My big issues with this game

[klayeckles]

vonZipper

Your entire view of the issue is much too literal, a turn isn't measured in how many footsteps a human can move in a set number of seconds...it is an abstraction of how large blocks of troops moved (or mostly didn't move) on the battlefield
...and the view that skirmishers are super troops??? they are an excellent tool to have in your toolbox...if used in a judicious and long term view. A battle is an entire day. thus there are many abstractions in time and space. So the question becomes...does the system "accurately" (in quotes because we are going on very sketchy records of historians that often embellished the facts, centuries ago) represent the overall effectiveness and interplay of the troop types?
Well...sometimes skirmishers caused some havoc. sometimes they did nothing. large bunches of them were more effective. They caused reactions and impetuous charges. Sometimes they got caught running away. usually they just ran off, and the historian doesn't account for them after that. They were present on almost all battlefields that the historians talk about (so they must have been worth the investment in personnel).

I'd argue (after hundreds of games...and 5 yrs of playing fog1, fog2, and five more fog TT) that skirmishers are a pretty accurate representation, they are "priced" appropriately in terms of their relative effectiveness on the battlefield, they play pretty realistically, and most importantly...they are FUN.

I would concede that they might be a bit more effective than in the real battles, because most historians fail to mention them in the latter part of battles...once the big boy troops engaged. I would certainly say that a good general playing this game generally gives them much more attention than the historians of old...and perhaps in that regard they stand out much more....but even though they usually won't be the deciding factor in the late game, there are some pretty fun skirmish battles that continue on in the late game...so to weaken them, or to reduce their importance might be a smidgen closer to "historical"...it would most certainly make the game less interesting and FUN to play.

I have noticed that the better i get at the game...the less historical the battle seems to appear from above...point being that a very experienced player can tune the moves and interplay of her army so much crisper than the historical general (that had limited information, poor visibility and terrible communication) that it becomes more effective than the historical version. for example...lining up the Romans vs the Persians would typically result in the Romans stomping on the Persians...BUT with some very adept maneuvering, a persian army can confound the Roman legions and decimate them with flank attacks...a rarity in the times (Hannibal excepted)
Thus, although skirmishers might be slightly more effective than historical, and live on much later than historians typically make mention...i don't agree that skirmishers should see more movement limitations...i think they are pretty accurate on the macro scale...and they are a very FUN element of the game, and important tool in the generals box (though typically not an endgame decisive factor)

[TheGrayMouser]

Good points Klay! I would add that the only time I feel light foot is over powered is when they are used as hunter killer groups on the flanks to destroy formed Cavalry( only needing 2-3 shots to force a cohesion test.). It would be hard to prevent players from doing this without layering tons of rules (my thought would be simply to not allow LF to approach enemy Cavalry from a two grid frontal arc unless in cover, but perhaps that would cause issues)

[Hendricus]

Evading is easy, but reforming should be a test. Like the heavies and medium have to test if moving backwards. So units that evade can become disrupted or even break while trying to reform. So the commander can decide to push them to the limit or to rally them if they become disrupted.

[melm]

Good points Klay! I would add that the only time I feel light foot is over powered is when they are used as hunter killer groups on the flanks to destroy formed Cavalry( only needing 2-3 shots to force a cohesion test.). It would be hard to prevent players from doing this without layering tons of rules (my thought would be simply to not allow LF to approach enemy Cavalry from a two grid frontal arc unless in cover, but perhaps that would cause issues)

It is legitimate to use LF against horse according to Vegetius.

In section of deploying the cavalry, He says,

But if the cavalry are outnumbered, the ancient
custom should be adopted of mixing in with them very swift infantry
with light shields, specially trained for the purpose, once called velites.
If this is done, no matter in what force the enemy cavalry turn out, they
cannot match the mixed formation.

[klayeckles]

Evading is easy, but reforming should be a test. Like the heavies and medium have to test if moving backwards. So units that evade can become disrupted or even break while trying to reform. So the commander can decide to push them to the limit or to rally them if they become disrupted.

and so...who would purchase skirmishers if such were the case?...especially javelins?

