Slitherine

The ability to do a lot of dancing is often dependent on being able to perform a complex maneuver.

What if in order to perform a CMT during the move phase you had to have a general (not fighting in the front rank) in command radius prompt the maneuver. Further each TC could only prompt one CMT test per turn, while each FC or IC could allow 2. By limiting the number of these tests that could be performed it would be much harder to perform extraordinary maneuvers. Allowing FCs and ICs an additional CMT per turn would make FCs more valuable than FCs, thus justifying their cost. (These would be in addition to the general allowing an un-drilled unit it is with the perform a difficult maneuver.)

In ancient battles troops withdrawing or redeploying could cause panic among their friends.

What if any unit which began a Maneuver Phases move at least partially directly in front in an enemy non-skirmisher unit and within its charge reach that ends its move not in such a path causes a cohesion test for any friends within 3 MUs of at at any time during the move. Friendly skirmishers, Cav and LCh in a single rank do not provoke such a test, nor does any unit that ended its move closer to the enemy camp.

Or maybe this would be too complicated and fiddly to keep track of during a game.

Fleeing or panicky elephants often did catastrophic damage to their own army's morale and order.

An example (amongst others) of of this is Magnesia where nervous elephants fatally compromised the order of the Seleucid phalanx.

What if all friends took a -1 to all cohesion tests if there is a unit of broken or fragmented elephants with 3 MUs and count as disordered so long as they remain within 3 MUs. (I would include fragmented elephants because these are the nervous ones that seem to disrupt the order of nearby friends.)

This might work well with other rules to strengthen elephants by making them more or a high reward/high risk troop type.

At magnesia, it seems that elepahnts and phalanx wher kind of mixed toeghether . A phalanx unit, some elephants, a phalanx unit ... . The elephants were "routed" by skirmishers and harrasing fire .

What could be an alternative is a die roll : 1,2,3 the elephant routs in his own rear ( an might burst trough any unit behind it ), 4 it routs to the left, 5 to the right and 6 right in front and burst trough any unit in the way , disrupting it .

It is unpredictable, funny and perhaps more realistic or so it feels to me.

bahdahbum wrote:At magnesia, it seems that elepahnts and phalanx wher kind of mixed toeghether . A phalanx unit, some elephants, a phalanx unit ... . The elephants were "routed" by skirmishers and harrasing fire .

What could be an alternative is a die roll : 1,2,3 the elephant routs in his own rear ( an might burst trough any unit behind it ), 4 it routs to the left, 5 to the right and 6 right in front and burst trough any unit in the way , disrupting it .

It is unpredictable, funny and perhaps more realistic or so it feels to me.

I agree. In fact in the elephant thread there are several proposals like that.

Strategos69 wrote:

bahdahbum wrote:At magnesia, it seems that elepahnts and phalanx wher kind of mixed toeghether . A phalanx unit, some elephants, a phalanx unit ... . The elephants were "routed" by skirmishers and harrasing fire .

What could be an alternative is a die roll : 1,2,3 the elephant routs in his own rear ( an might burst trough any unit behind it ), 4 it routs to the left, 5 to the right and 6 right in front and burst trough any unit in the way , disrupting it .

It is unpredictable, funny and perhaps more realistic or so it feels to me.

I agree. In fact in the elephant thread there are several proposals like that.

That don't have enough historical support.
Seriously not trying to be diffcult, but the sources don't IMHO show that kind of randomness.

That is very easy to say . So what do you suggest ?

hazelbark wrote: That don't have enough historical support.
Seriously not trying to be diffcult, but the sources don't IMHO show that kind of randomness.

