Infantry withdrawal/Breakoff

[spike]

I have been thinking about this, and it seems that there is no way for units to breakaway other than being broken, unless its mounted vs steady foot. Also the rules do not cover the situation such as the Hanaball's strategem at "Cannae" where a commander can lure his opponent in by making contact and then sucking him forward into the trap.

The Normans using feigned flight to encourage the Saxons to come off the hill at "Senlac (Hastings)", would be covered if Saxon Spear are classified as "Offensive Spear", but given that I believe they should be "Defensive Spear" this could also not be simulated.

The rules in their corrent issued could therefore not simulate either of these battle this short of a special scenario rule.

Therefore could there not be the inclusion of some test (CMT?) in the joint action phase, for a Battlegroup or Line with a general to make test to withdraw "X"MU, (X has not been determined), and for their opponert to also make a test to avoid remaining in contact, unless they of course choose to do so!

Steve Clarke

[rbodleyscott]

Saxon fyrd will be Offensive Spear. (General list policy dictates that an army that has nothing but spears cannot really be Defensive spears - unless they expect their opponents to impale themselves on their spears).

Select Fyrd would be Average

General Fyrd would be Poor

Thus the battle of Senlac hill can be simulated.

---------------------

Cannae is more of a problem. However, the Gallic/Spanish bulge seems to be unique - I have not seen a similar plan described in a historical account of any other ancient/medieval battle. Also, I have yet to see any set of wargames rules simulate it adequately.

However, I would note that if the Romans do break the Gauls and Spanish they will have to pursue and thus be vulnerable to flank attacks from African spearmen deployed on the wings.

[spike]

Cannae is more of a problem. However, the Gallic/Spanish bulge seems to be unique - I have not seen a similar plan described in a historical account of any other ancient/medieval battle. Also, I have yet to see any set of wargames rules simulate it adequately.

However, I would note that if the Romans do break the Gauls and Spanish they will have to pursue and thus be vulnerable to flank attacks from African spearmen deployed on the wings.

Historicaly the Carthaginian centre did not break they just gave ground, so the simulation issue still exists all be it in a fairly unique case. However I accept that we cant write a rule for the one-off, but still see a need for a recoil procedure of some type. Pehaps Fragmented troops should recoil in the JAP, with the attackers having some procedure to follow up as alternative to my pervious suggestion.

[shall]

We had it in originally and it proved a huge time sink for very little value in testing

Si

[spike]

Saxon fyrd will be Offensive Spear. (General list policy dictates that an army that has nothing but spears cannot really be Defensive spears - unless they expect their opponents to impale themselves on their spears).

Select Fyrd would be Average

General Fyrd would be Poor

Thus the battle of Senlac hill can be simulated.

---------------------

Cannae is more of a problem. However, the Gallic/Spanish bulge seems to be unique - I have not seen a similar plan described in a historical account of any other ancient/medieval battle. Also, I have yet to see any set of wargames rules simulate it adequately.

However, I would note that if the Romans do break the Gauls and Spanish they will have to pursue and thus be vulnerable to flank attacks from African spearmen deployed on the wings.

Not sure this tactic is wholy unique as I first thought after a little checking of a few historical actions, admit its rare though given how hard I looked.

Notably at the Battle of Marathon in 490 where the Athenians had their centre advance and then retreat to encourage the Persians to attack, and then had deeper formations of Hoplites on the wings to attack the Persian flanks. Given Sparabara are mainly equiped with bow as its main weapon, (probably should be Light Spear , Bow similar to the Assirians who preceded them only be a few hundred years and that the spear is only 6' long), they would not known for being impetious and so can't see them as Offensive Spear, Bow like the ones in the later Achemedid Persian list.
They were outclassed by the greek Hoplite given the few spear equiped troop in each unit, and the flimsy nature of the wicker shield, shield was little more than cover from arrows.

Other examples could probably be covered by the rules as is, as they mostly involve Offensive spear types, who will naturaly attack.

