Auxilia & Thureophoroi/Thorakitai - advance notice

[ethan]

The rationale for the eastern troops has been covered many times, and a significant part is their vulnerability to mounted troops which in FoG is best represented, in the authors' opinion, by classifying them as MF.

There are a enormous number of possible interactions, even if you just look at historical interactions. One thing I think is helpful is to see a manageable set of better know interactions that the authors feel it is important to "get right" and then the rest are extrapolated from there.

We are seeing this with Legions vs. Warbands now, but there are undoubtedly others.

Longbows vs. Knights
Knights vs. Cavalry
Chinese Foot (losing) vs Eastern Mounted

Are just a couple of obvious ones.

[jonphilp]

Hi ,

On Blood & Gold I was thinking more on the concept of Javelins, Impact Foot , Swordsman rather than the MI classsification. I understand the logic and agree with it , but you could argue for the same designation for some of the troop types in Legions Triumphant etc . As for the Chinese I still use my Han and Western Jin with some success,recently against Indian armies but I have noticed that in FOG that people do tend to keep " in Book" so the non "western" armies do not get a look in. Trying to get an opponent for my early Zhou from the "Swifter than eagles " players has been a struggle. It has been a major learning curve to use the Chinese to play to the rule set (ie MI classification, only separate or mixed battle groups ) rather than how I understood that they actually fought. Do not get me wrong I think FOG is the best ancients set on the market , hopefully v2 will be an improvement rather than a revamp. As I am a great fan of FOGR I am confident that it will be.

[rbodleyscott]

To keep the non-beta-testers in the loop on this issue:

Here is the latest idea we have come up with. We acknowledge that certain troops best represented as LF in most circumstances as LF were also willing to fight hand-to-hand in suitable conditions.

So it turns out that the solution we are seeking may be in a change in the rules for LF and not a change for MF. The proposed change is simple yet radical.

And that change is to allow LF to fight with full dice vs battle troops and LH in rough or difficult terrain. (For example the Roman velites were used as the main assault force initially on steep hills against the Galatians in 189 BC).

So here is what we are currently proposing:

Impact and Melee dice:

Light Foot or Light Horse:

Lose 1 dice per 2 unless:
- Light Foot in Rough or Difficult terrain or fighting against Light Foot.
- Light Horse fighting against Light Horse or Light Foot
- Any vs FRAGMENTED enemy

(To count as in Rough or Difficult terrain a base has to be entirely in Rough or Difficult terrain)

Army Lists

Thureophoroi and Thorakitai are HF, but a proportion (to be decided) can be fielded at deployment time as Euzonoi, classed as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Roman auxilia are HF, but a proportion (to be decided) can be fielded at deployment time as Levis Armatura, classed as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Roman Velites (but not the earlier leves) are also reclassified as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Some troops in other lists may also need to be reclassified to allow them an assault role in terrain - e.g. Alexander's Agrianians.

Note that this won't make most normal LF overpowered, because they will be on -- POA in melee against most opponents, but it will make them better able to stand up to LH in terrain, or help out their friends.

[Delbruck]

Thureophoroi and Thorakitai are HF, but a proportion (to be decided) can be fielded at deployment time as Euzonoi, classed as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Roman auxilia are HF, but a proportion (to be decided) can be fielded at deployment time as Levis Armatura, classed as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Roman Velites (but not the earlier leves) are also reclassified as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Some troops in other lists may also need to be reclassified to allow them an assault role in terrain - e.g. Alexander's Agrianians.

Some very intersting ideas. Clearly the concept of MF has changed. Have you come up with a new definition? It seems now primarly to apply to less well organized/trained troops not able to stand up to HF or mounted in the open.

[johno]

Some very intersting ideas. Clearly the concept of MF has changed. Have you come up with a new definition? It seems now primarly to apply to less well organized/trained troops not able to stand up to HF or mounted in the open.

That is more or less the wording in the current rulebook:

They are capable of fighting alongside heavy foot in the open, but less able to resist a mounted charge and less resilient in a losing fight.

