Warfare

[shall]

Congratulations to Pete on winning warfare, Lance for second and Terry for 3rd - good to see an umpire doing well!!

Sorry I missed it - I was looking foward tot aking the Arab Conquest spearmen out for a walk in the sands. Magda has had her op and is recovering fairly well at present. I am itching for af ew games biut won't get the chance until the Xmas run up.

A few comments on comments....

The power of knights .... very strong charge but also brittle. They can be undone by breaking them up. Certainly they are scary and in period games may be a good idea for many comps but personally I don't mind this at all. I have generally found knights to be very expensive so once you have the skill to pull them around a bit they can be picked off in single BGs, but if they get a good solid charge in it will be trouble. Cavalry that evade from them can do this rather well.

Elephants vs knights. There is no evidence and no great reason knights would be any more disadvantaged than any other mounted troop - I can't say i would take the option of being trodden on with or without plate mail!! I find El very effective if you can afford 4 together as 2 BGs. But in small blocks between poor foot troops like the Indians they probably won't do it - just not enough to help out. Like all match ups in all rules againts power troops the trick is not to take a massive charge head on with fragile troops.

Cataphracts vs Romans. This is quite an even fight and set up that way - point for point. If the legionaries fail CTs at impact it gets messy, But generally otherwise they do pretty well as they normally have more bases in the BG. With a general present they should pass CTs on average as superior and with a max of -2 net. BGs of 6 catapracts are pretty tough cookies. James ic correct that the SkSw dropping vs Mtd Sw was one of a basket of changes giving them more resilience at impact. Certainly a general with a BG receiving a charge is a good thing. On average you can afford 6 legionaries to every 4 cataphracts. So again the trick is to make the numbers count and thin down the concentrated advantage the cataphracts have.

Sorry I missed out and looking forward to hear more of the tales

Si

[carlos]

Simon, I'm confident that, had my generals been together with the legionaries receiving the charge, I would have fared better than I did. I learned the lesson and later routed 2 BGs of German knights (as good as the Serbs) by keeping a more solid line and generals in midst.

[rbodleyscott]

Simon, I'm confident that, had my generals been together with the legionaries receiving the charge, I would have fared better than I did. I learned the lesson and later routed 2 BGs of German knights (as good as the Serbs) by keeping a more solid line and generals in midst.

Most knight BGs operate with generals because they are the main shock troops of the army, and are very difficult to manouvre without a general. (Try wheeling them within 6 MUs the enemy without one).

This, however, means that if foot want to beat a knightly charge, they too need to be led from the front by generals.

And as for the cost of 1 BG of 4 Knights you can get nearly 16 HF Defensive spearmen, I would say that the nemesis of the knight army is in fact spearmen. They may not always win against them, but they are certainly the most cost-effective counter to knights.

[terrys]

Have not seen this match up in FOG myself however. So, how likely is it that say, superior knights with a general would beat some elephants in a straight up fight?[

It's not the straight up fight that causes the problem, it's the overlaps.

I've just run the combat of 2 knights (3 dice) re-rolling 1's & 2's fighting 2 Elephants (4 dice) through our combat simulator and the result is:
Knights 19%
Elephants 57%
So the elephants have a 3:1 advantage. Even if they lose the elephants can't lose a base, and still have to fail their test for the combat to have a negative effect.

The problem is in the melee phase when the knight can count their overlaps.
The morale of the story is - Don't leave your elephants unsupported.

[terrys]

1. I get the impression that theres been some complacency in testing. I had a few rulings and other opinions given on the rules. In almost every case where I asked for the written rule to be shown to me (about 4 occurrences) it was discovered the ruling was wrong, and the rules didn't say what was expected. I merely point out that care needs to be taken in testing to play what the rules are, not what we think they are!

