Question concerning disengaging from melee

Onomarchos · Post by **Onomarchos** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:36 pm

We ran our first large battle over the weekend; Late Republican Romans against Later Seleucids. It was an interesting battle except for one problem which I will cover later. The Romans were outclassed in cavalry and were concerned about having a Cannae pulled on them, so they wanted to press forward quickly with their superior and elite legions. They hoped to break the Seleucid center before their flanks collapsed. Everything was going well for the Romans at first. They sent their light foot forward quickly to engage the skirmishers screening the Seleucid center pike blocks. This allowed the legions to get in second moves as all enemy BGs were more than six MU away. The Roman Numidian Light Horse also slowed the Seleucid cavalry on the flanks.

However, from that point on, things went down hill for the Romans. The light foot units in the center were fighting turn after turn of inconclusive melees. This allowed the Seleucid flank attacks to start to gain ground. The Roman legionaries wanted to get at the pikes, but could not close because the melee between the light troops was in the way.

Here is our question; we have not played other ancient rules except DBA. In DBA you can disengage from enemy units. The Roman player wanted to have his screening light foot disengage from the enemy skirmishers and fall back behind the legionaries. Is this something a player can do in FoG? We looked in the rules and could not find anything.

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:42 pm

You need to win or lose on a straight LF vs LF fight in order to "disengage".

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:04 pm

Agreed, you need to finish the melee to disengage even skirmishers.

I ran into the same problem the previous week. From now on my skirmishers not be in front of my army but will be on the flanks. Not sure how historical this is though.

I have found that skirmishers in front of my main battle line does nothing but hinder me. The best way to take out your opponents skirmishers is to just move your MF and HF forward. At least that has been my meager experience.

We were toying with the idea that you can disengage skirmishers if they can move directlly behind heavier units in one move.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:12 pm

We considered options for disengaging skirmishers and indeed best option is some sort fo fall back behind stronger troops. However it is very difficult to disengage and skirmishers in the main do not like getting into a fight - they like skirmishing.

Skirmishers need careful use as skirmishers in FOG. If you are wanting to get your heavies into a fight its very easy. Put your skirmishers in front of the legions and don't charge enemy skirmishes. If you are charged evade bhind your heavies. This is the maximum sped forward route that shiedl your heavies from fire.

To have got into such a skirmish fight you must have encoruaged it - next time just don't bother.

Si

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:13 pm

If your opponent has a line fo skirmishers as good as or better than yours it is often best to simply charge the skirmishers with heavy troops and essentially force them to evade. If the skirmishers stand against legions they will die and each dead skirmisher BG is just as bad as a dead pike or cavalry BG.

If your skirmishers are outmatched consider deploying them with gaps between them then charging the enemy lights or charging with heavies and lights together. There are plenty of ways to shift skirmishers quickly but actually fighting in close combat with your own skirmishers will rarely be quick.

Onomarchos · Post by **Onomarchos** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:15 pm

We were toying with the idea that you can disengage skirmishers if they can move directlly behind heavier units in one move.

We were thinking about allowing any unit to break off from melee with an evade move before any other action in the impact phase. Any unit can then declare a charge against the unit evading away.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:19 pm

I don't think that is realistic or would work really. It was very hard to disengage from an active fight. The only way I feel it was possible was LF retiring through and behind tougher troops. One we will consider for the future but felt we did not want in the first edition - only after a good period of acid testing with many players.

In game balance terms one wants a decent balance between the effectiveness and vulnerability of skirmishers. Allowing them to break off makes them too safe. The game balance is better as it is I believe. But hey in your own games give it a try and let us know what you think.

Basically if you don't want to get into a skirmish battle don't. If you support them with heavies you never need to - it will be your choice.

Si

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:23 pm

This actually seems reasonably ok to me and creates some interesting tactical choices.

You can eithe have the skirmishers attached directly to the heavies as on BG in which case it is trivial to get them away whenever you want. Disadvantage is that they are more tied to the foot.

If you want to skirmish more aggressively run the lights out front, but it can get bogged down.

If you want to drive off enemy skirmishers, go for javelins

and charge ASAP.

I think the LF options and capabilities are pretty interesting. They don't seem to be the "focus" of the game, but getting good use and value out of them is one of those that will distinguish better players I suspect.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:31 pm

I agree with the above

Skimishers used well are very good, but they are easily wasted.

The break off idea has the issue that if you VMD then 33% of the time you get charged in the rear. This really isn't worth the risk so it wouldn't work that way in practice if troops of equal speed art in combat - which is the most common version.