Most of the time, sources just say that they fled, bot not exactly the direction. In some cases that they stood between both armies. The most likely outcome might have been turned and fled straight, but sometimes that was not the case:

Polybius wrote: "When all was ready for battle on both sides, the Numidian horse having been skirmishing with each other for some time, Hannibal ordered the drivers of the elephants to charge the enemy. 2 When the trumpets and bugles sounded shrilly from all sides, some of the animals took fright and at once turned tail and rushed back upon the Numidians who had come up to help the Carthaginians, and Massanissa attacking simultaneously, the Carthaginian left wing was soon left exposed. p4933 The rest of the elephants falling on the Roman velites in the space between the two main armies, 4 both inflicted and suffered much loss, until finally in their terror some of them escaped through the gaps in the Roman line with Scipio's foresight had provided, so that the Romans suffered no injury, while others fled towards the right and, received by the cavalry with showers of javelins, at length escaped out of the field. 5 It was at this moment that Laelius, availing himself of the disturbance created by the elephants, charged the Carthaginian cavalry."
(Polybius, Hist. XV)

Note that none is reported going straight back and disordering their own phalanx in this case.

Battle of Hydaspes, did the elephants not go mad and trash around?

Making HF move as fast as MF is taking the one bonus that MF have, speed. Take that away all armies that are nothing but MF would have yet a new problem to overcome. HF moving as fast as they are and,if they lose a combat against HF a morale test.

If you speed up HF you have to take away the check for losing in the open. Because lets face it even in the most crowded terrain filled battle there is still A LOT of open terrain

irondog068 wrote:Making HF move as fast as MF is taking the one bonus that MF have, speed. Take that away all armies that are nothing but MF would have yet a new problem to overcome. HF moving as fast as they are and,if they lose a combat against HF a morale test.

If you speed up HF you have to take away the check for losing in the open. Because lets face it even in the most crowded terrain filled battle there is still A LOT of open terrain

There are two ways of fixing that. The first one is forcing shcok troops to charge within charge range despite the fact the enemy is within uneven terrain. That means that MF could trick enemy HF to get into terrain that disorders them. If HF moved more in uneven. then it could be thought that uneven terrains could be more common, rasing then its availability, and thus improving MF armies. In my opinion, uneven terrain should be more common and rough and difficult really scarce, jsut on the edges. Maybe I am a very bad hiker, but everytime I walk around most of the time nature seems pretty uneven to me (and hard to walk through!)

Strategos69 wrote:

irondog068 wrote:Making HF move as fast as MF is taking the one bonus that MF have, speed. Take that away all armies that are nothing but MF would have yet a new problem to overcome. HF moving as fast as they are and,if they lose a combat against HF a morale test.

If you speed up HF you have to take away the check for losing in the open. Because lets face it even in the most crowded terrain filled battle there is still A LOT of open terrain

There are two ways of fixing that. The first one is forcing shcok troops to charge within charge range despite the fact the enemy is within uneven terrain. That means that MF could trick enemy HF to get into terrain that disorders them. If HF moved more in uneven. then it could be thought that uneven terrains could be more common, rasing then its availability, and thus improving MF armies. In my opinion, uneven terrain should be more common and rough and difficult really scarce, jsut on the edges. Maybe I am a very bad hiker, but everytime I walk around most of the time nature seems pretty uneven to me (and hard to walk through!)

Would'nt it just be as good not having the difference between MF and HF and just have HF.

Since in some lists you can have armoured offennsive drilled both as HF and MF without the historical references for the difference, just a thought.

but everytime I walk around most of the time nature seems pretty uneven to me (and hard to walk through!)

And to think,terrain now is what it was at those times .

Gaul had many, many forests . Assyria was far from being a desert ...time has changed many things .

I would be totally happy making All foot wither light/skirmish or heavy. Even though a Egyptian heavy infantry wore a diaper and carried a shield and a spear, to them that was heavy infantry. It has been a while since I read Tacticus but I am pretty sure the troops were broken down into light and heavies, and biased or not he was there. [/i]

david53 wrote: Would'nt it just be as good not having the difference between MF and HF and just have HF.

