Does this contrevene the rules and what do the stats say.

[shall]

However, the probability of being less lkely to lose and less likely to lose by two hits, makes the single base frontage the one you really want to choose to go with.

Not really Roger you'll get murdered on average if you try this in a game. It is far to narrow a perspective on one microcosm within a much bigger overall combat even, never mind within the much larger still whole battle. Which is what matters. I would be delighted to see anybody set up this way oppsote me as a Roman.

You have tied up 2 BGs of Spear vs 1 of legionaries...now what do you think the other legionaries will be doing.

If you have just a single spear BG against a single legionary one, it look tempting but by being in column you have guaranteed fighting the second round at a disadvatngae as well due to lack of dice. So even that is not so pretty if you look beyond just the impact phase and first CT and do the whole tree. i.e. 3 wide hits 1 wide, in melee it will be 3 wide vbs 2 wide for 50% more dice.

So for many reasons you will find I susepect that you are better with 2 BGs at the front and 1 behind if you are determined to use 2 BGs vs a single Roman.

Andy

Your lay explanation isn't far off The simplest way I could express it is this

• Option 1: 3 Bgs at front in column = 3 BGs at immediate risk with guaranteed -1 for 1hp3, small odds of a -2 CT test, and if any one routs it will force 2 others to test = big risk of taking 2 othewrs with any loser. Outcome = lowest odds of losing badly in round 1, middle odds of surviving CTs in impact, worst odds of surviving combat in the melee round, worst outcome if it goes wrong, no chance to consolidate a win if you get lucky. WORST OVERALL
  
  Option 2: 2 BGs at front in blocks with 1 BG behind = no longer certain of -1 for 1hp3 (better), but more chance of the -1 for 2hit difference (go some way to cancelling each other out) BUT a 100% guaranteed +1 for rear support and only 2 BGs at risk. If 1 BG routs it takes another 1 with it rather than 2. So if offered you a guranteed ??100 would you prefer this to [1 x 50% of losing ??100 and 2 x 50% chances of winning ??100]. This is sort of the analogy as you move the odds of getting the +s and -s for the CT around. Worse odds of losing the first round badly, middle odds of surviving the impact CTsm( a bit better than in 1), good odds of surviving melee round, decent chance to consolidate a win if you get lucky in impact. GOOD OVERALL.
  
  1BG and 1/4 BG behind (ie half sixew and offset to support 2 BGs) = as above, but the most efficeint use of points and the legionaries no longer have a free BGs to go off and do other things. Better chances all round of surviving asnd wraps up maximum legionaries for your flank attacks. VERY GOOD OVERALL.
  
  As above with General in front rank = higher chace of survivign first round which is what matters.....etc. AS above but decent chance of winning = BEST OVERALL

When I ran it through at some length (3 and 4) was the most effective overall even though (1) looks superifically attreactive. (1) was a duffer. Anlaysts have fun....

And now for the real killer blow....

Generals affect a full BG. If you deploy this way against me I WILL PUT A GENERAL IN THE FRONT RANK AS I GET HIS INFLUENCE TO HELP BEAT A FULL 3 ENEMY BGs....NEVER LOOK A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH AS THEY SAY.

SO ANALYSE THE ODDS OF 3 SPEAR BGS AND A GENERAL AGAINST 1 or 2 LEGIONARY BLOCKs AND A GENERAL AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. YOU HAVE GIFTED ME A HUGE ADVANTAGE BY FORMING COLUMNS AS THE CARTHAGINIAN GENERALC AN ONLY AFFECT 2 DICE AND THE ROMAN ONE CAN UPGRADE ALL 6 DICE AND ALL 3 COMBATS!!

All of this is nto say beware of partial simulAtions in AOW - there is much happening int he whole tree of events. And please please try this column thing whenever you play me....)

Also think about it this way - if you put 3 BGs in column and are hit by 1 BG of legionaries - if you win you get 2 APs for 1 legionary block, if they win they get 6APs on that frontage - not pretty in overall game terms which is what actually matters.

The simutio you really want is ODDS OF WINNING THE BATTLE

Si

[lawrenceg]

OK, the original question was how best to survive the impact phase undisrupted, because this determined the result of the entire game.

The fight in question was 24 average spear vs 16 superior impact foot (in 4 BG of 4) all in a single block 8x2.

The probabilities (%)work out as follows.
First number is probability of an individual BG losing cohesion.
Second number is probability that all BG survive undisrupted. This is probably the number you should concentrate on as a hole anywhere will probably be your undoing in the medium term.


BG size 8, 2 up with 1 in support

Charge at width 4 - 54, 21
Charge at width 3 then expand to 4 before melee - 49, 26

BG size 6, 3 up with 1 in support (NB I counted all 3 BG supported rather than just two so this is slightly optimistic)

Charge at width 3 - 50, 13
Charge at width 2 then expand - 43, 19

BG size 6, 4 up in columns, no support

Charge at width 1 then expand - 39, 14

So your best plan appears to be BG size 8, two up with one supporting, both fighting BG start with a frontage of 3 then expand in melee.

