Historical accuracy, map size & rout level

[Lysimachos]

It has much been debated about the ability of the FOG system to replicate the reality of an ancient battlefield and, in fact, some doubts have been rightly aroused pointing out how many battles evolves at the moment, expecially when fighting DAG battles, in two or even three distinct encounters, each one far away from the other, moreover with pike & other heavy infantry units straggling alone in the open like acting in a commando-style.
And a discussion has been opened about the need of creating a command structure able to give the ability of moving and fighting effectively only to the units wich remains in the command radius of a general.
But, given the fact that this would mean a quite complete revision of the game it seems really unlikely that a solution of this kind may be ever will achieved.

Luckily, however, it seems to be another much easier solution.
In fact, after building up quite a large number of scenarios it appears that the problem just lies in two distinct factors.
Following the fact that an ancient battle was a linear encounter between two compact bodies of soldiers it comes quite clearly that in order to duplicate a linear & compact battle you firstly need a linear & compact map.
Actually the DAG system employes maps whose size is clearly unable to create the flavour of a real ancient battlefield.
Some testing with the scenario editor reveals that infantry and mixed armies up to 550/600 points need no more than 20x30 maps to be correctly deployed and to give life to a real linear engagement (like, for example, the Durazzo Scenario clearly shows), while over this threshold a 20x40 maps would still remain optimal.
And the same should be worth saying for cavalry armies vs cavalry armies, the only exception being that of cavalry armies vs infantry or mixed armies, where – in order to recreate the hit & run tactics of horse archers – 30x40 maps would be more appropriate.
On the other hand, the second factor that tends to affect the actual system is given by the rout level, fixed at 50% of the total strength of an army, whereas the literary evidence coming from ancient writers says us that an army collapsed much earlier before reaching this amount of losses (and many other ancient wargames just place the rout level at 35%-40%).
A lowering of the rout level to, say, 40% would then bring in the FOG system two beneficial features represented by the fact:
- that a battle would probably stop a bit before having on the battlefield too few units, with that distinct feeling of a deserted party,
- that horde armies would start loosing the actual overpowering given by the great numbers of their units, that generally begin to tell only in the final stages of a battle.

Any thoughts about this?

[Xiggy]

I think the fixed moral level is a problem. Maybe at 25-30 percent losses you start rolling army moral. You have 3 levels of army moral, just like troop moral. If the Army fails a check, then it becomes disordered and all average and below units take a -1 to all cohesion and combat tests. All units out of command take a missile moral check as if they took 2 hits. (This is a computer game, so would happen at the end of the turn and be quick) You would take an additional moral check every turn after you hit 25-30 percent losses. When your army was fragged then all superior units would get a -1, average a -2, poor -3 to all combat and cohesion check. Again out of command units would have to take a -2 missile moral check.

You would get pluses if an opposing general was killed and if the opposing army was at 25 percent, so you could recover your moral if things went well.

The out of command part makes you take inspired generals or multiple generals and also make you stay grouped up.

This is an idea. The fixed moral thing comes from older games. I don't think that was ever a great solution, but when playing on a table top, your options are limited compared to using a computer to roll dice etc.

[Morbio]

I'm a little concerned by this. I want to play pike armies etc. but I also prefer the flexibility to manoeuvre units as I wish, particularly cavalry and MF. I like to stretch the flanks and try to get to the rear. It may not be as historical as people perceive, but it gives me tactical options to consider.

If all I can do is form a line, march it forward, watch the combat and see if I've won or not then I wouldn't play, simply because I want to interact and not just observe.

I prefer playability over perceived historical accuracy any time.

Please don't make the maps smaller.

[CaptainHuge]

I like the idea of having an chance of defeat, increasing as the number of broken units increases, rather than a hard figure of 50%. It would add a little more tension, especially in close games.

Having greater moral check penalties for being out of command range might help balance things a little better vs horde armies. The horde general would have to worry more about keeping his units under command or risk losing them. It might force them to 'bunch up' more as well. The strictest penalties should be on heavy and medium infantry though to allow horse archer armies the required freedom of movement.

