Slitherine

Examinondas wrote:Paisley has already provided enough information about infantry break-offs

Actually and with respect Paisley has not.
In a very reasoned set of e-mails He has given us his interpretation of Goldsworthy's view in his book "Roman Warfare" and agrees himself that the point can be argued either way.

I do argue the other way, disagreeing with Paisley's interpretation of Goldsworthy and quote Goldsworthy to do so.

Goldsworthy on the triplex acies page 60 Cassell reprint 2003 ISBN 0-304-36265-4

"Ideally the Hastati fought the main enemy line to a standstill, their discipline and the leadership of their centurions keeping them in contact with the enemy. ...... Then the princepes advanced into the combat zone, their freshness and enthusiasm urging the whole Roman line to advance...... The skill of the Roman commander lay in committing his second and third lines at the right time. Too soon and the value of adding a fresh contingent of troops to combat might be lost. It was exceptionally rare for the Romans to withdraw an entire line and replace it with one from behind. Usually the troops in the rear lines were fed into combat to support the troops already engaged"


This passage supports the counter opinion that other than at the level of very small sub-units withdrawal in an orderly manner from close combat was not usually practicable, and not usually done, even for the triple acies and manipular legion.

I also think that debate about withdrawal from actual shield to shield combat is different to the accounts of orderly withdrawal from combat in a broader sense which is arguably what Appian and Caesar describe.

This of course is subjective opinion worth no more or less than anyone else’s.

The salient point is this the counter argument supports the idea that the game system benefits from 'no withdrawal' from contact for infantry and that the developers have got it, relatively, more historically correct in applying this concept.
I absolutely agree with Paisley’s suggestion that doing otherwise, on this scale, would be open to abuse and outside the level of abstraction necessary given the unit sizes.

I tend to agree, except the very nature of the scale dictates that some large scale pauses between units in combat would happen. In effect they can't be fighting for the whole time they're engaged so replacement would be possible. Troops were relieved when in close contact as well as reinforced during actual fighting.

But I think at some point, something has to be abstracted. And at the moment it's the withdrawal of units. And that's probably for the best.

I do think in prnciple units should be able to be pushed back sometimes as opposed to just straight routing, but the hex grid already creates 'ganging up' situations between continuous lines and so I suspect if a unit is pushed back, that'd be to its advantage quite often as the attacking unit would then potentially be exposed on more sides.

Warning: the following post is rather off-topic and pointless, so better don't waste time reading it!

Triarius wrote:

Examinondas wrote:Paisley has already provided enough information about infantry break-offs

Actually and with respect Paisley has not.
In a very reasoned set of e-mails He has given us his interpretation of Goldsworthy's view in his book "Roman Warfare" and agrees himself that the point can be argued either way.

That is what I understand by "providing information" I did not say that Paisley had enlightened us with the definitive truth

I agree that all this information (the one provided by you, Paisley and even Goldsworthy) includes subjective opinions and interpretations of the scarce historical facts available. And that's why I mentioned that it is a pity that it is not possible to modify the rules of a PC game to suit each one tastes And that's also why I think it is great to be able to have this kind of debates.

All that said, I was just trying to direct Polkovnik to Paisley's posts and maybe didn't choose the right words

The assumption is that all these things are abstracted in to the current system. FoG tries to replicate the 90% situations and ignors the extremes. It looks at combat at the macro level. This means the rules can be simplified and it is easier to avoid odd special rules unbalancing the game. Other rules tend to go in to much detial on these points and you end up with things like Aztecs in WRG 7th edition who were unbelievably good because of the combination of weapons and movement options. Something that would never have been seen in advance from the way the rules were written. The aim in FoG is to have realistic results without worrying about the details as modelling them realistically is almost impossible.

Aye. Often the more you add, the more exploitation of the rules becomes available.

At the moment I think it's a great sort of free-wheeling game. It doesn't have the right kind of feel when you get down to unit level in some instances, and often the battles become wide-open - total fragmenting (in the sense of no real line of battle existing any more) of the lines well before either side routs. But, overall, you get the sense of having shattered the enemy centre, or enveloped his flanks, even if the actual way it's done isn't terribly realistic.I really like it.

A layer of command-control, maybe similar to what WRG had with 'orders' for each general would be nice, but again, it'd very possibly slow things down too much, or become fiddly. Speed of play and flavour is what this game has in cartloads.

The list of armies in the expansion also includes around a half dozen of the armies that are already present in FoG. Presumably the remainder of the other armies already present, such as Ancient British and Caledonian, will also be able to utilise the Army builder and random battle generator?

Also, will existing scenarios be able to utilise the new LoS feature? And how is that shaping up - any indication of the direction that it is taking?

Looking at a copy of the TT rules (someone else's) I have seen reference to two features which look interesting and I wonder why they were left out/altered for the PC version and whether or not they may ever be incorporated; Cavalry interception and individual Leaders?

There are no armies in FoG yet, only scenarios. So while a scenario may use some troops from an army it is not an entire army. The other armies will be in later army books.

LOS will be applies to all existing scenarios.

Interception charges are on the wish list but a bit fiddly to feedback so never quite made it in. Generals again we decided to avoid the fiddly UI of generals joining & leaving units and having to explain why you can move through them etc etc. It just makes the UI much cleaner and that makes the game more playable and more fun.

iainmcneil wrote:Interception charges are on the wish list but a bit fiddly to feedback so never quite made it in. Generals again we decided to avoid the fiddly UI of generals joining & leaving units and having to explain why you can move through them etc etc. It just makes the UI much cleaner and that makes the game more playable and more fun.

Both wise simplifying decisions given the PBEM turn structure. If the AI decides on intercepts when a player charges, there is too much scope for intercept-trapping an opponent against his will.

Add an retreat option is interesting change troops in the line can prevent that worst troops fight to the break point and if are a support rule for units in contact with the same enemy why not a similar rule for units that have behind a friendly unit???

Another question is add to the units list units with less soldiers 500 in infantry, 250 for light and cavalry... all the same that big units but with less troops, a good option to play in multiplayer tactical battles with less than 10.000 soldiers.

iainmcneil wrote:There are no armies in FoG yet, only scenarios. So while a scenario may use some troops from an army it is not an entire army. The other armies will be in later army books.

Oh, OK but not immediately obvious to non TT players like myself. I took the list of 'Armies' in FoG to be just that,; complete armies.

LOS will be applies to all existing scenarios.

Excellent! To reiterate; any word as to whether this will be absolute or relatively based?

Interception charges are on the wish list but a bit fiddly to feedback so never quite made it in. Generals again we decided to avoid the fiddly UI of generals joining & leaving units and having to explain why you can move through them etc etc. It just makes the UI much cleaner and that makes the game more playable and more fun.

Hmm, no disrespect but those are elements of the TT which, presumably, is also deemed to be 'playable' and 'fun'. I appreciate that the PC is a different medium and that they may complicate the PBEM process but what about solo play? Could these not be programmed-in as options, ala LOS, so that players can choose. They would also bring thr PC and TT versions closer together, which seems to be a strong requirement and goal to Slitherine?

Having said all that; brilliant game and having great fun with it.

Bugger! can't get the quote thing quite right.

We will not be making any features single or multiplayer only - it would be a mess logistically/technically

A further question on LOS.

Currently the 'camera' shifts to follow the movement of enemy troops wherever they are on the battlefield. In the new update will the view still shift to the place where 'invisible' enemy troops are moving, as this might be a bit of a giveaway - though of course such clues about the presence of the enemy might simulate clouds of dust disturbed wildlife etc.