Slitherine

Ranimiro wrote:I don´t think there is an avalanche neither trolling. There have been several discussions about particular topics with more or less foundations maybe, and many about ideas to give some edge to the lower quality infantry to be more attractive. Either way i think that is unfair to say that people that like FoG enough to play it and share their thoughts about it, is trolling.

To the extent that there's very lilttle discussion on other parts of the Ancients & Medieval forum, I do think it's an avalanche. Yesterday, I think there were a couple of posts on varnish and 15mm Vikings on the English part of the forum plus a few more on the French and Italian areas of the forum, but the rest of the discussion is all here in FoG 2.0. Unfortunately, as discussion on what people think is wrong and needs changing is by nature a "negative" or "the glass is half empty" discussion; and, right now, on other parts of the forum we don't have 'positive" or "the glass is half full" discussions. For me that's what I mean by an "avalanche" - i.e., a large shift in discussion away from other topic areas.

Nikgaukroger said he's suspicious of trolling. I understand his feelings about it since he's been very involved with FoG. When people have been very involved in something they are going to feel sensitive to a lot of suggestions about what's wrong with it. That's very understandable, but that's also why we have to learn not to take ourselves to seriously nor become too identified with what we have made. However, you're right, one should not ascribe intention or motive without evidence.

shadowdragon wrote:

Ranimiro wrote:I don´t think there is an avalanche neither trolling. There have been several discussions about particular topics with more or less foundations maybe, and many about ideas to give some edge to the lower quality infantry to be more attractive. Either way i think that is unfair to say that people that like FoG enough to play it and share their thoughts about it, is trolling.

To the extent that there's very lilttle discussion on other parts of the Ancients & Medieval forum, I do think it's an avalanche. Yesterday, I think there were a couple of posts on varnish and 15mm Vikings on the English part of the forum plus a few more on the French and Italian areas of the forum, but the rest of the discussion is all here in FoG 2.0. Unfortunately, as discussion on what people think is wrong and needs changing is by nature a "negative" or "the glass is half empty" discussion; and, right now, on other parts of the forum we don't have 'positive" or "the glass is half full" discussions. For me that's what I mean by an "avalanche" - i.e., a large shift in discussion away from other topic areas.

Nikgaukroger said he's suspicious of trolling. I understand his feelings about it since he's been very involved with FoG. When people have been very involved in something they are going to feel sensitive to a lot of suggestions about what's wrong with it. That's very understandable, but that's also why we have to learn not to take ourselves to seriously nor become too identified with what we have made. However, you're right, one should not ascribe intention or motive without evidence.

Very wise words from the Hades with rights to pool, certainly.

Whilst I don't think people are trolling exactly, there are some people (well one anyway I can think of immediately) who are making so many posts about what they think is wrong with the game, that you wonder if they actually like playing the game at all !

Polkovnik wrote:Whilst I don't think people are trolling exactly, there are some people (well one anyway I can think of immediately) who are making so many posts about what they think is wrong with the game, that you wonder if they actually like playing the game at all !

I think this is unfair and I actually don't think many, if any, are actually "trolling" in the traditional sense of the word.

Rather, there are a number of people who have X amount of energy and time they like to devote to talking and thinking about FoG. The most interesting discussions on the board at the moment are IMO about FoG 2.0 so that gets most of the attention atm.

Imagine in a few weeks/months/whatever whent he authors post the changes people will grouse for a couple of days then they will start discussing how the changes impact the game, what armies now look better, what worse, what they might try to do next, etc.

ethan wrote:I think this is unfair and I actually don't think many, if any, are actually "trolling" in the traditional sense of the word.

Rather, there are a number of people who have X amount of energy and time they like to devote to talking and thinking about FoG. The most interesting discussions on the board at the moment are IMO about FoG 2.0 so that gets most of the attention atm.

Imagine in a few weeks/months/whatever whent he authors post the changes people will grouse for a couple of days then they will start discussing how the changes impact the game, what armies now look better, what worse, what they might try to do next, etc.

I think that's very true, ethan.