[TheGrayMouser]

Im with Morbio on this one, realism aside. I dont want to see my options limited nor do I want the game to resemble the GBOH pc games where armies start literally on top of eachother....

As fo th BP level, i think this game does the best job out of any similar turn based games in determining when the game "ends"
Remember , all the "stats" on casualties from sources (15-20% for the winner, 50-60% for the loser) etc are the body count well after the battle is over. I dont think anyone can tell with any degree of certainty what the final stage of a battle is. When did Waterloo actually "end" in terms of a Fench loss? Was it when the Guard broke or sometime after where even though the majority of french units were withdrawing /fleeing, some units performed heroics fighting forlorn rearguard actions....

i dont like the idea of cohesion penalities on units as you get closer to the rout level, Why would a unit on the left flank fight worse because the extreme right flank is being crushed? Those troops likly would have no ide what was going on and shouldnt be effected.

[TheGrayMouser]

Double post as I cant see what Im typing w this damn IE version:

I think one way to increase realism without altering map size is via deployment , and to stay within the way the game works. It is something that has been brought up before, and it does have some detractors BUT: the winner of the initiave deploys 1/4 of his troops, the turn passes and the opponent does same until everyone is fully deployed and game starts. Good chance armies will be deployed relativly across from eachother instead of some of the huge surprises you often get where one army is tucked in the NE corner, the other in the Sw.

BP's How about a floating BP that is unkown to both side ie 6-8% plus or minus ? Of course the BP level of your army and your opponents would need to be hidden, although you could count beans as the game progresses to get an idea but you would never be certain... Additionally have a more extreme FOW where you dont know the exact % of men left in an enemy BG,... No more targeting a unit that is at 45% because 1 casualty will cause an auto rout... You should have an idea though so a BG say anywhere from 74-100% will display a full health bar, 60-74 a skull etc.(of course this will throw off the POA diplays if you are thinking about charging said unit so those would have to be hidden as well.... hmmm any change/idea always has hidden issues LOL....

[Lysimachos]

I'm a little concerned by this. I want to play pike armies etc. but I also prefer the flexibility to manoeuvre units as I wish, particularly cavalry and MF. I like to stretch the flanks and try to get to the rear. It may not be as historical as people perceive, but it gives me tactical options to consider.

If all I can do is form a line, march it forward, watch the combat and see if I've won or not then I wouldn't play, simply because I want to interact and not just observe.

I prefer playability over perceived historical accuracy any time.

Morbio

I'm quite sure a smaller map doesn't greatly affect any flanking movement nor lower the tactical options.
About the first question the map size only minimize the time needed to execute the maneuvre, not just preclude it.
About the second question the answer is different whether you play on a flat, plain map or on a one with different terrain types.
In the first case you are left full of option in order to make your better units impact the softest of the enemy and avoiding your worst BG enter in contact with enemy.
In the second case you have not only this options but also to consider the terrain factor.

Anyway, being difficult to convince someone only writing, I’d like you try this little scenario just to have an idea!
http://www.mediafire.com/?0w21lbqzdd2wsb1

[Lysimachos]

And the invitation is open to TGM, obviously!!

[Xiggy]

I think double moves have already effectively shrunk the maps. I would like to see wider maps with a more limited deployment zone. That way you cant setup on an edge, and have a safe flank.

I also think that double moves should end for the entire army once you are in charge range of non LF/LH. Then Horde armies could not easily redeploy from 1 flank to another when they were out maneuvered.

The hard 50 percent army break caps makes you do crazy things to get to end the game. In reality you never knew when an army would break. Some randomness when the army would break would add some spice to the game.

[Skanvak]

I would like to see wider maps with a more limited deployment zone. That way you cant setup on an edge, and have a safe flank.

Yes, I think it is the most needed. Right now you can set up your army in a corner of the map. The set-up area should be closer to each other and more in the middle with at least 3-5 hex from every border.

[Morbio]

I think double moves have already effectively shrunk the maps. I would like to see wider maps with a more limited deployment zone. That way you cant setup on an edge, and have a safe flank.

I also think that double moves should end for the entire army once you are in charge range of non LF/LH. Then Horde armies could not easily redeploy from 1 flank to another when they were out maneuvered.

