Deployment?

[shall]

There is no restriction (except for the 10/15MU) on where each BG can be placed. They do not have to be grouped together. Even an ally can be split up (though you might pay a C+C price for this later). You can place one of the extreme left, the other on the extreme right. It is entirely up to you.


*How is this historical? I cannot recall a battle where allies were spread about like this. Very strange.

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

I don't think I have ever yet found a good reason to split and ally up. But we have left it flexible as there may be a time when it is worth the risk to have some BG protect a piece of terrain or the camp say. Can't recall whether we found a battle where something of that type happened, but it matters not. The penalty for splitting them up is pretty huge.

There are plenty of real generals who went for odd plans and came a cropper .... so we give players the oopportunity to join such illustrious lists = more fun.

Si

[shall]

There is no restriction (except for the 10/15MU) on where each BG can be placed. They do not have to be grouped together. Even an ally can be split up (though you might pay a C+C price for this later). You can place one of the extreme left, the other on the extreme right. It is entirely up to you.


*How is this historical? I cannot recall a battle where allies were spread about like this. Very strange.

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

I don't think I have ever yet found a good reason to split and ally up. But we have left it flexible as there may be a time when it is worth the risk to have some BG protect a piece of terrain or the camp say. Can't recall whether we found a battle where something of that type happened, but it matters not. The penalty for splitting them up is pretty huge.

There are plenty of real generals who went for odd plans and came a cropper .... so we give players the oopportunity to join such illustrious lists = more fun. So in all cases we encourage historical behaviour rather than enforce it ...so feel free to deploy your pikes 2 deep of you want to ...there is nothing in the rules to stop you and think of all the extra frontage you would get

Si

[PELAGIUS]

Si[/quote]

Can't recall whether we found a battle where something of that type happened,

*I can't find one

but it matters not.

*Historical precedent may matter to some people more than others of course

There are plenty of real generals who went for odd plans and came a cropper .... so we give players the oopportunity to join such illustrious lists = more fun.

*Yes I have heard this argument before - a pragmatic if unhistorical approach I believe. Obviously "fun" is more important? Not that this is necessarily a "bad" thing.

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

[ars_belli]

*Yes I have heard this argument before - a pragmatic if unhistorical approach I believe. Obviously "fun" is more important? Not that this is necessarily a "bad" thing.

Hmmm... the two are not mutually exclusive. It is certainly"historical" to encourage and reward players for using historically successful deployments under similar circumstances, and to make unhistorical ones risky and dangerous, but not necessarily impossible. That way, players actually may come to understand WHY successful ancient generals tended to deploy in some common formations, and not in others. At the same time, it allows players to assume less common, riskier formations if dictated by historically viable circumstances - as did Hannibal and other creative ancient generals.

Cheers,
Scott

[PELAGIUS]

*Yes I have heard this argument before - a pragmatic if unhistorical approach I believe. Obviously "fun" is more important? Not that this is necessarily a "bad" thing.

*Hallo Scott

Hmmm... the two are not mutually exclusive.

*Did not say they were. The balance of intent needs consideration?

It is certainly"historical" to encourage and reward players for using historically successful deployments under similar circumstances,

*Sorry I do not understand this; the "historical to encourage players" players part... do you mean generals not players? Apologies if I am missing something obvious. "Historical" in a wargames sense maybe?

and to make unhistorical ones risky and dangerous, but not necessarily impossible.

*Even if they never happened? What if I think my army should dig field fortifications to thwart the enemy, seems sensible and I would probably have less troops and be immobile but might be worth it...

That way, players actually may come to understand WHY successful ancient generals tended to deploy in some common formations, and not in others.

*So we allow players unhistorical deployment rules to allow them to learn not to deploy unhistorically. Is this the only part of the rules that is a learning process?

At the same time, it allows players to assume less common, riskier formations if dictated by historically viable circumstances - as did Hannibal and other creative ancient generals.

*So to understand why Hannibal was such a great general I should play FoG? I think this is possibly a step too far.

*So the answer to my question of "why can allies deploy their troops in a fashion never recorded in history?" is; it is fun, players learn it is a bad thing to do and it teaches them about great generals.

