couple of thoughts from a game tonight:

[jlopez]

Is this historically unrealistic? Is it undesirable?

If it was too easy to get troops back into the battle after winning their section of the line, then (assuming no major troop type advantage) the game would most likely be won by whoever got lucky and broke an enemy BG first. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

I think its actually about the unitey-feel of the game.

We are buying into the idea that the design philosophy is that the units are supposed to be huge battle groups of thousands of men and tens of sub-units all forming a solid battle line and accepting the abstraction that the push-and-shove of melee isn't significant enough to be represented by moving the troops involved etc etc etc

So, to me, having one huge block of troops suddenly shoot forwards en mass a vast distance such that some of the BG's "sub-units" (ie bases) who are/could be contributing to an existing combat (as overlaps) decide to forget this fight and instead join their friends in a head-long rush into empty space (especially if they destroy their opponents) and - in practical terms - after this insane pursuit they can never join the battle again definately - to me - makes it feel far more unit-ey, as its the whole block acting coherently, even when its potentially taking some of the sub-units out of combat situations

The fact that this "leaving the battle line" effect is actually worse for lumbering slow irreguar foot blocks than regular high speed cavalry seems even more counter intuitive - surely they should be most likley to stay and fight .

The thought has crossed my mind about teeing up rubbish small units of 4 against the enemies best big units, and piling into the others, just so the big units win easily and pursue out of line.

Lucklily, I'm not good enough to pull that off

Tim,

How many battles do you know of where:

1. Only part of the main (infantry) battle line collapsed.
2. The winning infantry immediately ceased pursuit, turned about and returned to the battle and had a decisive effect.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I can only think of one such occurence: Caesar´s battle of the Sambre. The left-wing legions routed the Atrebates, pursued them to the Belgic camp, looted it and were eventually rallied by its tribunes to help the centre legions defeat the Viromandui in the river bed.

Oops, pressed submit accidentally.

OK, as I was saying, basically infantry pursuers rarely came back not just because they were too busy with looting or whatever but because an isolated breakthrough was, as far as I know, a very unusual thing to happen. Most of the time a localised rout lead to a generalised rout starting with nearby units and rapidly spreading to the rest of the line.

FoG tries to simulate this with morale tests for routers. I just don´t have the experience to say whether that works or not but I've got a hunch it doesn´t or at least not often enough. To summarise, I think the issue isn't so much with the pursuit as with the effect of the routers on the rest of the army.

Regards,

Julian

[rbodleyscott]

OK, as I was saying, basically infantry pursuers rarely came back not just because they were too busy with looting or whatever but because an isolated breakthrough was, as far as I know, a very unusual thing to happen. Most of the time a localised rout lead to a generalised rout starting with nearby units and rapidly spreading to the rest of the line.

FoG tries to simulate this with morale tests for routers. I just don´t have the experience to say whether that works or not but I've got a hunch it doesn´t or at least not often enough. To summarise, I think the issue isn't so much with the pursuit as with the effect of the routers on the rest of the army.

This is a very valid point, and something we might need to consider tweaking in a future revision. The problem with simply making routs more likely to affect adjacent battle groups is, once again, that it increase the luck effect - one lucky breakthrough could too easily mean overall victory.

So while you may be correct about the dynamics of historical battles, simply making routs have more effect on adjacent BGs would probably unbalance the game as a game. To compensate, it might be necessary to make troops harder to break in the first place.

This would obviously require extensive play-testing, and we are too far along in the process to contemplate such a major change at this stage.

[jlopez]

OK, as I was saying, basically infantry pursuers rarely came back not just because they were too busy with looting or whatever but because an isolated breakthrough was, as far as I know, a very unusual thing to happen. Most of the time a localised rout lead to a generalised rout starting with nearby units and rapidly spreading to the rest of the line.

FoG tries to simulate this with morale tests for routers. I just don´t have the experience to say whether that works or not but I've got a hunch it doesn´t or at least not often enough. To summarise, I think the issue isn't so much with the pursuit as with the effect of the routers on the rest of the army.

