A hole in the rules?

[Polkovnik]

OK, take this example : a battle line of 3 BGs of 6 Roman auxilia (armoured, light spear, swordsmen) lined up 2 deep are approaching a battleline of gallic foot (protected, impact foot, swordsmen). The actual numbers on each side don't make much difference - could be more or less BGs.
The auxilia are at - POA at impact + POA in melee. The gauls best chance is doing some damage (cohesion or base losses) at impact. With 6 dice on each Roman BG at impact, they will probably lose some combats and suffer some cohesion loss or base losses.
It is unarguably in the interest of the auxilia to contract each BG by one file as they move within charge range of the gauls. The gauls will have to charge in the next impact phase (if they don't do it voluntarily then some BGs will probably charge involuntarily and be isolated). There will be 4 dice on each Roman BG at impact which significantly reduces the chances of : 1 hit per 3 bases, 2 more hits than received, base losses. There is much less chace therefore of the Romans suffering significant damage at impact. They will then expand and fight the melee with even dice on +POA.

I wouldn't be very happy if I was the gallic player and my only advantage in the combat was significantly reduced by an unhistorical (cheesy ? loophole exploiting ?) manoeuvre such as this.

[nikgaukroger]

Oh I don't know. Tacitus' description of Agricola's battle against the Caledones has the Batavians leading the attck and then joined by other cohortes. As a BG can represent more than one actual "unit" an expansion into an existing melee could well be representing a second, close by unit joining in.

All cheques to "Rationales R Us"

[rogerg]

These column ideas are all very well in isolation. One wonders what the opposition will be doing while these drill experts assemble in a battle line, march for a bit, fall out into columns, then pick their point of attack.

If someone makes it work at the Challenge, perhaps Paul can call a time out while we all go over and actually see it in action.

[Polkovnik]

It's no more difficult to do the manoeuvre I described above that it is to advance directly into contact. It is quite normal in games for a big line of foot to advance to contact another big line of foot, without any other BGs getting involved.
I've deliberately picked a typical situation rather than an obscure one that doesn't happen often. If you are playing Roman vs Gauls then you expect a clash of the battle lines at some point. Before this happens, the Romans contract each BG by one file. That takes away most of the advantage the gauls have at impact. It work for the legionaries also.

[grahambriggs]

2. Graham Briggs scenario is different. If you are going against missile armed troops who get extra dice at impact then the trade-off is more even and it is potentially viable to take the risk in column. But the real world problem is that it often pushes you into suffering CT tests from shooting at -1 for 1HP2 as only 3 bases count and often the same firepower will hit the column as would hit the 3 wide BG anyway (when you would need 3 hits rather than 2). Internstingly this part is actually more even the less armour you have as if you are unprotected MF you are likely to suffer 3 hits anyway!

That's true - however that BG is the one that will have the general and rear support . Also, if it's critical, some LF or LH can draw the fire.

[hammy]

It's no more difficult to do the manoeuvre I described above that it is to advance directly into contact. It is quite normal in games for a big line of foot to advance to contact another big line of foot, without any other BGs getting involved.
I've deliberately picked a typical situation rather than an obscure one that doesn't happen often. If you are playing Roman vs Gauls then you expect a clash of the battle lines at some point. Before this happens, the Romans contract each BG by one file. That takes away most of the advantage the gauls have at impact. It work for the legionaries also.

I agree that this is possible and that it may well mean that the Romans gain an advantage.

To say it takes away most of the advantage is plain wrong. It changes the odds of the Romans disrupting at impact from just over 40% to just over 35%, hardly most but admitedly significant.

I am still sure that the odd BG of light foot in a convenient place or a cagey wheel would make things difficult for the Romans.

There are also potential problems for the Romans in contracting. I think that if they are within 5 MU of the Gauls when they try to contract it will require CMTs because you can't contract in the restricted zone and have to advance 3 MU to be able to contract without a test.

[nikgaukroger]

There are also potential problems for the Romans in contracting. I think that if they are within 5 MU of the Gauls when they try to contract it will require CMTs because you can't contract in the restricted zone and have to advance 3 MU to be able to contract without a test.

So contract and then move - the move can be before or after the contraction so if it is after you have not contracted in the restricted area.

Mind you I have always wonder whether that restriction applies if you move as the cannot contact restriction is in the Remain in Place bullet.

[hammy]

There are also potential problems for the Romans in contracting. I think that if they are within 5 MU of the Gauls when they try to contract it will require CMTs because you can't contract in the restricted zone and have to advance 3 MU to be able to contract without a test.

So contract and then move - the move can be before or after the contraction so if it is after you have not contracted in the restricted area.

Mind you I have always wonder whether that restriction applies if you move as the cannot contact restriction is in the Remain in Place bullet.

I am not too sure about this one either. You can advance directly towards but can you contract and advance??

