Slitherine

A good point, well made, Pretty Boy (that must be ironic).

That's not what your missus said

Check out Tim Porters youtube entries for the real reason (it actually happened at Usk 2008...)

rayfredjohn wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this but.........

One of the interesting things about FOG is that in Undrilled and drilled armies all BG's move all the time.
All in all, the buttock clenching moment of the PIP role was one of the better things in DBM.
Double Drop Dailami Duggins
"Bring out the Gimp"

Having just finished the rather excellent The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC by Adrian Goldsworthy I started to wonder if the statis that often afflicted lines of troops in DBM is actually more historical than the "always moving" elements of FoG?

(Goldsworthys theory of classical warfare is that it really consisted of repeated short intense bursts of fighting punctuated by longer gaps where the two lines withdrew, shouted at each other and caught their breath whilst psyching themselves up for another round of have-at-it.)

tim
www.madaxeman.com

madaxeman wrote:

rayfredjohn wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this but.........

One of the interesting things about FOG is that in Undrilled and drilled armies all BG's move all the time.
All in all, the buttock clenching moment of the PIP role was one of the better things in DBM.
Double Drop Dailami Duggins
"Bring out the Gimp"

Having just finished the rather excellent The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC by Adrian Goldsworthy I started to wonder if the statis that often afflicted lines of troops in DBM is actually more historical than the "always moving" elements of FoG?

(Goldsworthys theory of classical warfare is that it really consisted of repeated short intense bursts of fighting punctuated by longer gaps where the two lines withdrew, shouted at each other and caught their breath whilst psyching themselves up for another round of have-at-it.)

While I definitely agree with Goldsworthy's model for ancient infantry combat, it is important to remember that he is talking about the battlelines withdrawing only a short distance from one another, not dozens or hundreds of yards. Also, under Goldsworthy's model the battlelines would all withdraw together, not piecemeal as in DBM element 'recoils.'

Besides, in my mind at least, such periodic withdrawals and regroupings would be taking place at a level of granularity well below the 'big battle' scale of FoG, just as would legionary line interchange, cavalry 'wedges,' and other small-unit tactics. And just as with legionary line exchange, my experience has been that, while picking up the figures and moving them around may indeed produce a satisfying illusion of greater 'realism,' in point of fact all that extra time and fiddling about doesn't end up producing outcomes with any more historical validity than in FoG.

IMHO, these sorts of things have a lot more to do with personal taste than anything else. A gaming mechanic that may seem perfectly satisfactory to one player may be a 'deal killer' for another. For example, the PIP concept is one of the things that I personally disliked most about DBM. While that particular mechanic may force interesting tactical choices within the context of the game, IMHO there is nothing in any way 'realistic' or 'historical' about having a third of one's army unable to move at all, simply because the general ran out of 'PIPs.'

'Different strokes,' and all that!

Cheers,
Scott

ars_belli wrote:
Besides, in my mind at least, such periodic withdrawals and regroupings would be taking place at a level of granularity well below the 'big battle' scale of FoG, just as would legionary line interchange, cavalry 'wedges,' and other small-unit tactics.

Quite so - to a great degree combat between lines of troops is a "black box" the inner workings of which we can't see.

I've always been of the opinion, that aside of the impetuosity rules (which overshoot the target by a couple parsecs), DBM makes a decent set for most classical games. I'm less convinced for medievals and IMO it largely breaks down once you add horse archers into the equation. The abstraction of the horse archery and skirmishing into a 'melee' roll just does not work for me.

FoG might be bit the other way round, good for medievals and mounted in general, great in representing shooty armies and maybe a bit more off in representing battles mainly between foot sloggers. Possibly, as Scott and Nik already pointed out, because that is an area where FoG abstracts a bit more.

I guess it's virtually impossible to make a 'perfect' set for 3000+ years of warfare around the globe.

Ghaznavid wrote:I've always been of the opinion, that aside of the impetuosity rules (which overshoot the target by a couple parsecs), DBM makes a decent set for most classical games. I'm less convinced for medievals and IMO it largely breaks down once you add horse archers into the equation. The abstraction of the horse archery and skirmishing into a 'melee' roll just does not work for me.

