Simple Historicon observations and questions.

[hazelbark]

Here is a simple list of things we encountered/questioned in our historicon games. Some may be our failure to read. Some may be old news to people.

FYI one match was Ottomans versus Hungarians. Incidentally these were the figures that we pulled for the demo as well. The other was Mid-republican roman vs. Alexander the great.

Simple points

1) Under turning 90 degrees. There is a reference the new front “must” and then later “at least”. This seems written as to be hard to parse. If I have a 3 wide by 2 deep cavalry formation turning 90 degrees. I must be at least two wide in the new direction I get, but can I be 6 wide or 3 wide or only 2? This isn’t clear enough; perhaps the diagram 12 will make it work.

2) Overall people kept asking how many moves have you made, how many moves in a game. I realize this is subjective and variable. We kept answering we are still learning how to spell FoG, much less keep time. Clearly this is echo of the 12 bound minimum from another system. I think some suggestions for what to tell people on this point will be good in the fullness of time.

3) On the cohesion chart the one that says “Suffering 1 HP3B from shooting - or taking 2 or more hits and shot at by artillery.” We assume the “or” means that these both can’t count as reasons for “a more than one reason to test”. This should be explicit in the rules body, chart is fine

4) Charging and impacting into a broken BG seems to due less damage than normal impact to a unit. In a turn you can inflict casualties during impact, melee and then when they break and if you catch them you due another hit. But it seemed to us that if you impact into a broken BG that just freezes until the JA phase and then you get a single kill. Did we mis play or mis understand?

5) The POA on page 50 versus the impact combat ref sheet are laid out differently regarding the “Only in open terrain” section. IMHO it is clearer in the rules than on the chart.

6) In general the charts should not all have the orange and yellow colors in their final version. It was hard on the eyes. Some more thoughtful color pattern that perhaps segments the CMT section better from the cohesion etc.

7) We could not find a definition of “a simple advance”. There should be those words somewhere, glossary something. It is referenced and you can figure if out by omission (we think) but it wasn’t clear, or we can’t read. This applies to the turn 90 degree and makes a simple advance. it really should be easy to find and it isn't.

8 ) Escalating melees. We presume this is intentional and maybe even referenced, but didn’t see it explicitly (haven’t looked hard enough) Enemy 4 wide BG charges two friendly 3 wide BGs in impact. So in maneuver the enemy brings up a BG on each side moving into a melee. Each of these are 2 wide. But then they contact more friendly BGs in a BL. Presumably this brings all these new BGs into a series of melees bypassing the impact charge to combat for entirely fresh BGs because they get in via overlaps.

9) Combat reference sheet. The section “all” would be more easily understood “Impact and shooting”. Obviously “all” implies impact, but then is excluded. You also use two lines for this that could easily be one line in each section for total ease.

10) Heavy artillery seemed very weak at maximum range and it is immobile. OK that is pretty historical. But unless you can force your opponent into it, seems much more of waste. What about extending the maximum range? What about allowing it to wheel 45 degrees as a CMT or something. This as I said probably historical the way it is now, but awfully restricted it seems.

11) By the way it is in general a pleasure to read rules that aren’t as densely worded as &&&&&-ese.

12) In the final print version it would be helpful for the glossary to reference specific page numbers.

13) The rule books plan to include the point costs on each page for each army as some sample army lists do? After having to calculate them my self it is a pain not to have them on the same page.

[rbodleyscott]

13) The rule books plan to include the point costs on each page for each army as some sample army lists do? After having to calculate them my self it is a pain not to have them on the same page.

My bed time now, so I will just reply to this one, which is pretty much my province, and hope that one of the others will answer your other points.

The army lists will all have the total points cost of each base shown for each permitted variant. I am gradually working through them all and converting them to the new format, but the job isn't finished yet.

[shall]

1) Under turning 90 degrees. There is a reference the new front “must” and then later “at least”. This seems written as to be hard to parse. If I have a 3 wide by 2 deep cavalry formation turning 90 degrees. I must be at least two wide in the new direction I get, but can I be 6 wide or 3 wide or only 2? This isn’t clear enough; perhaps the diagram 12 will make it work.

Diag does help. You have no choices in this - if you are 40mm deep you end up 1 wide. 41-80mm depp 2 wide etc.

2) Overall people kept asking how many moves have you made, how many moves in a game. I realize this is subjective and variable. We kept answering we are still learning how to spell FoG, much less keep time. Clearly this is echo of the 12 bound minimum from another system. I think some suggestions for what to tell people on this point will be good in the fullness of time.

I think it similar once you get up to speed. The difference is that as time passses you spent less time moving and muhc more time fighting as you are committed.

