complex moves - rules inquiry

[stefoid]

Hi , I was wondering what people think of an alternate penalty for failing a complex move test - that is, you still make the move that was ordered, but you suffer a cohesion hit in doing so. Obviously you wouldnt go from fragmented to routed due to manoevering, but I doubt a fragmented BG should be able to attempt a complex move at all.

just intersted in peoples thinking .

[hammy]

Hi , I was wondering what people think of an alternate penalty for failing a complex move test - that is, you still make the move that was ordered, but you suffer a cohesion hit in doing so. Obviously you wouldnt go from fragmented to routed due to manoevering, but I doubt a fragmented BG should be able to attempt a complex move at all.

just intersted in peoples thinking .

Interesting idea but how is a fragmented BG ever going to move unless it starts facing away from the enemy? As things stand you have to make a CMT to make any move other than a simple retirement.

Overall I think it would give drilled troops far to big an advantage.

[nikgaukroger]

There is a lot to be said for this idea and it could be expanded to the CT - when you need to take a CT you could, in appropriate cases, have the option to either take the test with associated risks or under take action X; e.g. test caused by shooting on a LG BG the option may be to take the test or drop back outside enemies shooting range.

There is the potential for some quite sophisticated interactions IMO, but hard to get right without too much complexity.

[stefoid]

Hi , I was wondering what people think of an alternate penalty for failing a complex move test - that is, you still make the move that was ordered, but you suffer a cohesion hit in doing so. Obviously you wouldnt go from fragmented to routed due to manoevering, but I doubt a fragmented BG should be able to attempt a complex move at all.

just intersted in peoples thinking .

Interesting idea but how is a fragmented BG ever going to move unless it starts facing away from the enemy? As things stand you have to make a CMT to make any move other than a simple retirement.

Overall I think it would give drilled troops far to big an advantage.

Maybe a fragmented BG attempting to turn tail that fails the CMT _does_ turn into a rout? (evil laughter)

OK, so give the player the choice - youve failed the CMT: You can still make the move, but take a cohesion hit OR you can do nothing at all. Your choice.

(a fragmented BG doesnt get a choice - if it fails it has to sit tight)

You could say the BG leader is making the choice - the troops obviously arent manouvering well, so he can call it off, or push it through as the tactical situation demands.

[rogerg]

The game would be slowed down a lot while players considered the possible outcomes.
Failure in itself is an adequate penalty. I do not think this offers any improvements.
The problem of chasing skirmishers away would be increased for undrilled troops. A LF BG just inside the maximum move of an enemy BG would have to be charged rather than risk a test to move short.
Battle wagons have a hard enough time already.

I would leave things as they are. The speed issue would be a major problem. Undrilled troops would become worse. They already have enough to deal with.

[philqw78]

I would be happy to go down to disrupted if it put my lancers in a position to intercept charge in a flank. If I don't get the intercept, because enemy passed CMT I still get a chance to bolster before I charge.

[stefoid]

The game would be slowed down a lot while players considered the possible outcomes.
Failure in itself is an adequate penalty. I do not think this offers any improvements.
The problem of chasing skirmishers away would be increased for undrilled troops. A LF BG just inside the maximum move of an enemy BG would have to be charged rather than risk a test to move short.
Battle wagons have a hard enough time already.

I would leave things as they are. The speed issue would be a major problem. Undrilled troops would become worse. They already have enough to deal with.

Youre probably right, but playing devils advocate: the ability to guarentee a complex manouver (at the possible expense of cohesion) might be something that undrilled armies would welcome?

I imagine that it would encourage undrilled troops to try fancy stuff away from the enemy, or when only faced with skirmishers, and encourage them to stick to the simple stuff in close proximity to dangerous foe.

[nikgaukroger]

As mentioned above I think this sort of idea has more mileage as a way of making CT results more sophisticated rather than CMT.

[madaxeman]

This is pretty much the basic rules mechanic in the Impetus ruleset.

[SirGarnet]

This is pretty much the basic rules mechanic in the Impetus ruleset.

The similarity would have been my thought. The combat value system combines losses, morale state, disorder all together in one process and it's a more freewheeling set in terms of maneuver, so it fits the context.

The same idea also fits rules for more modern periods where formations are less rigid in order to depict the tradeoff between speed and cohesiveness - a modern example would be pushing your tanks aggressively in a penetration despite breakdowns, straggling and reduction of control.