As Graham (I think it was Graham) said above, the authors probably already know what areas are of concern and what changes they'll make. If you have FoGR, then you'll have some ideas - examples of changes in FoGR are reduced movement rate for light horse, improved (but more complex) support rule, limit of 90 degrees for wheeling, plus I'm sure others I didn't pick up because I've yet to play a game of FoGR. We've also had a snippet here and there such as a -2 to CT for losing an impact phase close combat to undrilled impact foot. I also like the use of commanders to move divisions where the BG are separated but I don't think we'll see that for FoGAM since it's the wrong look-and-feel. So, we're probably in the pre-grouse stage - so people should feel free to pre-grouse away.

ethan wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:Whilst I don't think people are trolling exactly, there are some people (well one anyway I can think of immediately) who are making so many posts about what they think is wrong with the game, that you wonder if they actually like playing the game at all !

I think this is unfair and I actually don't think many, if any, are actually "trolling" in the traditional sense of the word.

Which is just what I said. So what is unfair ? The one person I was talking about has started way more threads than anyone else on the FOG 2.0 section of the forum, and has not made a single post on any other section of the forum. So all he has done on here is say what he thinks is wrong with the game. So it doesn't seem like he actually likes it very much !

Shadowdragon

One small point. You state 'I also like the use of commanders to move divisions where the BG are separated but I don't think we'll see that for FoGAM since it's the wrong look-and-feel'. Try it with manipular Roman. It enables you to simulate the checkerboard formation (can't remember the Latin). Agree does not work for lots of others but might be worth allowing for Pre-Marian Roman if nothing else.

timmy1 wrote:Shadowdragon

One small point. You state 'I also like the use of commanders to move divisions where the BG are separated but I don't think we'll see that for FoGAM since it's the wrong look-and-feel'. Try it with manipular Roman. It enables you to simulate the checkerboard formation (can't remember the Latin). Agree does not work for lots of others but might be worth allowing for Pre-Marian Roman if nothing else.

A good point.

I also wonder if the multi-10,000 troops moving together as one (quick / double-moving mass) is more to satisfy our modern notions of what the battlefield looked like rather than reality. Certainly from latter wars, we know that there was an speed / maneouvre advantage to moving as a "division of BG" rather than one large mass of BG. If you've got 20K of hoplites in a solid line moving towards each other, relative speeds would be the same, but that wouldn't be so if one side operated in "divisions of BG" like the Romans. Also, if I recall correctly from descriptions of the Battle of Gaugamela, I think Alexander's pikes operated in something more like a "division of BG" than on solid line of 30K pikes. I don't have a primary source but here's a map from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battl ... cisive.gif

If you've got two opposing lines of hoplites in a solid line, then the relative speeds are the same, but if one side operates in a more flexilbe arrangement, such as the checkerboard, then there might be an argument for a rule that you get a greater move (e.g., a 3rd move if your army is allowed to operate in a "division of BG"). Such a "division of BG" would also have advantages in terms of being a supporting line or reserve. However, I would think only a few A&M armies should be allowed to do that so it's probably not worth the effort expect for cases like a pre-Marian Roman army.

Arrian (don't have it to hand now - it is in the loft) certainly talks about one of the Taxis drifting and a gap opening that the Persians exploit. I also think that long lines of Hoplites would have HAD to be seperate as they did not AFAIK utilise cadance marching. Even with it, 7YW Prussian Grenadiers had to be stopped to dress the line. With something like Hoplites where you depend upon the shock of impact (wish I could remember my Greek, is the word Ephodos?) I suspect that they were not always deployed sholder to sholder right across the line, certainly at Second Plataea they were not.

Victor David Hanson in Wars of the Ancient Greeks shows the formations with gaps between the Taxis that are not there in the earlier illustrations in the same book.

timmy1 wrote:Arrian (don't have it to hand now - it is in the loft) certainly talks about one of the Taxis drifting and a gap opening that the Persians exploit. I also think that long lines of Hoplites would have HAD to be seperate as they did not AFAIK utilise cadance marching. Even with it, 7YW Prussian Grenadiers had to be stopped to dress the line. With something like Hoplites where you depend upon the shock of impact (wish I could remember my Greek, is the word Ephodos?) I suspect that they were not always deployed sholder to sholder right across the line, certainly at Second Plataea they were not.

