HF are people too !

[zocco]

Is it just me or is there a marked imbalance between the capabilities of MF and HF in FOG.

I admit I've become quite frustrated over time with how HF seem frequently unable to even get into combat against many opponents, is frequently skirmished out of the game and is really hampered when fighting or moving in terrain other than open going.

Do others find this is the case ?

I also seriously query the differences/imbalance given between MF and HF in the rules - which I frankly have to think can't in some cases be justified historically. I'll briefly outline some thoughts below;

Lets look first at uneven ground - when I read the definition I think to myself 'are you kidding' - this stuff is supposed to slow down HF - this is just normal outdoor terrain - period. A few small rocks and ditches would not slow up heavy infantry or affect its fighting ability to any real extent in most cases.

Perhaps I can digress here for a moment - one of the misconceptions that the rule writers have foistered on HF is that they act like automatons (unlike many other troops) and so wander around in some sort of very close order incapable of making appropriate adjustments to terrain. Uneven ground has such minor imperfections that it is highly unlikely that it will affect many HF to any appreciable extent. Arrian in his comments on Guagamela mentions Darius' flattening of the battlefield so as to help his chariots and cavalry - it is highly instructive to note that he says nothing about it helping infantry - in other words Arrian (an experienced army officer who would know) does not regard minor terrain imperfections as any real impediment to foot (but does to mounted).

Indeed this idea that terrain is a problem for HF but not MF can be taken further. Livy mentions Celtiberians (who normally charge at the run) being seriously discomforted and worsted by Legionaries (interestingly the legionaries although being broken up by the terrain are described as fighting very effectively 'like gladiators'). What this indicates is that fighting style (spearmen, swordsmen etc) is what determines effectiveness in rough terrain and that mobility is seriously restricted for all troops. Interestingly 'gladiators' in FOG are rated as MF (?).
Here perhaps you'll allow me to digress again - many years ago whilst a young reservist I recall being situated on a large hill covered in saltbush. I can easily imagine Livy's battle taking place on just such a hill (it would be defined as rough going in FOG) and it would almost certainly - due to chanelling effects - slow even troops currently classed as MF and cause them difficulties in combat. Indeed the faster troops try to move through such terrain the more disordered they would become. In difficult going the chanelling effect becomes even more pronounced as the terrain restricts movement options and would effect both MF and HF. HF may be a bit slower because of (on average) heavier armour but apart from that there is probably little difference (although heavier armour may eventually lead to higher fatigue) - neither side can maintain a cohesive formation and for example a HF spearmen is little different to an MF spearmen. The only really effective troops in such terrain are LF (and that is why the Strategikon suggests converting heavier foot to LF for operations in such terrain).

Now lets look at open going. Surely, you say MF would move quicker than HF here? I would say in general yes - but with a couple of proviso's. Firstly that HF outside of enemy influence (currently 6MU) can possibly move a bit faster (I think this is already a v2 proposal so won't say anymore on it). Secondly, that HF should be able to move quicker if charging (ie moving into contact). There are a number of historical cases I can think of - Dominate Roman infantry closing quickly with Sassanian cavalry (on a number of occassions) and the Greek 'charge' at Marathon , no doubt there are others.

So now onto some suggestions based on the above;


1. That STEADY HF charging in Open going be allowed an additional +1 MU (ie a total of 4MU) if going straight ahead.
This allows HF to close quicker with enemy (as noted above).

2. Amend the current terrain/movement rules as follows;

Broken ground - HF move at 3" and are not disordered.
Rough going - MF move at 3" and become disordered.
Difficult going - MF move at 3" and are Severely Disordered and HF at 2".

3. Troops which are in terrain where they are Severely Disordered should lose any armour POA advantage.

4. please leave Roman auxilia the option of being MF. The reason the Strategikon suggests 'converting' line troops to LF when operating in difficult going is precisely that - 'difficult going' - not rough going. Roman foot (including legionaries) were regarded as quite capable of operating effectively in (what FOG would term) rough going. Note Vegetius defines bad terrain as forest, marsh and mountains (all of which are difficult going in FOG).