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

Cheers,
Scott

[ars_belli]

*Did not say they were. The balance of intent needs consideration?

In the past 30 years I have seen countless discussions about whether X rule set is a "historical simulation" or "just fun," as if the two were mutually exclusive. My apologies for assuming that you were making a similar assumption. However, your previous post suggested that FoG is weighted more toward "fun" than historical accuracy, and I respectfully disagree. I think it is very good at both.

*Sorry I do not understand this; the "historical to encourage players" players part... do you mean generals not players? Apologies if I am missing something obvious. "Historical" in a wargames sense maybe?

Sorry for being unclear. I believe that it is historically accurate for a rule set to be designed in such a way that players are free to deploy their troops as they wish, but also designed so as to reward and encourage deployments that were historically successful on ancient battlefields.

*Even if they never happened? What if I think my army should dig field fortifications to thwart the enemy, seems sensible and I would probably have less troops and be immobile but might be worth it...

I don't think that a set of miniatures rules should simply force players to refight historical deployments and battles. I DO think that an historically accurate wargame is one that models troop movements and behaviors in a way that matches well with the historical record, so that the formations and tactics that are most likely to succeed on the tabletop are the same as those that were successful in historical battles.

Over the years, I have found that a rule set that includes elaborate set-up and deployment restrictions usually does so because the rules mechanics in some way reward unhistorical deployments. In other words, the author needs to "force" players to use historical deployments, because the rules would otherwise encourage them to use unhistorical ones! IMHO, it is much more elegant and effective for a rule set to be designed in such a way that players will WANT to use historical deployments, because those are the ones that are most likely to succeed on the tabletop, for the same reasons that they were successful in historical battles. FoG does this exceptionally well, IMHO.

*So we allow players unhistorical deployment rules to allow them to learn not to deploy unhistorically. Is this the only part of the rules that is a learning process?

If a player is "forced" to deploy a certain way, IMHO they learn nothing about why historical deployments did or did not work on ancient battlefields. In discussions of wargaming tactics, especially in relation to tournament competitions, I often hear folks talk about the difference between "playing history" and "playing the rules." IMHO, one of the key distinctions between a rule set that is designed well and one that is designed poorly, is that with a well-designed rule set there is very little difference between "playing the rules" and "playing history," whereas in a poorly designed rule set there is a large difference between the two. In other words, in a well designed rule set, learning to "play the rules" will be, as nearly as possible, the same thing as learning historically sound battlefield tactics. IMHO Fog does this better than any other ancients set I have ever seen, so does not need special deployment restrictions.

*So to understand why Hannibal was such a great general I should play FoG? I think this is possibly a step too far.

I am not claiming that playing FoG is a substitute for studying history, so here I think you are reading into my statement something that I did not in fact say. I AM saying that there should be a close match between tabletop tactics and historical ones, so that players naturally learn good historical tactics while playing the game. Conversely, I think that a rule set that rewards unhistorical "gamey" tactics indicates a poor design, which then sometimes needs to be corrected by elaborate deployment restrictions.

*So the answer to my question of "why can allies deploy their troops in a fashion never recorded in history?" is; it is fun, players learn it is a bad thing to do and it teaches them about great generals.

No, my answer to your question is, "because a deployment that was physically possible on a real ancient battlefield ought to also be possible in a set of wargaming rules, however tactically risky it might be, provided that it is equally risky on the tabletop; and because a rule set that has elaborate deployment restrictions usually does so because it has serious flaws in other aspects of the system, while a well-designed rule set doesn't need them, because it is written so as to reward sound deployments and punish foolish ones.

Cheers,
Scott

[PELAGIUS]

*Firstly Scott, thank you for such a full reply. As a FoG tyro I very much appreciate the helpful energy of this forum exemplified by your patient responses.

*Did not say they were. The balance of intent needs consideration?

In the past 30 years I have seen countless discussions about whether X rule set is a "historical simulation" or "just fun," as if the two were mutually exclusive. My apologies for assuming that you were making a similar assumption. However, your previous post suggested that FoG is weighted more toward "fun" than historical accuracy, and I respectfully disagree. I think it is very good at both.