[rbodleyscott]

Given Sparabara are mainly equiped with bow as its main weapon, (probably should be Light Spear , Bow similar to the Assirians who preceded them only be a few hundred years and that the spear is only 6' long), they would not known for being impetious and so can't see them as Offensive Spear, Bow like the ones in the later Achemedid Persian list.

Indeed. The guards in the Late Achaemenid Persian list do not represent sparabara. They are half equipped as hoplites and half as archers.

Sparabara are treated as MF, bow, light spear.

[lawrenceg]

Notably at the Battle of Marathon in 490 where the Athenians had their centre advance and then retreat to encourage the Persians to attack, and then had deeper formations of Hoplites on the wings to attack the Persian flanks.

Or possibly the Athenians reinforced the wings from the centre because the were vulnerable to outflanking by the larger Persian army. This left the centre too weak, so it broke. The deep flanks broke their opponents, then were able to turn in and crush the pursuing Persian centre. So it was a happy accident, rather than a cunning plan.

One could quite easily believe that elements of Hannibals centre at Cannae broke - as two legions worth of Roman infantry escaped. But historians may have lost sight of this in concentrating on the scale of the overall disaster and in the general talking-up of Hannibal's tactical skill. The Cannae deployment was only slightly modified from the one used earlier at the Trebbia, at which the centre had completely gone before the flank and rear attacks had done enough.

As the Gauls would have said afterwards: "Running away? Absolutely not, it was ....er...a tactical withdrawal...all part of the plan...yes... that was it."

[spike]

Given Sparabara are mainly equiped with bow as its main weapon, (probably should be Light Spear , Bow similar to the Assirians who preceded them only be a few hundred years and that the spear is only 6' long), they would not known for being impetious and so can't see them as Offensive Spear, Bow like the ones in the later Achemedid Persian list.

Indeed. The guards in the Late Achaemenid Persian list do not represent sparabara. They are half equipped as hoplites and half as archers.

Sparabara are treated as MF, bow, light spear.

My point still is that I still see a need for a mechanisim to allow HF/MF to fall back, and to "encouraging" troops which are not normaly impetious to advance. I do appreciate it may be too late to incorporate such a feature this time given it needs to be at the printers well before the publishing date of Feb 2008, but I would hope that such a mechanisim would appear in the next version, if we cant fit it into this one.

[spike]

Notably at the Battle of Marathon in 490 where the Athenians had their centre advance and then retreat to encourage the Persians to attack, and then had deeper formations of Hoplites on the wings to attack the Persian flanks.

Or possibly the Athenians reinforced the wings from the centre because the were vulnerable to outflanking by the larger Persian army. This left the centre too weak, so it broke. The deep flanks broke their opponents, then were able to turn in and crush the pursuing Persian centre. So it was a happy accident, rather than a cunning plan.

One could quite easily believe that elements of Hannibals centre at Cannae broke - as two legions worth of Roman infantry escaped. But historians may have lost sight of this in concentrating on the scale of the overall disaster and in the general talking-up of Hannibal's tactical skill. The Cannae deployment was only slightly modified from the one used earlier at the Trebbia, at which the centre had completely gone before the flank and rear attacks had done enough.

As the Gauls would have said afterwards: "Running away? Absolutely not, it was ....er...a tactical withdrawal...all part of the plan...yes... that was it."

Disagree with your "lucky Hapenstance" suggestion, for the reason why it works.
The Greeks at Marathon deliberatly came forward as a single line of battle and then the weakened centre retired to avoid being broken by Persain attacks, whilst the 2 flanks continued to advance. This takes a concious plan, its not lucky.
Yes agree Trebbia was probably the genesis for the Cannae plan, and yes it was not a sucess, but again it shows a concious plan on the part of Hannabal, who fixed what went wrong from his first attempt and he got its right at Cannae.
The earlier failure of the plan at Trebbia probably encouraged the well drilled romans to continue the attack, and fall into the trap at Cannae!