3) On the cohesion chart the one that says “Suffering 1 HP3B from shooting - or taking 2 or more hits and shot at by artillery.” We assume the “or” means that these both can’t count as reasons for “a more than one reason to test”. This should be explicit in the rules body, chart is fine

Correct - 1 reason to test, but 2 ways to get it. Perhaps clear if you take it with the playsheet which summarises the 5 reasons to test as separate items called that.

4) Charging and impacting into a broken BG seems to due less damage than normal impact to a unit. In a turn you can inflict casualties during impact, melee and then when they break and if you catch them you due another hit. But it seemed to us that if you impact into a broken BG that just freezes until the JA phase and then you get a single kill. Did we mis play or mis understand?

Quite right - its simplified heavily to stop wasting time. Don't charge them if it isn't worth it fto finish them off. Makes for a good strategic use of 4 base LH units to complete a rout, which after all is rather historical. Done that with parthians - break enemy cav with cataphracts, cataphracts hold, launch a 4 base LH BG at the routing enemy to get the superior, armoured Cav who are not too badly damaged down to autobreak level so they can't rally. And go off an mug the camp afterwards....

[shall]

5) The POA on page 50 versus the impact combat ref sheet are laid out differently regarding the “Only in open terrain” section. IMHO it is clearer in the rules than on the chart.

Good point will fix

6) In general the charts should not all have the orange and yellow colors in their final version. It was hard on the eyes. Some more thoughtful color pattern that perhaps segments the CMT section better from the cohesion etc.

Ok we can straw poll this one at a later date. Osprey will have some good views on colours etc. I'm colour blind anywa so the last person to ask...

7) We could not find a definition of “a simple advance”. There should be those words somewhere, glossary something. It is referenced and you can figure if out by omission (we think) but it wasn’t clear, or we can’t read. This applies to the turn 90 degree and makes a simple advance. it really should be easy to find and it isn't.

Yes probably would be worth a glossary addition but if you look on the table green is simple - line 2 is an advance thus green advance is a simple advance.

8 ) Escalating melees. We presume this is intentional and maybe even referenced, but didn’t see it explicitly (haven’t looked hard enough) Enemy 4 wide BG charges two friendly 3 wide BGs in impact. So in maneuver the enemy brings up a BG on each side moving into a melee. Each of these are 2 wide. But then they contact more friendly BGs in a BL. Presumably this brings all these new BGs into a series of melees bypassing the impact charge to combat for entirely fresh BGs because they get in via overlaps.

In the impact phase you can charge and do so. Impact on the ones who hit each other this time. the melees with overalps thereafter....or did I miss something. So yes they escalate with a mix of charges and moves to overlpa positions. Another Bg philosphy - just beacse a BG is engaged in 2 of 3 base wouldn't stop the units making up the 3rd base of frontage form countercharging.

9) Combat reference sheet. The section “all” would be more easily understood “Impact and shooting”. Obviously “all” implies impact, but then is excluded. You also use two lines for this that could easily be one line in each section for total ease.

Help me find it....goen snowblind..whcih when added to colour blind - plain blind!

10) Heavy artillery seemed very weak at maximum range and it is immobile. OK that is pretty historical. But unless you can force your opponent into it, seems much more of waste. What about extending the maximum range? What about allowing it to wheel 45 degrees as a CMT or something. This as I said probably historical the way it is now, but awfully restricted it seems.

As you say its historical so if you are a hardened tounrey pro and don't think they are 3worth it don't take them. They are there for re-enactment games ets. and better kept historical. They can be pretty potent defending a flank and it is the -1 of CTs that has the big effect if you can help them out.

11) By the way it is in general a pleasure to read rules that aren’t as densely worded as &&&&&-ese.

Thanks - one tries to stick with English and rasonably plain English at that.

12) In the final print version it would be helpful for the glossary to reference specific page numbers.

Better solution is happening I think - colour coded page sides and the index actually within that - so flick cololured section to find. Haven't seen the final version but the draft idea looked very good.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

1) Under turning 90 degrees. There is a reference the new front “must” and then later “at least”. This seems written as to be hard to parse. If I have a 3 wide by 2 deep cavalry formation turning 90 degrees. I must be at least two wide in the new direction I get, but can I be 6 wide or 3 wide or only 2? This isn’t clear enough; perhaps the diagram 12 will make it work.

Diag does help. You have no choices in this - if you are 40mm deep you end up 1 wide. 41-80mm depp 2 wide etc.

Actually the written rules are clear enough but Dan missed a bit of the sentence. The new frontage must (paraphrasing, I don't have the rules to hand) be the minimum number of bases that are at least as wide as the previous depth.

