Archers... Is there any bonus for rear attacks.

[Archie]

I am always disappointed when I sneak a group of archers behind a force and fire... and nearly always receive a very low score, there is no bonus as I can see. Is there a bonus?

Be nice to get a bonus on the inticial attack.

[stockwellpete]

I am always disappointed when I sneak a group of archers behind a force and fire... and nearly always receive a very low score, there is no bonus as I can see. Is there a bonus?

Be nice to get a bonus on the inticial attack.

Not for shooting, but you can get melee advantages for rear attacks from archers provided you start your move behind the enemy unit that you are attacking.

[maximvs]

This prompts the question 'is an arrow any more dangerous if it comes from the rear of your formation rather than the front?'
I think the extra effect would be on moral rather than injuries.

[frankpowerful]

[quote="stockwellpete Not for shooting, but you can get melee advantages for rear attacks from archers provided you start your move behind the enemy unit that you are attacking.[/quote]

think you always have an advantage in combat, but the enemy is automatically disrupted (before impact) only if you start behind... (and provided you are not Lights against non-lights)

[Morbio]

This prompts the question 'is an arrow any more dangerous if it comes from the rear of your formation rather than the front?'
I think the extra effect would be on moral rather than injuries.

I disagree. Shoot a line of Romans hidden behind their raised Scuta and do little damage, shoot them from behind and the Scuta is ineffective and so logically one would expect more damage.

[batesmotel]

In the TT rules there is a -1 on CTs when enemy is threatening your flank or rear but the PC version doesn't have anything equivalent for enemy just in position to threaten your BG. The assumption for both the TT and PC rules is that it isn't necessarily true that all the troops in a BG are facing in a single direction since a BG can be composed of multiple smaller units that are not represented individually, e.g. a century within a Roman cohort. While there may be some advantage to shooting from behind at a BG, it isn't large enough to merit a +POA for it. The biggest advantage for archers for shooting from behind an opposing BG is that the BG isn't in a position to charge you so you can sit there and shoot away as long as you want .

Chris

[mceochaidh]

Chris said "In the TT rules there is a -1 on CTs when enemy is threatening your flank or rear but the PC version doesn't have anything equivalent for enemy just in position to threaten your BG. The assumption for both the TT and PC rules is that it isn't necessarily true that all the troops in a BG are facing in a single direction since a BG can be composed of multiple smaller units that are not represented individually, e.g. a century within a Roman cohort."

Chris, since you play both rules sets, I thought you could answer a question regarding the size of BGs and the frontage of a hex. The TT rules, if I remember correctly, state that a minitures base is equal to about 250 men. The PC rules say a BG is 300 men. I saw a comment yesterday by Nik in the new FOG 2.0 forum if which he states that a base of skirmishers has the same number of men as a base of medium foot. I take this to mean that all bases are assumed to represent the same number of men. I assume a skirmisher would take up about 6 feet and a PC BG of skirmishers would represent sort of a swarm of men moving back and forth shooting or throwing their missiles. Using shooting ranges as a guide, a hex should be about 50 yards (if foot bows can shoot 5 hexes, this would equate at 250 yards, a bit long but reasonable). At an average of 6 feet of frontage, about 25 skirmishers would fit across the 50 yards.

If there are 25 skirmishers across, then there would be 12 "ranks" of skirmishers, a bit more than the 8 ranks typically assumed by most "experts", but still reasonable. The problem comes in when you start to look at close order foot. Pikes are assumed to fight in 16 ranks and occupy from 2 feet to 3 feet in frontage, depending on circumstances. Receiving cavalry, supposedly the back 8 ranks could move forward and each man could occupy as little as 18 inches. If charging enemy foot, supposedly the 16 rank formation was used and each man occupied about 30" to 3 feet. If you assume each man occupied 3 feet, then about 50 men across would cover the frontage of a hex. In a 16 rank pike formation, this would require 800 men to be in the hex. If a BG only has 300 men, then either the pike unit is only 6 ranks deep (50 x 6) or if the pike unit is 16 ranks, then there are only about 18 or 19 men per rank.

If this is the case, what is assumption regarding the rest of the frontage of the hex, which would be more than half unoccupied. How do the rules writers reconcile this? I know all of the tables for combat are based on percentages, but this issue does relate to historical scenarios. In one I am playtesting, I use 800 man pike units, because of this issue. It works out because it is an Hellenistic battle with pikes on both sides. It would not work out so well for, say Pydna, with Romans versus Macedonians.

[Archie]

Thanks for the info, also read the missile section on wiki, and that enlightened me on how to use my archers better.

Although, I think the 1st volley from behind must disrupt and cause more damage than is in the game.