5. terrain placement - perhaps this should be reviewed -from personal experience the amount of broken/rough/difficult landing in the central section of the tabletop seems excessive with some games I've played being pretty much forgone conclusions based on terrain placement. What do others think - has anyone had similar experiences ?

Cheers

Zocco

[ravenflight]

Hmm,

Personally I think many rules systems have gotten different troop types wrong, and you touched on a few points

I think that the speed at which they move and the way in which terrain affects them is more to do with the fighting style than anything else. FoG tries to recreate this, but IMHO fails. Legionaries don't lose their combat advantages when in terrain, and probably shouldn't, but also shouldn't (IMHO) be disordered by terrain. Pike are the one troop type that should be almost unstoppable when formed but totally lose it when they are even remotely disordered.

FoG tries to re-create this, and does it well. The trouble is when you enter MF into the mix you end up with troops who basically can't go anywhere near terrain because there is a poor unarmoured MF guy with a toothpick (exaggeration deliberate).

[philqw78]

There have been a lot of comments like this in the V2 tester forum Zocco. Hopefully they have listened.

[david53]

There have been a lot of comments like this in the V2 tester forum Zocco. Hopefully they have listened.

Would you like a bet on that

[shadowdragon]

There have been a lot of comments like this in the V2 tester forum Zocco. Hopefully they have listened.

Would you like a bet on that

Isn't that about the time they stopped posting?

[hazelbark]

I think the authors have said, in another universe they would have dealt with the whole MF/HF differently and the FoG v1 had too much a legacy of differentation that may not be as significant.

They also seem to have said that v2 will not have excessively radical changes.

I do suspect that v2 the terrain difference for uneven will be a step more similar to your ideas than not.

[hazelbark]

The greater game component of the HF piece is that while their realtive speed "may" be right. Interacting that with number of points on the table and a time to play to decision may hurt the HF effectiveness vis-a-vis a more crowded table.

ie 650 on 4x6 is very different than say 1200 points.

[zocco]

I live in hope - maybe.

But I have to say that the historical facts rarely seem to have had much influence on the authors opinions. A good example of this is Legionaries vs elephants. Currently legionaries are only as effective as many western barbarian foot - which is ridiculous when looking at the historical record and if you take points into account Legionaries are in many cases substantially worse - go figure

[philqw78]

I live in hope - maybe.

But I have to say that the historical facts rarely seem to have had much influence on the authors opinions. A good example of this is Legionaries vs elephants. Currently legionaries are only as effective as many western barbarian foot - which is ridiculous when looking at the historical record and if you take points into account Legionaries are in many cases substantially worse - go figure

Aples and bananas

[nikgaukroger]

Currently legionaries are only as effective as many western barbarian foot - which is ridiculous when looking at the historical record

Out of interest what does the historical record say about the performance of western barbarian foot against nellies?

[Strategos69]

Currently legionaries are only as effective as many western barbarian foot - which is ridiculous when looking at the historical record

Out of interest what does the historical record say about the performance of western barbarian foot against nellies?

You mean the elephant victory in 273? Or when the Celtic tribes are told to retire without fighting when they first saw them in the Alps?

The problem is that the effect of elephants was greatly due in those cases (as for the successful use against Romans) when they had to face them for the first time. Once they got used to them, things changed. The structure of the game is unsuitable to cover exceptions and maybe they should not be covered. For scenarios probably special rules should be needed for those. I thought for one scenario I am making about Bagradas plains having troops fighting elephants for the first time to be classed as poor (for fighting and CT).

[hazelbark]

But I have to say that the historical facts rarely seem to have had much influence on the authors opinions. A good example of this is Legionaries vs elephants. Currently legionaries are only as effective as many western barbarian foot - which is ridiculous when looking at the historical record and if you take points into account Legionaries are in many cases substantially worse - go figure

You mean if the legions are downgraded to average? Because the legions do often get the superior die re-rolling.

I think the reality is the any rule set over a wide range of time flatten certain exceptional cases. The authors have generally not made elephants excessively powerful.

[marty]

The authors have generally not made elephants excessively powerful.

Final entry for understatement of the year 2011

I cant remember the last time I saw them on the table.

Martin

[ravenflight]

The authors have generally not made elephants excessively powerful.

Final entry for understatement of the year 2011

I cant remember the last time I saw them on the table.