Sorry if my umpiring wasn't up to scratch. 2 reasons...
1) The rules have evolved quite significantly over the last 12 months, and after lengthy discussion some changes were put into the rules, while others were rejected. After a while, if the affected situation doesn't occur in one of my own games, it's not always easy to remember whether the change was made or not.
2) Taking part in the competition puts the umpire under extra pressure to make a quick ruling, so that his opponent isn't left standing idle.

Things will of course become easier once the rules are published, with a full index and colour-coded sections.

2. A few times we had combat by disrupted/fragmented BG's against 2 BG's, sometimes with a mixture of advantage/disadvantage in a single opposing BG. The rules say the dice should be allocated proportionately. This was a pretty awkward thing to determine several times. It would have been easy to argue that the worst combats could be abandoned. Not sure what the answer is, but right now it seems open to confusion and manipulation.

In most cases the 'allocate proporionately' rule works OK. I agree that there will be certain situations where you could allocate a single dice to one of two opposing enemies. In this case you get to choose which it will be. If your opponent doesn't like your choice, he can either explain toyou the mathematics or call the umpire over.

3. I had a BG of MF unprotected longbowmen, flanked by spearmen one side and knights the other. They were opposed by LF archers. The LF were able to gang up on the longbowmen and shoot at advantage with equal dice. Following admittedly poor cohesion test rolls the longbowmen broke. But they never really had a chance. And it would have take a major effort to clear the LF. This just doesn't feel right.

Your bowmen were only supported on one flank. The knights were 6" away.
If you look at the situation - You had 8 MF bows (2000 men) with no protection, standing in close formation shooting at enemy 4 " away. The enemy were 12 superior LF bows (3000 men) in dispersed formation shooting back. Basically he had 50% more men, of better quality, shooting at a more vulnerable target. I fail to see why you think you should win this?

[hazelbark]

But did mounted knights ever face elephants?

How about Elephants versus Chariots? Heavy or Light? Historically I mean.

[nikgaukroger]

Apart from the "Elephant Victory" I don't think there is anything - well there may be something buried in Indian stuff but as far as I know there is nothing accessable.

[babyshark]

Fighting against Medieval Germans with terrain in my half left and my cats deployed on the right, I realised that there was a wall of pikes & knights bearing down on them. As my opponent was refusing his extreme right I decided to redeploy the cataphract strike force from my centre right to my extreme left on his baseline - a manouevre that you wouldn't even contemplate in DBM!! Yet again I was struck by how much movement and how many bounds of play you can get in a 3 hour game in FoG versus DBM and how you can carry out bold manouevres without being frustrated by ones on the PIP dice!

I am very pleased to read this. The ability to make big maneuvers on the table-top is something that I find ot be a great deal of fun, and that I enjoy doing in DBM. I was worried during my initial readings of FoG that it would wind up being too much of a straight-ahead slog. As I got to play a couple games I could see that the potential for maneuver was there, and am glad to see that potential realized. Now all I have to do is figure out how to carry it off myself.

Marc

[babyshark]

Have not seen this match up in FOG myself however. So, how likely is it that say, superior knights with a general would beat some elephants in a straight up fight?

Considering the relative costs of the BGs, I certainly hope that superior Kn + general would beat a BG of El most of the time. And I think that they will.

Marc

[durrati]

Considering the relative costs of the BGs, I certainly hope that superior Kn + general would beat a BG of El most of the time. And I think that they will.

Marc[/quote]

Ohh, now here is a statement that I profoundly disagree with. A BG of superior KN + general is very expensive yes - because they are very very effective agaist a large range of troops. This does not mean however that they should be good against everything. If Marshall de Loius the well endowed and his noble nobs think that they can ride down Joey 'Jumbo' Jumbasio and his Tuskan mob by getting their huge reroll out and waving it about they should get a richly deserved tonking.

'I spent loads of points on this unit and therefore it should beat everything that it comes across' seems very flawed thinking. As Terry pointed out, in the impact phase it also seems unlikely. If the elephants are isolated then wieght of numbers may tell - not sure how easily though. I suppose there are only so many tin cans you can squash though before it starts to hurt your feet.