FoG might be bit the other way round, good for medievals and mounted in general, great in representing shooty armies and maybe a bit more off in representing battles mainly between foot sloggers. Possibly, as Scott and Nik already pointed out, because that is an area where FoG abstracts a bit more.

I guess it's virtually impossible to make a 'perfect' set for 3000+ years of warfare around the globe.

Heresy!!!

Ghaznavid wrote:FoG might be bit the other way round, good for medievals and mounted in general, great in representing shooty armies and maybe a bit more off in representing battles mainly between foot sloggers. Possibly, as Scott and Nik already pointed out, because that is an area where FoG abstracts a bit more.

Personally, I think that 'foot slogger' battles in FoG tend to play out in very satisfactory and historical ways, at least with the
LRR, Gallic and Early German armies I have tried. IMHO, of course - YMMV.

Cheers,
Scott

As Scott noted, YMMV in applying FoG to various styles of ancient/medieval combat. In my experience, MRR vs. LCartharginian, and LRR vs. Gallic etc, "foot slogging" style combat works well in FoG. I've also found "rock-em' sock-em" knight on knight action to work very well. Classical Indian steam roller armies work well. I haven't played entire LH armies (yet) so don't know from personal experience, but it would seem to work well.

Good point, too, from Nik about the "black box" aspect of what occurs between in the lines.

Cheers,

Dale

In my view to work in a viable game timeframe, any set of rules has to choose a level of abstraction. The FoG level of abstraction works for me. The toe-to-toe footslogger ebb and flow is subsumed within the combat mechanism. Just think how much slower the game would run if you moved every BG back 2 MU after each round of melee and then moved them back in your next bound. Aknowledge that the rules have that pulse mechanism and the result of that process is what you see. (And in all honesty that is what most of us want to see - the result.) I also think that FoG has not so far shown itself to be unacceptable weak for any period or interaction, with the possible exception of the battlefield deployment of Artillery but that is a tough one to get right without changing the psychological balance of the interactions.

RayFredJohn

I can attest that the '"buttock clenching" tests not to charge' are right on the edge. There is enough 'buttock clenching
in the rules' - you will be happy.

Occurred in 3 of my first 4 games. In my first game, poor deployment saw me trying to avoid having Parthian Cats charge into some huge Phalanx and the turn I failed the CMT, boy was it nervy. In another game my Sassanid opponent got 2 LH BG on the flank of my Cats so that if I failed the CMT to avoid the impetious charge I was toast. Ever tried to get UNDRILLED Cats to go backward while measuring what is the intersection point of the facing of 3 opposing units arrayed in a 120 degree arc to your front, as you try to find a legal escape route? Try it once but only if you have a strong constitution.

My favourite example was in my 3rd or 4th game. Seleucid Agema Cats, a base down, having a TC assigned just to them so that they did not charge into the Superior Drilled, Armoured, Skilled Swordsmen in front of them, after having received a very bloody nose in the first charge. Watching my opponents face for every one of the 6 turns he tried and succeeded was great fun.

timmy1 wrote:
In another game my Sassanid opponent got 2 LH BG on the flank of my Cats so that if I failed the CMT to avoid the impetious charge I was toast.

I assume there was something else involved - catafracts are hardly going to be worried by LH even if the LH hit them in the flank. There is no cohesion loss and the LH still fight losing 1 die per 2, albeit at ++ for the impact phase but the catafracts have full dice. Usually ends up messy for the LH.

nikgaukroger wrote:

timmy1 wrote:
In another game my Sassanid opponent got 2 LH BG on the flank of my Cats so that if I failed the CMT to avoid the impetious charge I was toast.

I assume there was something else involved - catafracts are hardly going to be worried by LH even if the LH hit them in the flank. There is no cohesion loss and the LH still fight losing 1 die per 2, albeit at ++ for the impact phase but the catafracts have full dice. Usually ends up messy for the LH.

Err and LH can't intercept non skirmishers so if you charged they have to stand and watch.

I suspect rules misunderstandings ...

madaxeman wrote:

rayfredjohn wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this but.........