Victor David Hanson in Wars of the Ancient Greeks shows the formations with gaps between the Taxis that are not there in the earlier illustrations in the same book.

Just musing now...but I don't think there's a miniatures rules set out there that really captures the challenge of moving tens of thousands of troops coherently on the battlefield. One of the limitations of FoG is that every BG gets to move coherently according to plan (presuming the player has a plan), so we get the "Benny Hill" end game. DBM sort of had a good idea, but once battle was joined, that was pretty much it except for moving a base here and there.

I'd think...based on battles from ancient times through to pre-World War I, that:

1) The best for speed, manoeuvreability and coherence would be the FoGR "division of BG" with the BG well separated to avoid collisions, need for dressing the liens, etc. and with a commander in command range. Second moves for outside 6MU of the enemy, but would still be needed for moving multiple BG within 6 MU.

2) The FoGAM, block of contiguous BG with an attached commander would be good for moving lots of troops coherenly but probably shouldn't have the speed / maneouvreability of 1. Second moves outside 6 MU, but still used for moving multiple BG within 6 MU.

3) Moving individual BG willy-nilly should probably be quite limited. All those BG commanders aren't in radio comms with HQ. Probably these BG would have only limited options as most moves would fall under 1 or 2. It would make FC more useful.

Not really suggesting any rule changes - just musing.

Well, this certainly looks like trolling ;p. I am kidding. Just that I do not think there is nothing wrong with movement in FoG.

Ranimiro wrote:Well, this certainly looks like trolling ;p. I am kidding. Just that I do not think there is nothing wrong with movement in FoG.

No fooling around with POA or -1 to the CT. It's straight to mucking about with "time and space".

Seriously, if you change a basic concept like movement you're really writing a different rule set.

I think when you choose to model any historical game you have to pick what aspects you want to do.

Games that try and do everythign often collapse under their own weight.

Sam Mustafa does very inventive games for napoleonics. One Grande Armee allows you to fight and make big decisions like and army commander in an acceptable amount of time. So formations are largely irrelevant as those were not made at the commander level. He has a different set of rule LaSalle for a more Corps type commander. I find his design decisions very thoughtful. Don't try and be Napoleon and a battalion commander.

So in FoG:AM they decided to do less about the command and control. I think part of that was the DBx model really had a simple command and cotnrol system PIPS and they wanted to think anew.

So you pick your poison. I am fine with their decision.

shadowdragon wrote: Seriously, if you change a basic concept like movement you're really writing a different rule set.

Effectively any change in this regard is basically conceiving a new game. I wonder if moving BG without necessarily being in contact to contact (provided they are in command range) would be a major switch though. For example, I have thought about deploying my phalanx in echelon with the last base of a pikes BK in contact with the first base of the following. Is that a legal way of moving a BG in echelon? (a rules doubt I just had )

PS (off-topic): by the way, it is interesting Polybius description of the battle of Ipsos and how he mentions that marching with a formed phalanx disordered the ranks and might make appear gaps in the line.

Strategos69 wrote:For example, I have thought about deploying my phalanx in echelon with the last base of a pikes BK in contact with the first base of the following. Is that a legal way of moving a BG in echelon? (a rules doubt I just had )

That would be a legal BG. Any side edge to side edge or front edge to rear edge contact is OK for the BGs to be a Battle Line.

Polkovnik wrote:

Strategos69 wrote:For example, I have thought about deploying my phalanx in echelon with the last base of a pikes BK in contact with the first base of the following. Is that a legal way of moving a BG in echelon? (a rules doubt I just had )

That would be a legal BG. Any side edge to side edge or front edge to rear edge contact is OK for the BGs to be a Battle Line.

Yes, legal...but, more importantly, let us know how it works out for you.