What's the difference between a BG and a battle line?

[ravenflight]

So, I have a battle line of 3 BG's of spearmen under the control of an Inspirational General. They eagerly charge the skirmishers in front of them. One rolls a 1, one rolls a 3 and one rolls a 5. So, the battle line breaks up.

I don't really 'get' this. Why wouldn't an Inspirational General have some additional control of the VMD. More imporantly, if this is acceptable (that the battle line would break up) why shouldn't we roll for each individual base, and have the BG break up?

I'd have thought that a battle line under the direct control of a general would act 'as one huge BG' and so a single VMD should be rolled?

[david53]

S
I don't really 'get' this. Why wouldn't an Inspirational General have some additional control of the VMD. More imporantly, if this is acceptable (that the battle line would break up) why shouldn't we roll for each individual base, and have the BG break up?

Cause unlike other rules the whole game is based on Battle groups made up of bases not a rule set were the whole game is played by single elements.

A general will not control how fast each unit will charge he will have a say when they charge but not how fast they run.

[philqw78]

BL are their as a game function to make moving lots of troops easier. And why should an IC have more control over individual BG than the BG commanders, when they don't know how far their BG will go in the charge.

Mainly I think this is just one of the basic FoG (see what I did there) of war things that make the game more fun and more of a challenge.

[ravenflight]

BL are their as a game function to make moving lots of troops easier. And why should an IC have more control over individual BG than the BG commanders, when they don't know how far their BG will go in the charge.

BL's may be THERE for a game function, but so is the BG.

Why don't 3 figures from a base race forward and disrupt the line? Why not 1?

Why should a BG commander have any more control over the individual than the sub-unit commanders, when they don't know how far their individual sub-units will go in the charge?

Why should the individual sub-unit commanders have any more control over the individual, when they don't know how far they the individuals will charge?

Seeing a BG is an arbitrary unit size I don't see an argument yet... except "it's for game play purposes".

[philqw78]

You could play DBM. That breaks things down to individual bases. But it is a game play thing. The BG is the samllest 'unit' considered. Why would you want to break it down further?

[ravenflight]

You could play DBM. That breaks things down to individual bases. But it is a game play thing. The BG is the samllest 'unit' considered. Why would you want to break it down further?

I don't. What I'm saying is that your argument about stating that the general (an IC) wouldn't have any control over his troops is flawed because if that were true the BG would also break up using the same argument.

[ShrubMiK]

I don't think Ravenflight is seriously arguing that the BG should break up. It's the other way round, he is arguing that it is an undesirable thing for battlelines to break up. Correct me if I'm wrong?

(The trouble with these "if (something else) is thus, shouldn't (what I am really arguing about) be thus" arguments is that they have a tendency to get sidetracked into arguing about the wrong thing!)

The problem with that is that although lines getting untidy is a disadvantage for the player owning them, it is an intentional disadvantage. It is presumed to be hard to keep troops in perfect formations through a charge. And especially for shock troops, who are presumed by the rules to be more prone to doing enthusiastic but rash things that can get them into trouble. But other troops commanded to charge are assumed to need to be hot-headed in the process, and therefore temporarily less well controlled.

And I don't buy the other possibile implication - that a battleline may break up with a lesser commander, but an IC should be able to prevent it. He's an "inspirational" commander, not a "ultra harsh disciplinarian commander". Troops and sub-leaders may be more prepared to pay attention to him, and the fact that his presence makes an involuntary charge by shock troops less likely reflects that. But once any troops are charging they are not subject ot detailed control by any commander until the charge peters out and they gather breath and reform their lines.

I think I'm noticing a bit of a theme to RF's queries:
Irregular troops are disadvantaged in certain ways and in certain matchups. Conclusion: the rules should be changed to reduce or even eliminate that disadvantage.
Defensive spearman are disadvantaged in certain ways and in certain matchups. Conclusion: the rules should be changed to reduce or even eliminate that disadvantage.
Shock troops are disadvantaged in certain ways and in certain matchups. Conclusion: the rules should be changed to reduce or even eliminate that disadvantage.

Not a criticism per se - but I prefer the approach, which is in general to embrace the fact that there are pros and cons to all flavours of troops, including the points they cost. Believe that a richer and more varied game results. And that it is actually a reflection of history, where troops didn't always match up on equal terms with their opponents, and even the best troops could do silly things at times. And that part of the skillset of a good general is to minimise the situations where the disadvantages can bite him, and conversely put the opponent in those sort of situations instead.