One of the interesting things about FOG is that in Undrilled and drilled armies all BG's move all the time.
All in all, the buttock clenching moment of the PIP role was one of the better things in DBM.
Double Drop Dailami Duggins
"Bring out the Gimp"

Having just finished the rather excellent The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC by Adrian Goldsworthy I started to wonder if the statis that often afflicted lines of troops in DBM is actually more historical than the "always moving" elements of FoG?

(Goldsworthys theory of classical warfare is that it really consisted of repeated short intense bursts of fighting punctuated by longer gaps where the two lines withdrew, shouted at each other and caught their breath whilst psyching themselves up for another round of have-at-it.)

tim
www.madaxeman.com

Haven't read the book yet but I'd be interested to know what evidence Goldsworthy bases his theory on. As far as Classical Greek warfare was concerned, I can't think of one example where opposing battle-lines took a breather and simultaneously withdrew. However, I do remember some academic suggesting on the basis of vase paintings that hoplite phalanxes stopped before impact and the front ranks then broke up to engage in single combats in between the lines. Wonder if it's him.

Stepping back was usually the beginning of the end (think rugby scrum) and off the top of my head I can only think of Cannae and (allegedly according to some academics) Chaeronea as examples of it being used as an intentional tactic.

Seems to me he's describing the kind of fighting troops in loose order and/or with missiles would get involved in. I believe it's the kind of fighting the Romans faced against Iberian tribes although if my memory serves me right, when the Iberian scutarii retreated they usually did so for good, regrouping in difficult terrain to the frustration of the Romans. From the evidence I would suggest dense formations of heavy infantry either got stuck in until their formation collapsed or legged it before impact.

As for game mechanisms, I think no set of rules I know of actually replicates the kind of movement described for ancient battles prior to contacting the enemy. Let's face it, if we wanted to be realistic in FOG, we would deploy our armies within 12 inches of each other (twice the range of arrows) and forget about fancy manoeuvering. 25mm games may actually come closer to this than 15mm.

Julian

jlopez wrote:
Haven't read the book yet but I'd be interested to know what evidence Goldsworthy bases his theory on.

It is based in Keegan's "Face of Battle", Sabin's "Face of Roman Battle" and such like - analysis, as best can be done, of how fighting would work in ancient battles looking at psychology and, importantly, human endurance.

These are must reads for wargamers IMO - so anyone who hasn't done so should get out and read them now

As far as Classical Greek warfare was concerned, I can't think of one example where opposing battle-lines took a breather and simultaneously withdrew.

Probably unlikely to for a couple of reasons. Hoplite clashes appear to have been over quite quickly and, possibly most importantly, it may well break the flow of the account which is, after all, a literary work to be admired for its quality of prose, etc. and not a historical account as we would want as gamers.

However, I do remember some academic suggesting on the basis of vase paintings that hoplite phalanxes stopped before impact and the front ranks then broke up to engage in single combats in between the lines. Wonder if it's him.

Don't think so. IIRC Adrian's only piece on hoplite warfare was about osimos (is that the right spelling?).

Stepping back was usually the beginning of the end (think rugby scrum) and off the top of my head I can only think of Cannae and (allegedly according to some academics) Chaeronea as examples of it being used as an intentional tactic.

Probably mentioned because it was intentional and carried out by the whole battle line. The "face of battle" approach is that it will happen whether or not it is planned but will happen at quite a local level depending on circumstances so that part of the battle line may well be fighting whilst other parts are at the hurling insults stage before getting back into the action.

ars_belli wrote:
While I definitely agree with Goldsworthy's model for ancient infantry combat, it is important to remember that he is talking about the battlelines withdrawing only a short distance from one another, not dozens or hundreds of yards. Also, under Goldsworthy's model the battlelines would all withdraw together, not piecemeal as in DBM element 'recoils.' Besides, in my mind at least, such periodic withdrawals and regroupings would be taking place at a level of granularity well below the 'big battle' scale of FoG, just as would legionary line interchange, cavalry 'wedges,' and other small-unit tactics.