This is a very valid point, and something we might need to consider tweaking in a future revision. The problem with simply making routs more likely to affect adjacent battle groups is, once again, that it increase the luck effect - one lucky breakthrough could too easily mean overall victory.

So while you may be correct about the dynamics of historical battles, simply making routs have more effect on adjacent BGs would probably unbalance the game as a game. To compensate, it might be necessary to make troops harder to break in the first place.

This would obviously require extensive play-testing, and we are too far along in the process to contemplate such a major change at this stage.

Fair enough, probably best left for future amendments meanwhile here is an idea.

POW "solves" this problem by only having one melee result for all the units in the melee. As a result all the units on the losing side take a morale test which produces the required overall effect. While I don't think FoG should have only one combat roll maybe you could adapt the idea. Here´s what I propose:

Consider two lines of multiple units all in some form of side edge contact (battle lines in effect). You do all the combats as normal. Losers of individual combats take a test as normal but you decide who is the overall winner at the level of the battle line by comparing total losses. All units belonging to the losing battle line then take a cohesion test.

Obviously needs playtesting but the idea is to lessen the unitey feel and without removing the possibility of a localised success for the "losing" battle line.

Regards,

Julian

[rbodleyscott]

Fair enough, probably best left for future amendments meanwhile here is an idea.

POW "solves" this problem by only having one melee result for all the units in the melee. As a result all the units on the losing side take a morale test which produces the required overall effect. While I don't think FoG should have only one combat roll maybe you could adapt the idea. Here´s what I propose:

Consider two lines of multiple units all in some form of side edge contact (battle lines in effect). You do all the combats as normal. Losers of individual combats take a test as normal but you decide who is the overall winner at the level of the battle line by comparing total losses. All units belonging to the losing battle line then take a cohesion test.

Obviously needs playtesting but the idea is to lessen the unitey feel and without removing the possibility of a localised success for the "losing" battle line.

Interesting idea. Another one for future consideration methinks.

[rogerg]

Pursuit as a local phenomenon at a unit level presumably did occur. However, the large pursuit of a defeated wing or a large part of the army would seem to be more appropriate in the mega-unit concept that we are working on with FoG. It also rings true with my view of history (not that I am that well read).

There is a really pretty solution to this issue. BG's should not pursue even if still engaged only as overlaps. Further, BG's pursue even if they were only engaged against the routers as overlaps.

It might also be appropriate to have tests not to pursue taken as BL's when a commander is present.

Keeping a tight battle line would be rewarded, as I am sure it ought to be. Battle line fragmentation is avoided and the influence of a commander over his section of the battle heightened. What's more there are minimal changes required to the rules.

[shall]

There is no situation where 8 longbows would not be far far more effective than 9 xbows - for the same points. Seems wrong.

They are not the same points - Longbows are 1 more per base SO about 20% more expensive for everyday troops. The better longbowmen come with Sw as well which costs and isn't always worthwhile if they spend the day shooting.

Si

[shall]

shall wrote:
A possible stored for future use. The broader issue here seem to be more avoiding getting wrapped in in a rout pursuit - which was a bit of a ngihtmare in reality.

We have changed so you can't double drop form a rout test as long as you have a general in range so DISR should be worst and as you all find DISR is not a very big penalty to suffer - and even this needs a 5 or less on the dice so not that risky. What bothered me was the double drops and now these are gone unless you have 2 reasons to test or no general (in which cas oyu deserve it) I am feeling pretty comfortable with it overall.

Si

If double-drops have been canned unless you have 2 reasons to test, thats a great move IMO - I've found double drops are nearly always due to rolling "1/1" or "2/1" rather than because you are in a situation where your unit has a large stack of "-" factors against it. Making it "bad dice plus acrappy situation" seems far better.
tim

To clarify Tim, lest my precis was a bit too summary.... they are "effectively canned" for viral spread from routs unless you manage to have an additional minus or no general - so if in good shape it can't happen as you can't get 2 on 2 dice if you have a + for a general adn no -s.

Similarly the 2 or less change made it much less likely in melees as if you have a general you need to lose badly or be 25% down or be DISR already for it to happen - in which case fair cop.