I don't think it fits FOG. Different movement speeds and CMT requirements already reflect the degree to which commanders can speed up their troops at the cost of loosening formations and reducing control, right up to the point at which it would compromise combat effectiveness.

[stefoid]

This is pretty much the basic rules mechanic in the Impetus ruleset.

The similarity would have been my thought. The combat value system combines losses, morale state, disorder all together in one process and it's a more freewheeling set in terms of maneuver, so it fits the context.

The same idea also fits rules for more modern periods where formations are less rigid in order to depict the tradeoff between speed and cohesiveness - a modern example would be pushing your tanks aggressively in a penetration despite breakdowns, straggling and reduction of control.

I don't think it fits FOG. Different movement speeds and CMT requirements already reflect the degree to which commanders can speed up their troops at the cost of loosening formations and reducing control, right up to the point at which it would compromise combat effectiveness.

I just looked at Impetus. It lets you move multiple times until the last move makes you disordered, with each successive move being harder to peform (-ve modifioers)

thats pretty interesting because you dont need complex moves, you could just break everything down to sequences of simple moves and let the failure to perform complex moves come out in the wash.

[SirGarnet]

It would make a different game. Like the PIP system, Impetus forced March moves add the ability to accelerate troop movement beyond normal rates (based on a different trade-off in each case). In contrast, in FoG, movement rates are predictable. You know whether that enemy LF will make it to loot the camp before you can intercept, or which side can gain the high ground first. The result is a game where much of good generalship is thinking and planning ahead to bring troops to combat in a favorable way. Changes of planned movements via CMTs are subject to uncertainty, but on the whole you can plan the battle in a way that feels like being an army commander in a set-piece battle.

If you are a turn too slow to recognize something, you are too late and need to think of something else. This adds depth to the game. Thinking ahead this way makes FoG somewhat like chess rather than backgammon in the ability to plan, but the fates take a hand when it comes to combat and cohesion tests. As a general, you can plan to set up a favorable fight, but the result is never totally certain.

With PIPs or forced Marches, and more freewheeling movement rules in general, it is easier to back out of an uncomfortable situation or rely on shrewd use of dice to turn on afterburners and catch you up. This is fun and the fact that troops move variable distances with pulses and lulls represents a valid design philosophy (and a good one for modern manoeuvre warfare, for that matter), but it is a different type of game. Planning still matters, but the expansion of potential futures swamps precise prediction and favors players with experience, intuition and skilled opportunism. Superiority in this aspect of generalship was enhanced by the stark predictability of many combat interactions - meaning combat itself was sometimes an anti-climax rather than the point of high tension.

P.S. Impetus is a good set of rules and that kind of system has its place too - the simplified mini-version is accessible and has been used successfully with enthusiastic responses in mid-grade history classrooms - but I find FoG generalship more interesting and challenging for a full battle.

[babyshark]

It would make a different game. Like the PIP system, Impetus forced March moves add the ability to accelerate troop movement beyond normal rates (based on a different trade-off in each case). In contrast, in FoG, movement rates are predictable. You know whether that enemy LF will make it to loot the camp before you can intercept, or which side can gain the high ground first. The result is a game where much of good generalship is thinking and planning ahead to bring troops to combat in a favorable way. Changes of planned movements via CMTs are subject to uncertainty, but on the whole you can plan the battle in a way that feels like being an army commander in a set-piece battle.

If you are a turn too slow to recognize something, you are too late and need to think of something else. This adds depth to the game. Thinking ahead this way makes FoG somewhat like chess rather than backgammon in the ability to plan, but the fates take a hand when it comes to combat and cohesion tests. As a general, you can plan to set up a favorable fight, but the result is never totally certain.

With PIPs or forced Marches, and more freewheeling movement rules in general, it is easier to back out of an uncomfortable situation or rely on shrewd use of dice to turn on afterburners and catch you up. This is fun and the fact that troops move variable distances with pulses and lulls represents a valid design philosophy (and a good one for modern manoeuvre warfare, for that matter), but it is a different type of game. Planning still matters, but the expansion of potential futures swamps precise prediction and favors players with experience, intuition and skilled opportunism. Superiority in this aspect of generalship was enhanced by the stark predictability of many combat interactions - meaning combat itself was sometimes an anti-climax rather than the point of high tension.

