A BG of skirmishers in a single rank are in a melee with an enemy BG of skirmishers. Advancing directly behind one of the skirmisher BGs is a friendly BG of heavy impact foot (Roman Legionaries). When the heavy foot get within 3 MU of the enemy skirmishers are they allowed to voluntarily charge the skirmishers? (i.e. charge through their own skirmishers) My reading of the rules suggests they can't and neither do they have to take a test to prevent them charging. Also the heavy foot can't simply walk up and help out in the melee.
So is there anything that the heavy foot can do to help the skirmishers from the position (i.e directly behind) that they are in?
Thanks
Mike
Helping Skirmishers
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
That's right, a +1 for rear support in the cohesion test.
Somehow I can't rationalise the (apparent) fact the heavy impact foot can't charge or otherwise assist the skirmishers. If the skirmishers were replaced with heavy or medium foot then it would make sense that the supporting heavy foot can't do much to help. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel that the heavy foot should be able to be involved, somehow, in the close combat of the skirmishers. Whether this involves them charging through the friendly skirmishers (perhaps disrupting them) or advancing to rear contact with the skirmishers and having some dice allocated in the continuing melee I don't know.
This happened in a game last night and it didn't feel or look right. The heavy foot just stood off behind the friendly skirmishers and the melee went on and on.
What do other people think?
Somehow I can't rationalise the (apparent) fact the heavy impact foot can't charge or otherwise assist the skirmishers. If the skirmishers were replaced with heavy or medium foot then it would make sense that the supporting heavy foot can't do much to help. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel that the heavy foot should be able to be involved, somehow, in the close combat of the skirmishers. Whether this involves them charging through the friendly skirmishers (perhaps disrupting them) or advancing to rear contact with the skirmishers and having some dice allocated in the continuing melee I don't know.
This happened in a game last night and it didn't feel or look right. The heavy foot just stood off behind the friendly skirmishers and the melee went on and on.
What do other people think?
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Sorry I don't agree. That's the old 'absence of evidence...' argument.nikgaukroger wrote:Historically speaking I can't think of an occasion where "proper" infantry intervened in such a way in a fight between skirmishers.
Current situation appears right to me.
I don't accept that historically the heavy infantry could and would only stand there polishing their shields and feel unable to intervene from their current position.
SSSSSS
SSSSSS
HHHHHH
HHHHHH
(BTW all BGs are in open ground)
The rules are saying that if the red and blue skirmishers are in close combat then the only way that the blue heavy infantry can assist the combat is by moving to an overlap position, even though they are in charge range of the red skirmishers. Personally I believe that once the red skirmishers saw the first threat of a charge from the heavy infantry they would do their level best to extricate themselves from the combat and run off.
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
And I don't buy the "I think this would happen" argument without something to support it - and the absence of evidence allowing things just leads to silliness. I fancy some elephants in my Late Roman army and as there is no evidence they didn't ...
IMO the reality is that the LF type skirmishers were withdrawn well before the proper troops got into what we might call the "fighting zone" - to be honest the LF are getting more of a look in than is probably justified anyway (in common with nearly all ancient/medieval rules I hasten to add).
IMO the reality is that the LF type skirmishers were withdrawn well before the proper troops got into what we might call the "fighting zone" - to be honest the LF are getting more of a look in than is probably justified anyway (in common with nearly all ancient/medieval rules I hasten to add).
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28411
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Early in the development process this issue was raised: That a prolonged skimisher melee could delay the clash of the battle lines.
However, we came to the conclusion that the answer was in the hands of the player with the better heavy infantry, who wanted to get them stuck in. If he does not want this to happen, he can withdraw his skirmishers behind his heavy infantry rather than engage the enemy skirmishers hand to hand.
We would also point out that in FoG, skirmishers are not generally expected to melee each other but to shoot at each other. Unlike DBM, FoG close combat does not include shooting at close range without actual hand-to-hand combat. In the case of Protected Roman Velites it probably is worth getting stuck into enemy skirmishers, but with a POA advantage in both impact (vs slingers/archers) and melee, the Velites should be able to defeat them without the help of the hastati/principes.
However, we came to the conclusion that the answer was in the hands of the player with the better heavy infantry, who wanted to get them stuck in. If he does not want this to happen, he can withdraw his skirmishers behind his heavy infantry rather than engage the enemy skirmishers hand to hand.
We would also point out that in FoG, skirmishers are not generally expected to melee each other but to shoot at each other. Unlike DBM, FoG close combat does not include shooting at close range without actual hand-to-hand combat. In the case of Protected Roman Velites it probably is worth getting stuck into enemy skirmishers, but with a POA advantage in both impact (vs slingers/archers) and melee, the Velites should be able to defeat them without the help of the hastati/principes.