Once we have a year of play under our belts there are lots of ways to tweak the mechanics to alter the balance if we so wish, but at present all 3 of us are rather comfortable with the overall feel and balance now.

Si

[madaxeman]

Pursuit as a local phenomenon at a unit level presumably did occur. However, the large pursuit of a defeated wing or a large part of the army would seem to be more appropriate in the mega-unit concept that we are working on with FoG. It also rings true with my view of history (not that I am that well read).

There is a really pretty solution to this issue. BG's should not pursue even if still engaged only as overlaps. Further, BG's pursue even if they were only engaged against the routers as overlaps.

It might also be appropriate to have tests not to pursue taken as BL's when a commander is present.

Keeping a tight battle line would be rewarded, as I am sure it ought to be. Battle line fragmentation is avoided and the influence of a commander over his section of the battle heightened. What's more there are minimal changes required to the rules.

Hi Roger - this would be my view as well.

I think we are actually arguing the same point as Julian is making about the localized effect of routers being not in itself enough, AND the same as richard about wanting to avoid too much "reaction test luck" and so not wanting to tweak this bit of the rules.

The way I'd like to see a broken BG contributings to the demise of its friends is via the immediate close quarters waver test AND by allowing the opponent to get MORE unopposed bases into contact with its friends who are still engaged.

At the moment pursuits usually mean that the latter simply doesnt happen - in fact, its entirely possible that as a result of adjacent friends breaking you will end up being MORE likley to win as you will often be fighting LESS enemy bases as any in overlap with you will pursue out of contact. Lets face it, I'm rubbish at this game, but even I have spotted that selective casualty base removal to proactively manage who is oing to pursue you is a clever trick, so it must be cheesy and rubbish !!

Breakthroughs, about facing, and returning to the battle line is historically rare and hard to do in game terms. Having units break through doesnt feel right - and doesnt simulate a wing failing. Having a set of BGs largely "glued together" until they beat all their opponents, and THEN having a mad lurch forwards feels much better to me all ways up

tim

[paulcummins]

I would just like to agree with the 'break through problem'
I was going to play FOG at Britcon, but changed my mind after a couple of games where infantry break throughs were left with nothing to do. I found it incredibly annoying (even though it was me that had been broken through), and it totally changed my opinion on the game. You break through, and then .... well nothing. You dont seem to gain any useful advantage. At this point it changed from fun, to feeling a bit pointless.

I am planning on giving it another go - everytime I read the rules I love all the concepts there, the interaction and so on. I just hate the hanging around after a break through bit, which to me is what makes it feel so 'unity', and gives me a feeling of great rules, less sure about the game.

though having played DBMM recently - that was far more disapointing.

FOG at warfare I think.

[shall]

Interesting one.

Maybe we can find a fix.

It is calibrated at present to make it easy to get drilled mounted back into action and hard to get undrilled foot back into action ... which does seem reasonable.

Si

[madaxeman]

Interesting one.

Maybe we can find a fix.

It is calibrated at present to make it easy to get drilled mounted back into action and hard to get undrilled foot back into action ... which does seem reasonable.

Si

If a whole flank collapses, drilled mounted could return to influence the rest of the battle quite quickly, but a mob of barbarian foot would take longer. Yep, me and Prince Rupert both buy that

So, having agreed that it does..... I think the issue here is that the example you are using above happened on / at a far larger scale than what we are discussing is happening on the tabletop in this situation.

What's happening in my games is that a single unit - not a whole wing - is "breaking through" - and I am expecting that this victory should be the first serious crack that starts the other dominoes falling in my opponents larger grouping (flank/wing etc ).

However the pursuit and turn mechanic as it stands means the "initial breakthrough" is in fact often a disadvantage to me, and even worse, it seems to HELP the rest of the "broken through" line/wing/flank command/"pick your name for group of BGs" I am fighting , as by breaking through I can lose overlaps, and my "breaking through" unit is taken out of the game for several turns and plays no role at all in supporting the troops it was in line with - save for a waver test for broken friends. That feels wrong, it feels very "unitey" - and as it seems Paul feels its so wrong it put him off playing, and a few other old testers have said to me that their big reservation is "it feels like a skirmish".

