Control). Is like in Go, where a group of stones are counting liberties together. A group of BG's are forming a battleline IF they are connected:
- usually via direct flank connection
- but it can also be via lateral front-lateral back connection for staggered lines

A unit should consider it has it's flanks protected if:
- a friendly unit is directly connected via those flanks with it (they are in the same battle line, somewhere in the middle of it)
- it's neighbor of a protected battleline gap (which appears for very close exposed flanks, or even easier to visualize, lateral ZOC connection) - for example, imagine 2 BG's with only a single (or two) empty hexes between them. Those two BGs are practically connected through the fact the the free hex inbetween is actually a ZOC of one of them(or both, for the single inter hex).

So, two army wings can still form a battleline with no real internal flank opening as long as their battleline can be reached going only through friendly ZOCs). The stronger the ZOC (number of BG's having that hex in their ZOC), the stronger the connection.