Issues and "features" from latest test game

[lawrenceg]

My Sicilians versus Lance Flint's Hellenistic Greeks


Issues:

1. 2nd move cannot go within 6MU of "any enemy". Does an enemy ambush marker count as "any enemy"? It clearly is an enemy entity, and the rule does not say "enemy troops". Only a commander is explicitly excepted. I note that enemy you can't see still count.

2. Restricted area: You are allowed to move "directly towards" the enemy. Lance thought that:

Code: Select all

XXXXXX
    YYYYYY

X could wheel on its left corner so as to get around Y's flank, as the bulk of X would be generally moving closer to Y. I suspect that "directly towards" really means "straight ahead towards", in which case why not just say that?

3. I had a commander attached to the front rank of a BG not in combat. Lance charged and contacted the BG and the commander. Did this mean than my commander was automatically fighting in the front rank? If I didn't want him fighting, would I have to move him out of the front rank?

4. "Pursuers follow routers, wheeling if necessary to do so". Does "follow" imply they must move in the same direction, or would moving straight ahead count if some part of the routing BG was straight ahead?

5. A BG fighting in two directions broke. After turning 180 degrees should all bases have been facing the majority rear, or does each base turn 180 individually? When wheeling is the "moving front corner" the front corner of the base on the end (facing in towards the rest of the BG) or its rear corner (outside corner fo the BG)?


Features:

1. In one melee a BG could not conform due to friends blocking. After it expanded it could conform, but as conforming comes first in the sequence it had to fight two turns unconformed.

2. We had one case of pike charging knights due to +2 VMD against skirmishers evading and another case of MF spearmen charging knights due to pursuing broken skirmishers. In both cases the infantry got disrupted in impact, although it has to be said it's not a foregone conclusion.

3. Terrain all fell on the edges and played no significant part in the game.

Observations:

1. We forgot some break-offs

2. Lance thinks LF is too good. Its shooting is quite effective and it's very difficult to kill.

[markm]

Observations pt.2.

I would agree, which is why I am taking lots to Roll Call

We'll see how they pan out.

[rbodleyscott]

Observations pt.2.

I would agree, which is why I am taking lots to Roll Call

We'll see how they pan out.

They are certainly good, and a danger to isolated BGs. Whether they are too good is another matter. Against a solid formation they seem to be largely ineffectual.

We feel that the balance is about right, but only competitive testing will ultimately tell.

[markm]

Richard,

it's one of things I enjoy most about FoG. There are NO nailed-on certs from an army selection viewpoint - with a minor reservation about Poor quality troops. Everything seems to have it's place, and everything has it's nemesis!

[rogerg]

I think it may be a bit early to judge if some troops are significantly better value than others. I am looking forward to Roll Call. Leeds was fun, but now we have a bit more experience, it will be interesting so see if any super armies or troops emerge.

[hammy]

Well so far the armies entered into the FoG competition for Roll Call are:

Bosphoran
Alexandrian Macedonian
Dailami
Tatar
Ilkhanid
Dominate Roman
French Ordonance
Late Republican Roman
Classical Greek
Dominate Roman

A bit of a preponderance of Romans perhaps but other than that a fair mix

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

1. 2nd move cannot go within 6MU of "any enemy". Does an enemy ambush marker count as "any enemy"? It clearly is an enemy entity, and the rule does not say "enemy troops". Only a commander is explicitly excepted. I note that enemy you can't see still count.

It may or may not be an enemy entity (it could be a dummy) and they don't know it is there so how can they react to it?

A clarification might be wise, however.

2. Restricted area: You are allowed to move "directly towards" the enemy. Lance thought that:

Code: Select all

XXXXXX
    YYYYYY

X could wheel on its left corner so as to get around Y's flank, as the bulk of X would be generally moving closer to Y. I suspect that "directly towards" really means "straight ahead towards", in which case why not just say that?

Indeed

3. I had a commander attached to the front rank of a BG not in combat. Lance charged and contacted the BG and the commander. Did this mean than my commander was automatically fighting in the front rank? If I didn't want him fighting, would I have to move him out of the front rank?

