Autosupport?

[Strategos69]

I can't tell if the Thebans were equal to Spartans by that time, but Spartans still had a reputation Thebans still did not have one. We also know Thebans were inferior in numbers. According to FoG lists, Spartans would be superior and Thebans average, except for one BG representing the 150 couples that formed the Sacred Band (only 300 hundred men!). I can't see either that the 1000 cavalry men routing disordered the whole right flank, although it is said in the sources that they brough disorder to their ranks. In FoG terms that wouldn't be covered either.

In Bagradas it is described that the depth of the formation accomplished what it was intended for. I have put the quotation somewhere. What failed in the Roman plan was the weakness of the cavalry that ended up surrounding their troops.

Regarding Pharsalus, Pompeius was afraid his legionaries would flee at first contact. The whole campaign he was very cautious regarding this fact and he did not engage his legionaries until he was completely sure of some success (for example, counter-attack in Dyrrachium). I think deploying in depth and acting as an anvil to his cavalry was everything he could do given the troops he had. I would blame more Labienus charge than Pompeius himself.

And again, I think that generals in ancient times thought about using a depth formation. In some context it was justifiable and it succeeded. FoG simply does not cover it and therefore people do not carry on that kind of deployment. If the rules change, I wouldn't like seeing from now on all armies deploying in depth. I would like to see that as an option, maybe even a risky one (for example, counting only the first two ranks for the number of hits per base taken by a unit). That way in my opinion, the game would win in historicity and in the tactical point of view.

[grahambriggs]

I can't tell if the Thebans were equal to Spartans by that time, but Spartans still had a reputation Thebans still did not have one. We also know Thebans were inferior in numbers. According to FoG lists, Spartans would be superior and Thebans average, except for one BG representing the 150 couples that formed the Sacred Band (only 300 hundred men!). I can't see either that the 1000 cavalry men routing disordered the whole right flank, although it is said in the sources that they brough disorder to their ranks. In FoG terms that wouldn't be covered either.

In Bagradas it is described that the depth of the formation accomplished what it was intended for. I have put the quotation somewhere. What failed in the Roman plan was the weakness of the cavalry that ended up surrounding their troops.

Regarding Pharsalus, Pompeius was afraid his legionaries would flee at first contact. The whole campaign he was very cautious regarding this fact and he did not engage his legionaries until he was completely sure of some success (for example, counter-attack in Dyrrachium). I think deploying in depth and acting as an anvil to his cavalry was everything he could do given the troops he had. I would blame more Labienus charge than Pompeius himself.

And again, I think that generals in ancient times thought about using a depth formation. In some context it was justifiable and it succeeded. FoG simply does not cover it and therefore people do not carry on that kind of deployment. If the rules change, I wouldn't like seeing from now on all armies deploying in depth. I would like to see that as an option, maybe even a risky one (for example, counting only the first two ranks for the number of hits per base taken by a unit). That way in my opinion, the game would win in historicity and in the tactical point of view.

I doubt we're going to agree on this. My view is that FoG does encourage depth formations. I would usually have hoplites in three ranks, and often have a unit behind of weaker troop to make the front line feel braver. I do that because it makes them more resilient and harder hitting.

[Strategos69]

I doubt we're going to agree on this. My view is that FoG does encourage depth formations. I would usually have hoplites in three ranks, and often have a unit behind of weaker troop to make the front line feel braver. I do that because it makes them more resilient and harder hitting.

When I am thinking in deep formations I have more in mind 4 ranks, which has no sense with spears as the rules are right now. I am also thinking of warband in deep formations (4 ranks) to press the enemy in one point of the line. I find that deploying in 3 ranks is somehow tricky regarding what historically was done. You have advantages but no downsides (just less frontage). That is why I was suggesting that hits per base should be counted for the first two ranks, but a PoA for some troops or a CT plus for other for that 4th rank (or a deeper formation than the enemy).

By the way, I can also see the problem of letting all hoplites do it and finally finding that all hoplites armies fought as Thebans did. As FoG has no scaling it is hard to tell how many bases represent what and how we can make it historical, but I can't see, for example, how Thebans tactics for Tegyra, Leuctra and Mantinea could be represented with either the actual lists or rules.