I'd agree the "single element recoil" doesn't need to be modelled. My point was more that that DBM's "all of both sides pips are being spent HERE where its dead exciting, so those two lines of infantry over there just stare at each other for ages and nothing decisive happens over there" was actually simulating a part of the battle where there was sustained but inconclusive fighting - just as much as a protrected push and shove between units in combat was doing.

In FoG everyone gets stuck in (defensive spear aside) and stuff always happens within 3-4 turns. Its a game mechenic to make it a better game, which is fine, but its not necessarily good for simulations - hence my points on the "mega-game" thread where I suggested an infantry slog would not work as well as a big cavalry battle.

Tim

will happen at quite a local level depending on circumstances so that part of the battle line may well be fighting whilst other parts are at the hurling insults stage before getting back into the action.

Which is probably why the rank replacement (?) system of the Romans worked so well. Didn't give the enemy front rank a chance to rest as new fighters stepped up to the mark. I'd be quite happy in a barbarian army cheering along from a few ranks back whilst the big guys at the front got their breath back. If they didn't get chance for a breather and got beaten up...... well I'd probably run away. Well if the guys at the front were harder than me what chance do i stand.[/quote]

philqw78 wrote:

will happen at quite a local level depending on circumstances so that part of the battle line may well be fighting whilst other parts are at the hurling insults stage before getting back into the action.

Which is probably why the rank replacement (?) system of the Romans worked so well. Didn't give the enemy front rank a chance to rest as new fighters stepped up to the mark. I'd be quite happy in a barbarian army cheering along from a few ranks back whilst the big guys at the front got their breath back. If they didn't get chance for a breather and got beaten up...... well I'd probably run away. Well if the guys at the front were harder than me what chance do i stand.

Interestingly Roman battles appear to last longer than Greek ones (see Sabin's analysis).

madaxeman wrote:I'd agree the "single element recoil" doesn't need to be modelled. My point was more that that DBM's "all of both sides pips are being spent HERE where its dead exciting, so those two lines of infantry over there just stare at each other for ages and nothing decisive happens over there" was actually simulating a part of the battle where there was sustained but inconclusive fighting - just as much as a protrected push and shove between units in combat was doing.

In FoG everyone gets stuck in (defensive spear aside) and stuff always happens within 3-4 turns. Its a game mechenic to make it a better game, which is fine, but its not necessarily good for simulations - hence my points on the "mega-game" thread where I suggested an infantry slog would not work as well as a big cavalry battle.

Tim,

Truly, I understood your point both times. However, my perception of the two systems appears to be precisely the opposite from yours, so I suspect that we will simply have to "agree to disagree" on this. To me, the fact that often in DBM one wing of an army has to remain motionless because all of the PIPS have been expended elsewhere is both unexciting and historically unrealistic, and troops that are standing and staring at the enemy from a distance play nothing at all like ones engaged in "sustained and inconclusive fighting." So for me, the PIP mechanism feels much more artificial and "gamey" than the ability in FoG for all troops to move or fight at once. IMHO, the Impact and Melee mechanics in FoG work perfectly well as a "simulation" (personally, I prefer the term "representation") of ancient infantry combat, at least in the historically-based scenarios that I have played.

But as I mentioned previously, it is very much a matter of personal taste, and YMMV. If the infantry combat mechanics in DBM feel more "realistic" to you, sic vita est.*

Cheers,
Scott

* "thus is life."

Intersting discussion of Adrian's remarks. I'm just rereading that book and was struck by his assertion that Roman maniples did not deploy but fought with wide gaps between. This, he says, makes questions of how the lines passed each other moot because the lines never deployed. He says the ritualized combat of the day precluded troops from moving into the gaps and flanking.

In the next breath he says that fighting was all about cutting the man in front down and stepping into his spot so as to attack the flanking troops. What about the guys on the flanks of the maniples? The whole premis seems illogical and throws his other remarks discussed above into question as well.

Nik / Hammy

The Cats were a base down and the middle unit they were facing was S*ss*n*d Shooty Cav (Asavaran (sp)?) without any losses. I was not worried about the intercept but rather if I did not break the Cav, I was going to end up fighting 3 fresh units in 2 or more directions. Thats when the 2 LH on the flanks can make things messy. That was a charge I did not want to risk.