He should just get shunted out of the way.

"o His base can be moved at any time the minimum necessary to a new such position if this is necessary to avoid obstructions or make way for friendly or enemy troops. "

4. "Pursuers follow routers, wheeling if necessary to do so". Does "follow" imply they must move in the same direction, or would moving straight ahead count if some part of the routing BG was straight ahead?

They should wheel to follow the same direction. Any suggested clarification?

5. A BG fighting in two directions broke. After turning 180 degrees should all bases have been facing the majority rear, or does each base turn 180 individually? When wheeling is the "moving front corner" the front corner of the base on the end (facing in towards the rest of the BG) or its rear corner (outside corner fo the BG)?

The intention is that they should all make an initial turn to face the direction that bisects the angle between the 2 enemy BGs.

" If a battle group breaks as a result of being charged when fragmented, shooting or while in close combat, it routs directly away from the enemy charging, shooting at or in close combat with it. If there is more than one such enemy, bisect the angle between them. "

This is somewhat complicated by the (new) rule that they must all end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact, but they can shift to do so as part of the rout move.

[hammy]

2. Restricted area: You are allowed to move "directly towards" the enemy. Lance thought that:

Code: Select all

XXXXXX
    YYYYYY

X could wheel on its left corner so as to get around Y's flank, as the bulk of X would be generally moving closer to Y. I suspect that "directly towards" really means "straight ahead towards", in which case why not just say that?

We had a similar issue the other week but the way I read it was that if you wheel (which is allowed in a restricted area) then that wheel can only be to line up parallel.

The first two options are:

o Advance directly towards that enemy battle group.

and

o Wheel towards that enemy battle group until its front is parallel to the enemy front, or wheel as far as it can towards such a position; advancing thereafter if it wishes to do so.

I can't see how the first can include a wheel as the second explains what you can do if you do wheel.

Hammy

[lawrenceg]

3. I had a commander attached to the front rank of a BG not in combat. Lance charged and contacted the BG and the commander. Did this mean than my commander was automatically fighting in the front rank? If I didn't want him fighting, would I have to move him out of the front rank?

He should just get shunted out of the way.

"o His base can be moved at any time the minimum necessary to a new such position if this is necessary to avoid obstructions or make way for friendly or enemy troops. "

In this case the commander was on the end of the front rank, not in front of it ( I should have made this clear in the first place), i.e he extended the front rank. So he did not need to move to make way for the enemy. If he stayed in place, he was in contact with the enemy overlap.

4. "Pursuers follow routers, wheeling if necessary to do so". Does "follow" imply they must move in the same direction, or would moving straight ahead count if some part of the routing BG was straight ahead?

They should wheel to follow the same direction. Any suggested clarification?

"Pursuers follow in the same direction as routers, wheeling if necessary to do so".
"Pursuers wheel until facing the same direction as routers, then continue straight ahead for the remainder of their move."

[rbodleyscott]

3. I had a commander attached to the front rank of a BG not in combat. Lance charged and contacted the BG and the commander. Did this mean than my commander was automatically fighting in the front rank? If I didn't want him fighting, would I have to move him out of the front rank?

He should just get shunted out of the way.

"o His base can be moved at any time the minimum necessary to a new such position if this is necessary to avoid obstructions or make way for friendly or enemy troops. "

In this case the commander was on the end of the front rank, not in front of it ( I should have made this clear in the first place), i.e he extended the front rank. So he did not need to move to make way for the enemy. If he stayed in place, he was in contact with the enemy overlap.

So he wasn't in a "fighting in the front rank" position, because he wasn't replacing a front rank base in combat.

Certainly the intention is that whether a general fights in the front rank or not is the owning player's free decision.

[lawrenceg]

5. A BG fighting in two directions broke. After turning 180 degrees should all bases have been facing the majority rear, or does each base turn 180 individually? When wheeling is the "moving front corner" the front corner of the base on the end (facing in towards the rest of the BG) or its rear corner (outside corner fo the BG)?

The intention is that they should all make an initial turn to face the direction that bisects the angle between the 2 enemy BGs.

