New Rule

[philqw78]

Being snowed under with the amount of work I have to do today this idea came to me.

The one thing I find a problem with most, if not all rules, I have played is exploiting breakthroughs. You read in battle accounts about how a breakthrough in the enemies line turned the battle as it was exploited by troops moving through the gap created. Or this exploitation being stopped by a reserve. Even with the rear support rules I still do not see a lot of reserve troops on table. This exploitation is very difficult to do even if the enemy has no reserve, even with skirmishers and drilled troops. e.g. Cavalry routs the enemy to its front, pusues once, then takes at least 2 more moves to get back into the battle.

How about double moves for any troops who are not to the front of any unbroken enemy bases within 12MU. (Given that Camps do not have a front)

This means, after stopping pursuit, even undrilled troops get the chance to turn and move back towards the battle quickly, instead of spending an age turning around moving slowly and the battle being over before they get back. It would also encourage the use of reserves to stop this double moving. Armies whose enemies only deploy on one side of the table have a terrible time getting their troops into battle if one BG of skirmishers holds them up, even when they have gone past them. This would help cure that.

[SirGarnet]

Getting pursuers regrouped is supposed to take a while. Turning 90 (and possibly moving) or 180 is not dramatic enough? They can already second move if they have a commander and are far enough from enemy.

[philqw78]

They are rarely going to be 6MU from the BG they have just broken.

An undrilled HF BG could CMT, turn 180, then move with this. Now they could turn 180 if they pass a CMT. Wait. Move. Three (inc enemy) turns for what, with this, can be done in one. Cavlry could turn move and move again, even possibly pinning enemy from behind.

Normal movement IMO is not dramatic enough because troops that have broken through make little difference unless they luckily roll a short pursuit or there are reserves to fight.

[SirGarnet]

I buy into your suggestion for the WW2 version of FoG, but in period the exploitation should not have a pace favored over other actions - things take time and actions should be planned a few turns ahead.

[philqw78]

Its the sort of idea I like until used against me. But it would make deeper formations with use of reserves. But would change game dynamics. Would games then become quicker or slower? Small changes can have big effects.

[petedalby]

Or we could just play with more points? And then we'd have reserves etc.

Pete

[SirGarnet]

In what percentage of the battles we fight would a second line of battle groups be standard practice historically and in what percentage would reserves be likewise?

[recharge]

If I recall

There are numerous examples of the troops that achieved a breakthrough just keeping on until they are completely out of the fight; chasing down stragglers, sacking the camp. etc.

I think it is a little too easy to break off pursuit of routers

John

[ars_belli]

If by "reserves" we mean the intentional deployment of one or more large units held in the rear in order to exploit or fill gaps in the front line, or pick up enemy units who break through, then the practice was not at all typical for ancient and medieval battles. The Roman manipular and cohortal line exchange systems were notable examples of the intentional use of reserves, as was Hannibal's similar three-line deployment at Zama. I can think of very few examples beyond those.

Salve,
Scott

[philqw78]

By reserves I meant foremost to hold the line, if the front line goes. To stop exploitation by the forward troops of others.

[ars_belli]

By reserves I meant to hold the line, if the front line goes. To stop exploitation by the forward troops of others.

Then beyond the few examples I mentioned above (MRR & LRR Romans, and Hannibal at Zama), the use of tactical reserves was quite rare in ancient warfare.

Salve,
Scott

[philqw78]

Granicus, poor quality Persians at the rear
Issus, Persians in 2 lines

for a start

[ars_belli]

Good call, Phil!

So thus far we have MMR & LRR Romans, Hannibal at Zama, and Late Achaemenid Persians. We can add the Principate & Dominate Romans as well. That is still a very small list, comprising some of the most tactically complex armies of the ancient world.

To return to the original topic, IMHO the rules in this area work perfectly well as they stand. Again IMHO, creating a new 'breakthrough' rule would tend to make deployments and tactics in FoG less likely to resemble historical ones, rather than more so.

Mibinamet,
Scott

[hazelbark]

If by "reserves" we mean the intentional deployment of one or more large units held in the rear in order to exploit or fill gaps in the front line, or pick up enemy units who break through, then the practice was not at all typical for ancient and medieval battles. The Roman manipular and cohortal line exchange systems were notable examples of the intentional use of reserves, as was Hannibal's similar three-line deployment at Zama. I can think of very few examples beyond those.

Salve,
Scott

And most of these were local reserves what would be at the sub BG level imho.

[hazelbark]

Also the whole idea of needing this weird break through rule is in my view un-neccesary.

At the 4,000 point Chalons refight at Challenge. We all had reserves in any closely fought sector and just kept chucking the reserves in until there was a whole.

The current rules work just fine IMHO. But more points is always good.

[philqw78]

Also the whole idea of needing this weird break through rule is in my view un-neccesary.

At the 4,000 point Chalons refight at Challenge. We all had reserves in any closely fought sector and just kept chucking the reserves in until there was a whole.

The current rules work just fine IMHO. But more points is always good.

I had no second line.

I was there. I beat up 2 other armies with the Gepids. All my BG fought melee. No BG was less than 10 MU forward at the start. I had no lights. ? .

[hazelbark]

Also the whole idea of needing this weird break through rule is in my view un-neccesary.

At the 4,000 point Chalons refight at Challenge. We all had reserves in any closely fought sector and just kept chucking the reserves in until there was a whole.

The current rules work just fine IMHO. But more points is always good.

I had no second line.

I was there. I beat up 2 other armies with the Gepids. All my BG fought melee. No BG was less than 10 MU forward at the start. I had no lights. ? .

So was I
Since you were winning you didn't need a second line. I had a second line. The command to my right had a second line. Hammy had that reserve cavalry on my left that eventually got to you on my right.

The fact you had no lights was a scenario issue. I wasn't counting those as that would be a third line in the center.

I am not saying that was a perfect example, but another example of it not being needed.

[philqw78]

Good call, Phil!
So thus far we have MMR & LRR Romans, Hannibal at Zama, and Late Achaemenid Persians. We can add the Principate & Dominate Romans as well. That is still a very small list, comprising some of the most tactically complex armies of the ancient world.

Or the most written about.

I only bothered to look at a campaign that was well written, and didn't bother to read to the end. In fact only did the start.

[nikgaukroger]

Good call, Phil!

So thus far we have MMR & LRR Romans, Hannibal at Zama, and Late Achaemenid Persians. We can add the Principate & Dominate Romans as well. That is still a very small list, comprising some of the most tactically complex armies of the ancient world.

All the Byzantine manuals from the Strategikon call for significant reserves, some Arab deployments do as, effectively, do medieval ones of forward, main and rearward divisions when deplyed in that order. IIRC quite afew Chinese doctrines call for multiple lines.

[philqw78]

Since you were winning you didn't need a second line.

But despite what has been said above about only complex armies using them, most did.

The crusaders used their, what is in FoG, Def Sp

The Mongols held their close formed cav back

The English their retainers and squires

the Anglo Saxons, Danes, etc their poorer close formed troops.

Where as in foG these are mostly given a front line role to extend the line. They can't 'support' the better front line troops[/quote]