Observations after first few games.

[Morbio]

My twopeneth (from a non TT player)....

It does seem dumb that LH can't catch LF from 2 Hexes away

Regarding chasing routing units... I think the troop quality, drill factor, number of routing units nearby, presence of a commander and his level should affect the chances of persuing. e.g.

1. Elite, Drilled units, next to Alexander (or Alexander himself) would almost never chase a routing unit unless a lot of the nearby enemy are already routing (I figure that either they'd want to kill them, or ensure they don't rally).

2. Poor undrilled units, out of control of commanders may well chase. History is littered with examples of poor, or weakly led, units throwing away a good position by chasing a (real or feigned) 'routing' enemy.

All that needs doing is to turn these factors into a percentage chance .

What would be nice is to be able to move that would simulate a rout. i.e. move into contact range then when hit the unit 'routs' to a predefined point. This would add a new dimension to tactics for the game. In counterbalance, there should be a small chance (that increases with troop quality, discipline, nearby comander and level of commander) that the 'rout' is actually believed by some of the same sides troops and thus creating a real rout!

Finally, I also agree that undrilled cavalry are really slow to turn and it restricts their effectiveness.

[IainMcNeil]

Pursuing is already a percentage - you take a complex move test not to pursue which is effected by your drilled status, generals, quality etc.

[batesmotel]

As a general thought, there should be some chance that a BG of the same type as an evader can catch the evader if the charge starts from two hexes away, e.g. cavalry charged by other cavalry or LF charged by other LF should not be completely safe from being caught if the attacker started as close as possible to the evader before declaring their charge. This is definitely the case on the table top.

Chris

[petergarnett]

Played a few games now - mostly MP ones & I have a few thoughts / observations:-

Happy that a routing unit can rout though a freind but not so sure about it going through an enemy unit.

Even drilled cav don't seem able to wheel & charge - didn't think that was in the TT version.

If you lose you internet connection whilst doing your move & sent it the game hangs & you have to close it down - then get to redo your move which is wrong. Surely it should save the game before sending.

Be nice to add a feature where at the start of a scenario units can be 'frozen' for movement for a turn or so. For instance Sambre all romans can move from the start to good positions. Be more accurate if the ones furthest away from the emeny were frozen for a turn.

Be handy if you could send a nessage to an opponent outside of the moves, i.e. out of courtesy say you are going to be away a few days

Generally a big fan though - think the game is a fairly good version of the TT one especially given the restrictions of being hex based.

[petergarnett]

Sorry missed one - be handy if the list of scenarios when chosing a new game was in alpha order please

[IainMcNeil]

The order is by complexity - the smallest scenarios first. It is mostly so that new players dont get dropped in to a long list with no obvious simple battles to play.

[Scutarii]

Well, i buy the game today and play a few scens, find the game great but find some things a little... i never play the table game and dont know how works.


1-no display range for melee weapons, yes, i see it in the "manual" but it could be interesting add something to see it or remember the weapon range.

2-add defensive fire and countercharge features, best units can attack more times and can evade the shock of a charge.

3-in small maps you can loose all your army in a pair of turns when units leave the terrain... someway to return them to the battlefield??? of course small chance because all depends is they are crack units or a mob.

4-talking about rout... if units can rout over friendly unis... why can they leave 1st line to leave 2nd fight??? units cant retreat and in very small maps is a carnage at least give the option of "disband" or "reform behind line"... another option is add to skirmishers units the option to close the battle line where line quality is the key to see if the skimis disrupted the unit or not.

5-add an oob feature, units can form part of a bigger formation, for example 3 units form a legion, this is interesting to mantein formations and you can add leaders for these big units.

6-is a little hard sometimes in a big melee know what is facing your units, not all but some are a little hard to see well add an arrow or something could be great.

And with few games is all i can say, good luck with the game, the base is strong now only need a roof

[batesmotel]

The order is by complexity - the smallest scenarios first. It is mostly so that new players dont get dropped in to a long list with no obvious simple battles to play.

As an enhancement it would be nice to allow the user to sort the list by other things than the scenario size while retaining that as the default sort order. This would still allow new users to get into the simplest scenarios first but make it easier to find a specific scenario without having to scroll through the list to find it. This is likely to become more of an issue as more scenarios are added with expansions.

Chris

[IainMcNeil]

1-no display range for melee weapons, yes, i see it in the "manual" but it could be interesting add something to see it or remember the weapon range.

Thisis by design. The view was getting too cluttered and we felt it better to let users learn this rather than cover the screen in more UI.

2-add defensive fire and countercharge features, best units can attack more times and can evade the shock of a charge.

Defensive fire is built in to your impact phase combats

3-in small maps you can loose all your army in a pair of turns when units leave the terrain... someway to return them to the battlefield??? of course small chance because all depends is they are crack units or a mob.