Having a BG in support also means the Romans have to fight a complete new combat if the first line does collapse, which gains you a bit more time to win on the flanks. Also no need for LF glue.

You may find it pays not to expand for the melee as the partial 3rd rank keeps you on a +POA for 2 ranks of spear in the event of lost bases. You must balance this against the disadvantage of being overlapped.

In general if you are disadvantaged in impact it is best to narrow the frontage by one file and then expand for the melee. This is an unhistorical side-effect of the way the combat mechanism works.

A possible fix for this would be to allow overlaps to count in impact combat (i.e. if one side has more bases in contact it can count one extra base). To keep the existing idea of superior numbers not counting (much) until melee, an impact overlap should get only 1 dice and only if it is on a + or ++, or higher quality and 0 POA. This would still be enough to make it worth a disadvantaged BG matching the enemy front in impact if possible. Disadvantaged larger BGs should not count overlaps so the current ability of good shock troops to cut through a line is retained. It is already in the interests of troops with advantage to fight on a wide frontage.

[rogerg]

Due to other situations you may not have a battle group to use as a supporter. This changes the situation.
No comments on my suggestion to change the phase order to impact, melee then movement with expansion? I have had more time to think about this and I cannot see any disadvantages only several advantages.

Roger

[hammy]

No comments on my suggestion to change the phase order to impact, melee then movement with expansion? I have had more time to think about this and I cannot see any disadvantages only several advantages.

I think I missed the comment the first time and when I read it this morning my first thoughts were very much ambivalent. I have however thought about it on and off and can also not really see any major issues.

One positive IMO from this would be that it makes pure flank attacks a bit better as the charged BG would fight an impact with equal raw dice then a melee where it suffered overlaps (if any) before it could expand to respond. I have always felt that turning and expanding immediately was rather generous towards the victim of the charge.

Essentially the turn order becomes:

Charge
Impact
Melee
Move
Shoot
Command (or interbound if you insist)

Hammy

[rogerg]

I wanted to tweak it a little further and move shooting to the start. All the non-impact movement would then come together and the commanders zipping about in the inter-bound could be eliminated. This latter is off topic, but an added benefit I feel. In our games we have never quite sorted out when a commander moves with a unit and when he doesn't. If routers move in the interbound, along with any commander who has joined them it would be a lot easier to remember.

[shall]

?? did I miss something ??

The phase order is fundamental to AOW and how it plays and was designed explicitly this way after a lot of work testing and cosndieration. The effects mentioned are desirable and part of the objective of the game design.

Changing it would have huge (negative in my view) ramifications on both how AOW models the real world so well, and on the amount of fun you get playing. Kind of converting a Ferrari into a Ford for the sake of apparent simplicity

Si

[rbodleyscott]

I have to agree with Simon. The turn sequence is not really up for grabs.

The fact that you can expand between impact and melee phases is intentional and part of the effect we are aiming at.

Not allowing it, while removing the cheesy plans discussed above, also allows too much benefit to be gained from an initial advantage. Essentially it gives the charger 2 full rounds of combat in whatever cheesy partial BG to BG contact he can devise before the victim gets any chance to respond. This is not the effect we want.

[hammy]

I have to agree with Simon. The turn sequence is not really up for grabs.

The fact that you can expand between impact and melee phases is intentional and part of the effect we are aiming at.

Not allowing it, while removing the cheesy plans discussed above, also allows too much benefit to be gained from an initial advantage. Essentially it gives the charger 2 full rounds of combat in whatever cheesy partial BG to BG contact he can devise before the victim gets any chance to respond. This is not the effect we want.

Fair enough

I still find it a bit odd that if a line is hit in the flank by a 4 base BG that the line can turn to face and expand with little if anything that the flank attackers can do about it.

[lawrenceg]

I still find it a bit odd that if a line is hit in the flank by a 4 base BG that the line can turn to face and expand with little if anything that the flank attackers can do about it.

The way I see it, a battlegroup commander seeing a flank threat would try to respond by turning the flank "companies" to face it before it charged. If there was no immediate threat from the front then it could dedicate significant force to fighting off a flank attack. At present you automatically drop a cohesion level and fight an impact at -- which even at 2 dice gives a 60% chance of having to take a cohesion test. After that the BG can still only expand by 1 base, so it is still at a disadvantage compared to if it had been attacked in front only. If the BG gets away with it then assume that the local commander anticipated the flank attack and responded in a timely fashion (historical battles were not divided into alternate bounds).

If you want to really cause problems, you need to attack from two directions and I think this i what history tells us.

[nikgaukroger]

If you want to really cause problems, you need to attack from two directions and I think this i what history tells us.

I think you are correct.