Nothing ambiguous there, in fact.

[lawrenceg]

8 ) Escalating melees. We presume this is intentional and maybe even referenced, but didn’t see it explicitly (haven’t looked hard enough) Enemy 4 wide BG charges two friendly 3 wide BGs in impact. So in maneuver the enemy brings up a BG on each side moving into a melee. Each of these are 2 wide. But then they contact more friendly BGs in a BL. Presumably this brings all these new BGs into a series of melees bypassing the impact charge to combat for entirely fresh BGs because they get in via overlaps.

In the impact phase you can charge and do so. Impact on the ones who hit each other this time. the melees with overalps thereafter....or did I miss something. So yes they escalate with a mix of charges and moves to overlpa positions. Another Bg philosphy - just beacse a BG is engaged in 2 of 3 base wouldn't stop the units making up the 3rd base of frontage form countercharging.

I'm not sure I've fully understood Dan's point here. I think he is saying that you can move up BGs in the manoeuvre phase to overlap an existing melee and co-incidentally enter frontal combat with other enemy bases. This allows you to avoid the impact combat - a good way of getting defensive spearmen into combat with impact foot/swordsmen, for example.

Is that allowed?

[rbodleyscott]

I'm not sure I've fully understood Dan's point here. I think he is saying that you can move up BGs in the manoeuvre phase to overlap an existing melee and co-incidentally enter frontal combat with other enemy bases. This allows you to avoid the impact combat - a good way of getting defensive spearmen into combat with impact foot/swordsmen, for example.

Is that allowed?

No.

Battle groups can move into contact with enemy battle groups in the manoeuvre phase, but only to join an existing melee in an overlap position only.

Any other contact must wait until the next impact phase and is initiated by charging.

[hazelbark]

9) Combat reference sheet. The section “all” would be more easily understood “Impact and shooting”. Obviously “all” implies impact, but then is excluded. You also use two lines for this that could easily be one line in each section for total ease.

SHall wrote
Help me find it....goen snowblind..whcih when added to colour blind - plain blind!

Look on Combat playsheet. Section (b) combat mechanism. You have sections: Shooting, Imapct, Melee, All. I refer here to the "all" section

[hazelbark]

rbodleyscott Posted: 01 Aug 2007 06:03 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lawrenceg wrote:
I'm not sure I've fully understood Dan's point here. I think he is saying that you can move up BGs in the manoeuvre phase to overlap an existing melee and co-incidentally enter frontal combat with other enemy bases. This allows you to avoid the impact combat - a good way of getting defensive spearmen into combat with impact foot/swordsmen, for example.

Is that allowed?


No.

rules wrote:
Battle groups can move into contact with enemy battle groups in the manoeuvre phase, but only to join an existing melee in an overlap position only.

Any other contact must wait until the next impact phase and is initiated by charging.

Well that is a different kettle of fish. So we were wrong. I want to explain just to make sure.
Letters and numbers are opposing BGs.

Code: Select all

1111...333344444
....222
....AABBBCCCCDDDD

** Edited into code format by Hammy. I hope I got the situation right.

So if BG 1 advances in manuever it moves up corner to corner with BG 2 and enemy BG A. That is moving into an overlap and thus legal.

But BG 3 can not manuever forward to contact BG B because they would meet head to head so to speak?

[shall]

Code:
1111...333344444
....222
....AABBBCCCCDDDD



** Edited into code format by Hammy. I hope I got the situation right.

So if BG 1 advances in manuever it moves up corner to corner with BG 2 and enemy BG A. That is moving into an overlap and thus legal.

But BG 3 can not manuever forward to contact BG B because they would meet head to head so to speak?Not quite.

1111 can indeed advance in the movement phas to become an overlap.

3333 and 4444 can charge and fight an impact phase and then join in the melee later

Unless I am mssing something I haven't understood

Si

[rbodleyscott]

Code: Select all

1111...333344444
....222
....AABBBCCCCDDDD

** Edited into code format by Hammy. I hope I got the situation right.

So if BG 1 advances in manuever it moves up corner to corner with BG 2 and enemy BG A. That is moving into an overlap and thus legal.

But BG 3 can not manuever forward to contact BG B because they would meet head to head so to speak?

Correct

[hazelbark]

rbodleyscott Posted: 01 Aug 2007 17:19 Post subject:

Correct

Enlightenment!

See Marc, i told you that was a bad move for you. It was also illegal.

[babyshark]

Right on both counts, Dan. It's okay, though, as I won that game.

