Slitherine

pyruse wrote:
I actually think that base removal is a bad thing - real units didn't have their frontage get smaller as they took casualties.
philqw78 wrote:
A lot of them certainly did. Close order foot especially would close up ranks otherwise there would be gaps in the line that could be exploited.
----------------
Close order foot fought many ranks deep for a reason - it means that casualties can be replaced from the rear ranks without your frontage reducing.
Do you actually have evidence of close order foot reducing frontage as casualties mounted, or is that just an assumption on your part?

pyruse wrote:pyruse wrote:
I actually think that base removal is a bad thing - real units didn't have their frontage get smaller as they took casualties.
philqw78 wrote:
A lot of them certainly did. Close order foot especially would close up ranks otherwise there would be gaps in the line that could be exploited.
----------------
Close order foot fought many ranks deep for a reason - it means that casualties can be replaced from the rear ranks without your frontage reducing.
Do you actually have evidence of close order foot reducing frontage as casualties mounted, or is that just an assumption on your part?

Well yours is obviously an opinion or just an assumption without any evidence, why should I bother?

Or you could use the Latin drill command "Iunge, Iunge", close ranks, used to close up files to fill the gaps left by the fallen.

Well as max casualty rates of around 5% before breaking are often quoted by people who study these things, it is unlikely that there was much shrinkage at that point - rates for the losers who break are much higher, but most are in the rout (or so it is believed).

david53 wrote:
if you work out the dice and POA by file it works a lot quicker and with less worries.

But that way, wouldn't it be possible to have more dice than you should if you did an overall calculation?

Maybe that should be posted in the rules section, but I hope you can hekp me with this and determine if that's easy to calculate.

We have a BG of 5 bases of hoplites which lost 1 base and dropped a level in the previous round (they are disrupted). They are 3 wide 2 deep facing 2 BG of impact foot swordsmen and spearmen. If I calculate the base drop and POA per file, they will throw 5 dice with 3 different PoA's each. If I calculate the dice before anything, then it would be 4 and then I should check in which combat the die lost is applied

The situation (with more round bases on the left)
[][]
[][][]
OXXX
OXXX

In the alternative system, we should take out dice from the combat with more dice and all hoplites would have the same PoA for depth. If the hoplites lose one base more, they would be "half strenght" and there would be no need to keep looking per file.

philqw78 wrote:Or you could use the Latin drill command "Iunge, Iunge", close ranks, used to close up files to fill the gaps left by the fallen.

We don't know much about how formations worked, but we do know that usually Caesar reduced the depth of the legion but always kept the front. In certain circumstances, he deployed two legions side by side to make one of them, so it is also true that legions could not be stretched so that they were less than four ranks deep. My guess, and in that regard the claims against death of bases have some foundaments, is that we take out more bases and change the shape of the unit more than it would be appreciated before the flight. I have also read what Nik said about a low ratio of casualties before the rout so base loses should be taken more as damage to the unit combat capabilities.

Strategos69 wrote:

david53 wrote:
if you work out the dice and POA by file it works a lot quicker and with less worries.

But that way, wouldn't it be possible to have more dice than you should if you did an overall calculation?

Maybe that should be posted in the rules section, but I hope you can hekp me with this and determine if that's easy to calculate.

We have a BG of 5 bases of hoplites which lost 1 base and dropped a level in the previous round (they are disrupted). They are 3 wide 2 deep facing 2 BG of impact foot swordsmen and spearmen. If I calculate the base drop and POA per file, they will throw 5 dice with 3 different PoA's each. If I calculate the dice before anything, then it would be 4 and then I should check in which combat the die lost is applied

The situation (with more round bases on the left)
[][]
[][][]
OXXX
OXXX

In the alternative system, we should take out dice from the combat with more dice and all hoplites would have the same PoA for depth. If the hoplites lose one base more, they would be "half strenght" and there would be no need to keep looking per file.

Right my mistake for not explaining it better.

Right lets say you all have the same armour and the X are spears and the O is impact foot/swords

In the melee phase you start with 5 dice and lose 1 per 3 as your disrupted so go down to 4 dice, you have to have one dice each against O and X the remaining two can go were you like but only two dice against O as you only have one file fighting that BG.

Right this is what I ment by throwing per file, place the dice you are going to be throwing for each file behind them and your opponent does the same. After you work out the POA(in your diagram all are on evens apart from the one base file on a minus) per file throw the dice place any hits you make behind the file.

At the end count up all the hits each BG gave and recieved and work out you won.

This system works well when there are odd BGs fighting.

I hope this makes sense.
Dave

rbodleyscott wrote:The current proposal is to have Superiors autobreak on the same base losses as Average.

Fairly radical, but this is what we plan to play-test.

This stinks of another set of rules where they tried to shoe-horn the capabilities of troops into a given points cost with numerous tweaks. This will also impact all Superior troops equally and the current points costs are about right for some Superior/Average options but not for others.

Can you not just sort the points costs out where needed.

hammy wrote:Finding instances of groups of troops that fought on when reduced to half strength is not I suspect going to be as easy as you might think.

In the Ancient world this will be almost impossible due to the limited sources.

