AM vs R, Table Size, Comp formats, MF, all in 1 post

[iversonjm]

And it is utter balderdash anyway - you only have to read a few of the better documented ancient/medieval battle accounts to see that manoeuvre was very much the exception rather than the rule. Matt underestimates the detail in the accounts - a large number of accounts are sufficiently detailed that it is pretty clear that troops went straight forward and contacted the enemy troops deployed opposite them at the start of the battle.

I am afraid that this "theory" is on par with Intelligent Design. (You "can't prove it is wrong", because the overwhelming evidence against it is discounted).

(And I suspect that Matt is only pulling our legs anyway)

I'm actually not pulling your legs. I have read the better documented ancient/medieval battle accounts, and they are on par in the level of tacticaL detail and granularity they provide with the grand tactical summaries that you see in most napoleonic secondary sourced period histories. This isn't surprising, as ancient/medieval battle accounts (with the exception of Caesar, who writes first-hand grand tactical summaries) ARE grand tactical summaries in secondary sourced period histories.
Now take one of those secondary sourced Napoleonic period histories off of your shelf (I used Chandler's account of Waterloo in the Campaigns of Napoleon for this exercise) and read an account of a battle. Note how it reads: troops form up in corps-sized blocks and hurl themselves straight forward against one another. There are descriptions of maneuver (such as Napoleon's shift of VI corps to counter the Prussians or Wellington's division-sized counter attacks) but they take place at corps and division level. Mention of individual regiments are limited to anecdotes about how well they fought. In fact, it reads a lot like an ancient battle account.

Now pick up a detailed book-sized history of a battle based upon regimental histories and other primary source accounts that records the battle at a TACTICAL level. Adkin's Waterloo Companion is a good one. All of a sudden corps and divisions are no longer phalanxes charging forward without articulation. Individual regiments, battalions and even companies maneuver, change formation and position, and refuse flanks. Cavalry regiments break apart into individual squadrons to exploit gaps and flanks or to make their way to the rear to reform after charges. In short, you learn about all of the tactical maneuver that got ignored in Chandler's grand-tactial summary.

Now imagine that you are a historian from 1000 years in the future, and Chandler's account is the ONLY source for Naploenic warfare that you have. You would likely conclude that Napoleonic divisions and corps formed up in blocks and charged straight forward at one another. And you'd be wrong.

Most ancient and medieval wargamers fall into a similar trap, for similar reasons -- all they have for sources are grand tactical summaries. As far as I am aware, no ancient or medieval historian ever wrote an entire book about a single battle, and regimental histories didn't exist (or didn't survive). I simply don't accept that the histories tell the whole story. Unlike my hypothetical historian 1000 years in the future, we have another data point - detailed TACTICAL accounts of another era in which men also fought in formation, on foot and on horseback, and using sight and sound communications. And it is clear that those formations could and did maneuver at a tactical level.

Basically, I think that FOG-PC is a better model of how troops actually fought and maneuvered on an ancient battlefield.

That said, my original point was that my (and everyone else's) personal opinions about historicity don't matter. What matters is what makes the game fun. You will always have tension between the dance-of-maneuver crowd and the slam-the-troops-together crowd. You just have to find a balance.

[hazelbark]

I think there are several other pieces missing in this debate. I remarked on this thread in the renaissance forum.

A lot of factors make the initial deployment in FOGR the start of the battle. The re-deployments allowed generally are not greater than say Churchill at Ramillies or such. In AM the battlefield per se is really only a 1x2 foot subset where the armies clash. Most of the game is manuvering for advantage.
Second FoGR units suffer attrition. In FOG AM they really don't in the same way. The CTs are as attritional hence the frequent auto-breaks in FOGR.

A partial solution is troop density. 900 or even 1000 points on a 4x6 is more interesting. Then people will swing heavily toward the heavier armies initially. The greater density limits crazy manuvers.

It would be tough to engineer back attrition into FOG AM. A new Fresh status that once you drop that level you never recover. Not sure what that would mean. The other way is to create 1/2 base loss. No losses get the +2 on the death roll. But all shooting can only inflict a 1/2 base. A simple marker would be fine. They can accumulate into full base losses. Then do soemthing so the winner in melee can suffer these 1/2 losses.

All this would make reserves and biggerr units better and at 900-1000 points you can afford them.

FOG R there is an option to send out a line of poor units to inflict losses on the enemy then meet them with your better troops. In FOG AM that rarely makes sense as it is too easy to crunch the poor troops without loss.

[IanB3406]

I find my self agreeing with Matt. We can't even come to agreement on how Roman line relieve worked exactly. I see no reason to expect that Romans were less maneuverable than napoleonic era troops, and they didn't have smoke and noise of gunpowder to deal with.

However, I believe that running away with enemy to your front is not something normally done. I can only think of Phillips elite infantry at charonea doing this that was not part of a route.