" If a battle group breaks as a result of being charged when fragmented, shooting or while in close combat, it routs directly away from the enemy charging, shooting at or in close combat with it. If there is more than one such enemy, bisect the angle between them. "

Well, this told me which direction to go in, but not the procedure to make it happen. I assumed it would be the same as evaders, who wheel until facing the correct direction, then move as a group. I note that routers not in contact use this procedure, also routers and evaders use a common procedure for avoiding obstructions.

I think you need to clarify the procedure.

E.g.:

Each base moves individually when routing in these circumstances. After all bases have moved, make the minimum adjustment necessary to restore BG contiguity. Routing bases interpenetrate broken bases that have not routed yet (otherwise we might get some cheese relating to the order of doing these individual moves). All bases end facing the direction of movement.

Or

Each base turns to face the direction of rout. After turning, make the minimum adjustment necessary to restore BG contiguity. Then move the BG the required distance.

This is somewhat complicated by the (new) rule that they must all end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact, but they can shift to do so as part of the rout move.

I can't find this rule anywhere. Has it not been published yet? In 6.00 at the bottom of page 7 exception 3 allows the BG to be out of formation as a result of compulsory moves. It seems strange to enforce this on routers (who would have lost all cohesion and be fleeing as individuals) when it is not enforced on stepped forward bases.

[rbodleyscott]

This is somewhat complicated by the (new) rule that they must all end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact, but they can shift to do so as part of the rout move.

I can't find this rule anywhere. Has it not been published yet? In 6.00 at the bottom of page 7 exception 3 allows the BG to be out of formation as a result of compulsory moves. It seems strange to enforce this on routers (who would have lost all cohesion and be fleeing as individuals) when it is not enforced on stepped forward bases.

'tis in the changes since 6.0 thread (evading - ref approximately P.33). The authors were not entirely unanimous on this change, but the idea was that partial edge contact should never occur when evading and talking about it in the evading section might cause confusion. The irony of routers' formation improving when routing was noted.

[lawrenceg]

He should just get shunted out of the way.

"o His base can be moved at any time the minimum necessary to a new such position if this is necessary to avoid obstructions or make way for friendly or enemy troops. "

In this case the commander was on the end of the front rank, not in front of it ( I should have made this clear in the first place), i.e he extended the front rank. So he did not need to move to make way for the enemy. If he stayed in place, he was in contact with the enemy overlap.

So he wasn't in a "fighting in the front rank" position, because he wasn't replacing a front rank base in combat.

Certainly the intention is that whether a general fights in the front rank or not is the owning player's free decision.

Well, he was in the front rank and he was in contact with enemy. It is debatable whether displacing a friendly base is also a necessary condition, or merely a way of dealing with geometrical constraints that my arise in some circumstances. It is a separate sentence in the rules.

However, it is pretty clear that the only necessary and sufficient condition is to declare the commander to be fighting in the front rank (which is how we played it). The stuff about where to put the commander is only a visual reminder. I moved the commander to the rear of the BG to make it clear he was not fighting. This may have changed which BGs were within his command range (giving rise to possible cheese)

I suggest changing the rule to:

"To show that a commander is fighting in the front rank, place him at the front of any file in contact with the enemy (owning player's choice) and displace the rest of the file backwards to make room. Displaced bases still fight ... etc"

This then clarifies that commanders in contact with enemy in other circumstances are not fighting in the front rank and avoids the need to add a rule about moving non-fighting commanders out of contact.

[rbodleyscott]

However, it is pretty clear that the only necessary and sufficient condition is to declare the commander to be fighting in the front rank (which is how we played it). The stuff about where to put the commander is only a visual reminder.

Indeed.

If I was Roger Greenwood, I suspect I would say that we don't really need to dig this hole any deeper.

[lawrenceg]

This is somewhat complicated by the (new) rule that they must all end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact, but they can shift to do so as part of the rout move.

I can't find this rule anywhere. Has it not been published yet? In 6.00 at the bottom of page 7 exception 3 allows the BG to be out of formation as a result of compulsory moves. It seems strange to enforce this on routers (who would have lost all cohesion and be fleeing as individuals) when it is not enforced on stepped forward bases.

