Deployment Area

[jorneto]

I´ve read some discussions about the considered excessive duration of a game or about many of those games not reaching a decision – draws. What if armies are deployed nearer than for current rules?

Say, a setup area of 16/20 MU’s instead of 10/15.

Assuming that both armies deploy the maximum forward, that means the main battlelines instead of starting 28 MU’s apart, would start at 16 MU’s, potentially saving two or more game turns and therefore 15+(30?) minutes.

[DavidT]

Great idea.

[jonphilp]

Hi,

This may be a competition timing issue , the games at our club tend to reach a conclusion. We have few draws but we do have sessions of a minimum of 6 hours. ( games can be a lot shorter especially if the dice of doom make an appearance for a player). As I often use Principate Roman's or Syracusan's your idea of closing the battlelines sounds good however if I was using my Sassanians or an army based on light horse/infantry or mainly firepower I doubt I would be happy. It would also result in your initial deployment being even more critical as the time to amend any losing matchups will be reduced. Sounds like a house rule if both sides are a melee based army rather than a change to the rule set.

[VMadeira]

Seems good to me!

[Strategos69]

I also like the idea. I would rather cut the distance among the armies that change game mechanics to speed combats. I would prefer to spend more time rolling dice than just moving straight in an empty space against a player doing the same.

[david53]

I also like the idea. I would rather cut the distance among the armies that change game mechanics to speed combats. I would prefer to spend more time rolling dice than just moving straight in an empty space against a player doing the same.

But rolling dice is'nt what FOG is about IMO.

[david53]

Great idea.

How so? what in FOG makes you believe a central match up works.

Don't you think the whole great thing about FOG is not having to do that, and the movement and manourve makes the game.

[Mehrunes]

Well, nobody is forced to deploy on the front edge of the deployment zone.
If you want to manoeuvre, just deploy your skirmishers at 20" and your battle troops at 10" or even less.
Should be enough room to correct some match-ups.

[david53]

Well, nobody is forced to deploy on the front edge of the deployment zone.
If you want to manoeuvre, just deploy your skirmishers at 20" and your battle troops at 10" or even less.
Should be enough room to correct some match-ups.

Why do you want it again

MM does this and look how popular that rule set is then.

[Mehrunes]

MM does this and look how popular that rule set is then.

You convinced me. Certainly the popularity of both rule sets lies in the rules for deployment zones alone.

[Strategos69]

Well, nobody is forced to deploy on the front edge of the deployment zone.
If you want to manoeuvre, just deploy your skirmishers at 20" and your battle troops at 10" or even less.
Should be enough room to correct some match-ups.

Why do you want it again

MM does this and look how popular that rule set is then.

That is the way Flames of War, WAB and Impetus do it and look how much more popular they are compared to FoG. They separe armies 40-60cm, but heavy troops move the double.

The idea of allowing deploying closer is for those wanting to go one against each other saving 2 or 3 uninteresting turns of moving straight forward. Indeed light cavalry skirmish armies can take up to 14 MU in the first turn and delay the battle for a long time. For the HF army, I have read some people commenting, it can be "as interesting as the newspaper that day".

What I meant by rolling dice is that I prefer melées to be slow and the battle decided by my decisions on out manouvering the enemy on the flanks or exploiting the gaps appeared in the line than a quick fight game with long turns of useless and uninteresting skirmishing. Certainly a game that decides to mix whole lines of legions should not be paying attention to minutiae movements that should be comprised in the general interaction of the BG instead. The main critique I have heard of FoG is that it is a skirmishes game, but not a battle's game.

And again, it is not compulsory to deploy at the limit allowed.

[philqw78]

That is the way Flames of War, WAB and Impetus do it and look how much more popular they are compared to FoG. .

Well you could fly 2 heavily laden African Swallows through all three of those rule sets, and the last 2 aren't particularly popular.

[david53]

That is the way Flames of War...

They also have 88mm's that can hit any part of the table, could we use them as well...

[david53]

That is the way Flames of War, WAB and Impetus do it and look how much more popular they are compared to FoG.

Maybe they are in Spain but I don't think they are in the UK since most events don't have Impetus I know there are a few with WAB not sure how big but I'd be suprised if they were bigger than FOG not that numbers counts in this.

I just don't think FOG needs closer deployment areas.

[Strategos69]

and the last 2 aren't particularly popular...

... in the UK. In any case, neither one or the other is a valid argument. Just because DBMM allows it, it shouldn't be in FoG.

I just don't think FOG needs closer deployment areas.

Why not? Take a look at AAR and you'll see people just moving one to each other. Why not avoiding that half an hour for those players? The game lasts that much time because it takes too long to get to the combat for the ones willing to. And then you go to combat and in V1 just 3 or 4 rounds of combat and that's it. Barely flank attacks coming into play, envelopping of enemy armies, cavalry coming back after victorius on a flank. The actual separation among armies is only to the benefit of those not willing to actually fight, but skirmish.

And again I don't mind what are the official deployment rules for tournaments, but it is a concern if basic game mechanics are meant to speed up the combats when the movements should be the ones cut down for those willing to skirmish.

[jonphilp]

Hi,

We have had 2 long term FOG campaigns in our club , and I am having trouble remembering games similar to the ones you describe, even when the Pike heavy armies were used. I can recall games with a lot of movement, Cavalry breaking through the flanks to threaten the rear of the enemy battle line etc. From your comments I assume that you do not rate "skirmish" armies. I admit using my Principate Romans against Parthians can lead to a difficult game but is this not an historical outcome.

I do not see this area as a problem with the rules , again if you think it is ,use a "house rule " to change the deployment Zone.

[Strategos69]

I do not see this area as a problem with the rules , again if you think it is ,use a "house rule " to change the deployment Zone.

I have already applied them! My mat is 150x100. My problem comes when combat mechanics are changed with the intention of making them too fast to keep the game in a reasonable amount of time while not touching what really slows down the game.

Examples of the games I was talking about where you can see basically two lines clashing unevenly, but not really big flank attacks on the main line. It is usually gone before any of that happens:
viewtopic.php?t=18074&start=0
viewtopic.php?t=8687
http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/Warfare_2009_1.php
viewtopic.php?t=11804

[jorneto]

The idea of allowing deploying closer is for those wanting to go one against each other saving 2 or 3 uninteresting turns of moving straight forward.

Exactly, that’s the point.
Even armies that need to soften up or disorganize an enemy prior to melee (bow armed cavalry/light horse armies for example - like mine!), must get closer to their opponents to pin, outflank or simply shoot them!

[ShrubMiK]

>not that numbers counts in this.

Remind me who was first in this thread to invoke numbers in support of their position