Slitherine

kraff wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:03 pm Thank you very much for answers.

Another question: just out of curiosity, how many real life meters are covered by in-game square?

The manual (page 119, 29.1 Representational scales) says:

Battlefield ground scales are based on maximum effective massed-firing bow
ranges when the standard representational scale is used. Thus 4 squares
represent approximately 240 paces, and each man in a close order formation
occupies a frontage of approximately one pace.


So one square represents then 60 "paces". And then we face the problem of what one pace equals in metres.

What I've found is the following: "pace = A traditional unit of length equal to 1.5 metres", which is consistent with the Roman pace (passus).

=> one square represents 90 metres roughly.

kraff wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:03 pm Thank you very much for answers.

Another question: just out of curiosity, how many real life meters are covered by in-game square?

It isn't based on the Roman pace but the modern pace.

It is based on 0.25 infantry bowshots.

Thank you very much. Somehow I completely missed the relevant manual section, though I was looking through 29.3.

Is this right ?
If I select the subgeneral (yellow) I get his 4 attached units highlighted.
If I select the CinC (green) I also get the sub general and his 4 units highlighted.

tyronec wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:55 pm Is this right ?
If I select the subgeneral (yellow) I get his 4 attached units highlighted.
If I select the CinC (green) I also get the sub general and his 4 units highlighted.Y01.jpg

Your C-in-C happens to be within the same command as the SG, I believe. Happens sometimes, when shifting around commands among units. Can't tell straight up how to fix. Anyone?

I think it's working as designed; your CiC can freely shift between commands, so whatever command he happens to be attached to will be highlighted if you select such a unit.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 7:47 am 1. It is actually calculated from the "UnitSize" after randomised adjustment at the start of the game. This is equivalent to calculating it from the actual total number of men of the unit at the start of the game.

2. However, in the case of very large (deep) units only the first (front) 900 "UnitSize" is taken into account.

The post above admittedly concerns P&S, but the questions are interesting with respect to FoG2 as well, so...:

1. Does it apply the unit's size at the start of the game for FoG2 too? My experience indicates that it's the current size (i.e., at the start of the turn) instead, but I may be wrong.

2. Is this applicable to very large (deep) units in FoG2 (such as Pikes) too? Thus, maximum 480-ish unit size?

kronenblatt wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:43 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 7:47 am 1. It is actually calculated from the "UnitSize" after randomised adjustment at the start of the game. This is equivalent to calculating it from the actual total number of men of the unit at the start of the game.

2. However, in the case of very large (deep) units only the first (front) 900 "UnitSize" is taken into account.

The post above admittedly concerns P&S, but the questions are interesting with respect to FoG2 as well, so...:

1. Does it apply the unit's size at the start of the game for FoG2 too?

Depending on what "it" is, it is calculated the same way in FOG2 as in P&S.

2. Is this applicable to very large (deep) units in FoG2 (such as Pikes) too? Thus, maximum 480-ish unit size?

Yes

Hi Richard,
not sure this is the right place to ask this Q, or that all the budding Alexander's who play this great game will agree with me, but here goes.

Are pikes in square too effective and should they be nerfed?

The POA factors may be correct and perhaps you could explain that a little please?

It seems that if a pike block gets outflanked it doesn't face that much of a penalty if its opponent attack it whilst in square.
In my experience they quite often win, or take an absolute age to whittle down, reducing two or more opposing units in the process.
Take any two MI or HI units hitting the pikes, they are each now facing a quarter of the pike unit and only a quarter of the long sticky out things. Not quite the hedge it was before the formation change.
That seems far more promising than facing the lot to the pike units front.
In square its got to have been hard to move, or fall-back, doubly hard with a big pike in your hands.

I know its a game and not a historical simulation, but it doesn't feel quite right that pikes have this ability without too much of a down side.

Again I appreciate we have to have a limit on the level of complexity, but why only pikes?

I'm absolutely certain that just about every Roman infantry unit could face in two directions at once, to avoid being charged in its rear, or could quickly refuse a flank.
When I was taught close order drill, after marching in a straight line, the next thing I was taught was how to about face.
It's a basic manoeuvre allowing 'The Johnny' in charge to face the Red Coats in two directions at once and fire in both.
Roman Centurians probably taught drill in exactly the same order and for exactly the same reason.