It also means that having a reserve line is a bad thing to do, as there is no-one else for the breking through unit to fight, and so they have to do the laborious turn and return maneuver to play any further role in the battle.

As you can see, I feel neither of these are A Good Thing

[shall]

If a whole flank collapses, drilled mounted could return to influence the rest of the battle quite quickly, but a mob of barbarian foot would take longer. Yep, me and Prince Rupert both buy that

Ok a good start to agree something

So, having agreed that it does..... I think the issue here is that the example you are using above happened on / at a far larger scale than what we are discussing is happening on the tabletop in this situation.

If I understand correctly there are 2 real issues:

(1) I can see the loss of overlaps gives a feeling that winning in an area didn't help you win in the one next door. Our mechnisms at the mnoment does have such effects coming from threatened flanks to affect CTs and the immediate test when a rout occurs which can weaken the next part of the line materially, but they are ar on/off effects. You are saying you would prefer to see a 100% guaranteed lesser benefit immediately from more troops fighting - so more chance of winning rather than more chance of crumbling if winning If I see what you mean,
(2) the visual effect of the line breaking up so much when winning on a big scale, but not so big as an entire wing or centre yet (albeit I would caution that this feeling may be DBMism as even with Prince Rupert it was some units that ran off and others less so not a full wing).

A simple option would be to have BGs stay if they are an overlapand to lock overlaps and press forward as in charging as much as possible in pursuits. This would then allow a long line to lock on end and press forward perhaps 3MU across its second half so ZZZ poursues a rout and hits AAA this way:
AAA AAA
ZZZ ZZZ ZZZ ZZZ
XXX ZZZ
yyyZZZ

I would still like a solution where drilled stay in support more easily than undrilled and foot more easily perhaps than mounted. Thus perhaps the idea...

We have allowed you to test not to pursue if you are about to hit enemy. Maybe we should allow a CMT not to pursue anyway with foot troops. On average some 62%% of these are likely to pass if drilled and less if not and it gives more reason to have a generlaa ther to influence it. Then you can keep your overlaps in place and hold the line rather more, but your average warband mob will find it less easy to do so.

We would need to play test this one heavily to see how it moved game balance overall for different troop types and armies. Overall that feels very good at present.

It also means that having a reserve line is a bad thing to do, as there is no-one else for the breking through unit to fight, and so they have to do the laborious turn and return maneuver to play any further role in the battle.

I think this one is more a matter of whether you choose to have rear support. At 800pts with superior main fighting troops you won't bother and can't afford it. AT 800pts with average Ancient Britons you have one for sure. At 1000 pts this comes into play much more. I am acutally finding 1000 pts a really nice game.

Si

[madaxeman]

"A simple option would be to have BGs stay if they are an overlapand to lock overlaps ..."

"Maybe we should allow a CMT not to pursue anyway with foot troops. On average some 62%% of these are likely to pass if drilled and less if not and it gives more reason to have a generlaa ther to influence it. Then you can keep your overlaps in place and hold the line rather more, but your average warband mob will find it less easy to do so. "

Yes Please on Both !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe even a modifier if in overlap to CMT ?

This woudl go a long way to fixing my major gripe with the game at present, and I suspect it would make it a lot less unitey for everyone who has this as a gripe.

[jlopez]

Simon,

Apart from the official amendments to version 6.0, would you like us to test out any other proposal at the Jaén competition such as this modification on pursuit?

We'll be encouraging players to report weird situations as at Britcon. I'll collate and translate them before passing them on to you if you're interested.

Tim,

Are you coming to Jaén? I hear the restaurant we'll be going to has created a magnificent bacon flavoured ice-cream just for you...

Regards,

Julian

[rogerg]

I'm still a supporter of this change.

I have not fought with large warband groups, but I would have thought that in practice such groups will have larger frontages and are likely to be locked in place fighting more than one BG anyway so they are probably not often going to pursue when only one opponent breaks. If that is the case and the main problem is the small drilled BG's pursuing out of the line, then there is a stronger argument for 'locking the overlaps' and dispensing with the CMT.