'tis in the changes since 6.0 thread (evading - ref approximately P.33). The authors were not entirely unanimous on this change, but the idea was that partial edge contact should never occur when evading and talking about it in the evading section might cause confusion. The irony of routers' formation improving when routing was noted.

I though that constraint only applied to BGs doing a sideways shift to avoid things (as it's in that bullet point). I note that the current wording allows a group of 4 bases (ABCD) to end with:
A in edge-to-edge and corner-to-corner contact with B
C in edge-to-edge and corner-to-corner contact with D
B in partial edge contact with C

Also, a split BG can arise from an incomplete interpenetration.

[rbodleyscott]

I can't find this rule anywhere. Has it not been published yet? In 6.00 at the bottom of page 7 exception 3 allows the BG to be out of formation as a result of compulsory moves. It seems strange to enforce this on routers (who would have lost all cohesion and be fleeing as individuals) when it is not enforced on stepped forward bases.

'tis in the changes since 6.0 thread (evading - ref approximately P.33). The authors were not entirely unanimous on this change, but the idea was that partial edge contact should never occur when evading and talking about it in the evading section might cause confusion. The irony of routers' formation improving when routing was noted.

I though that constraint only applied to BGs doing a sideways shift to avoid things (as it's in that bullet point). I note that the current wording allows a group of 4 bases (ABCD) to end with:
A in edge-to-edge and corner-to-corner contact with B
C in edge-to-edge and corner-to-corner contact with D
B in partial edge contact with C

Also, a split BG can arise from an incomplete interpenetration.

Indeed. Another hole that does not need to be dug any deeper, methinks.

[petedalby]

I would agree, which is why I am taking lots to Roll Call

I think LF are rather too good as well - but let's hope you avoid the Tartars!!

Pete

[lawrenceg]

Observations pt.2.

I would agree, which is why I am taking lots to Roll Call

We'll see how they pan out.

They are certainly good, and a danger to isolated BGs. Whether they are too good is another matter. Against a solid formation they seem to be largely ineffectual.

We feel that the balance is about right, but only competitive testing will ultimately tell.

I think a major part of this issue is the comparison between LF unprotected bow and MF unprotected bow.

With LF you can move them wherever they are needed fairly quickly, get them out of the way of friendly troops when necessary, evade charging enemy and then come back to shoot them again, pull back behind friends to bolster if outshot, ignore threatened flanks, and if they do get routed most other troops ignore it. With MF you get 50% more shots for a couple of turns, then the enemy charges in (usually with ++) and routs you, causing other BGs to take a CT and possibly bursting through any rear support. In a shoot-out, you get 50% more shots, but take 33% more hits (from bow, longbow, javelins or slings) and if you start losing cohesion you can't pull back out of range.

It may be that LF is balanced OK but unprotected MF bow is too expensive.

[hammy]

I think a major part of this issue is the comparison between LF unprotected bow and MF unprotected bow.

With LF you can move them wherever they are needed fairly quickly, get them out of the way of friendly troops when necessary, evade charging enemy and then come back to shoot them again, pull back behind friends to bolster if outshot, ignore threatened flanks, and if they do get routed most other troops ignore it. With MF you get 50% more shots for a couple of turns, then the enemy charges in (usually with ++) and routs you, causing other BGs to take a CT and possibly bursting through any rear support. In a shoot-out, you get 50% more shots, but take 33% more hits (from bow, longbow, javelins or slings) and if you start losing cohesion you can't pull back out of range.

It may be that LF is balanced OK but unprotected MF bow is too expensive.

I agree and this is why I lobied for making MF archery better.

The problem is that if you make MF archery better to make the unprotected MF bow viable you end up making the protected MF longbow swordsmen types something of an uber troop.

Time will tell if LF bow are too good but suffice to say that if I end up playing in FoG rather than DBMM at the weekend my army has LOT of LF missile troops.

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

It may be that LF is balanced OK but unprotected MF bow is too expensive.

Quite possibly so.