Comments after first four games

[prb4]

I have now played four games of FOG, all at RollCall.

In general I feel the rules worked well and I don't have any serious gripes .

However...

1. I found it annoying that a unit that was fighting or shooting with only 2 dice and then gets disrupted still has 2 dice and thus no penalty.
This did work for me as well as against me but non the less was annoying.

2. In a similar way fragmented units with 1 dice do not suffer a penalty.

3. I find it unrealistic that a general next to two units in melee against one or more enemy units may only effect one unit and not the other.
I can accept that the general can only provide a benefit in the combat phase to only one unit. I can also accept that the general can only affect one unit in the joint action phase.
However given that the general does not move and that both units are involved in the same melee I can not understand why the general may not fight with one unit in the melee phase and affect either unit in the joint action phase.

4. Another situation that I experienced that seemed unrealistic.
A cav unit charged into contact to join a formed melee. The cav unit charged in the impact phase and made contact with the overlap element of the enemy lancer unit. The lancer unit counted a +POA in the impact phase for it's lance. The charging cav unit did not get any POA for charging. Consequently the non-charging lancers already fighting in a melee got a POA against a charging unit.
Clearly this is ridiculous as the lancer unit was not charging and did not even have a lance since it was currently in a melee, further more the charging formed unit was actually at a disadvantage.

I would be interested to know if we did anything wrong in any of these cases.

Peter

[sagji]

I have now played four games of FOG, all at RollCall.

In general I feel the rules worked well and I don't have any serious gripes .

However...

1. I found it annoying that a unit that was fighting or shooting with only 2 dice and then gets disrupted still has 2 dice and thus no penalty.
This did work for me as well as against me but non the less was annoying.

You are allways going to get a rounding error - the only improvement is to roll more dice.

2. In a similar way fragmented units with 1 dice do not suffer a penalty.

3. I find it unrealistic that a general next to two units in melee against one or more enemy units may only effect one unit and not the other.
I can accept that the general can only provide a benefit in the combat phase to only one unit. I can also accept that the general can only affect one unit in the joint action phase.
However given that the general does not move and that both units are involved in the same melee I can not understand why the general may not fight with one unit in the melee phase and affect either unit in the joint action phase.

I find it odd that a general can effect all of a BG of 12 spearmen, but can't effect two BGs of 4. Possibly a general should be able to effect his own combat, and the ones on either side.

I suspect the general fighting in the front rank is busy fighting, and it is this that allows the unit to rally.

4. Another situation that I experienced that seemed unrealistic.
A cav unit charged into contact to join a formed melee. The cav unit charged in the impact phase and made contact with the overlap element of the enemy lancer unit. The lancer unit counted a +POA in the impact phase for it's lance. The charging cav unit did not get any POA for charging. Consequently the non-charging lancers already fighting in a melee got a POA against a charging unit.
Clearly this is ridiculous as the lancer unit was not charging and did not even have a lance since it was currently in a melee, further more the charging formed unit was actually at a disadvantage.

Peter

I agree here - lance, mounted light spear, and probably Impact foot, should not count for a base that is "in melee"

[shall]

With these ones we are in the land of pragmatic solutions to relatively mionor issues perhaps.

The small no of side effect exists........but the DISR and FG have -1 qnd -2 on their CT which is very dangerous. While we considered reducing dice down in small situations we found it was a better balance leaving them in. If you have advantage it is clearly better to have more dice.

On the generals you qre putting q viezw of reqlity bqsed on figures on a table. A generals range of influence when in combayt is driven much more by the BG he is with due to unit organisational boundaries. Effectively he is with the junior general of the Bg fighting int he front rqnk. Those under this command chain are likely to be very insipired by this. Those not less so.