I'm not suggesting we consider allowing similar rules for any other unit types, but to restore some historic balance is there a case for nerfing pikes in square a bit?

Fabulous game, really looking forward to Medieval.
Great job.
Regards Stew.

Stew101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:15 am Are pikes in square too effective and should they be nerfed?

No. If they were nerfed it wouldn't be a viable option at all, so there wouldn't be much point in it.

In square its got to have been hard to move, or fall-back, doubly hard with a big pike in your hands.

It is. Squares can only move 1 square, cannot charge, and exert no ZOC. That is a big downside. Once in square the enemy can effectively ignore them until they come out of square.

Again I appreciate we have to have a limit on the level of complexity, but why only pikes?

We feel that even though the "Orb" formation did exist, it would be less effective for smaller units, so have not chosen to represent it in the game. We have historical evidence of Pikes actually forming square in a major battle (Seleucids at Magnesia), and the Romans felt unable to attack the formation until the elephants in the intervals ran amok from missiles. If pike squares were nerfed in any way, the Romans could have just rolled over them.

Cheers appreciate the quick response.
Will carry on having to knock them over other ways.

Disordering terrain question: when a unit in good going charge a unit in a terrain that disorder the attacker, it's disordered. this is only during a charge o carries on in the melee?

es. A heavy cavalry in good going charge a light javellin inf in a difficult river. the cavalry get disordered during the charge. Does it stays disordered during the melee?

Conteshard wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:23 am Disordering terrain question: when a unit in good going charge a unit in a terrain that disorder the attacker, it's disordered. this is only during a charge o carries on in the melee?

es. A heavy cavalry in good going charge a light javellin inf in a difficult river. the cavalry get disordered during the charge. Does it stays disordered during the melee?

Yes

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:46 am

Conteshard wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:23 am Disordering terrain question: when a unit in good going charge a unit in a terrain that disorder the attacker, it's disordered. this is only during a charge o carries on in the melee?

es. A heavy cavalry in good going charge a light javellin inf in a difficult river. the cavalry get disordered during the charge. Does it stays disordered during the melee?

Yes

I asked because in the last battle the cavalry appeared not disordered in melee; I'll watch more carefully, thanks

Conteshard wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:08 am I asked because in the last battle the cavalry appeared not disordered in melee; I'll watch more carefully, thanks

Possibly the cavalry were disrupted, and if you are disrupted or fragmented then there is not an additional deduction for disorder, since loss of cohesion means you are already disordered. Anyway, I have noticed that cavalry don't suffer too badly in difficult terrain when fighting lightly armed troops in melee since they usually have a superiority in quality and weaponry e.g. armoured superior cavalry fighting with swords against light infantry with no weapon or armour. You can view my video about terrain here: https://youtu.be/QtZMhS5Wnk0?t=55

I had one incident where a pursuing cavalry unit of mine hits a Phalanx unit of Mark's in the rear and disrupts it. Equallish in combat and then I break off? Isn't it better for me to stick and fight? I had an armoured lancer fighting it to the front with a Thureophoroi unit fighting the lancer in the rear.

Also an armoured lancer, charges and disrupts a Thureophoroi unit but breaks off. Mark had another Thureophoroi unit nearby, that could charge and it would be in rough going but I have seen that a few times now when cavalry break off after disrupting a unit? Why, especially when they have an advantage in combat?

Similarly LH breaking off from LF having disrupted them?

For the latter 2, I am wondering if it is to do with a proximity test. The lancer had a Thureophoroi nearby that could charge it. The LH had an enemy phalanx and Xystophoroi nearby but neither could charge him.

Also some units stick, even though they haven't disrupted the enemy unit and will now be charged in flank and or rear?

Wait till you see what happens to the knights under the medieval rule, it is so frustrating not to be able to hit the front and flank in the same turn because even the flank unit breaks off!!!

Vakarr. Yep seen that it happens in FOG II as well

But when those lancers bounced, they were set up for another rear charge which would drop the pikes another level -- much better than remaining in contact.

Deeter

They were cav lt spear, bow* superiors protected BUT they were pinned so couldn't. The unit that pinned them could only do so if thy had broken off. If they had remained in contact it couldn't have done anything as I had another unit nearby to stop him.