However, if we look to more modern periods of warfare, where casualty returns are much more readily available, we can see instances of troops fighting on successfully with losses of 50% or greater. Confederate regiments in the American Civil War (generally Superior troops if ever there were any) often sustained huge casualties and still stayed in the field.

While the weaponry and tactics may have changed, the basic soldier and his fighting spirit (whether good or bad) remain the same throughout history.

DavidT wrote:

hammy wrote:Finding instances of groups of troops that fought on when reduced to half strength is not I suspect going to be as easy as you might think.

In the Ancient world this will be almost impossible due to the limited sources.

However, if we look to more modern periods of warfare, where casualty returns are much more readily available, we can see instances of troops fighting on successfully with losses of 50% or greater. Confederate regiments in the American Civil War (generally Superior troops if ever there were any) often sustained huge casualties and still stayed in the field.

While the weaponry and tactics may have changed, the basic soldier and his fighting spirit (whether good or bad) remain the same throughout history.

I believe most evidence now is that casaulties were not heavy until an army routed in the ancient period. Ancient armies had a difficult time actually hurting each other when formed...

DavidT wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:The current proposal is to have Superiors autobreak on the same base losses as Average.

Fairly radical, but this is what we plan to play-test.

This stinks of another set of rules where they tried to shoe-horn the capabilities of troops into a given points cost with numerous tweaks. This will also impact all Superior troops equally and the current points costs are about right for some Superior/Average options but not for others.

Can you not just sort the points costs out where needed.

You're making the assumption that balancing the effect to the points is what has driven the suggesttion - this may well not be the case, but a belief that Superior troops are too resilient at present.

Thank you, David! It is true that this kind of tricks work well. I will try next time. For example, when explaining how to deduct dice when DISR, I tell people to take as many dice as bases and then count up to three and get one out.

Regarding the question of taking out bases and PoA, as it has been pointed out, I see it as a way of reflecting the loss of combat power even in winning BG, but punishing BG that have support in files seems not only double punishment, but a little bit complicated in some common circumstances.

nikgaukroger wrote:You're making the assumption that balancing the effect to the points is what has driven the suggesttion - this may well not be the case, but a belief that Superior troops are too resilient at present.

This could be quite a far reaching change actually...Much of army design revolves aroudn 4 base mounted BGs, often superior, and these are the troops most affected by this change. Bring up 4 bases BGs of lancers to face foot bows is substantially more dangerous with this change for instance.

deCiding whether or not to commit a general to your 4-base superior cavalry unit becomes a bit more of a big decision too. Again this might be A Good Thing in reducing the chasm between Superior and Average?

madaxeman wrote:deCiding whether or not to commit a general to your 4-base superior cavalry unit becomes a bit more of a big decision too. Again this might be A Good Thing in reducing the chasm between Superior and Average?

Yes because average auxilia should be just as resilient as superior cav.

But then the way this is all going perhaps would should just drag the game down to the drudge of a load of average crap foot facing off and wearing each other down through weight of numbers and dice.

philqw78 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:deCiding whether or not to commit a general to your 4-base superior cavalry unit becomes a bit more of a big decision too. Again this might be A Good Thing in reducing the chasm between Superior and Average?

Yes because average auxilia should be just as resilient as superior cav.

But then the way this is all going perhaps would should just drag the game down to the drudge of a load of average crap foot facing off and wearing each other down through weight of numbers and dice.

This is why the entire package of changes is needed. This change alone, without some other changes reducing the effect of the Roman auxilia might not be good. But let's see the changes as a whole first. The authors have said they have other, as yet unspecified, plans to weaken teh 4 base MF swarms.

philqw78 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:deCiding whether or not to commit a general to your 4-base superior cavalry unit becomes a bit more of a big decision too. Again this might be A Good Thing in reducing the chasm between Superior and Average?

Yes because average auxilia should be just as resilient as superior cav.

But they wouldn't be - see Graham's post yesterday.

BTW it strikes me that if such a change were made it may well alter the balance of decision making when looking at some BG sizes - especially those 4-6 base mounted. This would probably be a good thing IMO as it is pretty much 4 bases all the way at present and a more balanced choice would be a good thing. I also wonder if it might just be the sort of change that subtly removed the bit of bias towards mounted in the rules and makes it more balanced - as it is likely to affect mounted more than infantry.

For Roman armies 4 bases groups seems perfectly reasonable, they were known to have greater flexibility than its opponents, also this small size reflects well the traditional organization of the roman army into centuries, maniples and cohorts.

Should they be penalised for being organized in small groups, when in reality it worked as an advantage to them?

Also if superior 4 bases BG's be penalised they're interaction with pikes will change to worst.

As for the removal of bases, I think that we must keep in mind that the rules are a proxy to reality, it isn't that important if the removal of bases represent dead, wounded, deserters, fatigue etc....it just reflects the decline in the unit's ability to fight, which cannot simply be represented by drops in cohesion, because it can return to normal too easily.

And still we must not forget that historically experienced troops ("superior") behaved much, much better than other units, so I don't think it is such a good idea to bring them closer.

It would be more sensible to reclassify many of the superior troops as average. Also for some of the elites that I never understood why they were so special (thinking of Achaemenid Persian cavalry, for example), well this should be in another topic, I know...