Ian

[Strategos69]

Indeed, I agree. Vegetius writes that this is one of the most difficult movements to be performed by a general.

Having gone through the various particulars relative to general actions, it remains at present to explain the manner of retreating in presence of the enemy. This is an operation, which, in the judgment of men of greatest skill and experience, is attended with the utmost hazard. A general certainly discourages his own troops and animates his enemies by retiring out of the field without fighting. Yet as this must sometimes necessarily happen, it will be proper to consider how to perform it with safety.

In the first place your men must not imagine that you retire to decline an action, but believe your retreat an artifice to draw the enemy into an ambuscade or more advantageous position where you may easier defeat them in case they follow you. For troops who perceive their general despairs of success are prone to flight. You must be cautious lest the enemy should discover your retreat and immediately fall upon you.

I think that there is a problem of scope. FoG has a general scheme of a big amount of abstraction for combat and their interactions (which I think is right), but has a too detailed freedom of movement (which for me is wrong). In fact there is something similar with the deployment: it is neither the prebattle deployment from the camp neither the prebattle arrow shot distance situation. If you make that your two lines of hastati and principes and their interactions are dealt within the BG, then you are opting for a grand tactical (even more abstract because these actions are mentioned by the Ancient sources). What I can see incoherent is choosing that and then having such a detailed and free movement.

As mentioned, fun can be in many things more than just moving, which is basically the model of chess. You can have a deployment more important, to foresee better the distance among units, to control the pursuits of the victorius units, to place reserves so that they exploit the gaps, etc. In FoG echelon tactics barely work because most of the time the battle is resolved in many unconnected bits. In the other hand a single BG of LH can be enough to perform a refused wing, indeed much more succesful that several BG's of proper troops.

[iversonjm]

It would be tough to engineer back attrition into FOG AM. A new Fresh status that once you drop that level you never recover. Not sure what that would mean. The other way is to create 1/2 base loss. No losses get the +2 on the death roll. But all shooting can only inflict a 1/2 base. A simple marker would be fine. They can accumulate into full base losses. Then do soemthing so the winner in melee can suffer these 1/2 losses.

This is a neat idea. If you limit the ability of archers to run away from the enemy, you need something to give them a more lasting effect from shooting. This may be a good way to do it. Also a way to make superior units a bit more fragile and subject to being attrited away.

[hazelbark]

The downside is I think it would take some serious medical work to properly design and graft a concept like this into AM.

Its tough because clearly the CT mechanism was supposed to do this. But it handles it differently.

[madaxeman]

Now pick up a detailed book-sized history of a battle based upon regimental histories and other primary source accounts that records the battle at a TACTICAL level. ......... Individual regiments, battalions and even companies maneuver, change formation and position, and refuse flanks. Cavalry regiments break apart into individual squadrons to exploit gaps and flanks or to make their way to the rear to reform after charges. ...... Most ancient and medieval wargamers fall into a similar trap, for similar reasons -- all they have for sources are grand tactical summaries.

But this "tactical" level stuff in FoGAM theoretically happens at an individual element/base level, and is abstracted by the rules - BG's represent the "Divisions" in the overview synopses you are quoting. That's exactly why the tactical-style maneuvering that "Divisions" are allowed to make in AM seem odd to some of us.

[Strategos69]

It would be tough to engineer back attrition into FOG AM. A new Fresh status that once you drop that level you never recover. Not sure what that would mean. The other way is to create 1/2 base loss. No losses get the +2 on the death roll. But all shooting can only inflict a 1/2 base. A simple marker would be fine. They can accumulate into full base losses. Then do soemthing so the winner in melee can suffer these 1/2 losses.

This is a neat idea. If you limit the ability of archers to run away from the enemy, you need something to give them a more lasting effect from shooting. This may be a good way to do it. Also a way to make superior units a bit more fragile and subject to being attrited away.

I like the idea of the extra fresh status that cannot be recovered (although I would give it only to HF to give them a boost). The 1/2 base seems nice but it is true that would require lots of testing and I am not certain if that would lead to more autobreaks, which should not be the objective. Right now I find that there are more autobreaks than routs by attrition for some troops.

In other games I have seen the use of two mechanics:
- One is pinning: shooting does not kill as much but pins, so that no movement when X hits are achieved or a test is failed, which would give shooters extra power because the enemy line would not arrive united. I am not certain if that should be the way, but represents quite well the effect of massing shooting.
- Other games, to penalize the winner, have automatical markers for being tired. If you fight, you receive one. The more you receive the more you are penalised. That way your second line can have more success on superior troops when acting fresh. That could be worked out with dice loss and/or PoA's. Fighting in two lines would become more important and that your first line of poorer troops hold for more turns, even without scoring many hits, would mean that at least you damage your enemies capacity.

