LORDS OF HISTORY, 4th edition

[fogman]

Could you go over who makes challenges and which side they pick just to be clear?

in first post.

[fogman]

Hi,

I am picking up from a bit of an absence.

Fogman notes that we need to download the zip file.

Which one?

JR (mead)

those are the relevant scenario files from the scenario thread.

[fogman]

Cannae is now available.

Let's get the legions on the march for round 1. Please make and pick up all your challenges within a week at the latest.

Challenges up for

iandavidsmith. magnesia. pw: magnesia
ricoual. lake trasimene. pw: trasimene
londo. gergovia. pw: gergovia

[bloodphoenix]

It is the same process as adding games for lords of the balkans. this is what i sent you previously:

Thanks...sorry to make you repeat yourself! I knew I was doing something wrong, but couldn't recall what I had done with the LOB files, and didn't remember it was spelled out in a message! Its working fine now.

[iandavidsmith]

Challenges posted for...

Batesmotel , battle of Gergovia password =psycho

Londo , battle of Cynoscephalae password = mollari

Good luck ,

Ian

[Londo]

Challenges up ...

Batesmotel - Lake Trasimene - pw psycho

Ricoual - Magnesia - pw rico

Jonathan - Cannae - pw 4290

[Jonathan4290]

Challenges up:

Lake Trasimene for Iandavidsmith, pw: round1
Mangesia for Batesmotel, pw: round1
Cynoscephalae for Fogman, pw: round1

[bloodphoenix]

Fogman, is there a place in the Forums where I might find any posts you've written discussing your design process in creating these scenarios? The approaches you've taken (using the "accessory units") are quite revolutionary. I'd like to read about how some of these ideas evolved over time, and the reasoning that went into it, if you've ever written such a thread. I realize this is Lords of History 4, and you may have explained it in the past, but I'm new to this competition.

Just to be clear though, should these units be treated any differently in our matches than units in a standard game? In some scenarios, I notice you start in contact with them, so obviously you're going to have to fight them. But in other cases, such as Cynoscephalae or Cannae, where they are used to compel the appropriate army to advance in a historically-accurate manner, should we avoid engaging them to preserve historical authenticity?

It would seem to me that units designated as "objectives" for one side or the other should be made a high priority target, but depending on what they are, they may be avoided in a competitive game. Any thoughts on that one way or the other?

The one "accessory" type I saw regarding which I was not entirely clear, was the "Exit" markers.
My guess...is that by blocking a small area to the enemy, but allowing friendly units to pass, they provide a way to choose to withdraw units out of contact before they are completely destroyed or routed off the board. Units moved beyond the "exit accessory" rear guard stay on the map and avoid destruction, and so do not count toward the points lost. Am I close?

[fogman]

Fogman, is there a place in the Forums where I might find any posts you've written discussing your design process in creating these scenarios? The approaches you've taken (using the "accessory units") are quite revolutionary. I'd like to read about how some of these ideas evolved over time, and the reasoning that went into it, if you've ever written such a thread. I realize this is Lords of History 4, and you may have explained it in the past, but I'm new to this competition.

the information is scattered. and i meant to write up something on the design language i have developed over the the past year and a half but never got around to.

Just to be clear though, should these units be treated any differently in our matches than units in a standard game? In some scenarios, I notice you start in contact with them, so obviously you're going to have to fight them. But in other cases, such as Cynoscephalae or Cannae, where they are used to compel the appropriate army to advance in a historically-accurate manner, should we avoid engaging them to preserve historical authenticity?

some accessory units (many called 'negative points' in the earliest use) are meant to be engaged as they represent for example disorganization (as in murten, and verneuil where they are specified as such). in game terms, it means they prevent the player from using those units adjacent to them for a certain number of turns, and at the same time they degrade the fighting ability of the unit (by inflicting some casualties). there are large amounts of accessory units representing gunfire in renaissance scenarios like cerignola, mohacs and moncontour. hastings, verneuil and agincourt also have such units to represent archery shootings. usually they are stationary but agincourt has moving accessory units called 'forward push'. i should also mention the liberal use of immobile units to represent heavy troops holding a continuous battle line (DaG games can be extremely fluid, which may be good for cavalry but really unacceptable for heavy infantry). there are also 'positive points' which, tucked in a corner and protected from enemy by impassible terrain, are there to increase army break points, which normally depend on the number of units you have but often are not enough to simulate long lasting fights with armies literally grinding each other to nothingness, as in towton.

It would seem to me that units designated as "objectives" for one side or the other should be made a high priority target, but depending on what they are, they may be avoided in a competitive game. Any thoughts on that one way or the other?

objective points, along with impassible terrain (i call it 'map overlay'), serve jointly to channel player's lines of approach according to historical patterns. there is a radical use of map overlay for gaugamela for example. objective points are high priority targets of attacks.