The hard 50 percent army break caps makes you do crazy things to get to end the game. In reality you never knew when an army would break. Some randomness when the army would break would add some spice to the game.

I like all these suggestions. A 50% BP +/- some randomness would be great... or an increasing chance of army rout from (for example) 45% losses onwards - say 10% rout chance at 45% losses and increase by 10% per each additional percentage of losses, so 20% rout chance at 46%, 30% rout chance at 47% etc.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think double moves have already effectively shrunk the maps. I would like to see wider maps with a more limited deployment zone. That way you cant setup on an edge, and have a safe flank.

I also think that double moves should end for the entire army once you are in charge range of non LF/LH. Then Horde armies could not easily redeploy from 1 flank to another when they were out maneuvered.

The hard 50 percent army break caps makes you do crazy things to get to end the game. In reality you never knew when an army would break. Some randomness when the army would break would add some spice to the game.

I like all these suggestions. A 50% BP +/- some randomness would be great... or an increasing chance of army rout from (for example) 45% losses onwards - say 10% rout chance at 45% losses and increase by 10% per each additional percentage of losses, so 20% rout chance at 46%, 30% rout chance at 47% etc.

Woa Woa Woa, are you saying you would like a close game to end simply because a rendom % roll ends it? I think quite a few players are posting that the game has too much luck anyways and now a battle can potentially end from nothing but raw luck??

[Morbio]

I think double moves have already effectively shrunk the maps. I would like to see wider maps with a more limited deployment zone. That way you cant setup on an edge, and have a safe flank.

I also think that double moves should end for the entire army once you are in charge range of non LF/LH. Then Horde armies could not easily redeploy from 1 flank to another when they were out maneuvered.

The hard 50 percent army break caps makes you do crazy things to get to end the game. In reality you never knew when an army would break. Some randomness when the army would break would add some spice to the game.

I like all these suggestions. A 50% BP +/- some randomness would be great... or an increasing chance of army rout from (for example) 45% losses onwards - say 10% rout chance at 45% losses and increase by 10% per each additional percentage of losses, so 20% rout chance at 46%, 30% rout chance at 47% etc.

Woa Woa Woa, are you saying you would like a close game to end simply because a rendom % roll ends it? I think quite a few players are posting that the game has too much luck anyways and now a battle can potentially end from nothing but raw luck??

I don't think my proposal is nothing but raw luck. The skill is in delivering the damage to the enemy army to get it it to the point where it starts to receive tests for army rout. Clearly, the sooner you get there the sooner the army routs. Similarly, the quicker you get it beyond the minimum test point the quicker it routs. The only bit where luck comes in is at the testing point whereby it may rout at the minimum point (but is unlikely) or it may go to the maximum point (which is a certain rout... although unlikely to get that far since it would, in most cases, rout somewhere before the maximum).

Occasionally, in a closely fought battle, an army could win with lower BPs achieved than the losing army. However, this would be a very rare occurrence. In the vast majority of battles the losing side would be the one with the most losses, the only difference is that you can't predict exactly when that loss will happen. It would represent that vagaries of war - who knows what is the trigger which causes an army to rout - it could be just one man (If you've read David Gemmel then this would be the Battle of Skeln pass when the Immortals ran from Druss and the Drenai - yes, I know it is fiction... or could be Darius at Guagamela who I doubt received 50% losses).

I suggest this change (and it is only a suggestion) because I know from experience that I have occasionally done some strange attacks that I wouldn't normally do when I need 1 BP to win and I'm in a close battle and I don't want my opponent to get another turn. If there was a risk that I may not win with 50% then I'd continue to play the battle as I should play rather than using game play to win.

[pantherboy]

I don't mind a number of the suggestions. The rout level being variable is OK also but shouldn't be a blanket addition. I think what slitherine needs to do is create a large options list for matches. For me variable rout level is excellent for campaigns but in a tournament I'd prefer a set level. With an options list you could pre-select the size of the map thus catering to all tastes. Posted challenges just need to detail all options in use for it and then everyone can be satisfied.