And last but not least - that another crucial part of the skillset of a good general is to roll adequate dice when the situation might cause you problems! I've seen a few battles lost primarily because even with full precuations taken, including an attached IC, a shock BG rolled low and charged too soon.

[grahambriggs]

So, I have a battle line of 3 BG's of spearmen under the control of an Inspirational General. They eagerly charge the skirmishers in front of them. One rolls a 1, one rolls a 3 and one rolls a 5. So, the battle line breaks up.

I don't really 'get' this. Why wouldn't an Inspirational General have some additional control of the VMD. More imporantly, if this is acceptable (that the battle line would break up) why shouldn't we roll for each individual base, and have the BG break up?

I'd have thought that a battle line under the direct control of a general would act 'as one huge BG' and so a single VMD should be rolled?

Yes, if you charge the battle line can break up. It's not a given that it will (with deep BGs rolling 1,3,5 may still leave you in a BL). However, there is some context here; for the sake of simplicity, let's say the spears are medium foot undrilled offensive spears:

Are the skirmishers LH? The spears do not need to charge. The general could push the spears up right in the face of the LH.

Or, if the LH are annoyingly close, you might be able to make them all evade with just one charge, and the other spears can then make a normal move - easier to keep the BL that way. If the charging BG gets aahead of the line, put the general with them next time to move short and restoire a solid front.

Are the skirmishers LF? One option is to put LF of your own in front. The IC and rear support will make them brave and the spears won't charge through them against skirmishers.

If you have no LF of your own, then the enemy LF will taunt you. But you can still use a charge by one BG to drive them off. Put the IC with one of the others. That BG will not charge unless it rolls 4 or less on 2 dice (e.g. 5 +1 general within, +1 IC, +1 general with = 8 = pass). The other guys will pass their test on a 6. Then you can move them up in the movement phase.

The +1 of the IC does help you to maintain the integrity of even undrilled spears; a TC is significantly more likely to let them charge LF.

There is also a benefit of charging as BGs. Let's say the enemy has been "a bit brave" and has brought 2 BGs of javelin LF up to shoot at my MF from 2MU; the lines aren't lined up - i.e. one of my MF BGs is looking at part of two LF BGs. Since the LF are 1MU faster than the MF I have to roll either 5 to 1 or 6 to 2 or 6 to 1 to catch them. A 1 in 12 chance if I'm chrging just one BG, slightly better if charging 2.

A BL charge, if allowed, would have the same odds of catching the LF as my BG charge that is facing both. But I get extra chance to hit with my other two BG charges.

So an IC makes the BL more controllable, and charging by BG gives a better chance to catch the enemy.

[philqw78]

You could play DBM. That breaks things down to individual bases. But it is a game play thing. The BG is the samllest 'unit' considered. Why would you want to break it down further?

I don't. What I'm saying is that your argument about stating that the general (an IC) wouldn't have any control over his troops is flawed because if that were true the BG would also break up using the same argument.

But in these rules the BG cannot break up as it is the samllest 'unit' considered.

[ravenflight]

Hi ShrubMiK,

You pretty much nailed it. I don't say that undrilled/defensive spearmen etc should have rules changed around them because I like those troop types and it's not fair *sulk*, I'm saying that the rules, as written, have totally wiped out the competitiveness of a range of troop types that dominated history.

The spear has been used throughout history. It's kind-of the 'GI' weapon for over 2000 years.

So, how far down the list of successful armies do we have to go before we find an army that has a reasonable number of spears in it?

Quite far.

So, I try to explore why.

Now, I'm not an elite player. Not by any stretch of the imagination, but I think I'm no slouch either. I'm ranked in the top 20-25% of players. If I wanted to do 'better' and rank higher (give myself a fighting chance to get higher in the rankings or maybe win a comp) I'd do it with OTHER than a spear army.

Why is that?

Why do the players HAVE to forgo the most used troop type in the history of warfare?

I remember a set of modern warfare rules (going back several years now) where if you took anything but tanks you were history. Your chances of winning the battle was non-existent. Infantry was useless. Light Armoured vehicles were pathetic. Air power was non-existent. People played the rules and took their how-ever-many points in Tanks.

Anyone ever seen a modern battle like that? EVER?

The rules were flawed.

