Slitherine

Interesting thread with some good ideas, although I would not like to see anything like them replace the current open battle type. 76mm had a good question when he asked how many are affected by so called turtling/hiding in corners or terrain features, and I am of the opinion, somewhat few. The phenomenom appears to be in long standing type situations where the concern for posterity, rank, and future positioning (or world conquest as the case may be) take precedence over the spirit of the “open battle” ie the Digital League and or long term campaigns. (both of which whose players tend to be a small yet vocal crowd.)

So thinking aloud on how to solve the “issue” is too think about what likely things ancient would do and more importantly what they would they not do…

How did ancient armies deploy? They appear to have deployed pretty darn close to each other first off.
The 12 grids separation in medium battles could be overly generous…

It seems there was not too much, if any interference, when they deployed in such close proximity. Strange, yet it seems battle was so risky it was deemed better to deploy, allow your opponent to deploy and then take stock of whether it was worth initiating an engagement or too simply wait til tomorrow..) Again, this seems to be the spirit of an open battle, and to radically depart from your deployment area by racing to terrain behind you or to the extreme right or left seem very artificial. So too deploying at the very rear of the current , very deep zone. Ie the edge of the world…

Also, I don’t believe this happened often or at all, was for an entire cavalry wing to manuever obliquely on the outset of a battle to achieve the unending quest of outflanking the opponent.. Every player starts his first few turns doing this (sometimes with infantry too) , terrain concerns aside . I have never read of accounts of battles where that happened with cavalry to the degree it happens in game.
BTW I’m not talking about an oblique approach by an entire army to slam into the end of your enemies left, with a fortified ( ie deeper ) right.

I don’t think this or many games really show the significant frontage that large amounts of cavalry had. My gut says a cavalry unit in game would likely have 4 times the frontage of the average 480 man infantry unit. As such it was just too unwieldy as a mass, and like a long line of cars at a red light that turns green, the delay from when the far right troop first peals off for its “diagonal march” and the far left starts its own, would be extreme, and make the entire cavalry wing exposed to the enemy that just charges straight at it. It would impossible to change this without radically altering the game ( and massively increasing the unit count) but possibly it could be mitigated as below.

Anyways, bottom line is in open standard battles, deployment was pretty darn close and you basically maneuvered straight ahead, a flank or rear attack situation would develop by a deployment overlap(achieved because of greater #’s or thinner formations, or by defeating the opposing force and opening a gap). It was not generally achieved by extreme maneuvering

Below is a hastily assembled “solution”, not meant to replace current open battles but as an alternative for MP, call it “open restricted battle”. For it to work it would, methinks need to be taken as a whole and not in partial measures. So:

In current medium battles the deployment area appears to be 10 grids deep. The front lines are separated by 12 grids. The deployment width seems dependent on the random width of the map and the army type and troop selections.

So, we need for “Open Restricted battles”:

1) Wider maps because we still dont want an artificial boundries interfering and because of (2)
2) Wider deployment zones. Needed so cavalry can deploy properly and not form in columns to then fan out…) The exact width would need quite a bit of testing to get right.
3) Reduce deployment depth from 10 to 5 grids deep. Why 5? It allows for 3 lines of troops with a grid in between each. Seems more than sufficient considering 1 or two lines served most armies thru this time period.
4) Reduce the distance between armies front lines from 12 to hmmm 10-9-8?? grids. Perhaps it could be slightly randomized. The exact #’s would need to be play tested. Less opportunity for gamey maneuvering to the flanks or rear…
5) All troops at deployment have one facing allowed, to the enemy, no exceptions. Makes sense in the spirit of what an open battle should represent methinks plus ties into 6)
6) This is most important and likely will cause the most ire: for the first two turns with the exception of lights, units can ONLY move forward, no facing changes. ( this could be adjusted of course, formed cavalry restricted for 1 turn only, formed infantry for the two etc etc)

As the moniker indicates, the above could certainly restrict the more extreme actions players might come up with. Racing to a corner or rear would be almost impossible unless your opponent literally just sat and did nothing. I cant articulate why I think this but it seems to me light foot would more likely be placed in the proper roll in FRONT of the main body, instead of on the flanks as anti-cavalry search and destroy units ( a tactic that I partake in and not proud of) Initial deployment would be critical as it was historically, and not an afterthought or condition to get to a better “deployment zone” ( ie a corner or rear hill…)

The question is would it be fun? Again, I would not want any such hypothetical thing replace current open battles, but if it ever came to light, as an alternate way of playing.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:11 am ...to radically depart from your deployment area by racing to terrain behind you or to the extreme right or left seem very artificial. So too deploying at the very rear of the current , very deep zone. Ie the edge of the world…

Interesting points by GrayMouser. But I still can't really agree with comments like the one above.