[Hendricus]

Evading is easy, but reforming should be a test. Like the heavies and medium have to test if moving backwards. So units that evade can become disrupted or even break while trying to reform. So the commander can decide to push them to the limit or to rally them if they become disrupted.

and so...who would purchase skirmishers if such were the case?...especially javelins?

Those that are not afraid of a test, stepping backwards is done by those brave commanders already. Funny that moving backwards needs courage. Those that see use of skirmishers even if some become disrupted after a failed test. Those that have no other skirmishers as javelin armed ones and still want some skirmishers. It's not an automatic disruption I suggested, only a test to reform at the start of the turn if they evaded in the previous opponents turn. On the other hand I would not reduce the speed of fragmented skirmishers, they are trained to run away. Should being scared make them slower in their attempt to run away ?

[youngr]

IMHO, in a turn based game like this, time is wiggly, space is wiggly. If the end result is reasonably realistic, then the exact path how you get there can( and will end up) being abstract.
So in short the answer really is, its a game mechanic to allow evading types to be able to evade, and still be as usefull as they were historically.

I'm OK on the wiggly point, but I don't feel that skirmishers being able to evade turn after turn without suffering any real ill effects on their effectiveness is really all that realistic.

Another point I would make is that I'm a bit confounded by the fact that heavy and medium troops have to charge (and subsequently pursue) skirmishers in open ground to dislodge them. In reality all a maniple or phalanx would have to do is advance - the skirmishers would fall back naturally.

In many of my games, I see enemy skirmishers as easy points for me even when I take few of them myself. It's a problem for me when the enemy battle troops are in well defended terrain and they use their skirmishers well to annoy me so that I have to attack them. It means the opposite player knows what he is doing and it's a good challenge for me to try and overcome this. In other games, I simply ignore the enemy light infantry completely and concentrate on getting to grips with the enemy battle troops where I think I have the advantage. After the first few rounds, skirmisher firing is largely ineffective, except when you have several concentrating their fire.

Richard

[Froz]

It is legitimate to use LF against horse according to Vegetius.

In section of deploying the cavalry, He says,

But if the cavalry are outnumbered, the ancient
custom should be adopted of mixing in with them very swift infantry
with light shields, specially trained for the purpose, once called velites.
If this is done, no matter in what force the enemy cavalry turn out, they
cannot match the mixed formation.

I think the key here is mixing the infantry with cavalry. Not using the infantry alone, as it would be swiftly dealt with. I can't remember where I read about this (perhaps it was something about Belisarius campaign in Italy...?), but there were examples of such mixed troops of cavalry and archers, where archers would get annihilated when enemy cavalry charged and friendly cavalry run away.

I somehow doubt infantry skirmishers would be that eager to go against enemy cavalry without support of friendly cavalry. Though I have no clue how the game could simulate that without needlessly complicated (and hard for AI) systems...

[melm]

It is legitimate to use LF against horse according to Vegetius.

In section of deploying the cavalry, He says,

But if the cavalry are outnumbered, the ancient
custom should be adopted of mixing in with them very swift infantry
with light shields, specially trained for the purpose, once called velites.
If this is done, no matter in what force the enemy cavalry turn out, they
cannot match the mixed formation.

I think the key here is mixing the infantry with cavalry. Not using the infantry alone, as it would be swiftly dealt with. I can't remember where I read about this (perhaps it was something about Belisarius campaign in Italy...?), but there were examples of such mixed troops of cavalry and archers, where archers would get annihilated when enemy cavalry charged and friendly cavalry run away.

I somehow doubt infantry skirmishers would be that eager to go against enemy cavalry without support of friendly cavalry. Though I have no clue how the game could simulate that without needlessly complicated (and hard for AI) systems...

In book, it is the mix of skirmisher and cavalry, which is exactly the same as the game represents. I can say if someone use skirmisher alone against the army with cavalry, skirmisher can be routed very fast in the open. If skirmisher with cavalry support, not so. Player will consider the aftermath of charging or meleeing with skirmisher. Well, that's exactly the same as Vegetius tells us.

[z1812z]

The balance between gameplay and realism is a difficult one to achieve and satisfying everyone is not possible.

Any wargame system is by nature impressionistic and to me FOG2 is a fine example of balance that results in a very realistic impression.

