Best Ideas to Improve FOG PC

[Archie]

A button for land mass type... desert or grass choice of maps.

[petergarnett]

Roping idea is similar to how you move your camp. All units get a +1 to cohesion tests as well as the current other modifiers IMO. Once formation is broken, for whatever reason, all components are back to basic BG's.

As discussed with TGM a large formation would be limited, i.e. can't wheel. However it should be able to turn 90 or 180 degrees.

[TheGrayMouser]

The more I dwell on this , the more I think a command and control system is really too problematic when dealing with hexes. Not to discount any of good ideas in this thread but I really would lean more toward other changes that can indirectly give the effects of CnC.
Some other ideas to throw out there:

Go to a phase based game , there are a couple of variations on this theme.

A set up some type of “formation system” where units are assigned a group(likely at deployment), ideally of like unit types. I am thinking for most 500 ap armies 5 or 6 groups would be a good #.
Once the game starts, a “group” will “activiate” and the player MUST do any actions with any units in that group, moving , shooting impact melee etc. Once done the next group activates.
The sequence of groups could be simple and random or as complex as we want. Perhaps a group would be given an initiave rating based on the majority type ie a group of all cavalry might have a high initiative so activates last.( to take advantage of what happened in prior sequences) Perhaps there could be a deferal sytem where you could defer a group from activating to have another group go ist.


B Have the game play out more like the TT with discreet impact move / shoot phases (note I am not suggesting at all these phases are sent back and forth between players, simply a players turn is broken down) So we would have something like:
1 impact player declares ALL impact combat, maybe a waypoint arrow shows the enemy BG targeted. Hit “end phase”
2 anarchy units that can anarchy now test (if you didn’t declare a charge) if fail player selects the target and hits end phase
3 move all charges, account for evades and resolve all units that are impacting (still gives the player the choice on which units in what order go in) ther could be some situations where a units no longer has a valid target ie destroyed by a previous charger, no problms, the unit simply doesn’t move) end phase
4 move and shoot self explanatory (or course chargers in the prior phase cant do either)
5 all units locked in melee now resolve the combats
***note whether units that JUST charged into impact should then resolve melee(that is how it is done in the TT) or would wait til the next active players turn would need some platesting for overall balance. Likely no is my opinion.
6 hit end turn and routed units move, units rally etc (like it is now when you hit end turn.

Both these don’t address CnC directly but I think it would encourage more historical deployment, maneuver, reserves and troop usage. It certainly would mitiagte the “optimal” micro management of ones forces based on immediate feedback on a unit per unit basis (which is an inherant weakness of any move one unit at a time turn based game)

[stockwellpete]

Pete, as for my idea on command control, I am playtesting with the 1 point movement reduction for all troops. So LF move 3 hexes when out of command instead of 4. The reason for this is to still allow the ligher, faster troops some freedom to avoid the heavy troops while imposing some penalty for being out of command. It seems to produce more of an incremental change rather than a radical change in game play. The real change I am finding is that more thought is required BEFORE movement of multiple BGs to try to avoid individual BGs ending up out of command. If you move a wing in order to flank an enemy line, it becomes much more important to provide for command control duing that movement. You have to devise an overall battle plan at the beginning of a game and proceed to carry it out, rather than assuming you can react to any enemy movement. You still can change your battle plan; it just becomes more challenging. Games seem a bit more structured and less chaotic. It produces more games like the one you describe with TGM. I would be happy to play such a game with you when you have time.

Mac

Sorry my slew-kids didn't put up more of a fight (again ), but I thought your ideas worked very well in the game. Most of the time units were staying in command radius. What would have been interesting if I had killed one of your flank sub-commanders earlier in the game than I did - I may have been able to develop some better counterplay then. A very realistic game all-round though, I think.

[Xiggy]

I have played many other table top rules. In most of them LF moved the same distance as mediums. They just did not have any movement penalty in rough terrain/woods. That would make LF move 3 in this rule set. This should also cut down their evade move and hopefully you could catch them more often. Currently LF are like foot fungus, you cant get rid of them. Even poor LF still are way to good. They tend to last 2 to 3 turns if caught in the open. I think that is way to much staying power for a 2 to 4 point unit.

There are a number of ways to handle this. One is above to shorten movement rate. The second is an auto drop in 1 level of cohesion when they evade. The more expensive Cretan archers would recover that being superior. I am sure the dev's can come up with something.

On the rare instance where I do catch them they tend to drop only 1 moral level usually. I think they have way to much staying power for a game that lasts usually 12 turns at most.