Well this disturbs one of the existing balances which is MF vulnerablity to mounted.

hazelbark wrote:Well this disturbs one of the existing balances which is MF vulnerablity to mounted.

Which is the same as their vulnerability to HF.
Just make them HF but not as good in the open. Or medium Foot. ? .. Oh! Erm.
But they are, or should be, in effect foot who cannot stand up to battle troops in the open. But this makes a problem for things like Catalans, dailami (even theurophoroi, and auxilia, that may have been HF but were often put in rougher going as they were not as good).
These troops could stand up in the open but worked well in the rough also. IMO all Heavy and medium foot should move 4 in good, 3 in rough and 2 in difficult.
The way disorder works means that worse quality, but similarly armed, troops last longer in the rough. 3 dice against three dice produce results much more slowly than 4 against 4. So there is no need for MF. Just make them worse quality heavy foot.
Dailami and Catalans can then fight in the open. Moving quickly and hitting hard. But so would the huge viking shieldwalls. Though in an undrilled leviathon sort of way.
It may take an extra Quality class or something like that to do. But I think its worth it.

The MF penalty to mounted and HF should really belong to troops primarily armed with missile weapons.

philqw78 wrote:

hazelbark wrote:Well this disturbs one of the existing balances which is MF vulnerablity to mounted.

Which is the same as their vulnerability to HF.
Just make them HF but not as good in the open. Or medium Foot. ? .. Oh! Erm.
But they are, or should be, in effect foot who cannot stand up to battle troops in the open. But this makes a problem for things like Catalans, dailami (even theurophoroi, and auxilia, that may have been HF but were often put in rougher going as they were not as good).
These troops could stand up in the open but worked well in the rough also. IMO all Heavy and medium foot should move 4 in good, 3 in rough and 2 in difficult.
The way disorder works means that worse quality, but similarly armed, troops last longer in the rough. 3 dice against three dice produce results much more slowly than 4 against 4. So there is no need for MF. Just make them worse quality heavy foot.
Dailami and Catalans can then fight in the open. Moving quickly and hitting hard. But so would the huge viking shieldwalls. Though in an undrilled leviathon sort of way.
It may take an extra Quality class or something like that to do. But I think its worth it.

I like the idea but wonder how the balance between MF archers and HF will play out. eg English/Welsh longbowmen against Scots spearmen.

Walter

stecal wrote:The MF penalty to mounted and HF should really belong to troops primarily armed with missile weapons.

I agree. Right now there is a penalty for troops who would not be that bad against mounted. That would be better as a PoA against bowmen, crossbowmen, slingers and javelinmen in the open.

philqw78 wrote:
But they are, or should be, in effect foot who cannot stand up to battle troops in the open. But this makes a problem for things like Catalans, dailami (even theurophoroi, and auxilia, that may have been HF but were often put in rougher going as they were not as good).
These troops could stand up in the open but worked well in the rough also.

Add whole armies to the mix, as Ancient Spanish or Illyrians. They have not many mounted and a mounted force can get rid of them very easily.

philqw78 wrote:
IMO all Heavy and medium foot should move 4 in good, 3 in rough and 2 in difficult.
The way disorder works means that worse quality, but similarly armed, troops last longer in the rough. 3 dice against three dice produce results much more slowly than 4 against 4. So there is no need for MF. Just make them worse quality heavy foot.

I agree too (4 in uneven too). In fact, when it comes to difficult going why mounted should be faster or as fast as foot? Basically if you get in a marsh you have to dismount, hold the bridle, pull from a hesitant animald and there will be places you can get in but not your horse. Historically heavy troops (ex. Greeks in Platea) got in rough and difficult going to counter mounted, not that this can be the case right now in FoG.

Instead of the extra grading, another option is keeping the MF classification but making the troops more similar in movement (maybe not in disorder), getting more MF into HF category and keeping the -1 for losing in open terrain. Regarding the cavalry issue, I think that line infantry (even if MF) should not be treated as the shooters.