There ar already about 5 different ways to use skirmishers

1) as a screen
2) to try to win by killing the opposing skirmishers
3) terrain holders
4) harrassersand delayers
5) flank swampers to try to create fights in2 directions

This makes for a pretty interesting set of options

Si

Onomarchos · Post by **Onomarchos** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:41 pm

Skirmishers need careful use as skirmishers in FOG. If you are wanting to get your heavies into a fight its very easy. Put your skirmishers in front of the legions and don't charge enemy skirmishes. If you are charged evade bhind your heavies. This is the maximum sped forward route that shiedl your heavies from fire.

Yes, now I see. The Roman lights should not have charged. I did it because the Seleucid player had slingers, and I was concerned about taking hits . . . so, I had the Roman LF charge. In retrospection, that was a mistake. Next time I will just let them screen until they fall-back.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:45 pm

Just to check

Did you fight the melee on full dice? Skirmish fights normally don't last that long. 6 dice a go in impact and melee - usually someone breaks before long. Some people have missed that its full dice and then it can take a while.

Si

rtaylor · Post by **rtaylor** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:52 pm

If you're on the attack, your LF can screen every shot but two:

Your bound: LF turn around and retire behind your HF. Enemy skirmishers shoot at your HF.
Opponent's bound: Enemy skirmishers shoot at your HF again.
Your bound+1: HF charge; enemy skirmishers evade (if they're sensible).

Even if the enemy get lucky and disrupt your HF in your bound, you will have one opportunity to bolster them before your bound+1 comes. If they get really lucky and fragment your HF, them's the breaks.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:06 pm

rtaylor wrote:Even if the enemy get lucky and disrupt your HF in your bound, you will have one opportunity to bolster them before your bound+1 comes. If they get really lucky and fragment your HF, them's the breaks.

But then your skirmishers can show their worth by moving back through and screening your HF until they have been bolstered. (Which, if you didn't have skirmishers you might get no opportunity to do).

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:17 pm

Why not just let the more forceful HI types charge right through your skirmish screen?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:19 pm

ethan wrote:
I think the LF options and capabilities are pretty interesting. They don't seem to be the "focus" of the game, but getting good use and value out of them is one of those that will distinguish better players I suspect.

I think you are correct. I also think that many playersa go through a phase of thinking LF are not a lot of use and then start to discover that they are - ditto LH to some extent as well, especially if your LH have a Cv option as that can look tempting ...

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:22 pm

ethan wrote:Why not just let the more forceful HI types charge right through your skirmish screen?

Because they are only allowed to do so if they are shock troops and would contact non-skirmishers and even then only if they fail a CMT.

This is because it was not standard practice to charge through your own skirmishers. Normal practice was to withdraw them before charging.

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:43 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
ethan wrote:Why not just let the more forceful HI types charge right through your skirmish screen?
Because they are only allowed to do so if they are shock troops and would contact non-skirmishers and even then only if they fail a CMT.

This is because it was not standard practice to charge through your own skirmishers. Normal practice was to withdraw them before charging.

I didn't think you had to roll the CMT for shock troops? I thougt you could just let them charge if you wanted?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:49 pm

ethan wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:
ethan wrote:Why not just let the more forceful HI types charge right through your skirmish screen?
Because they are only allowed to do so if they are shock troops and would contact non-skirmishers and even then only if they fail a CMT.

This is because it was not standard practice to charge through your own skirmishers. Normal practice was to withdraw them before charging.
I didn't think you had to roll the CMT for shock troops? I thougt you could just let them charge if you wanted?

You can't. They can only burst through if they fail a CMT. (This is specifically stated in the rules, but I don't have them with me to quote you a page).

(It would be rather cheesy to in effect allow you to order them to disobey orders.)

As they don't have to test not to charge skirmishers if they would have to burst through friends to do so, you cannot clear away enemy skirmishers with them without withdrawing your skirmish screen first.

This is all an intended part of the game design, and corresponds to our analysis of historical tactics.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:10 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
You can't. They can only burst through if they fail a CMT. (This is specifically stated in the rules, but I don't have them with me to quote you a page).

3rd bullet at the bottom of the 2nd column on page 58.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:52 pm

Si made a good list of uses of skirmishers, thanks for that. That got me wondering though. In using skrimishers to slow down a HF or MF advance. The only way to go through enemy skirmishers is the declare a charge on them then charge is that correct?

If so, say I wanted my end HF on the right hand side of the line which just defeated its opponent to now wheel around to the left to hit the enemy in the flank. But there is a skirmisher in the way. I declare a charge on the skirmisher but now have to charge forward towards the skirmishers because they are now in my way. I have to charge in such a way that I hit as many stands as I would if charging forward so I can't whel much as my opponent would place his skirmishers in such a way as to keep me going straight back towards his board edge. So I go off forward, and they evade backward. Now I am having to pursue them rather than going after the juicy flank of my exposed enemy.

What am I missing?

Thanks

Brian

PS: Perhaps I should have started a new thread but I thought it was fitting here as it is associated with what was being talked about.