Interpenetration question

[rbodleyscott]

Such interpentrations aren't of massive use under the rules. However, they do allow you to have a solid line of bowmen and then move close combat troops through if they are threatened by something they don't want to face.

(DM) CV????

Yes, Cavalry. You can move the close fighters through before the Cavalry are in charge range. You won't get to shoot them, but they won't get to charge your archers. It's a way of guaranteeing the matchups you want. It is not a way of getting free shots and then fighting with something else. If they cooperated that closely they would be in mixed BGs.

As I say, if you don't think it is useful, don't do it.

Why are you complaining about a freebie? I thought it was poms that were supposed to whinge.

[philqw78]

complaining about a freebie? I thought it was poms that were supposed to whinge

He's a Kiwi. He obviously got the worst of the Maoris the Aussies and the Brits

[marioslaz]

IMHO you must change your tactic with Bw and use it like Italian Pavesari+Crossbowmen. You can use a mixed formation, with 1st rank HF and 2nd Bowmen, so you can shoot in each turn if your front rank is at range. Otherwise, if this formation was too weak for your opponent mounted troops, you can make a formation with first 2 ranks HF, then 1 rank of Bw; in this latter case you can throw only at impact when charged.

Mario,

You cannot choose to organise your troops in mixed battle groups unless this is specifically allowed by the list. Mixed BGs are only permitted when the BG size column says something like 2/3 or all, 1/3 or all or 1/2, 1/2.

But if I only know they were Bw supported by HF what could I know about such formation was legal or not?

This make stronger my opinion that to get a good result with an army you need to play only against armies which historically fought against your. Otherwise you risk to find some of your troops useless against opponents, or without formations which can permit to your troops to be proficient against enemy ones. Of course, for "big number law" (translation of Italian "Legge dei grandi numeri") sometimes you'll find in an advantage position due to this

Mario

[rbodleyscott]

IMHO you must change your tactic with Bw and use it like Italian Pavesari+Crossbowmen. You can use a mixed formation, with 1st rank HF and 2nd Bowmen, so you can shoot in each turn if your front rank is at range. Otherwise, if this formation was too weak for your opponent mounted troops, you can make a formation with first 2 ranks HF, then 1 rank of Bw; in this latter case you can throw only at impact when charged.

Mario,

You cannot choose to organise your troops in mixed battle groups unless this is specifically allowed by the list. Mixed BGs are only permitted when the BG size column says something like 2/3 or all, 1/3 or all or 1/2, 1/2.

But if I only know they were Bw supported by HF what could I know about such formation was legal or not?

If the troops were in mixed BGs the list would not specify that they can interpenetrate each other.

(I appreciate that there is a language issue. I am not sure on what level you may or may not be misunderstanding this Mario. If my explanations are not clear, please say so).

[davem]

If the cav move to 1" they're going to suffer two shooting phases before they can charge so you shouldn't need to HF to help out. I assume the idea of the HF behind the archers is to oppose enemy HF.

(DM) You obviously haven't seen my shooting dice! In any case the Cv are generally armoured thus at +POA to my shooting. 4 shots at 5 will do well to even force a CT let alone a death roll.
No the Hf is to give the MF Bw some chance vs Mtd as well as enemy Mf/Hf. Unprotected Mf, Bw die horribly to anything 1/2 decent Mtd!

[davem]

Alternatively you could advance to 5 MU plus 30 mm instead of to 6 MU.

(DM) My maths tell me that 5 MU plus 30mm = no shooting. Pointless.

Not completely pointless, and only an issue with enemy who can move faster than 4MU.

(DM) My example was Cv. Specifically the "optimal Cv" Armoured, S Bw, Sw.

For example, perhaps the enemy will fail a CMT and not be able to move short. The cavalry will have to react to your troops in some manner, or accept that next move you can move to close range and give them a volley.

(DM) Cv can move short without CMT.


The other benefit that interpenetrating foot give you is that it allows you to wait for longer before making decisions. i.e. a player with non interpenetrating foot would have had to decide mouch earlier whether to put the archers at the front or not.

(DM) Yes that was even more of a decision point under DBM.

[davem]

Why are you complaining about a freebie? I thought it was poms that were supposed to whinge.

(DM) As free as Ps support? Dismounting Kn(S)?
I'm not complaining about a freebie, I was seeking rules clarification/justification.
Don't worry, my small whinge won't affect the market share you Poms hold...