Conversely, if I a six wide BG of warband is engaged as an overlap at one end, would we want it pulled out of the line by a small suicide group breaking at the opposite end. This woud seem like a cheesy option to force a CMT.

It would be nice to know if anyone is doing much testing with big warband groups.

[sagji]

Another suggestion is that overlaps give the BG the option of a CMT to not persue.
Should persuit CMTs for shock troups be without the benefit of rerolls?

[babyshark]

I like the idea of a CMT for troops (or perhaps just foot) in overlap not to pursue. Not so much to address the "unity" concerns that have been expressed by some, but because I like the fact that it gives the player another decision to make: is my advantage in pursuit of the routing enemy or in sticking around to help friends fight? I can easily see situations where this would be an important decision point in a battle.

To be fair, it seems likely that some troops would be more likely to stick around and some more likely to pursue. Drilled v. undrilled, of course; but one imagines that defensive spear might be more likely to stay to help their mates and impact foot more likely to look for the coup de grace.

Marc

[Pikeaddict]

I like the idea of a CMT for troops (or perhaps just foot) in overlap not to pursue. Not so much to address the "unity" concerns that have been expressed by some, but because I like the fact that it gives the player another decision to make: is my advantage in pursuit of the routing enemy or in sticking around to help friends fight? I can easily see situations where this would be an important decision point in a battle.

To be fair, it seems likely that some troops would be more likely to stick around and some more likely to pursue. Drilled v. undrilled, of course; but one imagines that defensive spear might be more likely to stay to help their mates and impact foot more likely to look for the coup de grace.

Marc

I also like the idea of such a CMT. I'm not sure whether the Drilled/Undrilled state is more important than the Shock/non-shock troops in this case.
I think that Quality rerolls should apply as the quality means more experienced troops and leaders and more self control according to me.

Jerome

[jlopez]

Individual units did not break without serious consequences to neighbouring units and the evidence I have to hand suggests that "serious consequences" was the swift collapse of at least a flank if not the whole army. The breaking and pursuing of individual units whilst the rest of the battle line carried on fighting, as far as I know, just did not happen.

Given it's probably too late to make significant changes to the rules with regards to worsening the consequences of a rout I think we should try to ensure units in melee remain part of the battle line until the enemy collapses. This will improve the visual aspect, the historical effect of adding more pressure on enemy units next to the gap in the line and make it more likely that routers can be rallied some distance away.

A very simple solution is simply to state that foot BGs whose melee opponents rout or break-off do not pursue if they can provide overlap support to neightbouring friends in their current position. If this is not the case the unit can take a CMT to avoid pursuing. This encourages players to go into combat in nice straight lines as offset units in a battle line exposes them to a risk of pursuit and hence taking them out of the fight for a few turns.

Regards,

Julian

[rbodleyscott]

Individual units did not break without serious consequences to neighbouring units and the evidence I have to hand suggests that "serious consequences" was the swift collapse of at least a flank if not the whole army. The breaking and pursuing of individual units whilst the rest of the battle line carried on fighting, as far as I know, just did not happen.

This may be true, or it may in fact be an artifact of the simplification of historical battle accounts by retellers attempting to give a coherent account of the battle. Few battle accounts are in sufficient detail to relate what happened to each individual "unit" in the battle line.

Clearly it must be possible for adjacent units to survive friends breaking - otherwise in cases where a wing broke long before the centre, why didn't the centre break when the adjacent wing units broke? What would be the point in having a (partial) second line, as the Byzantines did, if the entire front line must collapse all at once? Why would it be necessary (cf Maurice) to keep that second line far enough back to avoid getting mixed up with routers and pursuers if the enemy would not pursue until the entire front line had routed?

When a historical battle account records a wing (say) breaking, this does not necessarily mean that it all broke at once - it may instead represent the point at which resistance finally collapsed on that wing.

I think you may be drawing conclusions from simplified and sanitized accounts of battles as if they were blow-by-blow accounts - which, in the main, they aren't.