<grin>

Marc

[babyshark]

7) We could not find a definition of “a simple advance”. There should be those words somewhere, glossary something. It is referenced and you can figure if out by omission (we think) but it wasn’t clear, or we can’t read. This applies to the turn 90 degree and makes a simple advance. it really should be easy to find and it isn't.

Yes probably would be worth a glossary addition but if you look on the table green is simple - line 2 is an advance thus green advance is a simple advance.
Si

This is my issue here: the rules reference something called a "difficult advance", which is apparently a subset of "simple advance." The charts do not reference difficult advances. Can my BG + general move twice if its second move is a difficult advance?

Marc

[shall]

shall wrote:
7) We could not find a definition of “a simple advance”. There should be those words somewhere, glossary something. It is referenced and you can figure if out by omission (we think) but it wasn’t clear, or we can’t read. This applies to the turn 90 degree and makes a simple advance. it really should be easy to find and it isn't.

Yes probably would be worth a glossary addition but if you look on the table green is simple - line 2 is an advance thus green advance is a simple advance.
Si

This is my issue here: the rules reference something called a "difficult advance", which is apparently a subset of "simple advance." The charts do not reference difficult advances. Can my BG + general move twice if its second move is a difficult advance?


Marc

The difficult advance refers to within the advance boxes on the sheet and is there just to save having to write the exclusion in the table a they are a little long. So it a subset of ADVANCES. A simple advance is a green advance from either line if your troops find it simple - so 7 out of 8 are sitll simple advances. Other undrilled find Difficult Forward Moves complex that's all.

For a second move you must have a simple advance - so a green advance within the advance section - and stay outside 6MU through both moves.

So the generals presence stops the advance being a difficult forward move for locating it on the table, but you would still need to stay outside 6MU throughout and do a simple advance - i.e. a green one to make a 2nd move.

See second moves page 38.

Tp paraphrase another way as this may help.........

So the logic is that some moves forward are intrinsically DIFFICULT, but most tropps still find them SIMPLE to do given their abilities or generals present, others find then COMPLEX to do and need to test.

So ice-skating is DIFFICULT, my son finds it SIMPLE due to his ability, I find it COMPLEX fail my test and fall over all the time.

If you are all SIMPLE MOVES and outside 6MU throughout you can double-move if you have a general.

Even I can ice-skate quickly if there are no threats to my stability nearby if led on by an expert.

Hope that helps

Si

[rbodleyscott]

To paraphrase another way as this may help.........

So the logic is that some moves forward are intrinsically DIFFICULT, but most tropps still find them SIMPLE to do given their abilities or generals present, others find then COMPLEX to do and need to test.

So ice-skating is DIFFICULT, my son finds it SIMPLE due to his ability, I find it COMPLEX fail my test and fall over all the time.

If you are all SIMPLE MOVES and outside 6MU throughout you can double-move if you have a general.

Even I can ice-skate quickly if there are no threats to my stability nearby if led on by an expert.

Superb analogy Simon. Bravo.

[babyshark]

The difficult advance refers to within the advance boxes on the sheet and is there just to save having to write the exclusion in the table a they are a little long. So it a subset of ADVANCES. A simple advance is a green advance from either line if your troops find it simple - so 7 out of 8 are sitll simple advances. Other undrilled find Difficult Forward Moves complex that's all.

For a second move you must have a simple advance - so a green advance within the advance section - and stay outside 6MU through both moves.

So the generals presence stops the advance being a difficult forward move for locating it on the table, but you would still need to stay outside 6MU throughout and do a simple advance - i.e. a green one to make a 2nd move.

See second moves page 38.

Tp paraphrase another way as this may help.........

So the logic is that some moves forward are intrinsically DIFFICULT, but most tropps still find them SIMPLE to do given their abilities or generals present, others find then COMPLEX to do and need to test.

So ice-skating is DIFFICULT, my son finds it SIMPLE due to his ability, I find it COMPLEX fail my test and fall over all the time.

If you are all SIMPLE MOVES and outside 6MU throughout you can double-move if you have a general.

Even I can ice-skate quickly if there are no threats to my stability nearby if led on by an expert.

Hope that helps

Si

Okay, that's a reasonable explanation, and I think I understand now. May I suggest that the stand alone movement chart be updated to resemble the one on p18 of the rules? The p18 chart includes difficult moves and is easier to comprehend as a result.

Marc

[shall]

Ok we'll take a look

Si

[hazelbark]

Yes you need to do one or the other.

I think overall you are so close to an interesting system, that just explaining the simple advance and the rest rather than write in old fashion barkerese and force players to try a decipher it would work better.

And you have a variety of ways to address it, glossary etc.