*I have just heard too many rule sets claim that they have the balance in fun and recreation, sadly few come close on either count with a couple of notable exceptions. My own disposition (no pun intended) is towards fast, conclusive games without overly complex manoevuring leading to identifiable decision points. FoG may provide this.

*Sorry I do not understand this; the "historical to encourage players" players part... do you mean generals not players? Apologies if I am missing something obvious. "Historical" in a wargames sense maybe?

Sorry for being unclear. I believe that it is historically accurate for a rule set to be designed in such a way that players are free to deploy their troops as they wish, but also designed so as to reward and encourage deployments that were historically successful on ancient battlefields.

*Thank you. I agree

*Even if they never happened? What if I think my army should dig field fortifications to thwart the enemy, seems sensible and I would probably have less troops and be immobile but might be worth it...

I don't think that a set of miniatures rules should simply force players to refight historical deployments and battles. I DO think that an historically accurate wargame is one that models troop movements and behaviors in a way that matches well with the historical record, so that the formations and tactics that are most likely to succeed on the tabletop are the same as those that were successful in historical battles.

*This is the diversity of the hobby. My main focus is on refights and clashes between old enemies. The period I enjoy has several miltary manuals and texts that describe deployments that were actually used. The test of a rule set is if they can actually be used effectively even if not giving victory.

Over the years, I have found that a rule set that includes elaborate set-up and deployment restrictions usually does so because the rules mechanics in some way reward unhistorical deployments. In other words, the author needs to "force" players to use historical deployments, because the rules would otherwise encourage them to use unhistorical ones! IMHO, it is much more elegant and effective for a rule set to be designed in such a way that players will WANT to use historical deployments, because those are the ones that are most likely to succeed on the tabletop, for the same reasons that they were successful in historical battles. FoG does this exceptionally well, IMHO.

*We naughty gamers will make what cheese we can methinks.

*So we allow players unhistorical deployment rules to allow them to learn not to deploy unhistorically. Is this the only part of the rules that is a learning process?

If a player is "forced" to deploy a certain way, IMHO they learn nothing about why historical deployments did or did not work on ancient battlefields. In discussions of wargaming tactics, especially in relation to tournament competitions, I often hear folks talk about the difference between "playing history" and "playing the rules." IMHO, one of the key distinctions between a rule set that is designed well and one that is designed poorly, is that with a well-designed rule set there is very little difference between "playing the rules" and "playing history," whereas in a poorly designed rule set there is a large difference between the two. In other words, in a well designed rule set, learning to "play the rules" will be, as nearly as possible, the same thing as learning historically sound battlefield tactics.

*This is a laudable aim if very difficult to achieve

IMHO Fog does this better than any other ancients set I have ever seen, so does not need special deployment restrictions.

*But there are restrictions - there are always restrictions

*So to understand why Hannibal was such a great general I should play FoG? I think this is possibly a step too far.

I am not claiming that playing FoG is a substitute for studying history, so here I think you are reading into my statement something that I did not in fact say.

*I think I became a little excited by my own assumption, I apologise

I AM saying that there should be a close match between tabletop tactics and historical ones, so that players naturally learn good historical tactics while playing the game. Conversely, I think that a rule set that rewards unhistorical "gamey" tactics indicates a poor design, which then sometimes needs to be corrected by elaborate deployment restrictions.

*No argument with your opinion there

*So the answer to my question of "why can allies deploy their troops in a fashion never recorded in history?" is; it is fun, players learn it is a bad thing to do and it teaches them about great generals.

No, my answer to your question is, "because a deployment that was physically possible on a real ancient battlefield ought to also be possible in a set of wargaming rules, however tactically risky it might be, provided that it is equally risky on the tabletop; and because a rule set that has elaborate deployment restrictions usually does so because it has serious flaws in other aspects of the system, while a well-designed rule set doesn't need them, because it is written so as to reward sound deployments and punish foolish ones.

*We will have to agree to disagree that just because something is physically possible it should be allowed however risky.

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

[shall]

As an aside it may be interst to know that one of our design principles was to get a set of rules where Alexander or Hannibal would give us a very good game .... due to their excellent military sense and knowledge ..... whereas I would have wasted them at DBx.