[batesmotel]

Chris said "In the TT rules there is a -1 on CTs when enemy is threatening your flank or rear but the PC version doesn't have anything equivalent for enemy just in position to threaten your BG. The assumption for both the TT and PC rules is that it isn't necessarily true that all the troops in a BG are facing in a single direction since a BG can be composed of multiple smaller units that are not represented individually, e.g. a century within a Roman cohort."

Chris, since you play both rules sets, I thought you could answer a question regarding the size of BGs and the frontage of a hex. The TT rules, if I remember correctly, state that a minitures base is equal to about 250 men. The PC rules say a BG is 300 men. I saw a comment yesterday by Nik in the new FOG 2.0 forum if which he states that a base of skirmishers has the same number of men as a base of medium foot. I take this to mean that all bases are assumed to represent the same number of men. I assume a skirmisher would take up about 6 feet and a PC BG of skirmishers would represent sort of a swarm of men moving back and forth shooting or throwing their missiles. Using shooting ranges as a guide, a hex should be about 50 yards (if foot bows can shoot 5 hexes, this would equate at 250 yards, a bit long but reasonable). At an average of 6 feet of frontage, about 25 skirmishers would fit across the 50 yards.

If there are 25 skirmishers across, then there would be 12 "ranks" of skirmishers, a bit more than the 8 ranks typically assumed by most "experts", but still reasonable. The problem comes in when you start to look at close order foot. Pikes are assumed to fight in 16 ranks and occupy from 2 feet to 3 feet in frontage, depending on circumstances. Receiving cavalry, supposedly the back 8 ranks could move forward and each man could occupy as little as 18 inches. If charging enemy foot, supposedly the 16 rank formation was used and each man occupied about 30" to 3 feet. If you assume each man occupied 3 feet, then about 50 men across would cover the frontage of a hex. In a 16 rank pike formation, this would require 800 men to be in the hex. If a BG only has 300 men, then either the pike unit is only 6 ranks deep (50 x 6) or if the pike unit is 16 ranks, then there are only about 18 or 19 men per rank.

If this is the case, what is assumption regarding the rest of the frontage of the hex, which would be more than half unoccupied. How do the rules writers reconcile this? I know all of the tables for combat are based on percentages, but this issue does relate to historical scenarios. In one I am playtesting, I use 800 man pike units, because of this issue. It works out because it is an Hellenistic battle with pikes on both sides. It would not work out so well for, say Pydna, with Romans versus Macedonians.

The first thing to note is that the figure scale in both FoG TT and FoG PC is pretty nominal and the authors state that the rules were designed with a top down approach, not starting from specific details like troops scale and ground scale. The combat resolution mechanism in FoG PC is based on that for the TT version in general for units of 4 stands. Exceptions from this are that Knights, chariots, elephants and other "models" fight like units of 2 stands and pikes fight like units of 8 stands. In the TT rules, the number of stands in a pike BG is twice the number of those in a non-pike BG with the same fighting frontage but this is abstracted in the PC version so that one BG of pikes essentially represents twice as many men as other foot BGs. The current estimate that a FoG PC BG represents roughly 300 men was really done on the basis of comparing the frontage of a hex to bow range and a ball park calculation based on that.

Probably the best bet for doing a historical scenario is to come up with the numbers and types of BGs to represent the battle frontages of the opposing forces in the battle rather than trying to calculate the actual numbers of men of each type involved on each side. From there with some play testing you should be able to make adjustments so that the battle will tend to give historical results and feel if both sides use tactics similar to those used in the historical battle.

Chris

[batesmotel]

Thanks for the info, also read the missile section on wiki, and that enlightened me on how to use my archers better.

Although, I think the 1st volley from behind must disrupt and cause more damage than is in the game.

That feels like much too strong an effect. That would essentially make a missile volley from the rear equal in effect to being charged in the rear with it's automatic drop in cohesion level. It might make sense to add a -1 Cohesion Test modifier for a threatened rear (or flank?) in the PC version similar to that for the TT version but I don't think that a stronger effect than that is justified. Archery in FoG PC can already be very effective and doesn't need to be stronger unless you really think that missile fire should be the dominant arm on the ancient and medieval battlefield.

Chris

[petergarnett]

What's the definition of a threatened rear? I don't want to see a line of HF penalised just because one BG is behind them. I think this change, whilst it has the example of history behind it, would cause more problems given the way players could with ease send a BG off to demoralise an enitire line. On the TT it's not an issue having the modifier.

[Xiggy]

Well if it get the -1 for unit in rear arc other than LF or LC, then it would probably work. It takes a bit of work to get cav to your rear.