The one "accessory" type I saw regarding which I was not entirely clear, was the "Exit" markers.
My guess...is that by blocking a small area to the enemy, but allowing friendly units to pass, they provide a way to choose to withdraw units out of contact before they are completely destroyed or routed off the board. Units moved beyond the "exit accessory" rear guard stay on the map and avoid destruction, and so do not count toward the points lost. Am I close?

Yes the exit markers prevent the opposition from following friendly retreating units. this is to replicate the 'exit off the map' rule in boardgames but not possible in FoG. you would not want to attack them as they are rated highly to be almost invincible in combats. also there are usually objective points in the protected area so as to encourage some units to exit, as in magnesia. in some battles, victory often depends on the number of units you are able to evacuate, as in grandson or nancy.

in short accessory units and map overlays are useful tools to increase the historical behaviour of the games. in fact since my scenario design is events-based, they are essential. the term 'events-based' means that the design forces players into certain patterns of behaviour that would recreate some actual events of the battle. for example in cannae, the design forces the roman player forward and inward. if you merely line up the two armies without accessory units and map overlays, the roman player will do something different, and what we'll have is not cannae but a mere DaG game with an imposed order of battle and map. this is the traditional way of doing a scenario and i think it's a failure from a historical point of view. i believe that ancient and medieval battles, because of the limited command and control, can only unfold in a certain way once the troops are lined up. In DaG games, especially with double moves and light troops, players can have their army behave like 20th century mechanized units. you can in fact move your right to your left, your left to your right and all sorts of impossible maneuvers before you come into contact. in reality no general would change their disposition in the presence of the enemy because panic and disorganization would quickly set in. fighting was highly compartmentalized which is where the impassible terrain comes in, to prevent players from shifting forces around from one end to the other like german panzer 'fire brigades' on the eastern front.
you may also have noticed i do not use light troops (and almost never independent mf archer units). again, experienced players know how to use them as commando and in other perfidious roles in such a way that they may as well be endowed with truly superhuman tactical awareness, initiative and daring.
and while i'm here, a note of the settings. i do not use double moves because again, it gives players the kind of tactical mobility that is not possible in the command and control of the times. fog of war has one major fatal flaw: you can hide units behind your first line of troops: for example you can advance with elephants or cavalry, or pikemen unseen behind your infantry. yet somehow fog of war is trumpeted as increasing realism!

to have a good idea of what i mean, play 2 versions of the same battle and see how it unfolds (in hot seat, forget about the a.i.) . try the stock hastings scenario and mine to appreciate the differences and what i am trying to achieve in terms of more historical flow, and how accessory units and special design can make it happen. verneuil is another good example. read the historical narrative, play it out and see for yourself. i should also mention gaugamela for how restrictive design does not make the game somehow less playable or enjoyable.

anyway, sorry for the unorganized nature of the writing; i just wrote what comes to mind. i'll come around putting together something more elegant in the future on the topic of scenario design.

[bloodphoenix]

Thank you very much for taking the time to write out an explanation, I found it both helpful and interesting. I appreciate and applaud the efforts you have gone to in pursuit of historical accuracy and extending the game's potential as a "simulation" to the very limits of its design.

i should also mention the liberal use of immobile units to represent heavy troops holding a continuous battle line (DaG games can be extremely fluid, which may be good for cavalry but really unacceptable for heavy infantry).

In DaG games, especially with double moves and light troops, players can have their army behave like 20th century mechanized units.

These two observations sum up my greatest complaints about the game, annoying issues that so irked one long-time grognard friend, that he finally just stopped playing the digital version of the game (he likes the table-top form, which has some significant differences). He always referred to what he called the "exploding hand-grenade" appearance of the map as the game progressed into high turn numbers, with units spreading outward all over the place with no sort of army cohesion or formation. To me, it would call to mind an aerial dogfight more than an ancient battlefield. In this context, my friend was particularly irritated by the frequency with which Roman Impact Foot would break formation to launch impetuous, undisciplined charges that would open holes in the battle line.

the term 'events-based' means that the design forces players into certain patterns of behaviour that would recreate some actual events of the battle. for example in cannae, the design forces the roman player forward and inward. if you merely line up the two armies without accessory units and map overlays, the roman player will do something different, and what we'll have is not cannae but a mere DaG game with an imposed order of battle and map. this is the traditional way of doing a scenario and i think it's a failure from a historical point of view.