Si

[PELAGIUS]

[quote="shall"]As an aside it may be interst to know that one of our design principles was to get a set of rules where Alexander or Hannibal would give us a very good game .... due to their excellent military sense and knowledge ..... whereas I would have wasted them at DBx.

*Hallo shall

*There has been quite a debate over the talents of a named great general (a game mechanic) over the talent of a player and whether the former should be bestowed upon the latter. IMVHO I have always considered such traits to have more to do with role-playing and/or historical refights.

*How is this achieved in FoG? I am up to p30 and it appears that the command radius is further for Inspired Commanders. Are there other benefits?

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

[ars_belli]

*We will have to agree to disagree that just because something is physically possible it should be allowed however risky.

Agreed.

Cheers,
Scott

[carlos]

I think what Simon means is if Hannibal or Alexander himself were playing FoG, their talents would not be wasted due to a rule system that encourages gamesmanship rather than real good solid tactics.

[PELAGIUS]

I think what Simon means is if Hannibal or Alexander himself were playing FoG, their talents would not be wasted due to a rule system that encourages gamesmanship rather than real good solid tactics.

*Hallo carlos

*Playing either of these would be very interesting, I would prefer Hannibal. If it were Alex he would be insufferable if he won and plain dangerous if losing especially if in a competition with a bar! [think Clitus' fate!]

*I'm not sure that is what Simon is saying. Maybe they would choose to take on the attributes of a seasoned competition campaigner?

*yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

[shall]

Yes what I am saying is we set out to create a set of rules that were natural enough that a military genius would quickly play a good game cf the DBX system or previous WRG systems where detailed rule knowledge is overridingly crucial. So I would beat Alexander at DBX because he wouldn't realise I could sneak a LH behind him and that was lethal to him - or know how to stop a phalanx with a LF and a Cv.

Anyone with a good muilitary braion should give a good game of FOG very quickly and easily IMHO.

Si

[shall]

An IC has big benefits beyond the 12 MU range of inlfuence. He creates a +1 on Cts and CMTs and this is a very big effect when in addition to normakl generals boosts. This makes them incredible at holding together a BG and good at rallying/bolstering. My Hannibal held 12 bases of Guals together against a phalanx for 5 bounds recently on his won - long enough for his friends to come to the rescue. They lost a base every bound but never failed their CT and finally autobroke from stedy. 3 times it was his IC pluses that managed this buying the army the time to get a 21-4 win overall.

Si

[hazelbark]

An IC has big benefits beyond the 12 MU range of inlfuence. He creates a +1 on Cts and CMTs and this is a very big effect when in addition to normakl generals boosts. This makes them incredible at holding together a BG and good at rallying/bolstering. My Hannibal held 12 bases of Guals together against a phalanx for 5 bounds recently on his won - long enough for his friends to come to the rescue. They lost a base every bound but never failed their CT and finally autobroke from stedy. 3 times it was his IC pluses that managed this buying the army the time to get a 21-4 win overall.

Si

But he was in the rear rank cheering correct? Not fighting in the front rank?

[shall]

In fact I bravely stuck him inthe front rank to try tom reduce the speed of base losses and it worked thankfully. Of course 1 in 12 chance of losing the IC every round - his brother went down on the other side. I figured I needed to hang on for 3 to win the game and he did the business.

Si

[warpaintjj]

1 in 12 ? I'm glad to say the odds are rather longer than that, although of course you lose your general 9 out of ten times in reality!

enjoy

JJ

[rbodleyscott]

1 in 12 ? I'm glad to say the odds are rather longer than that.

1 in 12 is correct if you lose the combat each time. (3 chances out of 36).

[shall]

And of course I was losing everytime, except 1 time in about 6 fights. But boy did Hannibal hold them together.

Si

[rayfredjohn]

As Simon's opponent I can agree that having an IC deployed and used perfectly gave him the time to develop his attack on the other flank. Without the IC the Gauls would have crumbled 2 bounds earlier. This would have put too much pressure on his other BG's and the result could have been very different.

It was a great game and I certainly felt I was controlling an army rather than moving an element to "bugger up" my opponent. Even losing at FOG is great fun.


Ray Duggins