[lawrenceg]

Disagree with your "lucky Hapenstance" suggestion, for the reason why it works.
The Greeks at Marathon deliberatly came forward as a single line of battle and then the weakened centre retired to avoid being broken by Persain attacks, whilst the 2 flanks continued to advance. This takes a concious plan, its not lucky.
Yes agree Trebbia was probably the genesis for the Cannae plan, and yes it was not a sucess, but again it shows a concious plan on the part of Hannabal, who fixed what went wrong from his first attempt and he got its right at Cannae.
The earlier failure of the plan at Trebbia probably encouraged the well drilled romans to continue the attack, and fall into the trap at Cannae!

CXIII. They fought a long time at Marathon. In the center of the line the foreigners prevailed, where the Persians and Sacae were arrayed. The foreigners prevailed there and broke through in pursuit inland, but on each wing the Athenians and Plataeans prevailed. [2] In victory they let the routed foreigners flee, and brought the wings together to fight those who had broken through the center.

Two more of my books go with the Greek centre breaking, the third says :

What happened at Marathon is confused, and the truth will probably never be known.

[nigelb]

I think Peter Conolly got that right - and it's a principle we could all do with remembering.

Even in periods with good documentary sources, one can't be entirely certain. Even many of the men who were there in the field may not have been certain exactly what was happening, so I would rather say "We believe..." rather than make bald statements of exactly what definitely happened.

For myself, I do regret the lack of a recoil result. However, I can see there are good reasons, having tried several ways of introducing one.

Remember, as lots of combats will be multi-unit, it can be very complicated to work out which should recoil, and others not recoiling would prevent an enemy follow-up; in turn you can argue that without the enemy pressure, the 'losers' would not have given ground anyway.

It's all rather simpler when you take each element as an independent item a la DBx. With Battle Groups, it ain't so easy.

[Renier]

What about the battle between Philip II and Athens/Thebes (Battle of Chaeronea 338 BC)

Where the one pike flank(right flank) was ordered to give ground, and thus making an opening for Alexanders
companions to charge a flank.

My suggestion: Add a possible complex movement for drilled troops (Ordered withdraw), moving 1 MU back, still facing
the same direction, the BL must all be drilled, and an IC must be present.

The gauls/spanish used by Hannibal can be classified as drilled, or make a requirement that an IC must be present.

[pyruse]

Quite a few Classical era battles (and a lot of Steppe battles) featured troops being pushed back. sometimes by a long way - just off the top of my head, I can think of:
Cannae, Sellassia, Cynoscephalae, Sambre and one of the two between Antigonus and Eumenes (Gabiene, I think - the one fought in a dust storm, anyway; oh, wait, there's no weather rules in FoG, either).

However, I realise that push-backs introduce all sorts of rule nastiness. It's best done as a scenario rule; or maybe the semi-mythical campaign supplement could have some suggestions for this, and for weather rules, which some battles really do require.

[Redpossum]

Quite a few Classical era battles (and a lot of Steppe battles) featured troops being pushed back. sometimes by a long way - just off the top of my head, I can think of:
Cannae, Sellassia, Cynoscephalae, Sambre and one of the two between Antigonus and Eumenes (Gabiene, I think - the one fought in a dust storm, anyway; oh, wait, there's no weather rules in FoG, either).

However, I realise that push-backs introduce all sorts of rule nastiness. It's best done as a scenario rule; or maybe the semi-mythical campaign supplement could have some suggestions for this, and for weather rules, which some battles really do require.

Really, imagine trying to do a Historical Scenario of Lake Trasimene. Note the common element here - Hannibal! The man was one of the trickiest commanders there ever was, he had the troops to let him get away with it, and the baraka to inspire them.

[OhReally]

Given Sparabara are mainly equiped with bow as its main weapon, (probably should be Light Spear , Bow similar to the Assirians who preceded them only be a few hundred years and that the spear is only 6' long), they would not known for being impetious and so can't see them as Offensive Spear, Bow like the ones in the later Achemedid Persian list.

Indeed. The guards in the Late Achaemenid Persian list do not represent sparabara. They are half equipped as hoplites and half as archers.

Sparabara are treated as MF, bow, light spear.