P.S. Impetus is a good set of rules and that kind of system has its place too - the simplified mini-version is accessible and has been used successfully with enthusiastic responses in mid-grade history classrooms - but I find FoG generalship more interesting and challenging for a full battle.

That is a very good analysis of the major differences between FoG and DBM, etc.

Marc

[stefoid]

It would make a different game. Like the PIP system, Impetus forced March moves add the ability to accelerate troop movement beyond normal rates (based on a different trade-off in each case). In contrast, in FoG, movement rates are predictable. You know whether that enemy LF will make it to loot the camp before you can intercept, or which side can gain the high ground first. The result is a game where much of good generalship is thinking and planning ahead to bring troops to combat in a favorable way. Changes of planned movements via CMTs are subject to uncertainty, but on the whole you can plan the battle in a way that feels like being an army commander in a set-piece battle.

If you are a turn too slow to recognize something, you are too late and need to think of something else. This adds depth to the game. Thinking ahead this way makes FoG somewhat like chess rather than backgammon in the ability to plan, but the fates take a hand when it comes to combat and cohesion tests. As a general, you can plan to set up a favorable fight, but the result is never totally certain.

With PIPs or forced Marches, and more freewheeling movement rules in general, it is easier to back out of an uncomfortable situation or rely on shrewd use of dice to turn on afterburners and catch you up. This is fun and the fact that troops move variable distances with pulses and lulls represents a valid design philosophy (and a good one for modern manoeuvre warfare, for that matter), but it is a different type of game. Planning still matters, but the expansion of potential futures swamps precise prediction and favors players with experience, intuition and skilled opportunism. Superiority in this aspect of generalship was enhanced by the stark predictability of many combat interactions - meaning combat itself was sometimes an anti-climax rather than the point of high tension.

P.S. Impetus is a good set of rules and that kind of system has its place too - the simplified mini-version is accessible and has been used successfully with enthusiastic responses in mid-grade history classrooms - but I find FoG generalship more interesting and challenging for a full battle.

I uderstand what youre saying -- Ive never played impetus -- is that the way it plays out? That troops can simply do a whole heap more during one bound than they might otherwise do? If so, how is that different to troops performing a FoG CMT, other than by degree? That degree of variation of movement could be tuned to however you prefer it, I suppose.

I dont have any agenda here, just chewing the fat. Game designers want their games to exhibit rich, complex behaviour, and the best way to achieve this, where possible, is with a small set of simple bounds that produces complex emergent behaviour, rather than a large set of complex bounds that seeks to explicitly define that complex behaviour.

Are their many historical accounts of groups of troops being moving much outside their normal movement paramters?

[stefoid]

Have another related question - why is harder to move less than your nominal distance? More I can see - troops have to hurry. But moving less doesnt mean that they move slower than normal, only that the commander called HALT earlier.

You could then argue that moving the nominal distance implies that the commander didnt have to call HALT, meaning that the movement is continuous from one turn to the next, but then units in the game often dont move at all in the subsequent turn after a full move, so really there was a HALT in there that they are getting for 'free'

I guess the only justificstion I can think of is that it is harder to stop marching so soon after having started?

[SirGarnet]

Have another related question - why is harder to move less than your nominal distance? More I can see - troops have to hurry. But moving less doesnt mean that they move slower than normal, only that the commander called HALT earlier.

You could then argue that moving the nominal distance implies that the commander didnt have to call HALT, meaning that the movement is continuous from one turn to the next, but then units in the game often dont move at all in the subsequent turn after a full move, so really there was a HALT in there that they are getting for 'free'

I guess the only justificstion I can think of is that it is harder to stop marching so soon after having started?

Historically, I think it's that large bodies of irregular troops in motion tend to stay in motion in the direction they are heading.

Practically, it certainly stops undrilled troops being clever about moves and wheels unless they pass CMT or have a commander leading them. This encourages the player to line them up facing where they want to go.

[stefoid]

It would make a different game. Like the PIP system, Impetus forced March moves add the ability to accelerate troop movement beyond normal rates (based on a different trade-off in each case).

You can try to add +2mu to your advances each and every turn if it makes sense to do so - it costs you nothing if it doesnt work. With a little luck on the dice, a BG of legionaires with a general could do a good imitation of cavalry!