[miverson]

But this "tactical" level stuff in FoGAM theoretically happens at an individual element/base level, and is abstracted by the rules - BG's represent the "Divisions" in the overview synopses you are quoting. That's exactly why the tactical-style maneuvering that "Divisions" are allowed to make in AM seem odd to some of us.

I have always viewed units in FOG to be regiment or battalion equivalents of 500-1000 men (or 1600 or so men in the case of phalanxes). I have to admit that I never considered the possibility that people might view BGs as divisions. If they are, then the maneuverability might be right, but virtually every other aspect of the game (shooting ranges, movement, fighting in ranks, length v. depth of units, etc.) is hopelessly broken.

[madaxeman]

But this "tactical" level stuff in FoGAM theoretically happens at an individual element/base level, and is abstracted by the rules - BG's represent the "Divisions" in the overview synopses you are quoting. That's exactly why the tactical-style maneuvering that "Divisions" are allowed to make in AM seem odd to some of us.

I have always viewed units in FOG to be regiment or battalion equivalents of 500-1000 men (or 1600 or so men in the case of phalanxes). I have to admit that I never considered the possibility that people might view BGs as divisions. If they are, then the maneuverability might be right, but virtually every other aspect of the game (shooting ranges, movement, fighting in ranks, length v. depth of units, etc.) is hopelessly broken.

Page 9, Design Philosophy..

Armies of this era all had a common theme, whatever their organisation at the micro level. Each had a commander-in-chief and a few senior commanders who would take control of a wing, or the centre, or a sweeping charge. Subordinate to these was another layer of commanders who controlled the various tactical formations which generally consisted of a number of units grouped together. In Field of Glory we call these formations battle groups

[miverson]

Page 9, Design Philosophy..

Armies of this era all had a common theme, whatever their organisation at the micro level. Each had a commander-in-chief and a few senior commanders who would take control of a wing, or the centre, or a sweeping charge. Subordinate to these was another layer of commanders who controlled the various tactical formations which generally consisted of a number of units grouped together. In Field of Glory we call these formations battle groups

Yeah, I get all that. But divisions? Divisions were 5000-10000 man formations, which is why they weren't particularly nimble. Setting aside the fact that a division-sized phalanx deployed 8 deep would be about a 1000 yards or four bow-shots long, that would mean that every time we fought a FOG battle with 12 BGs or so we are fighting the largest battles ever recorded in ancient and medieval history. I understand there is no set figure ratio, etc., etc., but there is a point to which my willing suspension of disbelief will not stretch. Also, it is puzzling why the rules would model things like shooting and evasion at the tactical level but model battlefield maneuver at the grand tactical level.

[IanB3406]

I've fought pharsalus at 500 man per stand and it felt a bit small....ESP for Caesar with only 9 or so bg's if I remember right. The amount of skirmishes in this game means that about 1000-1500 men per bg is right for 4 stand units, and seems to match closer to the mrr legion proportions given.

[grahambriggs]

An interesting debate. And a fair point that our knowledge of the detail of ancient warfare is quite weak because of lack of evidence. However, assuming that because Napoleonic units did small scale manouvre ancient troops did so as well is a bit of a stretch. Firearms and effective artillery changes the rules completely.

For example, in warfare with shield and spear the minutiae of where one man is in relation to the next really matters. It's important that there are no gaps where an enemy spear can get in. Hence hoplite warfare was a relatively linear affair. We do have a fair amout of information in terms of the drill available to hoplites and what they could and couldn't do.

Clearly, troops from both periods could form up in large, well organised blocks. And small units can break off to manouver. But is there more risk when warfare is hand to hand only? e.g. Harolds men who left the line to pursue the Bretons at Hastings came horribly unstuck.

I get the sense from some ancient accounts that the success of manouver on the field of battle was as much because the general and troops were good enough that they could minimise the risks inherent. Others that tried it lost their army.

[madaxeman]

Page 9, Design Philosophy..

Armies of this era all had a common theme, whatever their organisation at the micro level. Each had a commander-in-chief and a few senior commanders who would take control of a wing, or the centre, or a sweeping charge. Subordinate to these was another layer of commanders who controlled the various tactical formations which generally consisted of a number of units grouped together. In Field of Glory we call these formations battle groups

Yeah, I get all that. But divisions? Divisions were 5000-10000 man formations, which is why they weren't particularly nimble. Setting aside the fact that a division-sized phalanx deployed 8 deep would be about a 1000 yards or four bow-shots long, that would mean that every time we fought a FOG battle with 12 BGs or so we are fighting the largest battles ever recorded in ancient and medieval history. I understand there is no set figure ratio, etc., etc., but there is a point to which my willing suspension of disbelief will not stretch. Also, it is puzzling why the rules would model things like shooting and evasion at the tactical level but model battlefield maneuver at the grand tactical level.