I think that these are far from being AS flawed, but I think that there is certainly a problem here .

That's all, and in stating it I'm trying to see what others think about a battle line being able to maintain cohesion because of the presence of an over-lord.

[ravenflight]

Yes, if you charge the battle line can break up. It's not a given that it will (with deep BGs rolling 1,3,5 may still leave you in a BL).

Bollocks.

If your 3 BG's are 750 elemens deep and you roll a 1,3,5 your first BG is going 2" shorter than your second BG which is going 2" shorter than your third BG. How are they now a battle line? They CANNOT be in corner to corner contact. A base is in mm and a movement is in inches. There is no possible scenario that you would appreciably engineer a line-up (short of using wheels and loaded dice).

However, there is some context here; for the sake of simplicity, let's say the spears are medium foot undrilled offensive spears:

Are the skirmishers LH? The spears do not need to charge. The general could push the spears up right in the face of the LH.

Yes, and that would be effective. 4 hours later they would still be shooting at you. You can't make them move - as stated in my other post.

Or, if the LH are annoyingly close, you might be able to make them all evade with just one charge, and the other spears can then make a normal move - easier to keep the BL that way. If the charging BG gets aahead of the line, put the general with them next time to move short and restoire a solid front.

Yeah, I do that routinely, but it doesn't work if the chargers go long.

Are the skirmishers LF? One option is to put LF of your own in front. The IC and rear support will make them brave and the spears won't charge through them against skirmishers.

If you have no LF of your own, then the enemy LF will taunt you. But you can still use a charge by one BG to drive them off. Put the IC with one of the others. That BG will not charge unless it rolls 4 or less on 2 dice (e.g. 5 +1 general within, +1 IC, +1 general with = 8 = pass). The other guys will pass their test on a 6. Then you can move them up in the movement phase.

Yeah, I do that routinely, but it doesn't work if the chargers go long.

You see, VMD's have a double negative. If you roll short the entire battle line (by using your technique) go short. Against a slippery skirmisher army you're chances of pushing them off the table are negligible, and made worse by rolling a 1. If you roll a 5 or 6 you go long and you can't re-create the battle line.

[philqw78]

That's all, and in stating it I'm trying to see what others think about a battle line being able to maintain cohesion because of the presence of an over-lord.

I think it will remove a lot of fun from the game. But obviously my fun is at your expense.

About spear, maybe a bit like crossbows, it was cheap, easy to train and no-one conquered the world with it.

[kevinj]

If your 3 BG's are 750 elemens deep and you roll a 1,3,5 your first BG is going 2" shorter than your second BG which is going 2" shorter than your third BG. How are they now a battle line? They CANNOT be in corner to corner contact. A base is in mm and a movement is in inches. There is no possible scenario that you would appreciably engineer a line-up (short of using wheels and loaded dice).

Battle Lines do not need to maintain corner to corner contact, it is "a collection of battle groups with each in at least partial edge to edge contact with another and all facing in the same direction" (P30).

I agree with you that armies based on spearmen need to be more competetive, but I think that the problem is that it's currently too easy to negate them with skirmishers that they can never catch rather than their problems when they charge.

[ravenflight]

If your 3 BG's are 750 elemens deep and you roll a 1,3,5 your first BG is going 2" shorter than your second BG which is going 2" shorter than your third BG. How are they now a battle line? They CANNOT be in corner to corner contact. A base is in mm and a movement is in inches. There is no possible scenario that you would appreciably engineer a line-up (short of using wheels and loaded dice).

Battle Lines do not need to maintain corner to corner contact, it is "a collection of battle groups with each in at least partial edge to edge contact with another and all facing in the same direction" (P30).

wow, well, fancy that - I must have been playing that wrong forever! See, my rant has come to some benefit.

[grahambriggs]

Yes, if you charge the battle line can break up. It's not a given that it will (with deep BGs rolling 1,3,5 may still leave you in a BL).

Bollocks.

If your 3 BG's are 750 elemens deep and you roll a 1,3,5 your first BG is going 2" shorter than your second BG which is going 2" shorter than your third BG. How are they now a battle line? They CANNOT be in corner to corner contact. A base is in mm and a movement is in inches. There is no possible scenario that you would appreciably engineer a line-up (short of using wheels and loaded dice).

Thanks for the swearing.

Read the rules. "A battle line is a collection of battle groups with each in at least partial edge to edge contact with another and all facing in the same direction"

You don't need corner to corner contact.