[batesmotel]

What's the definition of a threatened rear? I don't want to see a line of HF penalised just because one BG is behind them. I think this change, whilst it has the example of history behind it, would cause more problems given the way players could with ease send a BG off to demoralise an enitire line. On the TT it's not an issue having the modifier.

In the TT rules it is having an enemy non-skirmisher BG able to charge the flank or rear of the testing BG or being withing 6 MU of any table edge. For the PC this could probably be changed to being within something like 4 or 5 hexes of the board edge or having an enemy non-skirmisher BG in a position where it could make a legal rear charge on the BG. In the TT rules skirmishers always ignore the threatened flank or rear modifier and this should apply for the PC as well. The modifier only applies if the BG has a cause to take a cohesion test. It is not a cause for a cohesion test.

Chris

[bloodphoenix]

This prompts the question 'is an arrow any more dangerous if it comes from the rear of your formation rather than the front?'
I think the extra effect would be on moral rather than injuries.

I disagree. Shoot a line of Romans hidden behind their raised Scuta and do little damage, shoot them from behind and the Scuta is ineffective and so logically one would expect more damage.

Just my two cents on this...
I've played ancient/medieval rules in which missle fire was more effective from the right flank or rear of a unit, because the targets couldn't interpose their shields to protect themselves. Or to be more precise, I think the fire was penalized when firing from the front or left if the target had shields, and at full effectiveness from other directions, or on targets which had no shields.

Its also worth noting that it was not uncommon, especially in the earlier portion of this period, for troops to have better armor protection on the front of their bodies (the side theoretically pointed at the enemy!) An example of a similar concept is citizen soldiers who had to pay for their own equipment, who saved money by wearing a greave only on their left leg. Some people mistakenly picture warriors like hoplites fighting the enemy facing straight forward, when in reality they assumed a kind of "side-ways" stance. The left foot would typically be "forward" when engaged with the enemy, because the shield was on the left side. A hoplon or scutum would thus easily cover most of a man's body, but leave the left leg below it vulnerable, thus the greave on that leg. The right leg would be back and mostly out of reach.

Taking the example of the Roman mentioned above, when you're packed into a close order formation in heavy armor, and a volley from a unit of enemy archers comes whistling down from above, you don't "dodge" or just grit your teeth and pray to Mars that the complicated math equation involving velocity and pounds of force ends with the arrow not penetrating your lorica and not hitting one of the many softer, flesh-colored places. You raise your shield protectively, to guard important things that aren't covered in metal or leather...like your FACE. If the archers/slingers/javelineers are behind you, that doesn't happen.

And while I would argue that the missle fire should be slightly more effective (or less impaired) against unshielded targets, I do also agree with the statement that taking fire from the rear (or the flank, imo) should have its most telling impact on morale! Its bad enough to be taking fire and casualties from an enemy that you can't retaliate against (when he has say, a bow and you have a sword) but its even worse when you begin taking such fire suddenly from an enemy that you didn't even know was there! Particularly one who is now occupying your path of retreat should things go badly!

Though its more often discussed in the context of horse-and-musket and later combat, I think the concept of enfilade fire still has relevance in the period currently covered by the FoG computer game. If you're firing at a broad linear formation from the flank, I would expect you to have a higher chance of hitting a target, since if it misses one man it can easily pass on to strike one of his comrades farther down his rank (or in the cast of something like a siege engine, pass THROUGH him to strike a comrade).

The only argument against this that I can see, is that my understanding of Ancient/Medieval battlefield missle use, was that alot of it wouldn't have a flat trajectory, but would be shot or hurled so that it arced upward and then fell onto the target, like indirect fire. I may be wrong, but its my understanding that this imparted extra lethal power to the missle by taking advantage of gravity. Can anyone comment on that? I imagine that at shorter ranges, fire might have taken place on a flatter plane...or with heavier weapons like thrown spears or axes. But I believe even the pilum was normally thrown at a slight upward angle, right?

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, I doudt "gravity assist " made that much difference in penetrating power of an arrow or sling shot as these lacked much mass, although missles raining down from directly above would probobly be disconcerting to say the least. My understanding is that even crossbows , more of a direct fire weapon, could be used to arc missles onto oppenents if needed ( ie behind parapets etc)
If you look at the later medieval helmets in different regions they "specialize" in different protection. So in north west Erope where the longbow was well know, infantry helms were broad brimmed ( kinda like the WWI helemts useds by the brits) to offer more value vs plnging fire, while in italy where the crossbow was used extensivley, helmets had more face neck and cheek protection to help vs the diect fie of c-bow bolts.
One thing I have read and is actually a game play mechanic in the old Great battle games , is that direct fire from arrows etc ( ie when say under 50 yards) vs troops with heavy shields was very ineffective.