[rogerg]

I think that giving the initiative to the attacker is not a bad thing. If a player wants to have overlaps, oblige him to get lined up before the impact. There seems to be more room for dubious manouver as the sequence stands. Charging on narrow fronts then expanding or receiving on a narrow front and expanding, give plenty scope for this. Walking in to overlaps is also something to exploit.

Why do you feel the current phase order is more playable? I find leaving the combat after impact to do movement, then returning to the melee later in the bound, breaks up the play. I would not want to sacrifice anything vital to the game by changing this, but I cannot see what would be lost.

I suppose a lot of this is down to personal preference. I tend to go for straight forward and simple if at all possible. This means less thought about the mechanics and more about he strategy.

[dave_r]

Why do you feel the current phase order is more playable? I find leaving the combat after impact to do movement, then returning to the melee later in the bound, breaks up the play. I would not want to sacrifice anything vital to the game by changing this, but I cannot see what would be lost.

I quite like the way that impact is done before movement - especially with mounted charging you can pretty well determine that if you have not disrupted your opponent in the impact then it is fairly obvious that they are going to be repulsed and hence you can plan for it.

Similarly with overlaps and expanding in movement prior to combat it allows an initial potentially awkward charge to be sorted out before the main combat phases begin, which to me is quite an elegant solution to the glancing charge problems that inevitably occur with unit based systems.

[terrys]

Why do you feel the current phase order is more playable? I find leaving the combat after impact to do movement, then returning to the melee later in the bound, breaks up the play. I would not want to sacrifice anything vital to the game by changing this, but I cannot see what would be lost.

There are plenty of reasons why we want the sequence to be impact - move - melee:

1) You need to know if you have gained an 'advantage' for the upcoming melee before you move.
2) You shouldn't know if you're going to win the melee before you move.
These 2 are fundamental to the game. If your charge doesn't go well, then you need to put your troops into a position to cover in case they get broken in the melee. If the charge does go well, you need to be in a position to take advantage, but without knowing the outcome of the melee.

3) If you shoot first, then would you be allowed to shoot and immediately charge? Given that shooting is supposed to take place throughout the move (within reason), then you may well get to shoot, then fight 2 rounds of combat, before breaking off with your cavalry. Currently you only get to shoot if you're not fighting, because shooting takes as long to have an effect as fighting a melee.

4) The whole idea is that Impact is a relatively short period of time, whereas melee (and shooting) is a much longer affair. Any troops not in combat would have time to make their full move before the melee is concluded, but wouldn't move very far during the actual impact phase. (a lot of them would stand around watching.)

5) If we have the melee immediately following the impact phase, then we may as well have combat in one phase only. Why have 2 rolls when you only need 1 ?
In which case the rules end up like most of the other sets out there. Just give shock troops a bonus for charging (napoleanic lancers anyone?)
We wanted to give these rules a different 'feel'. Having movement in the middle of the 2 combat rounds does this.
Current rules give you 4 results (at least) for example.....
Your knights start their charge - things look to be going well so you move up in support.
a) The knights win the melee and you're well placed to support the breakthrough.
b) The knights break off - Leaving your support troops somewhat exposed.
c) The knights are engaged in an ongoing melee, so you may choose to charge in alongside them next move.
d) The charge didn't go well, so you don't move up in support.

If you need any more reasons just ask!

[rogerg]

Thanks for the explanations. This is much appreciated. There are a couple of things in there that I had not considered.

Roger

[shall]

One of the first principles of good game design is to fill a game with interesting decisions for players to make all the time. In addition to Terry's "eulogy"......... which of course agree with...three of the founding principles of getting AOW to work have been:

1. create vast variety by interconnecting lots of individually simple mechanisms so 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x2 is simple but gives you 128 outcomes if you see what I mean
2. create interesting decisons whereever you can especially where they have not been before - e.g. the interbound idea for generals and the movement between melee and movement
3. Generate an ebb and flow feel throughou the game so that all rolls are intersting and exciting and there are swings to deal with that are not altogether controllable (but you can win despite them if you tack the odds well)

The objective is not to be simple and linear, but rather to be interesting and exciting while at the same time clear.... if you see what I mean. So we could have a single combat round but it is - 1) duller because there is less variety of outcome and less exicetment, 2) duller because there is less to decide that you can do about it.

This fundamental approach - is perhaps what has led to the differentiation you feel wehn playing. Being very aware of this from the start we are consious not to rmove any of the excitement, fun or realism in a mistaken search for simplifcation.

So a simpler Ferrari is great as long as it is just as much fun....

On James issue - indeed hit them in two directions - it is soemthing of myth that being charged in the flank is all that bad if you are unoocipied and free to do soemthing about it. Also hit them in the flank with something worhwhile - if it is is 2 wide moderate troops you are using don't expect a result. Hit them 3 wide with good mounted and they will los the first round and be outnumbered in the second despite turning to flank.....

Hope that helps too.

Si