We are also lucky to have a game designer who is present on the forums and takes the time to participate in conversations and is genuinely interested in improving and expanding the game.

[vakarr]

Skirmishers are not over powered in this game. Their usefulness has progressively been eroded ever since the rules were introduced. For instance, a light foot unit can't charge a fragmented heavy foot unit in the open, they can't charge a heavy foot unit from the rear, they can't shoot from the rear (or any other time) at a unit in combat, they don't cause cohesion level drops if they charge heavier units in the flank, etc, The latest changes mean that they can't stand behind or in a stream and hope to get some benefit from it and they will always run away even if they are in favourable terrain. It's ridiculous to suggest that they should suffer a cohesion loss for doing what they did normally and was their survival strategy - run away. They are already in a dispersed formation (just count how many men are in a unit) so running away doesn't change their formation and they don't lose cohesion since they never had any.

I do mourn the days when light cavalry usually beat up light infantry if they charged them, though. It is still possible for light cavalry to charge light infantry and catch them if they start close enough, or they are lucky, or you charge the light infantry with one unit, then charge them again with another unit after the light infantry has evaded.

The restrictions on the proper behavior of lights mean It's heaven for Roman infantry - which are over powered. In a recent game, the Roman veteran legions charged into woods and beat up rhomphia armed Thracians, who lost the game badly. Romans don't need rough terrain troops, which is wrong.

[sIg3b]

I also think that Light Cavalry should prevail over Light Infantry. Is it historical that they don´t?

[MVP7]

I'm quite happy with the light-infantry balance as it is. In my experience it's not that hard to catch skirmishers with cavalry as long as you don't charge from maximum range. Even if cavalry takes a cohesion test in the process it can still usually easily wipe out the light infantry in impact and melee. Skirmishers should be able to disrupt and force a reaction from the enemy then flee without massive penalties unless caught, that is their job description.

Regarding light infantry vs light cavalry, I don't think there are any major issues. I don't think light cavalry that is not equipped for close combat (swordsmen or lancers) would have an inherent advantage when charging a larger formation of light infantry. It takes both units out of their comfort zone and from infantry's point of view a small group of loosely formed unarmored horsemen approaching wouldn't be anywhere near as frightening as twice as many ironclad lancers charging in a tight formation.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think the balance vs light cav is fine. Slingers and archers often lose impact and cohesion test; light javs can defend themselves and do better in that situation.

[vakarr]

That's another thing I miss - used to be guaranteed that javelinmen would beat slingers if they caught them. Charging javelinmen at other lights used to be a good idea. Now I've seen slingers rout javelinmen, and light peltasts charge normal javelinmen and become fragmented on the first round. Haven't worked out how many turns of shooting javelinmen are supposed to do at each other before it is safe to charge. Also light cavalry with javelins are quite likely to be beaten up by light infantry with javelins in the open. I think light cavalry are more maneuverable than heavy cavalry, and in a dispersed formation, so they should find it easier to catch light foot in the open - when even an unarmoured a man on horseback with a spear generally has an advantage over a man with a javelin in the open

[MVP7]

That's another thing I miss - used to be guaranteed that javelinmen would beat slingers if they caught them. Charging javelinmen at other lights used to be a good idea. Now I've seen slingers rout javelinmen, and light peltasts charge normal javelinmen and become fragmented on the first round. Haven't worked out how many turns of shooting javelinmen are supposed to do at each other before it is safe to charge. Also light cavalry with javelins are quite likely to be beaten up by light infantry with javelins in the open. I think light cavalry are more maneuverable than heavy cavalry, and in a dispersed formation, so they should find it easier to catch light foot in the open - when even an unarmoured a man on horseback with a spear generally has an advantage over a man with a javelin in the open

As far as I know there have been no changes to interaction between light infantry types. Javelinmen have advantage in melee over other light infantry types but there are other factors as well.

It's true that the highly mobile light cavalry armed with spear/lance would generally have advantage over light infantry in melee, and that is exactly how it is in FoG2 for the light cavalry that has lances (or swords). Most of the light cavalry doesn't have those and are instead armed with bows and have no melee capabilities worth mentioning.