Last edited by rbodleyscott on Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We have stayed mainstream on such things. It is possible that heavily formed foot might break themselves up into a loose melee to intervene but in the main I suspect that is unlikely. Their main function is to win the crunch and I suspect they would mainly leave their own light troops to solve the fight. It would be something of a waste to break formation in this way - kind of giving up the day job. The +1 on cohesion gives an advantage that is not immaterial. The best way to get rid of skimishers historically was ............. better skimrishers (mounted or higher quality). This the rules alrady reflect very well.
We did at some point discuss the idea of maybe allowing LF to break off if they had a solid BG to retire behind. This would be a better solution in my view to allowing the HF to intervene and is "stored" for future consideration. In the meantime you are keen to get rid of skirmishers then stick the heavy foot in front and drive them away.
Si
We did at some point discuss the idea of maybe allowing LF to break off if they had a solid BG to retire behind. This would be a better solution in my view to allowing the HF to intervene and is "stored" for future consideration. In the meantime you are keen to get rid of skirmishers then stick the heavy foot in front and drive them away.
Si
I'm sure you know what is silly and what isn't silly with regard to lists , rules and the actions of troops in battle but if that's your opinion then fine.
Personally I believe the skirmishers could be helped by the heavy infantry. I also believe it not to be 'un-hisitorical' and I also believe it would have helped the game I played last night.
Personally I believe the skirmishers could be helped by the heavy infantry. I also believe it not to be 'un-hisitorical' and I also believe it would have helped the game I played last night.
It's not a matter of silliness and I would personally prefer to sta away from such language and wouldn't attach anyithng official from the authors to such things. Many an idea that seems a bit mad a first can be great when worked through. We don't view any feedback as silly.
What we need is a balanced set of mechanisms that encourage mainstream activity rather than infrequent things to happen. We have made all skirmish BGs count full to make sure that people do not exploit them as disposables or bait. Both of these problems have plagued rule sets at times. There are lots of side effects of letting troops interfere with such a melee. One of them is that a winning tactic becomes hunting down enemy skirmishers using HF support. Then we find that unhistorical overall tactics cut in whre HF are more powerful against a skimrish army than as a battle line doing what they clearly did. Then we need to drop skimishers value back to discourage it. Then you find everyone starts using skirmishers as disposables..... and so on and so on.....
One of the biggest challenge in writing rules is to keep the feel correct and not fall into any of the many pit falls in terms of side effects. The possible "retire behind friends" move is much better as it doesn't carry such side effects - all it does is provide protection. Allowing the HF to interfere more dramatically does. If therefore there was clear tactical reference to such things in history we would find a way but in the absence of that it isn't worth - pragmatically - trying to shoe horn it in and then have to deal with the side effects.
Si
What we need is a balanced set of mechanisms that encourage mainstream activity rather than infrequent things to happen. We have made all skirmish BGs count full to make sure that people do not exploit them as disposables or bait. Both of these problems have plagued rule sets at times. There are lots of side effects of letting troops interfere with such a melee. One of them is that a winning tactic becomes hunting down enemy skirmishers using HF support. Then we find that unhistorical overall tactics cut in whre HF are more powerful against a skimrish army than as a battle line doing what they clearly did. Then we need to drop skimishers value back to discourage it. Then you find everyone starts using skirmishers as disposables..... and so on and so on.....
One of the biggest challenge in writing rules is to keep the feel correct and not fall into any of the many pit falls in terms of side effects. The possible "retire behind friends" move is much better as it doesn't carry such side effects - all it does is provide protection. Allowing the HF to interfere more dramatically does. If therefore there was clear tactical reference to such things in history we would find a way but in the absence of that it isn't worth - pragmatically - trying to shoe horn it in and then have to deal with the side effects.
Si
Thanks for some considered answers. I particularly like the idea of allowing skirmishers to break off to behind a solid BG.
For what it's worth my mechanism would be to allow the heavy foot to advance to rear contact with the friendly skirmishers and contribute melee dice at a rate of one per two bases of heavy infantry in contact with the friendly skirmishers. These dice would be rolled on the same POA as the skirmishers. The heavy infantry would not take casualties and the whole process would only be allowed if the friendly skirmishers were in a single rank and all involved BGs in open terrain.
For what it's worth my mechanism would be to allow the heavy foot to advance to rear contact with the friendly skirmishers and contribute melee dice at a rate of one per two bases of heavy infantry in contact with the friendly skirmishers. These dice would be rolled on the same POA as the skirmishers. The heavy infantry would not take casualties and the whole process would only be allowed if the friendly skirmishers were in a single rank and all involved BGs in open terrain.