This is just tough - dont fight near your map edge I guess

4-talking about rout... if units can rout over friendly unis... why can they leave 1st line to leave 2nd fight??? units cant retreat and in very small maps is a carnage at least give the option of "disband" or "reform behind line"... another option is add to skirmishers units the option to close the battle line where line quality is the key to see if the skimis disrupted the unit or not.

I dont really understand

5-add an oob feature, units can form part of a bigger formation, for example 3 units form a legion, this is interesting to mantein formations and you can add leaders for these big units.

It is on the wish list. The UI to control it is the biggest issue - we dont want to slutter the interface

6-is a little hard sometimes in a big melee know what is facing your units, not all but some are a little hard to see well add an arrow or something could be great.

Not sure best how to fix this.

[Scutarii]

Thanks for the reply.

Well, for fire units, at least add the range of attack as a number in unit information, you can change it in the editor, show it could be great because in custom scens can change the range.

Fight near the map edge isnt allways a player choice, Verulamium scens is a good example, big armies in small map for the brith player is complicated move well the troops but isnt Cannae battle where general do it, here is the limit of the map the army killer, well, the army rout.


When i talk about

4-talking about rout... if units can rout over friendly unis... why can they leave 1st line to leave 2nd fight??? units cant retreat and in very small maps is a carnage at least give the option of "disband" or "reform behind line"... another option is add to skirmishers units the option to close the battle line where line quality is the key to see if the skimis disrupted the unit or not.

I refer to add a special rule for light infantry in skirmish to retreat behind the line of battle without a clear path, they can disrupt friendly units but trained troops prevent this, the idea is that archers can retreat behind friendly heavy infantry units crossing their lines, if heavy infantry are average units they can do it in... 70% times without disrupted both units... for example.



For the unit facing... well, use a red triangle in the unit base is a good choice, when you want change facing is white over red.


Oooo 2 things that i dont comment, one is the score screen, is possible add the number or troops in the battlefield??? somtimes after routs is hard know what is your army true force (even routs cant count for this number) and the other question is add a order to retreat units but without change facing, you know, retreat with the face to the enemy dont show our back to the enemy

Again thanks for the fast reply and good luck with your improvement work in the game.

[petergarnett]

Iain - would you have any replies to my earlier post above (13th Jan)?

I'm struggling to understand the combat facing issue mentioned in the previous post - I've had no problem although I do have to zoom in a lot for the complex combats. Maybe I'm missing something.

Routing off the map edge - I blame the scenario design - more than enough room if the largest map size is used. Sometimes if you just want to stand on the defensive you get penalised because the designer has left too few hexes to your rear for routing units to have a chance to rally.

But on the whole I think this is an excellant game - a job well done with expansions & enhancements to follow plus a forum where you get to moan - who could ask for more!

[batesmotel]

I find the easiest way to deal with the facing issue (and in general a better way to visualize possible moves) is to turn on the hex grid display in the game options. It may detract a bit from the visuals of the game but greatly enhances the playability.

Chris

[keyth]

Routing off the map edge - I blame the scenario design - more than enough room if the largest map size is used. Sometimes if you just want to stand on the defensive you get penalised because the designer has left too few hexes to your rear for routing units to have a chance to rally.

I'm 50:50 on this one... once a unit has been forced to evade so that it is significantly distanced from the bulk of the army, it is unlikely to want to return to the fray, so I don't have an issue with evade-type units being chased off the map. However, I'm with you that there should be enough space on the map for a reasonable distance to be covered before the evader disappears into the ether.

Cheers,

Keyth

[petergarnett]

Also the rally / cohesion test modifer for a commander only applies if adjacent or it's his own BG - in the TT version you get it if the BG is within his command range.

Another modifier is rear support - in the pc version it's a non-light unit adjacent (& to the rear?) - I can't remember the actual TT definition nof rear support but thought it a little more generous. I find that having a 2nd line for units to rally behind pretty useless in the PC version.

Another thing which struck me is the lack of interception - in your own turn you can move a BG across the front of the enemy & they don't budge. Again TT has interception. I can understand that you don't want the turn be to sent to your opponent to ask if he wants to intercept but surely a test for opportunity charge would be the next best option. If it's already there my apologies. I also appreciate that such an option is a two edged sword - a unit dashing out of your carefully prepared defensive on a wild charge may ruin your plans - but isn't that what actually happens in real battles!

[batesmotel]

Also the rally / cohesion test modifer for a commander only applies if adjacent or it's his own BG - in the TT version you get it if the BG is within his command range.