[lawrenceg]

To keep the non-beta-testers in the loop on this issue:

Here is the latest idea we have come up with. We acknowledge that certain troops best represented as LF in most circumstances as LF were also willing to fight hand-to-hand in suitable conditions.

So it turns out that the solution we are seeking may be in a change in the rules for LF and not a change for MF. The proposed change is simple yet radical.

And that change is to allow LF to fight with full dice vs battle troops and LH in rough or difficult terrain. (For example the Roman velites were used as the main assault force initially on steep hills against the Galatians in 189 BC).

So here is what we are currently proposing:

Impact and Melee dice:

Light Foot or Light Horse:

Lose 1 dice per 2 unless:
- Light Foot in Rough or Difficult terrain or fighting against Light Foot.
- Light Horse fighting against Light Horse or Light Foot
- Any vs FRAGMENTED enemy

(To count as in Rough or Difficult terrain a base has to be entirely in Rough or Difficult terrain)

Army Lists

Thureophoroi and Thorakitai are HF, but a proportion (to be decided) can be fielded at deployment time as Euzonoi, classed as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Roman auxilia are HF, but a proportion (to be decided) can be fielded at deployment time as Levis Armatura, classed as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Roman Velites (but not the earlier leves) are also reclassified as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Some troops in other lists may also need to be reclassified to allow them an assault role in terrain - e.g. Alexander's Agrianians.

Note that this won't make most normal LF overpowered, because they will be on -- POA in melee against most opponents, but it will make them better able to stand up to LH in terrain, or help out their friends.

So much for the "sabre versus the trusty fruit knife" theory.

Giving them full dice in all bad terrain seems excessive to me. This gives them more dice than MF in difficult terrain. LF protected JLS sword become as good as normal combat MF in rough (but they move faster, manoeuvre better, evade and can shoot as well!) and better in difficult as well as uncatchable by better foot in the open. You are basically saying that euzonoi etc are better than generic terrain-hugging tribal warriors. This would be the default formation for thureophoroi etc, with HF only being used against predominantly mounted opponents when little terrain is expected. Giving full dice if the opponents are severely disordered would be better IMO, although these opponents are already on half dice, so is even that needed?

The interaction between unprotected LF bow and unprotected MF bow in terrain will also need looking at.

For velites versus Galatians (HF ?) on a steep hill, IIRC historically this assault was done by throwing enormous quantities of javelins for a long time, not by going into close combat. This would be the result anyway under current rules, so IMO there is no need for any change to get the right result for this interaction. (I’m assuming 2 ranks of LF can shoot on a steep hill - I don’t have my rules with me.)

I’m guessing that the idea is to have the former MF troop types retain their capability in bad terrain, but lose the ability to use drilled MF swarm tactics in the open. However, I thought one of the drivers for making them HF is that they did not have that capability in terrain. Roman armoured HF auxilia should be able to put up a reasonable showing against barbarian protected MF in rough or difficult terrain, balancing a third less dice with a 50% more chance of hitting.

Also it seems a bit odd that offensive spear Hellenistic foot should suddenly gain the close combat ability of a swordsman when deployed as euzonoi, but lack it when fighting as HF in a single rank or unsteady. Wouldn’t LF protected javelin light spear (no sword) be a better classification for them? I don’t recall euzonoi doing much hand to hand fighting historically, but I’m no expert.

I don’t know much about Agrianians, but if they are the only ones that seem underpowered then maybe they are classified wrongly and should be MF. Historically, when they assaulted terrain, who was defending? Is there any evidence of them evading an enemy charge, or interpenetrating through friendly troops?

That probably reads as more reactionary than I intended, and testing may prove that these new LF options are not supertroops and give the right results, but my feeling is that historical results would be better matched with less drastic changes.

[Intothevalley]

The proposed changes to allow LF full dice in terrain and for HF to move 4 MU when more than 6 MU from enemy seem to me to be a massive gimping of MF. What are the advantages of MF? Ability to fight in terrain and faster movement as I see it, and these are essentially being eroded by the proposed buffs to LF and HF.