[madaxeman]

But doing this by forming columns probably ups your chances of taking a -1 for "one hit per 3" (or even "1 hit per 2 from shooting").

But you don't do it when facing missile armed opponents, so that isn't an issue.

So, there's clearly more than one way to play the game here.

Thats a bonus isn't it?

Not when one way is advantageous under the rules but bears no relation to history. We shouldn't expect to see Napoleonic style columns on an ancient battlefield !

1. OK - so scrub my comments in brackets
2. Lots of people clearly don't think it is advantageous under the rules, irrespective of "history" - hence my point about there being different views on how best to play the game.

If everyone thought it was advantageous we'd be having a debate about "history" rather than one about statistics and all possible on-table situations. It might be equally inconclusive, but woudl be more interesting

[pbrandon]

According to my Monte Video simulator a debate about history would be 38.765% more interesting than one about statistics.

Paul

[marioslaz]

I think this is potentially heading for a record as FOGs longest stream The starting point for all of this is some stats. I don't want to spend ages boring everyone with the details of how to simulate it properly. But just to say that in setting up the rules we simulation tested things to death at times by two different methods - Terry built a pretty cool Monte Carlo simulator, and I have a Statistical Spreadsheet set up that streams all the probabliities and stacks them. To be fully informed you need to:

1. Set up the probabilites for 30 different possible IMPACT outcomes streams - a combination of bad loss, loss, draw, win, big win x 3 possible CT results x 2 possible DR results. Hence 30 outcome streams.
2. You then need to do the same for each stream for the MELEE - so another 30.
3. You then need to run it long enough to get to a break as what is important is not who survives round 1 but who wins the tie overall - generally this means 1 more MELEE round for anything reasonably uneven, and 2 for anything even

This morning, while I'm driving my car, I thought this thread has gone by far out of my initial intention. In fact, I was just curious about the legality of a kind of move, that for me gives an advantage to melee troops vs impact troops. This was just a curiosity, because it seems to me unhistorical and so I don't plan to use it anyway. Now I'm pretty sure that to fight impact in column is an advantage for melee troops like spearmen, because in this way they reduce the chance to disrupt at impact. I'm pretty sure because in my program (a stupid and inefficient one, I must say, that if I wanted to expand to cover also some turns of melee it would be very expensive in work hours, but simple and linear) I record also the number of wins, ties and losses of spearmen, and the numbers I get are perfectly equal to the percentage I calculated with statistic formulas. I don't want to go further, and I don't want to convince anyone of my theory. In particular, I don't want to waste any more time to invent a system with which translate this academic calculation in a strategy on table, simply because I like FOG and I don't want to contribute to birth of disgusting move and counter move DBx style. I don't want to offend anybody, don't think I say so because I'm an arrogant, but I say so because this morning I found a more interesting aspect to explore. About this aspect I'll say in next post, because I want to keep separate this last post about the presumed hole in rule, that it's not real, and the new aspect I want to introduce. The hole in rule is not real because:

• if you play in tournament, you likely are playing a fictitious battle, so it's a contradiction to complain about your rule because they permits an unhistorical move
• if you play one historical battle or scenario, it's even a bigger contradiction if you try a similar unhistorical move (do you real want to spend hours to study how to recreate a battle and then you play it using unhistorical formations?)

Mario

[nikgaukroger]

According to my Monte Video simulator a debate about history would be 38.765% more interesting than one about statistics.

Paul

However, my Monte Rey simulator suggests that the true figure is 38.767% which I think you will agree sheds a whole new light on the sutuation

[Polkovnik]

To say it takes away most of the advantage is plain wrong. It changes the odds of the Romans disrupting at impact from just over 40% to just over 35%, hardly most but admitedly significant.

Was that for auxiliaries (- POA at impact) or legionaries (even POA) ?
I'm surprised it makes that little difference. It's not an easy one to calculate (without a magic box FOG calculator like you obviously have) but my feeling was that it would make more of a difference. Your calculations don't include base losses though do they, and the chance of these happening will be significantly reduced I think with less dice at impact.

The biggest difference though I think (and this is what got me thinking about it originally) would be with elephants, where going into impact in column against impact foot or light spear would significantly reduce the probability of a base loss, and hence BG disintegration.

[hammy]

To say it takes away most of the advantage is plain wrong. It changes the odds of the Romans disrupting at impact from just over 40% to just over 35%, hardly most but admitedly significant.

Was that for auxiliaries (- POA at impact) or legionaries (even POA) ?
I'm surprised it makes that little difference. It's not an easy one to calculate (without a magic box FOG calculator like you obviously have) but my feeling was that it would make more of a difference. Your calculations don't include base losses though do they, and the chance of these happening will be significantly reduced I think with less dice at impact.

