Open vs closed order Warband

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Post Reply
kstanb
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:25 pm

Open vs closed order Warband

Post by kstanb »

Can someone confirm what are the benefits of closed vs open order Warbands?

I think obviously closed should have better cohesion, be better in hand to hand combat and open order should be less vulnerable to ranged

is there something else? would open order be better in rough terrain?
bodkin
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: Open vs closed order Warband

Post by bodkin »

Open don’t get disorderd in rough terrain
Ludendorf
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: Open vs closed order Warband

Post by Ludendorf »

Also watch the fine print. Loose vs close may seem like an even fight, but the loose warbands get a penalty in open ground every time they lose in combat. This makes them a bit more likely to get disrupted and also more likely to get a double drop. It's the same risk you take using medium infantry in open terrain.
lapdog666
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Open vs closed order Warband

Post by lapdog666 »

loose = rough ground and forests

close = open terrain

also they are very good against any other medium infantry, especially in impact phase
kstanb
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:25 pm

Re: Open vs closed order Warband

Post by kstanb »

So just to be clear, there is no difference in terms of ranged attack negative? both loose and close will get the same damage by ranged attack?
Ludendorf
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: Open vs closed order Warband

Post by Ludendorf »

The armour is the same, so I expect so.

Actually, this raises a question of my own. Does 'undrilled heavy foot' mean anything other than the unit is a heavy infantry unit that is unmanoeuvrable?
Kabill
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: Open vs closed order Warband

Post by Kabill »

I think "undrilled" also means they don't get the +1 cohesion check modifier like regular heavy foot do (IIRC from the discussion around rebalancing warbands ages ago). So they're less resilient than heavy foot, but not quite as frail as medium foot (who get an additional -1 penalty against horse or heavy foot in open terrain).
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28411
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Open vs closed order Warband

Post by rbodleyscott »

Ludendorf wrote:The armour is the same, so I expect so.

Actually, this raises a question of my own. Does 'undrilled heavy foot' mean anything other than the unit is a heavy infantry unit that is unmanoeuvrable?
No.

However, "Warbands (Close Order)" and "Superior Warbands (Close order)" don't get the +1 Cohesion Test bonus that other Heavy Foot do. They also differ from other Heavy Foot by pursuing defeated infantry foes.

This still leaves "Warbands (Loose Order)" weaker, because they get an addition -1 Cohesion Test modifier if they lose a close combat vs Heavy Foot or Mounted Troops in Open Terrain.

So the trade off is that the loose order ones are better in Rough or Difficult terrain (because they are not as disordered), but worse in the open (because of the -1 CT modifier).

Ideally you want a mix of both, so you can put Close Order ones in the Open and Loose Order ones in the terrain.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”