Martin

Yes you can Martin... unless you've blocked them from your memory. It was withing 6 months, and it was when my Ghurids defeated your Merovingians.

[zocco]

Actually I was thinking about 'the Elephant Victory. 1-0 to elephants.

Having said that I have to say that I'm completely wrong - rereading it the Galatians were badly damaged by their own chariots. So a very embarrassing gaff by me - doubley so when I was going on about facts

I should however state that I do believe my original post in this thread regarding HF is correct.

Re elephants a quick browse thro the Sept 2011 Slingshot article 'Legion, Phalanx and Pachyderm' does bring up some interesting questions. One being that were legions more vulnerable to elephants than pikemen ?- after reading the article I'd have to say - probably not. Further if as the rule writers believe legionaries are more vulnerable than pikemen - on what are they basing their conclusion.

cheers

Zocco

[hazelbark]

I cant remember the last time I saw them on the table.

I did quite well recently with Mauryas.

[nikgaukroger]

Actually I was thinking about 'the Elephant Victory. 1-0 to elephants.

Having said that I have to say that I'm completely wrong - rereading it the Galatians were badly damaged by their own chariots. So a very embarrassing gaff by me - doubley so when I was going on about facts

No worries, people usually get that one wrong - IIRC it is the basis of the DBM quick kill of Wb by El so it turns out that that has no support in the historical record

I should however state that I do believe my original post in this thread regarding HF is correct.

Re elephants a quick browse thro the Sept 2011 Slingshot article 'Legion, Phalanx and Pachyderm' does bring up some interesting questions. One being that were legions more vulnerable to elephants than pikemen ?- after reading the article I'd have to say - probably not. Further if as the rule writers believe legionaries are more vulnerable than pikemen - on what are they basing their conclusion.

cheers

Zocco

Must go and reread that article.

[Strategos69]

Actually I was thinking about 'the Elephant Victory. 1-0 to elephants.

Having said that I have to say that I'm completely wrong - rereading it the Galatians were badly damaged by their own chariots. So a very embarrassing gaff by me - doubley so when I was going on about facts

I wouldn't say completely wrong.

So said Zeuxis, not in the best of tempers. Antiochus Soter had a somewhat similar experience about his battle with the Galatians. If you will allow me, I propose to give you an account of that event also. These people were good fighters, and on this occasion in great force; they were drawn up in a serried phalanx, the first rank, which consisted of steel-clad warriors, being supported by men of the ordinary heavy-armed type to the depth of four-and-twenty; twenty thousand cavalry held the flanks; and there were eighty scythed, and twice that number of ordinary war chariots ready to burst forth from the centre. These dispositions filled Antiochus with apprehension, and he thought the task was too hard for him. His own preparations had been hurried, on no great scale, and inadequate to the occasion; he had brought quite a small force, mostly of skirmishers and light-armed troops; more than half his men were without defensive armour. He was disposed to negotiate and find some honourable composition.

Theodotas of Rhodes, however, a brave and skilful officer, put him in heart again. Antiochus had sixteen elephants; Theodotas advised him to conceal these as well as he could for the present, not letting their superior height betray them; when the signal for battle was given, the shock just at hand, the enemy’s cavalry charging, and their phalanx opening to give free passage to the chariots, then would be the time for the elephants. A section of four was to meet the cavalry on each flank, and the remaining eight to engage the chariot squadron. ‘By this means,’ he concluded, ‘the horses will be frightened, and there will be a stampede into the Galatian infantry.’ His anticipations were realized, thus:

Neither the Galatians nor their horses had ever seen an elephant, and they were so taken aback by the strange sight that, long before the beasts came to close quarters, the mere sound of their trumpeting, the sight of their gleaming tusks relieved against dark bodies, and minatory waving trunks, was enough; before they were within bow-shot, the enemy broke and ran in utter disorder; the infantry were spitted on each other’s spears, and trampled by the cavalry who came scurrying on to them. The chariots, turning in like manner upon their own friends, whirled about among them by no means harmlessly; it was a Homeric scene of ‘rumbling tumbling cars’; when once the horses shied at those formidable elephants, off went the drivers, and ‘the lordless chariots rattled on,’ their scythes maiming and carving any of their late masters whom they came within reach of; and, in that chaos, many were the victims. Next came the elephants, trampling, tossing, tearing, goring; and a very complete victory they had made of it for Antiochus.