Even if Divisions is the wrong word (and I have literally no knowledge of Napoleonics at all), BGs are clearly supposed to be at a higher level than the basic maneuver element, and incorporate a number of those elements

[miverson]

I've fought pharsalus at 500 man per stand and it felt a bit small....ESP for Caesar with only 9 or so bg's if I remember right. The amount of skirmishes in this game means that about 1000-1500 men per bg is right for 4 stand units, and seems to match closer to the mrr legion proportions given.

Alexander's battles are about the best documented from an order of battle standpoint (at least on the Macedonian side) from the ancient era, and we've fought Granicus and Issus at a 1:50-60 figure scale. Incidentally, that's the same figure scale as the Empire set of Napoleonic rules. It works quite well and approximates what we think we know of the historical unit sizes closely; i.e. 1600 man phalanx taxis are 32 figure units as they should be, etc.

[Strategos69]

But in the case of Granicus, given a phalanx of 9.000 and a scale of 1 miniature 60 men, that means 150 miniatures (in fact 192 miniatures for 6 taxeis), thus around 38 stands (48 taking the previous equivalence, a little more than the maximum of the list). Do you do it that way? This is not a critique. I am just curious. Maybe it could show that when big battles are fought and troop density increased, things work better. I have never had the chance to play more than 900 points.

[Jhykronos]

Alexander's battles are about the best documented from an order of battle standpoint (at least on the Macedonian side) from the ancient era, and we've fought Granicus and Issus at a 1:50-60 figure scale. Incidentally, that's the same figure scale as the Empire set of Napoleonic rules. It works quite well and approximates what we think we know of the historical unit sizes closely; i.e. 1600 man phalanx taxis are 32 figure units as they should be, etc.

(quibble) Well, there's some debate on Macedonian unit sizes... not to mention the only real OOB we have on Alexander's armies is Diodoros's list of what he crossed the Hellespoint with (everything else being extrapolation and educated guesswork from reinforcements and battle descriptions)... better Orders of Battle are given for Raphia and Magnesia, for example. (/quibble)

I agree, it would be interesting, however, to see how battles play out under these rules by taking one of the better documented battles and actually scaling it to a scenario, as opposed to "bathtubbing" a couple historical forces to 800 (or whatever) points a side.

[miverson]

But in the case of Granicus, given a phalanx of 9.000 and a scale of 1 miniature 60 men, that means 150 miniatures (in fact 192 miniatures for 6 taxeis), thus around 38 stands (48 taking the previous equivalence, a little more than the maximum of the list). Do you do it that way? This is not a critique. I am just curious. Maybe it could show that when big battles are fought and troop density increased, things work better. I have never had the chance to play more than 900 points.

The 50-60 men per figure gives you a bit of a fudge factor. At 1:50 9000 phalangites is 180 figures. As compared to 192 figures in 6 32 fig units, that is, as we used to say in the army, "close enough for government work."

[ShrubMiK]

I assume roughly 250 men (or women, if you are being picky) to a base of "battle line troops". So that's around the 60 man per figure mark you are proposing (ignoring the question of what the smaller number of figures represented on e.g. a LF bases represents in real life)

Look, everybody* already knows that the length-to-depth ratio is not realistic, there have been innumerable debates about how that affects certain aspects of the rules and how things play out on table, but that's how things are...to fix that you either have to use very small figures, or very wide bases...or change the game entirely to be a skirmish level rule set. Which I'm quite clear it isn't

So...a 4 base BG, 1000 men, 1 pace/1 yard/1 metre frontage per file (all in the same ballpark), and lets say 4 ranks deep per base. So that's 125 yards or thereabouts frontage. On table that's 2MU. Extreme bow range is 6MU, so 375 yards. That doesn't seem totally broken to me?

I assume that FoG battles at 800 pts or so represent "reasonably" large ancient battles, but not the huge ones. 15-30 thousand per side seems to have been reasonably common in ancient times (okay, somewhat less when you start getting into dark ages/medieval times), so that's what IMO FoG should be trying to represent within standard parameters, and the army lists structured accordingly. There will always be exceptions that a generic army list cannot cope with.

[Jilu]

Well compremises have to be made...no GAME can be perfect

None of us was on these battlefields to know how things were

so interpretations of how things were are needed...as i see it FOG is a good game and fu, and what is important in a game? well that it is fun.

You could even argue that for every historical battle you would need a special ruleset. That for every time there is some technological advance/change you would need a new ruleset.....

i think FOGAM makes good compremises, manages to give us a good feeling of things, manages to balance armies in the same army books in the very broad era the game covers.

yes it is perfectibleand i too do not agree on some parts of the game...(i hate the way Pikemen came manoeuvre) but well in the end it does not matter.
I like to meet other gamers and share my passion of painint and playing.