[davem]

complaining about a freebie? I thought it was poms that were supposed to whinge

He's a Kiwi. He obviously got the worst of the Maoris the Aussies and the Brits

(DM)
Right now I'd like to be Maori! They've just been paid $300 million for a dance!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 882775.stm

[nikgaukroger]

They win more games than you as well

[davem]

They win more games than you as well

Oooh that smarts!

[marioslaz]

If the troops were in mixed BGs the list would not specify that they can interpenetrate each other.

(I appreciate that there is a language issue. I am not sure on what level you may or may not be misunderstanding this Mario. If my explanations are not clear, please say so).

I understood you clearly. I have some difficulties with abbreviation, or when somebody make orthographic errors, because it become harder for me to understand that word. Of course I have difficulties with slang or idiomatic phrases.

I didn't read all your army list. I bought first 3 army list books because I'm interested in Rome, Greek and Italian Medio Evo. So I didn't notice about incompatibility between mixed BGs and interpenetration. I apologize for this. Unfortunately, I love to talk about history and I don't remember most of forum users are just interested in game mechanism so my post are useless and confusing too.

Mario

[rbodleyscott]

The lists are based on history and only permit (our best approximation of) tactical formations used by the armies historically. Hence some tactical formations (eg mixed battle groups of archers and close fighters) are not allowed by some lists because they don't reflect historical practice. Likewise some lists permit special interpenetrations because that corresponds to historical practice.

[marioslaz]

The lists are based on history and only permit (our best approximation of) tactical formations used by the armies historically. Hence some tactical formations (eg mixed battle groups of archers and close fighters) are not allowed by some lists because they don't reflect historical practice. Likewise some lists permit special interpenetrations because that corresponds to historical practice.

OK, but I didn't want to negate this. I just said I didn't make correlation and that I like to talk about history, with particular reference to the way where I can recreate historical tactics with a game, FOG, which I like.

Mario

[babyshark]

NKE. Can they not have a new name like the Roman lists did? Something like Early Despotic Egytian, Middle Despotic Egytian, Pharoic Egytian and Cleopatran Egyptian.

Apparantly not

I don't care what you call them so long as we still get battle reports from the famous Pharaoh Ramittuppem. (I may have spelled his name incorrectly; forgive me, I am not that good at translating hieroglyphics.)

Marc

[davem]

NKE. Can they not have a new name like the Roman lists did? Something like Early Despotic Egytian, Middle Despotic Egytian, Pharoic Egytian and Cleopatran Egyptian.

Apparantly not

I don't care what you call them so long as we still get battle reports from the famous Pharaoh Ramittuppem. (I may have spelled his name incorrectly; forgive me, I am not that good at translating hieroglyphics.)

Marc

OK, Marc, for you tonight the scribes will recount the heroic deeds of Pharoah Rammetuphem II and his sons Prince Notahope, Haatwishiteon and of course, Prince Imphotent.

[lawrenceg]

NKE. Can they not have a new name like the Roman lists did? Something like Early Despotic Egytian, Middle Despotic Egytian, Pharoic Egytian and Cleopatran Egyptian.

Well, Cleopatran Egyptian is called "Later Ptolemaic"

[philqw78]

Cleopatran Egyptian is called "Later Ptolemaic"

But Cleopatran sounds much more interesting, You'll be telling me that Old Kingdom is still called Old Kingdom next, and Ch'in Chinese is still called Ch'in Chinese instead of The Army of the Sun of God and King of Heaven.

[hazelbark]

Well I have found that massed bow do not have nearly the firepower to stave off enemny troops as they did in other rules. Longbow excepted, but still have issues against large quantity of foot.

Usually once the enmy get to contact the bow are made short work of.

The troop types you really dont want to rush bow with are LH, Small 4 base LF, Average protected Heavy foot. But even these in masses can bollux up the bow.

The bow really needs to have something adjacent to it that can abosrob the charge. And it is a trade off as 6 stand BGs of bow are easier to protect but put out less firepower.

[nikgaukroger]

and Ch'in Chinese is still called Ch'in Chinese

No - it'd be Qin anyway as we're using pinyin, but there is no list called that

[dave_r]

But Cleopatran sounds much more interesting, You'll be telling me that Old Kingdom is still called Old Kingdom next, and Ch'in Chinese is still called Ch'in Chinese instead of The Army of the Sun of God and King of Heaven.

Isn't that what the working title of that particular army lists was called?

It sounds stupid enough to have been considered... What is it? Empire of the Dragon? If they are going to pander to the masses they may well have just called it Mulan.