Are these changes principally aimed at stopping the Dominate swarm tactics? If so, wouldn't a simpler solution be to impose a minimum BG size of 6?

[nikgaukroger]

Are these changes principally aimed at stopping the Dominate swarm tactics?

No.

[waldo]

To keep the non-beta-testers in the loop on this issue:

Here is the latest idea we have come up with. We acknowledge that certain troops best represented as LF in most circumstances as LF were also willing to fight hand-to-hand in suitable conditions.

So it turns out that the solution we are seeking may be in a change in the rules for LF and not a change for MF. The proposed change is simple yet radical.

And that change is to allow LF to fight with full dice vs battle troops and LH in rough or difficult terrain. (For example the Roman velites were used as the main assault force initially on steep hills against the Galatians in 189 BC).

So here is what we are currently proposing:

Impact and Melee dice:

Light Foot or Light Horse:

Lose 1 dice per 2 unless:
- Light Foot in Rough or Difficult terrain or fighting against Light Foot.
- Light Horse fighting against Light Horse or Light Foot
- Any vs FRAGMENTED enemy

(To count as in Rough or Difficult terrain a base has to be entirely in Rough or Difficult terrain)

Army Lists

Thureophoroi and Thorakitai are HF, but a proportion (to be decided) can be fielded at deployment time as Euzonoi, classed as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Roman auxilia are HF, but a proportion (to be decided) can be fielded at deployment time as Levis Armatura, classed as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Roman Velites (but not the earlier leves) are also reclassified as LF, Protected, Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

Some troops in other lists may also need to be reclassified to allow them an assault role in terrain - e.g. Alexander's Agrianians.

Note that this won't make most normal LF overpowered, because they will be on -- POA in melee against most opponents, but it will make them better able to stand up to LH in terrain, or help out their friends.

Hmm - so the bog standard barbarian MF protected foot is on equal POA (in melee) and equal dice as Euzonoi even though they have more men fighting? Surely this can't be right. Don't numbers count? Aren't barbarian foot armies bad enough without making them worse against LF in terrain as well?

It also maked those poor LF javelinmen even more of a bargain... handy to have as overlaps in rough or difficult terrain with full dice.

Walter

[zocco]

I'll just put in a bit of special pleading......

If this LF idea is adopted I hope the later Roman armies (eg Doms and Foederate) will at least be given substantially more LF than they have at present. There are some reasons for this;

• The flexibility of a regular army and its skill in irregular warfare and special operations indicates that the army was capable of lightly equipped operations. The limitanei could probably also form leves as part of their remit was to protect local areas against small to medium bands of marauders.
• The need for such light armed troops in the later period would be at least as important as it was in the previous Republican and Principate periods – (aka to defend the empire etc) so the numbers available in the later Roaman lists should at least match those in the earlier lists.
• the currently allowed 4 LF is completely inadequate to deal with the up to 6 bases of Sassanian elephants (which is an indicator that more LF is required – and/or that something is wrong with the current elephant – impact foot/Lt spear swordsmen interaction – I will post separately on this).

[Maniakes]

This LF idea sounds interesting - think it might need some careful play testing but it does address something in FOG that has felt a little odd to me. Over a wide time span you get accounts of detached or light infantry being used not just to scout but to seize or occupy terrain (from Alexander's Agrianians to Byzantine doctrine in the Balkans) and in FOG these are usually represented as LF. But LF can't hold terrain in the game even against the scruffiest of barbarian MF (even if they are only armed with a bow and not even a fruit knife). The MF just keep charging until the LF have evaded out of the terrain - if they try and stand they will almost certainly die. I always thought in terms of either that type of LF should be MF or else that terrain pieces in FOG were just too small for the scale of the evade moves. But maybe beefing up LF like this will produce more historical outcomes

[ValentinianVictor]

I'll just put in a bit of special pleading......