Cheers,

Steve

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmmm I know what your saying about the endgame part and micromanaging to get that one last BP. If the goal is to pevent this methinks there are better ways of doing it than a random % where you just , well lose…

Put it this way, when players post their results (leauge games etc, there is always more relish/good natured ribalry in a close game that goes to the wire., since this community is pretty mature there is a gracefulness to such game rpts. I see that going away in a game were both could win but then , oops the program ends it in a roll of a one on a D10.

Here is an example: both armies have 50 bp’s each, player A takes his turn and does quite a lot in his turn, he’s in a good position . After moving his last unit , the score is now 40/50 40/50 . He hits end turn button: Is this a trigger for the active player to now roll a “saving throw” to see if he lost?? Hardly seems fair…. Do BOTH player need to roll a 10% (or whatever) chance to not have their army rout?? You would COMPLETELY be leaving the final result of the battle up to pure CHANCE…..

Not to harp on the same thing over but I think one way to mitiagte that last turn micromanaging to squeez the last BP (but at same time make rally high risk attacks, leave tropps in a horribly bad postion that one would never do midgame) is the following

Have an ExtremeFOW option where enemy units % strengths remain hidden,. POA calcs/combat odds would still be “visible” but will always represent the maximum/ ideal and not necasarily the actual reality….. At the least there would be no more hunting down units at 46% casulties w LF bows etc to atritt them to auto rout level, nor would you charge a knight with a defensive spear unit cause you just wouldn’t know .01% causalties will rout it.

[Xiggy]

I think there still needs to be some visual indicator if a unit is in good order or low on hp. If you have a 256 man pike block, it becomes visually obvious when they start to lose cohesion.

Older game systems illustrated this by push backs. You would see your guys pushing the other guys back. You would see troop density lighten. Some of Alexanders victories were based on seeing the weakness in the enemy line and exploiting it. I think Darius or Xerxes (can't remember which) left the battle when he perceived things were heading downhill. That spread to his men shortly thereafter and the route was on.

So, I think we need some visual queues as to what shape the units are in. Maybe not exact casualties, but something. (Maybe just the skulls)

[TheGrayMouser]

I think there still needs to be some visual indicator if a unit is in good order or low on hp. If you have a 256 man pike block, it becomes visually obvious when they start to lose cohesion.

Older game systems illustrated this by push backs. You would see your guys pushing the other guys back. You would see troop density lighten. Some of Alexanders victories were based on seeing the weakness in the enemy line and exploiting it. I think Darius or Xerxes (can't remember which) left the battle when he perceived things were heading downhill. That spread to his men shortly thereafter and the route was on.

So, I think we need some visual queues as to what shape the units are in. Maybe not exact casualties, but something. (Maybe just the skulls)

Right, how I envison it would be the cohesion state of enemy BG's would always be known, The skulls would represent a range of a units remaining strength, so a unit with 73-100% strength would have no skulls etc etc. Why 73% and not a clean 75%? Because 75% is a game break point for a unit losing a combat dice, potentially losing a POA etc, and that should be an unkown quality...

[Xiggy]

Of course for that to work you would need to disable the little black window where the combat results are displayed.

By the way, I have no problem with the randomness.

[TheGrayMouser]

Yup, w an "extreme fow" you would have to give up the black box verboise screen for it to have any meaning.

[Lysimachos]

I don't mind a number of the suggestions. The rout level being variable is OK also but shouldn't be a blanket addition. I think what slitherine needs to do is create a large options list for matches. For me variable rout level is excellent for campaigns but in a tournament I'd prefer a set level. With an options list you could pre-select the size of the map thus catering to all tastes. Posted challenges just need to detail all options in use for it and then everyone can be satisfied.

Cheers,

Steve

First of all I totally agree with pantherboy when he says that a larger option list would allow everyone to select the preferred map size.
In fact, at the moment, I'm personally quite dissatisfied with the actual DAG system just because of map size and, having only little free time, I'm considering to stop this kind of game, rather concentrating on scenarios.

About rout level, having read all the suggestions, I still think a lower one should be much more appropriate but I also agree with those who says that a variable level could add some more spice to the game.