[grahambriggs]

However, there is some context here; for the sake of simplicity, let's say the spears are medium foot undrilled offensive spears:

Are the skirmishers LH? The spears do not need to charge. The general could push the spears up right in the face of the LH.

Yes, and that would be effective. 4 hours later they would still be shooting at you. You can't make them move - as stated in my other post.

Or, if the LH are annoyingly close, you might be able to make them all evade with just one charge, and the other spears can then make a normal move - easier to keep the BL that way. If the charging BG gets aahead of the line, put the general with them next time to move short and restoire a solid front.

Yeah, I do that routinely, but it doesn't work if the chargers go long.

Well, for the first point, it depends what else is happening and if the LH can afford to be in your restricted area. For the second; so the chargers go long. What's the problem? you're still closing down the space, and your whole line has moved up at least its normal move distance. Or where you worried that the LH would return and shred your spearmen despite the IC?

[grahambriggs]

Are the skirmishers LF? One option is to put LF of your own in front. The IC and rear support will make them brave and the spears won't charge through them against skirmishers.

If you have no LF of your own, then the enemy LF will taunt you. But you can still use a charge by one BG to drive them off. Put the IC with one of the others. That BG will not charge unless it rolls 4 or less on 2 dice (e.g. 5 +1 general within, +1 IC, +1 general with = 8 = pass). The other guys will pass their test on a 6. Then you can move them up in the movement phase.

Yeah, I do that routinely, but it doesn't work if the chargers go long.

You see, VMD's have a double negative. If you roll short the entire battle line (by using your technique) go short. Against a slippery skirmisher army you're chances of pushing them off the table are negligible, and made worse by rolling a 1. If you roll a 5 or 6 you go long and you can't re-create the battle line.

I was just giving you ways of maintaining a battle line if you wanted to. I'm not sure having a BL is that much use against skimishers. Yes, handy if you want to wheel the lot of them, but the edge contact thing makse it reasonably easy to form enough of a BL to achieve that. Of course, you don't want to be too strung out once combat troops appear - though interception charges can help sometimes.

[ShrubMiK]

Well, we're now firmly back in the territory I find myself arguing in often on this forum.

I personally feel spearmen of all sorts are effective under FoG rules, and I usually have some in my armies. Even defensive spearmen I believe can be very effective in the correct circumstances.

Unfortunately the way tournament play works (both in terms of scoring, and the bias in the sort of opposition you are likely to meet), certain troop types are arguably more of a liability in a tournament game than a friendly club game. For example, you can get a narrow victory against a largely skirmisher enemy without having to push them off table. I would argue that changing the way tournaments work is a better way of addressing these sort of effects than compromising the base ruleset though.

But then I'm the madman who also believes that average light spear cavalry, protected lancers, and poor protected HF can all be effective, so feel free to treat my opinions with the scepticism they so clearly deserve.

[grahambriggs]

Well, we're now firmly back in the territory I find myself arguing in often on this forum.

I personally feel spearmen of all sorts are effective under FoG rules, and I usually have some in my armies. Even defensive spearmen I believe can be very effective in the correct circumstances.

Unfortunately the way tournament play works (both in terms of scoring, and the bias in the sort of opposition you are likely to meet), certain troop types are arguably more of a liability in a tournament game than a friendly club game. For example, you can get a narrow victory against a largely skirmisher enemy without having to push them off table. I would argue that changing the way tournaments work is a better way of addressing these sort of effects than compromising the base ruleset though.

But then I'm the madman who also believes that average light spear cavalry, protected lancers, and poor protected HF can all be effective, so feel free to treat my opinions with the scepticism they so clearly deserve.

I find them effective in certain circumstances. In fact , my Akkadians - proteccted defensive spear plus friends - won a biblical tournament last year and fought a Cimmerian while doing it (only a 12-8 but that felt like a victory).

And I've done reasonably well with an army of undrilled HF and light spear cavalry - beat the current world champion 17-3 with it at Britcon 09. Best part was hitting evading LH with impact HF - very messy!

To my mind, spear armed foot, especially heavy foot, is a deceptive troop type to use. The key to doing well with it is that you have to play really quickly, so all those 3MUs add up, plus you have to have something working with it that's a bit faster and reasonably hard hitting. That way you can get a bit of 'hammer and anvil' going on.