If this LF idea is adopted I hope the later Roman armies (eg Doms and Foederate) will at least be given substantially more LF than they have at present. There are some reasons for this;

• The flexibility of a regular army and its skill in irregular warfare and special operations indicates that the army was capable of lightly equipped operations. The limitanei could probably also form leves as part of their remit was to protect local areas against small to medium bands of marauders.
• The need for such light armed troops in the later period would be at least as important as it was in the previous Republican and Principate periods – (aka to defend the empire etc) so the numbers available in the later Roaman lists should at least match those in the earlier lists.
• the currently allowed 4 LF is completely inadequate to deal with the up to 6 bases of Sassanian elephants (which is an indicator that more LF is required – and/or that something is wrong with the current elephant – impact foot/Lt spear swordsmen interaction – I will post separately on this).

I'm also mystified why there are so few Roman LF in the Later Roman lists. The description of the Battle of Muranga in 363AD given by Ammianus has the this which is possible evidence for a large number of javelin armed skirmishers-

'So, when both sides were near enough to look each other in the face, the Romans, gleaming in their crested helmets and swinging their shields as if to the rhythm of the anapaestic foot, advanced slowly; and the light-armed skirmishers openedthe battle by hurling their javelins, while the earth everywhere was turned todust by both sides and swept away in a swift whirlwind.'

Ammianus would surely have not bothered to mention the javelinmen if they were few in number?

[Intothevalley]

So will there be a point to having MF in the game now? Other than the right to hold and use a missile weapon?

[Maniakes]

So will there be a point to having MF in the game now? Other than the right to hold and use a missile weapon?

Up until now MF has been used to represent two things - firstly infantry who for whatever reason were vulnerable to mounted etc in the open and secondly infantry who were good in terrain. The result was that the first type got the abilities of the second type. This proposal would shift towards making terrain specialists better in terrain - is that so bad?

[Strategos69]

So will there be a point to having MF in the game now? Other than the right to hold and use a missile weapon?

If some MF and HF types are mixed into a new troop category that moves more in terrain and it is not so disadvantaged, then we would be getting things right. As Maniakes points out, the problem with MF is that it covered two different roles and in some cases line infantry was graded as MF, thus suffering from cavalry when there is no evidence of that.

[Intothevalley]

So will there be a point to having MF in the game now? Other than the right to hold and use a missile weapon?

Up until now MF has been used to represent two things - firstly infantry who for whatever reason were vulnerable to mounted etc in the open and secondly infantry who were good in terrain. The result was that the first type got the abilities of the second type. This proposal would shift towards making terrain specialists better in terrain - is that so bad?

I already see that the LF changes are to address the availability of specialist terrain troops, but where does that leave MF? Are they just supposed to be a weaker sort of line infantry? If so, then perhaps points values for MF should be revised downwards relative to HF.

[nikgaukroger]

Hmm - so the bog standard barbarian MF protected foot is on equal POA (in melee) and equal dice as Euzonoi even though they have more men fighting?

Are you assuming that a LF base represents less men than a MF one? If so it is an incorrect assumption.

[jonphilp]

This dicussion is starting to remind me of a certain rule set from the 1980's. Why not introduce "light heavy infantry" for the Roman auxilia to give options for different movement rates etc. Why should auxilia types move at the same rate as say a Pike block especially in rough/difficult terrain. Mind you how detailed do we want to go with the rule set if people already complain that they do not finish games in a reasonable time.

[Mehrunes]

This would be the default formation for thureophoroi etc, with HF only being used against predominantly mounted opponents when little terrain is expected.

This is an exaggeration, sorry. I cannot see people spend more points for HF bases and then turning them into LF bases of less worth when it's not desperately needed.

[hazelbark]

So will there be a point to having MF in the game now? Other than the right to hold and use a missile weapon?

You realize that right now LF get 1 per 2 baess in uneven still. So that is where MF will domiante them.

Also I don't think all LF are getting this protected Lt spear sword. Only a few. An not raly in armies that are uber strong.