The biggest difference though I think (and this is what got me thinking about it originally) would be with elephants, where going into impact in column against impact foot or light spear would significantly reduce the probability of a base loss, and hence BG disintegration.

That is for Auxiliaries.

You are right that this calculation does not include base losses and there would be an effect there.

If you want to send me a PM I am happy to let you have a copy of my probability spreadsheet. It takes a bit of care to use but is not positively user hostile.

[Polkovnik]

2. Lots of people clearly don't think it is advantageous under the rules, irrespective of "history" - hence my point about there being different views on how best to play the game.

I don't think there's any argument about whether it is advantageous - the numbers don't lie. In an isolated one BG on one BG situation with even numbers, the side that is disadvantaged in impact is better off contracting by one base before impact, then expanding after.
And this often applies in other situations such as a battle line against a battle line. Yes you can introduce counter arguments involving shooting at columns and extra BGs popping up to get in the way, but in a straightforward line of (for example) auxilia vs warband, the auxilia benefit by contracting a base before impact.

[Polkovnik]

If you want to send me a PM I am happy to let you have a copy of my probability spreadsheet. It takes a bit of care to use but is not positively user hostile.

I'd love to have a copy. Excel I presume ? I'm pretty good with Excel so should be able to figure it out. I'll PM you (if I can figure out how to do that !)

[marioslaz]

As I already said, this morning I was thinking about this matters and I had this thought:

Am I sure that is unhistorical to fight in column?

Well, I thought to ancient Strategos, like Xenophont and Miltiades just for example, who used change the number of ranks to achieve determinate effects. So, a lamp lighted in my thoughts: and Epaminonda? (sorry, I don't know how writes his name in English, but I hope you understand who I mean). Where do we put Epaminonda? We know he deployed his Thebans up to 50 ranks deep. Of course he didn't deploy all his army in this way, but only a small portion to achieve an advantage in a critical point of the battle and to build his victory on this advantage. So, look at this simple example:

I don't know if this is efficient in term of FOG rules, it's just to reasoning about that an apparently unhistorical formation can instead be justified (from historical point of view) if we don't look at this as a trick and so we try to use in a dirty way, but instead we look at history and we try to tie it to historical events. If we can achieve this, likely we make a step further in our strategy knowledge. In this example I try to take advantage of column best resistance. I put aside of column a BG 3 ranks deep that protect flank of column from shot, and also have a good resistance against impact. Then normal line BG. This formation of course is intended to be deployed on left side of HF line. BG number 2 must be the top quality and must compensate possible defeats of the other two.

Mario.

[petedalby]

I am not too sure about this one either. You can advance directly towards but can you contract and advance??

I believe not - no - previously covered at length under a different thread.

'Advance' means advance as defined on P42. No tricky manoevres that close to the enemy.

Pete

[nikgaukroger]

I am not too sure about this one either. You can advance directly towards but can you contract and advance??

I believe not - no - previously covered at length under a different thread.

'Advance' means advance as defined on P42. No tricky manoevres that close to the enemy.

Pete

Ah, I vaguely remember that one.

So the wording needs to be read as "Make an Advance directly ..." - hope so therwise I diddled Graham Briggs last week

I won't ask that this be included in the FAQ though ... just that it is an errata

[expendablecinc]

wouldnt BG #2 be in a worse state only needing 1 hit to force a test? I'd only recommend fighting in column if they are your worst troops and at sever disadvange (more outlier results) or they are a 2 base BG.

I dit this last night with 2-base elite seleucid companions and it worked a treat.

Also if your lines are slightly line you can usually still get three bases into contact with a slight wheel. File thats faced with a vacant space steps forward into the rear ranks.

As I already said, this morning I was thinking about this matters and I had this thought:

Am I sure that is unhistorical to fight in column?

Well, I thought to ancient Strategos, like Xenophont and Miltiades just for example, who used change the number of ranks to achieve determinate effects. So, a lamp lighted in my thoughts: and Epaminonda? (sorry, I don't know how writes his name in English, but I hope you understand who I mean). Where do we put Epaminonda? We know he deployed his Thebans up to 50 ranks deep. Of course he didn't deploy all his army in this way, but only a small portion to achieve an advantage in a critical point of the battle and to build his victory on this advantage. So, look at this simple example:

I don't know if this is efficient in term of FOG rules, it's just to reasoning about that an apparently unhistorical formation can instead be justified (from historical point of view) if we don't look at this as a trick and so we try to use in a dirty way, but instead we look at history and we try to tie it to historical events. If we can achieve this, likely we make a step further in our strategy knowledge. In this example I try to take advantage of column best resistance. I put aside of column a BG 3 ranks deep that protect flank of column from shot, and also have a good resistance against impact. Then normal line BG. This formation of course is intended to be deployed on left side of HF line. BG number 2 must be the top quality and must compensate possible defeats of the other two.

Mario.