As a long-time player of various forms of wargames, I'm quite familiar with this concept. The example that I always think of that illustrates the situation as well as anything, occurred when we were playing the American Civil War (with 15mm miniatures using Fire and Fury). The Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) is simply not a playable game scenario unless severe restrictions are placed on the Union player(s). In history, the Confederates, with their backs to the river, survived repeated assaults by the massive Federal army because McClellan committed his troops piecemeal, attacking one section of the line only, then pausing before launching another major assault elsewhere...allowing the Southern forces time to shift resources to check each thrust. But they barely avoided defeat even then. In a wargame, the Union commander, with God-like omniscience, simply hurls his overwhelming force at the enemy along the entire line, driving them into the river and likely catapulting their alternate McClellan into the White House as the "Savior of the Union". Every wargame scenario I've ever seen for the battle divides it into time periods, in which different Union Corps are locked or unlocked.

I suppose the ancient example that would come to mind as most similar would be Guagamela.

I wish that FOG had more options available to the scenario designer. One of the most useful and obvious tools (and most easily programmed, it seems to me) would be the inclusion of "timers" by which certain conditions could be set to change on a specified turn. I played Slitherine's Panzer Corps game with that same friend for awhile, and for all that game's defects from the perspective of historical accuracy, the scenario designer was far richer and nuanced than whats available in FOG. It was possible to have reinforcements arrive on the map from "off-table" on a certain turn, have units run out of supply at a predetermined point, set times for weather conditions to change (which in turn could change conditions on the battlefield, such as creating mud that would slow movement) etc, etc.

you may also have noticed i do not use light troops (and almost never independent mf archer units). again, experienced players know how to use them as commando and in other perfidious roles in such a way that they may as well be endowed with truly superhuman tactical awareness, initiative and daring.

That was one of the major reasons I chose to participate in the Lords of the Balkans.

...fog of war has one major fatal flaw: you can hide units behind your first line of troops: for example you can advance with elephants or cavalry, or pikemen unseen behind your infantry. yet somehow fog of war is trumpeted as increasing realism!

I agree...a pity that the game doesn't simply have a way of recognizing unit "height". A unit of archers might well be concealed behind cavalry (for example)...but as you say the "tall" units should be visible over intervening units...and in some cases, terrain.

Thanks for taking the time to answer in detail, and for all the effort you've put into these scenarios.

[bloodphoenix]

AVE!

I'm about to post my POOL 2, ROUND 1 challenges.

Lake Trasimene for Ulysisgrunt (password "grunt")

Magnesia for JocaRamiro (password "joca")

Cynoscephalae for MikeMarchant (password "mike")

[batesmotel]

Pool1 Round 1 challenges:

Cannae password "fogman"
Cynocephalae password "ricoual"

Chris

[MikeMarchant]

Pool 2

Challenges up for Round 1:

Ulysisgrunt - Magnesia
Brindlebane - Lake Tresimene
Stefano - Gergovia

Passwords in all cases is your user name, as I have typed it above.

I hope I've got this right and haven't made a mistake anywhere, but please let me know if you have any problems.

Best of luck to everyone, and hope it's fun. I'm really lookingforward to something a little more 'historical'.


Best Wishes

Mike Marchant

[JocaRamiro]

When I challenge, which side do I take? or do I take both?

JocaRamiro

[fogman]

When I challenge, which side do I take? or do I take both?

JocaRamiro

you play the first listed side, i.e. for cynoscephalae, you're roman, and for cannae, you're carthaginian.

[MikeMarchant]

Pool 2

I am assuming this is the place to report results?

MikeMarchant's Romans (99/120) beat JocaRamiro's Carthaginians (125/120) in the battle of Cannae.

This was a brutal brawl of a slugfest that could easily have gone either way. I really don't feel I can claim any credit for the win at all.

Bad luck Joca, and thanks for the game.


Best Wishes

Mike

[Stefano1967]

Pool 2

challenges posted for:
JocaRamiro (Lake Trasimene) pw = lake
Brindlebane (Magnesia) pw = magnesia
BloodPhoenix (Cannae) pw = cannae

see you later on the battlefield...
PM sent

[MikeMarchant]

Pool 2

MikeMarchant's Romans (68/76) beat JocaRamiro's Macedonians (81/81) at Cynoscephalae.

I thought this batle was lost at the halfway mark, with my Romans being aggressive on both flanks, but Mars and the gods of luck turned against Joca and I prevailed across the battlefield.


Best Wishes

Mike

[fogman]

Pool 2

MikeMarchant's Romans (68/76) beat JocaRamiro's Macedonians (81/81) at Cynoscephalae.

Mike

This game actually is a round 2 game. You should only make challenges for round 1

[MikeMarchant]

Oops, sorry, Fogman.

I picked up the challenge when it was made without checking to see whether it was correct or not. What do you want to do with the result? I'm happy to scratch it and fight the battle again in round 2.


Best Wishes

Mike