In FOG2 both armies are randomly placed on a randomly generated map, and therefore end up in positions to which no general would have deployed IRL--why is that considered "realistic"?

Sure sometimes one army, or even both armies, accepted battle in places where they did not expect it, but generally as far as I know armies deployed and fought in locations which were at least minimally acceptable to both commanders. Why shouldn't that be the case in FOG2 as well?

Also, in my experience, generally the only way a player could deploy his whole army on the far left or right flanks would be if his enemy allowed him to do so by not advancing quickly enough. In one game, I was able to shift my entire front by 90 degrees (so that the former right map edge became my baseline) to take advantage of better terrain for an attack--but I could only do this (and only wanted to do it in the first place) because my opponent hedgehogged in his deployment zone while I conducted this massive redeployment.

Finally, there is a lot of talk about "racing to the rear", but other than in historical battles, I don' t understand why this would occur, since players can deploy their armies as far back in their deployment zone as they desire--why then move further back after the battle started?

Hi 76, the simple answer is that: there is no operational level to the game, thus the presumption must be you deployed roughly where you intended to fight, with forward movement toward the enemy the only real option. The thing is , there generally isn’t “bad” deployment areas, players just see areas they would rather be in that supplement there army unit types. This usually means rough or tree terrain to deposit mediums into.
The whole exercise was to maybe tweak an optional mode where armies are realistically channeled into fighting from their deployment , instead of the chronic “redeployment” during the first couple of turns, the worst “ offenders” racing to a corner etc. I get that “you” don’t get to chos the map or zone literally, but the presumption is that is what was deemed proper( considering there were no maps, no helecoptor vantage etc.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:00 am ...the presumption must be you deployed roughly where you intended to fight, with forward movement toward the enemy the only real option. The thing is , there generally isn’t “bad” deployment areas, players just see areas they would rather be in that supplement there army unit types.

OK, I understand your perspective, I just don't agree with your presumption that only forward movement should be allowed, or that there are no "bad" deployment areas!

For a typical medium foot army, I think that a huge open field is objectively a "bad" deployment area if you are facing phalanxes or legions, for instance, and such armies would have generally refrained from offering battle in those areas. Even if you could convince me that such battles are "realistic", I can definitely say that I don't find them very interesting, whichever side I'm on.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:00 am Hi 76, the simple answer is that: there is no operational level to the game, thus the presumption must be you deployed roughly where you intended to fight, with forward movement toward the enemy the only real option. The thing is , there generally isn’t “bad” deployment areas, players just see areas they would rather be in that supplement there army unit types. This usually means rough or tree terrain to deposit mediums into.
The whole exercise was to maybe tweak an optional mode where armies are realistically channeled into fighting from their deployment , instead of the chronic “redeployment” during the first couple of turns, the worst “ offenders” racing to a corner etc. I get that “you” don’t get to chos the map or zone literally, but the presumption is that is what was deemed proper( considering there were no maps, no helecoptor vantage etc.

From a design point of view, I have always taken the view that the battlefield is the part of the map where the fighting ultimately takes place, and not necessarily the whole game map. An account of the battle in a book would show the former, just before contact, and not the latter.

To this extent, therefore, the game does include an operational element, in the form of pre-battle manoeuvring. That is why the armies start far enough apart to allow some. (Whereas in most of the Historical "Epic" Battles the armies start closer together, because we want the battle to represent the actual historical events, and not allow either side time to redeploy).

This is an intended part of the design, because, except for historical re-enactions, simply slamming two armies together isn't much fun, especially for the side with weaker units.

It is inevitable that opposing non-toolkit armies will sometimes not be able to deal well with the enemy's position, whether it be a medium foot army trying to fight a heavy foot army in the open, or a heavy foot army trying to fight a medium foot army in rough terrain. Forcing (by whatever mechanism) the disadvantaged side to fight in unsuitable terrain would be unfair, unrealistic, and would discourage the use of large swathes of the available armies in competitive play.

The inevitable result of not applying any artificial mechanism to force battle is that some games will end in no-score draws - which, while frustrating for both players, is entirely historical.