The carnage was great, and all the Galatians were either killed or captured, with the exception of a quite small band which got off to the mountains; Antiochus’s Macedonians sang the Paean, gathered round, and garlanded him with acclamations on the glorious victory. But the King — so the story goes — was in tears; ‘My men,’ he said, ‘we have more reason for shame; saved by those sixteen brutes! if their strangeness had not produced the panic, where should we have been?’ And on the trophy he would have nothing carved except just an elephant.

Certainly the Galatian infantrymen were disordered by their own men, but then smashed by the elephants following, so they did not only frightened horses. It is true, though, that basing rules mechanics (or general statements) in only one battle is not the best way to deal with it. In fact usually the first time any people faced the elephants they did not do very well. I think that those first times should be rather scenario exceptions. As I mentioned before, I think there is more a case for people facing elephants for the first time rather than Gauls performing poorly against them per se. In that regard legions learned to fight against those and by the II BC they were more used to elephants than the Macedonians, for example.

To me the question is how you do all that in FoG in both flanks with only one BG or even two of elephants (they are told to be 16). In fact some cavalry still have much bigger chances in FoG against elephants than recorded by the sources.

[zocco]

A few comments;

The Elephant Victory is a bit tricky to model I suspect because of the novelty value of the elephants and because I think they were hidden until the 'right' moment so there's a double surprise factor there as it were. Elelphants (like scythed chariots) were primarily a weapon of fear so for this battle you could probably double the number of elephant BG's (to say 4 at a guess).

I'm not sure how mounted and elephants play out - but certainly it shoudl be very difficult for mounted to discomfort them - didn't the Mongols dismount at some battle (vs Burmese elephants) to shoot at them on foot.

Regarding the comment 'elephants aren't excessively powerful' try fighting them with auxilia or legionaries - my roman foot have been rolled on a couple of occassions quite easily . My guess is that the reason elephants are not doing well is not that they are underpowered but that many of their opponents (and I'm particularly talking here about spearmen and Pikemen) are overrated. If pikes and spearmen fought with the same POA's vs elephants as do impact foot and light spear you'd be seeing more of them on the table. Having said that I would include a -1 CMT for elephants losing (tough to kill but they often would panic - sometimes with disasterous consequences to their own side). I should also state again that I don't think the historical record shows Roman HF as being any worse off vs elephants than pike - both had their wins and losses. I confess the last thing I want to see is (as has been mooted) elephants being upgraded in V2 and Roman HF left as is - they'll just be speed bumps.

Indeed the thing that worries me is that V2 may be taking precisely the wrong tack on some issues (admittedly I'm not privvy to the V2 Beta forum - so hopefully I'm worrying unecessarily). But from the public forum - I noticed talk about Cv being able to turn 180 and move (please say that isn't going to happen) and that skirmishers shooting is going to be less effective. On the latter my preference would not be for skirmishers shooting to be downgraded but to decrease the effect skirmishers have on restricting enemy movement - even the smallest unit of sirmishers can slow HF to a crawl. This too my mind is wrong - if we look at the Punic Wars skirmishers generally screened their respective heavy forces from each others skirmishers (ie their shooting) but once the heavy forces committed there was no way the skirmishers could seriously delay HF but they could inflict casualties (ie in FOG cause cohesion tests). To my mind the currently 'delaying' tactics allowed in V1 is one of the biggest problems in the rules as it distorts battles (especially when using slow troops like HF) and makes them overly long (in game time).

[david53]

Indeed the thing that worries me is that V2 may be taking precisely the wrong tack on some issues (admittedly I'm not privvy to the V2 Beta forum - so hopefully I'm worrying unecessarily).

Keep worrying

But from the public forum - I noticed talk about Cv being able to turn 180 and move (please say that isn't going to happen)

As above

TBH this is what IMO was wrong with V1 the lack of proper movement for Bow/Sword Cavalry, the inability to do anything once the enemy came mm away from you what do you do evade great chance to get caught or in most case fight with a minus.

Dave

*Of course this is only my thoughts and not what will happen*