If I was to attack elephants with knights I would probably try and make sure I hit them with 1 element. As it would be 2 dice v 2 dice and it seems it would be quite easy to at least get a draw with a 1 / 2 reroll. Then expand out and hope to take them with numbers. If this plan is doable it seems a bit wrong to me - horses will not close to any sort of physical contact with an elephant. As I dont even know how doable it is though I would probalby have to reserve judgement. And has been said, if you dont let your elephants become isolated the problem should not even arise.

[nikgaukroger]

Can we just nail this horses will not close with elephants thing - it certainly happened as accounts of fighting in India (not always by Indians) show. Don't make too much of Seleukos' nearly 500 elephants preventing Demetrios coming back at the battle of Issos - it was after all the largest single use of elephants in sources that we have easy access to.

[durrati]

Interesting - was not aware. What is meant by 'close' in this context however? Does it mean ride close enough to allow the rider to engage with javelins or other missle weapons? Or as a knight would have to, does it mean galloping past the elephant within one or two feet whilst the rider tries to use a hand weapon as a knight would have to do? As I do feel the horse might shy at this. The rider I suppose could walk the horse to close to the elephant and start pokin it / hacking at it.

Does close mean 'get close' or 'actually make physical contact' is the point.

Mind you, as I have not seen the interaction in FOG yet I don't even have an opinion about the interaction in the game so I shall apologise for taking up so much bandwidth.

[nikgaukroger]

Close enough to poke it with a spear, etc. or, in some cases, to get your horse to rear up so you can attack the men on the elephant with hand weapons (a bit of a theme in Rajput heroic accounts IIRC).

[terrys]

If I was to attack elephants with knights I would probably try and make sure I hit them with 1 element. As it would be 2 dice v 2 dice and it seems it would be quite easy to at least get a draw with a 1 / 2 reroll. Then expand out and hope to take them with numbers. If this plan is doable it seems a bit wrong to me - horses will not close to any sort of physical contact with an elephant. As I dont even know how doable it is though I would probalby have to reserve judgement. And has been said, if you dont let your elephants become isolated the problem should not even arise.

I'll give you the %age chances and let you decide whether or not taking on 2 nellies with knights is good use of 100+ points of your army:

1 El (2 dice) vs 1 knight (2 dice rerolling 1's & 2's)
Nellies win . 35%
Draw ........ 27%
Knights win 27%

2 EL (4 dice) vs 3 supknights (4 dice rerolling 1's & 2's)
Nellies win . 43%
Draw ........ 28%
Knights win 29%

This is hardly a battle winning strategy with some of the most expensive troops in the game.

If I was going to leave a couple of Nellies out in front of my line, I'd have a general with them, which increases the odds in favour of the elephants quite significantly - not to mention the fact that with a general, it should be possible to wheel the elephants towards the knights to ensure that they end up hitting both. (you can't choose to hit less enemy bases by wheeling the knights.)
This would change the impact odds to 65:12 in favour of the Nellies.
Given that your CT for losing a combat with the knights will be on a -3 or -4, the chances of failing the CT are quite high - and you can't break off.

[rogerg]

One of the things that make FoG work is the lack of certainty in some of the results. Elephants v knights favours the elephants. However, it is not sufficiently in the elephants' favour to be certain of a win. A supporting BG behind, general with and a BG extending the elephant line, to get some overlap dice rolls, are all to be considered to make the elephant charge work.

Similar things apply in other situations. A line of four knights hits with 8 dice. If their opponents have overlaps in the melee phase it may well be 12 dice versus 8, this balances a single net minus in combat factors.

Contrast this with DBM where a single factor disadvantage (ignoring quick kill effects) means you avoid combat. In FoG a pair of elephants in the line will give you an advantage, but not so much that the enemy sit on the back line and never fight. FoG combats are a bit dicey. This is fun.