Another modifier is rear support - in the pc version it's a non-light unit adjacent (& to the rear?) - I can't remember the actual TT definition nof rear support but thought it a little more generous. I find that having a 2nd line for units to rally behind pretty useless in the PC version.

Another thing which struck me is the lack of interception - in your own turn you can move a BG across the front of the enemy & they don't budge. Again TT has interception. I can understand that you don't want the turn be to sent to your opponent to ask if he wants to intercept but surely a test for opportunity charge would be the next best option. If it's already there my apologies. I also appreciate that such an option is a two edged sword - a unit dashing out of your carefully prepared defensive on a wild charge may ruin your plans - but isn't that what actually happens in real battles!

The commander only needs to be adjacent if the BG taking the cohesion test is in combat. Not for other cohesion tests. I'm not sure how the commander being in combat affects this if it does. The big difference with commanders for FoG PC versus the TT is that the commander is permanently attached to a BG so much more likely to be involved in combat unless you wish to waste his BG which may be one of your best BGs.

While there isn't any intercept, per se, there is a similar affect in that if you move adjacent to the front hex side of one enemy BG and to the rear or flank of another, you seem to normally have to fight the BG which is facing you with its front hex side. This allows you to protect the flank and rear of a BG to some degree by position one behind it with its front hex side covering the first BG's flank or rear hexes.

The whole PC version has been designed to have one player's turn completely independent from the opposing player's, presumably to make PBEM play work simply. Given that, allowing things like choosing whether a BG should evade (and in what direction) at the time than the opponent charges it or giving the opposing player a choice of whether to intercept doesn't fit with the basic game design.

Rear support in the PC version is in some ways more generous in that the troops providing it can be a lower grade than the troops being supported. It is somewhat less flexible in terms of positioning since the TT support rules allow the supports to be further behind the supported unit than what seems to be the equivalent of one hex on the PC. I normally find that a front line with a solid row of BGs with a second line of BGs every other hex allows for support plus leaving space for broken units to usually rout without interpenetrating the second line.

Chris

[petergarnett]

According to the help on the PC version about How BG Test to Rally the commander has to be adjacent as do the support friends. I get confused by what it means by rear arc as it the unit is routing surely it's rear is now where it came from & not where it's going!

I still think something like an anarchy test should be made if a unit moves with 2 or 4 hexes of your front (2 for foot). This would be a better match to the TT version & reality IMO.

The 2nd line of support you describe is fine if the routing unit is lucky enough to finish it's rout move adjacent to the front of one of support units.

[jamespcrowley]

Pursuing is already a percentage - you take a complex move test not to pursue which is effected by your drilled status, generals, quality etc.

Is this actually the case? I cannot recall ever having seen a BG not pursuing a routed unit; which would mean that every BG failed its' complex move test.

Also, the only modifiers that I can see listed for complex move tests are: proximity to a leader and whether disrupted or fragmented. Quality and drilled/undrilled don't seem to figure in the test.

[batesmotel]

Pursuing is already a percentage - you take a complex move test not to pursue which is effected by your drilled status, generals, quality etc.

Is this actually the case? I cannot recall ever having seen a BG not pursuing a routed unit; which would mean that every BG failed its' complex move test.

Also, the only modifiers that I can see listed for complex move tests are: proximity to a leader and whether disrupted or fragmented. Quality and drilled/undrilled don't seem to figure in the test.

Quality re-rolls apply. Drilled pass a CMT on 7, undrilled pass on 8 (assuming it is the same as the TT rules). Generally pursuers only take a CMT to cease continuing to pursue, not for initial pursuit. I have frequently seen BGs not make a second or third pursuit move. CMTs only apply for an initial pursuit move if the BG are shock foot fighting mounted, I believe. Generally units must pursue on the initial turn of rout unless they are in combat with other BGs that are not routing.

Chris

[jamespcrowley]

Quality re-rolls apply. Drilled pass a CMT on 7, undrilled pass on 8 (assuming it is the same as the TT rules). Generally pursuers only take a CMT to cease continuing to pursue, not for initial pursuit. I have frequently seen BGs not make a second or third pursuit move. CMTs only apply for an initial pursuit move if the BG are shock foot fighting mounted, I believe. Generally units must pursue on the initial turn of rout unless they are in combat with other BGs that are not routing.

Chris

Thanks Chris

The help for CMT gives a roll of 6 (drilled, LH or LF) or 7 (others) But I can't see any specific reference to pursuit, as such.

I tend to think that the PC rules are a little short of detail, although I have no yardstick to measure against as I do not have the TT rules.

[Scutarii]

Well, start today my first "PBEM" game and find that cant play custom scenarios, any plans to add these maps in the future??? in the expansion add the army builder in these games... i think that can play custom maps is a needed.

And secons, any plans to permite multigames??? more than 1 player in sides.

Thanks.