My point still is that I still see a need for a mechanisim to allow HF/MF to fall back, and to "encouraging" troops which are not normaly impetious to advance. I do appreciate it may be too late to incorporate such a feature this time given it needs to be at the printers well before the publishing date of Feb 2008, but I would hope that such a mechanisim would appear in the next version, if we cant fit it into this one.

I agree that troops, especially drilled ones, should have more tactical options in the game. The thing that gets me is that drilled troops are forced to pursue when an enemy breaks and have NO ability to stop short and hold the line.

I would like to overall see more tactical options in the game, and agree with the OP that lines of foot contacting and just slugging it out with no other options until one breaks is not very elegant.

[ars_belli]

I agree that troops, especially drilled ones, should have more tactical options in the game. The thing that gets me is that drilled troops are forced to pursue when an enemy breaks and have NO ability to stop short and hold the line.

In FoG, drilled troops are not 'forced' to pursue when an enemy breaks. They simply have to pas a CMT in order not to pursue. While that definitely leaves open the possibility that they may charge off against orders, they are in fact are less likely to do so than are undrilled troops. These things are entirely historical, IMHO.

And if some gamers prefer to incorporate 'pushbacks' or other 'house rules' in their own private FoG gaming, no one is going to discourage them from doing so. Here is one example of just such a 'house rule,' posted in an earlier thread describing a FoG scenario for the Battle of Cannae: viewtopic.php?t=6784 .

Cheers,
Scott

[babyshark]

In FoG, drilled troops are not 'forced' to pursue when an enemy breaks. They simply have to pas a CMT in order not to pursue. While that definitely leaves open the possibility that they may charge off against orders, they are in fact are less likely to do so than are undrilled troops. These things are entirely historical, IMHO.

Clarification: drilled troops, just like undrilled, are forced to pursue once, after the initial rout move of the enemy BG. After that initial pursuit both drilled and undrilled BGs can test not to pursue further rout moves by the broken enemy. Drilled troops are more likely to succeed in passing that test.

Marc

[ars_belli]

You are absolutely right, Marc - my bad!

What I should have said is that I find the greater likelihood of drilled troops being able to stop chasing routers and reform to be quite historical.

Cheers,
Scott

[OhReally]

You are absolutely right, Marc - my bad!

What I should have said is that I find the greater likelihood of drilled troops being able to stop chasing routers and reform to be quite historical.

Cheers,
Scott

Agreed, but I find the fact that drilled troops being forced to pursue even when it would break their line, expose their flank or other negative things to not be very historically accurate. When you read about troops breaking ranks and pursuing without orders it's a very undrilled affair.

When you look at troops like Roman's I just can't see them having zero chance of stopping. I think you give them a chance NOT to pursue on the initial break by making a CMT roll with the usual modifiers.

[ars_belli]

Agreed, but I find the fact that drilled troops being forced to pursue even when it would break their line, expose their flank or other negative things to not be very historically accurate. When you read about troops breaking ranks and pursuing without orders it's a very undrilled affair..

Well, at Gergovia, Caesar's drilled legionaries did exactly that (The Gallic Wars 7.47):

"Caesar, having accomplished the object which he had in view, ordered the signal to be sounded for a retreat; and the soldiers of the tenth legion, by which he was then accompanied, halted. But the soldiers of the other legions, not hearing the sound of the trumpet, because there was a very large valley between them, were however kept back by the tribunes of the soldiers and the lieutenants, according to Caesar's orders; but being animated by the prospect of speedy victory, and the flight of the enemy, and the favorable battles of former periods, they thought nothing so difficult that their bravery could not accomplish it; nor did they put an end to the pursuit, until they drew nigh to the wall of the town and the gates."

When you look at troops like Roman's I just can't see them having zero chance of stopping. I think you give them a chance NOT to pursue on the initial break by making a CMT roll with the usual modifiers

I agree that it would be perfectly reasonable to allow drilled troops the opportunity to pass a CMT in order to not pursue the initial rout. However, I am also quite comfortable with the pursuit rule as it is.

Cheers,
Scott