Double move thoughts

[deeter]

It mainly has to do with initiative. Usually, the winner has cavalry dominance, so allowing the loser (usually a heavy foot army) to double move first, gives them a chance to grab a chunk of the map. Even experimenting with the beta patch, it seems like that's about the only effect

Double moving ksirmishers deep onto the map will deny double moves to the player moving second and keeping a reserve well behind the lines will be more mobile. That coupled with enhanced FOW should make for some interesting play.

Really, it's nothing to get too upset about. The authors say it is not representing forced marching, just that troops outside of combat range were less restrocted. If the limit double moves to forward arc only and in command only, that would be a great improvement.

Deeter

[Xiggy]

Which is why you take cavalry armies is to move quickly and control the map. This negates that and makes HF armies more mobile. Are they adding bonuses to cavalry armies for initiative? Now it is mostly random, since LH dont seem to give you a bonus. COnsidering the cost of Heavy mounted, are they reducing that to balance their lack of effectiveness?

[deeter]

Although it's not explained in help, if you have lots of mounted, you get a point. If you have lots and lots of mounted, you get 2 points. As for HF, they're usually only going to get one double move before they're too close.

Deeter

[Morbio]

I don't know specifically for FoG but in most other games I have played the rationale for double moves comes from the fact that troops that are not in the vicinity of enemy troops move in much more open marching formations and only close up and order ranks when they are closer to the enemy and need to be ready for combat.

Agreed, if the intent is to simulate double-time marches, I would think that the double-timing troops would lose cohesion. and the fact that they will not lose cohesion in this game seems to indicate that the objective is to speed up game play, for reasons that I don't understand...

I suspect there are 2 differences here, to what degree is debatable.

The 1st is that the cohesion lost through the double time march is subtly different, perhaps less, than the disruption caused by battle.
The 2nd is that the ability for the unit to regain cohesion, i.e. close up and assume the correct attacking or defending formation, is easier away from battle (only being winded and not bloodied).

For these 2 reasons then I suspect the cohesion loss you refer to isn't simulated in the game because it isn't a significant factor in affecting the units ability to fight effectively. If the unit double-timed straight into battle, which my understanding it doesn't, then I'd agree with you.

[76mm]

For these 2 reasons then I suspect the cohesion loss you refer to isn't simulated in the game because it isn't a significant factor in affecting the units ability to fight effectively. If the unit double-timed straight into battle, which my understanding it doesn't, then I'd agree with you.

interesting points, but I am not sure that I agree. a double-timing unit would presumably be either in line or in column; in line, and you'd have a strung-out mess of a formation; in column, and the unit would have to deploy before going into battle. Plus, any double-timing unit would be tired. While this might not be as bad as the effects of combat, I'm not sure if I'd call it insignificant.

[MesaDon]

I guess they didn't have an adrenilin rush when they would have entered battle relieving some of the fatigue. Remember the attempt to get overly realistic with far to much analyzing and overburdeing the game play with detail almost totally destroyed the war gaming gendre (boardgames) back some years ago (Avalon Hill, SPI, for examples). Over detailing ruins the playability and for casual gamers the fun factor. Things like double moves increase the fun factor but to create so many details for it's use you take it away from being fun for most except the fanatic.

The moral of the story is that without the casual gamer (myself and others) the money stops coming in on the expansions, the player pool gets smaller and Slitherine is poorer and ask yourself would they be able to supply this miltiplayer experiance for free?

[Scutarii]

The idea of double move i only find sense to do faster (even more) the games, now find a game over 10 turns is hard and i talk about 500 points armies.

Force march is totally different, is a OPERATIONAL feature not a TACTICAL feature, flank in the battle dont means move units in "column" and double movement, remember that this is ancient warfare and NOT ALL ARMIES can do a force march in the middle of a battle here we can talk about that even barbarians can do Cannae tactic as if they do all the time and even in XVIII and other modern centuries to do a forced march in the middle of a battle needs ROADS and a good screen.

I find that FoG PC evolution is so confusing because they destroy the sense of Drilled units and say that is because isnt historical and now they add this to do games faster, i like a few of casual gaming but not all the time, for me this isnt the way and what is the next??? add a "win now" button??? wargames could be more complex or less complex but they arent a XBOX game, in wargames i search a little more

[gabeeg]

I think people forgetting that the double move is *optional* it is a check box item that, at least in the beta is not even turned on by default. I personally like it, but it I like the idea of needing a commander and maybe some level of disorder...

[kujalar]

I am mostly worried of rigid 5 hex radius globe of slow which even the half dead light infantry hiding behind woods creates around.

Otherwise I think there is a need for some double move. For example cannae style envelopment is not possible without double move. THat move would be executed under the 5 hex distance, and behind the enemy. Otherwise it would take too long to get from left to right behind 60 000+ romans.

I would vote for need of commander, possible cohesion effect, maybe possible distruption or refusing to move when too close to visible enemy etc.

Whatever of double move, just a idea.
Commander could affect movement more. Maybe units could even lose their drilled benefit and if undrilled at the beginning, lose 1 move factory when out of command range...

[TheGrayMouser]

I kinda disagree with the idea that one very large, very unique battle not fitting well with a game mechanic should be the cause of not having the mechanic... Canneae is one of those battles that I think is problematic for any game system. Also, Cannae was not a double envelopement by the Carthos (although the end result looked that way), it was the Romans own fwrd momentum that put them into a salient, pocket, "sack", whatever term you want to use...