A good analogy I once found was teaching 15 year old kids rugby. I was helping coach the forwards and the backs but when I joined in a game as an 18 year old) and became the no 8 if anything the backs were deflated and the forwards got the boost...but beforehand as coach I had much wider but less dramatic influence. So we view the spread of such dramatic influence to be more dirven by a big support for the sub-team joined. So your sphere of influence drops the more you get involved and it is drvien by organisation and command structures. It also works well as a game mechanic when trying to decide BG sizes.

On the charge I am not sure without my rules handy where we ended up on joining a melee. Did they just make corner-to-corner contact and if so are you sure they could charge - generally I walk into overlaps in such situations and fight with Mele factors only. So then it is just the extra dice you get. I remember a long debate on this but don't have the outcome handy here in Marrakech.

Also think BG not unit; there are lots of unengqged troops in BG that can spread out to figh a new threat that we stay above in terms of tabletop physical representation. This disntiction is important in quite a lot of the FOG concepts and mechanics.

Si

[rogerg]

Unless I am very much mistaken, I was the owner of the lancers at Roll Call. They were engaged in melee and had a one base overlap. This overlap was charged by a fresh unit and hence there was a one base to one base impact combat.

I was suggesting that one takes the large scale view. I.e. the BG represents several units of lancers, there being sufficient who have retained their lances to counter charge the new opponents. Then of course, they were my lancers

[rbodleyscott]

Unless I am very much mistaken, I was the owner of the lancers at Roll Call. They were engaged in melee and had a one base overlap. This overlap was charged by a fresh unit and hence there was a one base to one base impact combat.

I was suggesting that one takes the large scale view. I.e. the BG represents several units of lancers, there being sufficient who have retained their lances to counter charge the new opponents. Then of course, they were my lancers

That is the intention of the design philosophy. The lancer squadrons not fully engaged against the enemy are assumed to counter-charge.

(DISCLAIMER : The term "counter-charge" is used for the purpose of explaining design philosophy only. No use of the term "counter-charge" implies any actual movement on the table nor do such troops count as charging for POA purposes. : END OF DISCLAIMER).

[prb4]

Well I can certainly accept that squadrons not engaged are capable of counter charging.

However, in the situation I am describing, the single element was already engaged and fighting as an overlap, this why I have a difficulty with it.

Perhaps I could ask a different question.
Would it have been legal in this situation to choose to not charge in the impact phase and instead move into contact with the overlap during the movement phase and thus fight only in the melee phase?

Peter

[rbodleyscott]

However, in the situation I am describing, the single element was already engaged and fighting as an overlap, this why I have a difficulty with it.

The rules do not treat overlaps as fully engaged. They are assumed still to have freedom of action. This is why BGs fighting only as an overlap are permitted to move away if they so choose, rather than continuing the combat.

Would it have been legal in this situation to choose to not charge in the impact phase and instead move into contact with the overlap during the movement phase and thus fight only in the melee phase?

No. You can move into melee "as an overlap" but not to frontally contact an enemy overlap. It is not our intention that troops should be able to contact the front of enemy without using impact phase POAs.

This is part of the battle group (as opposed to unit) based philosophy of the rules.

[shall]

If the target was fighting as an overlap I think its safe to say they would in the main "countercharge" - with rbs disclaimer - across most of the frontage. In reality it takes only 50 meters to gather speed.

The battle is so large scale that we do not represent such small things as 20 metre push backs or a 50 M counter charge. These are below our level of interest if trying to mdel a 20,000 a siude or more clahs of arms.

A base front being a alrge number of cavalry you would probably have about 50 involved and 100-200 free who would just picxk up the pace and charge th threat back in my view.

To me this is all part of thinking BG rather than unit. A single base is representing at times 2 units and a BG often 6-10 units.

So all this CCharge is representing is one unit charging back. If you instead visualise the BG as a single unit then consider it all engaged you are missing a big part of the design philosophy which we believe is an elegant way of reprenting 50-100 units on a battle field and how they were oragnised and commanded in reality.

Hope that philosophical rambling is some help

Si