Diagonal move

[fogman]

Can someone explain why this is permitted?

move 2.png (588.38 KiB) Viewed 1882 times

[SnuggleBunnies]

Can someone explain why this is permitted?

Why wouldn't it be?

[fogman]

Because it is downright odd that two friendly units forming a battle line can let through hundred of men between them, passing through their frontal zone of control .

[SnuggleBunnies]

Because it is downright odd that two friendly units forming a battle line can let through hundred of men between them, passing through their frontal zone of control .

Units in melee don't exert a zoc. In reality you'd need a unit in that square to form a 'solid battle line,' otherwise people would always be better off maneuvering to the diagonal to artificially lengthen their line. There are tradeoffs in squares vs hex, the visual abstraction here is one of them.

[fogman]

"otherwise people would always be better off maneuvering to the diagonal to artificially lengthen their line.."

I think that people should be allowed to do that. If a unit normally fights 9 deep, why can't it deploy 6 deep to lengthen the line? Which is quite natural rather than 'artificial'. Besides, having two units deploy diagonally side by side also means they can be attacked by more enemy units, which reflects the diluting of their fighting power.

Keeping the ZOC while engaged solves many issues. The game already recognizes only front ranks actually fight. It will keep the battle line intact much longer without all the crazy penetrations due to pushbacks and such. (and people angling some units just behind the line to catch a protruding enemy). My biggest gripe is how everything quickly degenerates into an aerial dogfight.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think that people should be allowed to do that. If a unit normally fights 9 deep, why can't it deploy 6 deep to lengthen the line? Which is quite natural rather than 'artificial'. Besides, having two units deploy diagonally side by side also means they can be attacked by more enemy units, which reflects the diluting of their fighting power.

That's a can of worms that really shouldn't be opened. For one thing, some armies were capable of that sort of change in deployment mid battle, most were not - how would you distinguish between them? For another, using that logic, shouldn't we be able to split all units into half size to cover two squares? How would you balance something like that?

[fogman]

Who said anything about breaking up units? It's simply to allow units to retain zoc when engaged in melees. That's how it is in FoG 1 and I don't recall anyone complaining about that. Right now, units in melees behave like pike blocks from later periods, allowing enemy units to flow around them, and penetrate the line. It's just wrong on many levels.

I may add that no ancient or medieval units have a doctrinal frontage. They can shorten or lengthen them depending on circumstances.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I may add that no ancient or medieval units have a doctrinal frontage. They can shorten or lengthen them depending on circumstances.

Not quickly or easily though.

So you're saying that the units should keep their secondary ZOCs while in melee? Wouldn't that just lead to players stretching out their lines with a two square gap between each unit in an attempt to outflank the enemy, as they can be assured that their central units can hold despite the gaps?

[fogman]

Stretching out the line will make the line more vulnerable. Ever heard of Schwerpunkt?

Since both players can stretch the line, it opens up interesting tactical decisions that are highly realistic: "should I match the enemy line length or concentrate on breaking its centre?" One should remember that even though the game is made up of distinct units, they are not distinct but normally form an uninterrupted line. ZOCs, since the early days of boardgame wargame, are meant to mitigate the effects of breaking up an army into game units, and prevent the kind of penetration we see in this game.

Being able to stretch the line is more realistic than allowing enemy units to walk through gaps unimpeded.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Stretching out the line will make the line more vulnerable to penetration, not less. Ever heard of Schwerpunkt?
Being able to stretch the line is more realistic than allowing enemy units to walk through gaps unimpeded.

If secondary zocs remained despite engagement, a stretched line would be far, far stronger than it is now

[fogman]

We'll agree to disagree, on this and many other things.

[gribol]

Since both players can stretch the line, it opens up interesting tactical decisions that are highly realistic:

Being able to stretch the line is more realistic than allowing enemy units to walk through gaps unimpeded.

1. At this moment game is very interesting and realistic.
2. Every single army, especially before P&S units, was very carefully regarding to not stchetching the line too much, because it can be extremly vulnerable to break and not stretching prevent to arise a gaps in the line.

[fogman]

The game is ludic but it's not realistic in the way battles unfold.
A realistic game wouldn't be a commercial success.

[gribol]

The game is ludic but it's not realistic in the way battles unfold.
A realistic game wouldn't be a commercial success.

It has a pretty good balance between playability and realism.

[fogman]

It depends on the kind of realism that is important to you. If you're interested in how some obscure 10th century Bohemian unit stack up against some other obscure Almohad unit in the essentially rock/paper/scissor combat system, yes. (Not that we actually know)

What the game has going for it is the lack of competition; you can discount the 12 year old FoG 1 which I still use for my purposes.
Don't get me wrong, I like it and gladly threw money at it, but I'm not blind to the serious flaws.

[gribol]

I think we all understand, that this is just a funny game of painted lead soldiers, for big boys ...

[fogman]

I think we all understand, that this is just a funny game of painted lead soldiers, for big boys ...

fun game, not funny game.