I do have reservations about the double move though, but will try it out when the patch comes, and it is optional

[deeter]

I predict that you will like it and use it if it's implemented like on the TT.

Deeter

[MesaDon]

Most players do not go to the forum, which may be why the more casual gamers I play did not even know about the beta. Talking to them they like the ease of playing the game and it really isn't overly complicated. So once again when you start complicating the game is search of ultimate reality you turn off a large part of the community sho just want to have fun without spending an hour just trying to understand every little ramification of their moves. Commanders good ... overly complicating with cohesion rules etc. is to overwhelming when you don't have a lot of time for a turn. Now I buy the expansions but if it quits being fun because it is not a enjoyable deversion after work then I will not bother buying and if enough people do will the multiplayer stay free? I think above all it is a matter of economics.

Whew that was kind of long.

[76mm]

...complicating the game is search of ultimate reality you turn off a large part of the community sho just want to have fun without spending an hour just trying to understand every little ramification of their moves. Commanders good ... overly complicating with cohesion rules etc. is to overwhelming

If you want to keep the game simple, don't include double-moves at all. I actually think that having disruption is much more intuitive than having the player wonder "gee, why can all of my units suddenly move twice as fast if they are a certain distance from the enemy..."

[MesaDon]

...complicating the game is search of ultimate reality you turn off a large part of the community sho just want to have fun without spending an hour just trying to understand every little ramification of their moves. Commanders good ... overly complicating with cohesion rules etc. is to overwhelming

If you want to keep the game simple, don't include double-moves at all. I actually think that having disruption is much more intuitive than having the player wonder "gee, why can all of my units suddenly move twice as fast if they are a certain distance from the enemy..."

Duh I guess we are all so stupid we just sit around with our mouths open wondering at everything.

[76mm]

Duh I guess we are all so stupid we just sit around with our mouths open wondering at everything.

Hey, you're the one who wanted to keep it simple. I just don't see the need for this gamey device, but I'm already tired of talking about it.

[MesaDon]

Duh I guess we are all so stupid we just sit around with our mouths open wondering at everything.

Hey, you're the one who wanted to keep it simple. I just don't see the need for this gamey device, but I'm already tired of talking about it.

Ummm gamey device in a game how oringinal would that be and besides you are the one that got insulting so if you are tired of it why do you continue on. (I asked my mom how to spell these words cause I just don't have the intellegent. )

[76mm]

Ummm gamey device in a game how oringinal would that be and besides you are the one that got insulting so if you are tired of it why do you continue on. (I asked my mom how to spell these words cause I just don't have the intellegent. )

I am tired of talking about it, but would like for you to explain where I "got insulting"?

And yes, gamey devices in historical wargames are generally unwelcome, at least to me. While we're at it, shall we introduce PowerPills to double a units combat attributes? I think it would be fun and it would also speed up the game....

[MesaDon]

...complicating the game is search of ultimate reality you turn off a large part of the community sho just want to have fun without spending an hour just trying to understand every little ramification of their moves. Commanders good ... overly complicating with cohesion rules etc. is to overwhelming

If you want to keep the game simple, don't include double-moves at all. I actually think that having disruption is much more intuitive than having the player wonder "gee, why can all of my units suddenly move twice as fast if they are a certain distance from the enemy..."

The bold part (I added the bold) is an insult to the intelligence of the players. Look at the bright side it is an option and we will never have a game against each other to worry about it. Yawn the whole conversation and responses are boring me, just keeps me busy during summer break. Also the more I post the quicker I can become a Nobleman too.

[76mm]

Talking to them they like the ease of playing the game and it really isn't overly complicated. So once again when you start complicating the game is search of ultimate reality you turn off a large part of the community sho just want to have fun without spending an hour just trying to understand every little ramification of their moves. ?

Your reaction is rather bizarre, given that you are the one that said that players don't want things too complicated; if anything, you have insulted the intelligence of other players.

Anyway, as you point out, since the feature is optional, so I'm not bothered by its inclusion, I just won't use it. I am, however, trying to understand the justification for its inclusion so that I understand where the devs are trying to take the game...

[Scutarii]

The point is if the game is fast now (see games over 10 turns is so strange because usually main line is break after 2 or 3 battle turns) add more speed to the game do it less tactical and more "to fast to furious" but with no great visual effects.

You talk about Cannae... well, in Cannae were romans who enter in the trap, enemy retreat the center under roman presure (in FoG do this is IMPOSSIBLE because units only retreat after melee if they are routed, cant disengage) and with a little advance they trap the romans closing the bag when their cavalry return after routed roman cavalry (here i dont like see roman cavalry in the game evading superior cavalry if you have a bad cavalry your problem but they arent LH and i dont see macedonian cavalry evading cataprhatcs for example).

I know this feature is optional but i dont like see work in "casual" features that arent not necesary (for me break the game taste because you can see now LF flanking and chasing the camps because now they are more importants... i think in play with a rule that prevents this because we can see armies camping in their camp because now you dont lose 2 points you lose more...) FoG have other more important problems and speed isnt one (at least increase it)

PD: as double move other features like a true command chain and features like fatige etc could be optional, if you like play casual play casual but dont force FoG to be another "xbox" game