[mceochaidh]

As Pete described, we played an experimental game using the mechanism of reducing movement by 1 hex if a BG was out of command. Simulating this was not that difficult, as it is easy to see if a BG is in command or not and also to see allowable movement. If out of command, we moved the BG one hex less than was highlighted. If a BG out of command moved straight ahead, it could still turn at the end of the move.

It was Seleucids versus Republican Romans on a constricted field. Both sides used 4 generals and for the most part, BGs stayed in command radius. The word both Pete and I came up with to describe the impact of the change was "subtle." It required more thought to plan an advance; once planned properly, the game proceeded normally.

There were a few instances of troops out of command not being able to move full distance, but this seemed not to cause any play balance issues or alter results. As Pete stated, the Romans lost a general near the end of the game, but most of the BGs affected were already engaged or in charge reach. A lost general near the beginning of a game may cause more challenging planning, but this seems realistic to me. It is part of planning for the unexpected.

I would say that the real impact is a greater awareness of planning advances to insure a reasonable chance of having a commander in the vicinity to move BGs their full distance. It encourages the movement of BGs (especially the slow moving HF) in groups to insure they remain in command range.

I know that there are other good ideas being proposed. This change is reasonably simple, requiring little programming and, in my opinion, moves in the right direction.

[TheGrayMouser]

Just curious, what size AP battle did you guys play test? I ask because as it stands you are limited to 4 leaders. In most 500 AP games players generally will take two or three. You both used all four. Seems if movement will be restricted to command radius , 4 leaders will become the norm even for midsize battles and the game might lose some "flavour" of army composition if everyone ALWAYS takes the four.....

[stockwellpete]

Just curious, what size AP battle did you guys play test? I ask because as it stands you are limited to 4 leaders. In most 500 AP games players generally will take two or three. You both used all four. Seems if movement will be restricted to command radius , 4 leaders will become the norm even for midsize battles and the game might lose some "flavour" of army composition if everyone ALWAYS takes the four.....

600pts, TGM. For late medieval battles (such as WotR) it was fairly standard to have three "field" commanders for the vanguard, main battle and rearguard. Then there would often be a reserve with another commander (Edward IV often commanded the reserve and he really was the only "inspired" leader during 1455-87). The French during the 100YW tended to organise their armies in a similar way, so did the Castilians, Aragonese and Portuguese - so four leaders would seem to fit the late medieval period quite well.

But I know very little about the command structures in the ancient world battles. Was it much different then, TGM?

I think that it might be good to have the option of a fifth commander who would be a "troop" option - so you could pick various combinations that might include either two "field" or two "troop" commanders.

[TheGrayMouser]

My comment wasnt about the historical representation off leaders , more of a diversity thing for designing your armies via the DAG. I look at leaders as not actual commanders excersing command and control functionality with the FOG system , but rather as "personalities" that use their inspirational presence to influence their troops. All the current game mechanics support that from cohesion tests to double moves (double moves being pretty abstract of course)

[stockwellpete]

My comment wasnt about the historical representation off leaders , more of a diversity thing for designing your armies via the DAG. I look at leaders as not actual commanders excersing command and control functionality with the FOG system , but rather as "personalities" that use their inspirational presence to influence their troops. All the current game mechanics support that from cohesion tests to double moves (double moves being pretty abstract of course)

Yes, I see. In the battle that me and mac played a leader was killed, but it was only late in the day. If that had happened earlier on in the battle and he had chosen only one or two other leaders then that may have been catastrophic for him. So I take your point that if units are going to be penalised for being out of command radius then many players will certainly want to have three leaders in their 500pt armies and some will want to have four.

[TheGrayMouser]

Well, let me ask you a question: Our last pick up game was my Early Germans vs your speed bumps , er I mean Early Danes Not considering that lists overall weakness, what was your feel of the tempo of the battle? How about how i maneuvered my own troops. Do you think my maneuvering was ahistorical and or needs to be limited by xtra leaders with command radii etc?

[stockwellpete]

Well, let me ask you a question: Our last pick up game was my Early Germans vs your speed bumps , er I mean Early Danes Not considering that lists overall weakness, what was your feel of the tempo of the battle? How about how i maneuvered my own troops. Do you think my maneuvering was ahistorical and or needs to be limited by xtra leaders with command radii etc?

No, not particularly - I thought the game was quite reasonable in historical terms. But not everyone plays the same way as we do. Our battles do seem to have a more measured tempo about them. Probably cos we're getting old! Some horde armies, or what I call "swarm" armies, hardly appear to have any leaders at all which doesn't seem quite right to me.

And then there is the question of the later stages of battles when the initial formations are somewhat shattered. It is then that I think mac's idea is very interesting because players who can still group their units around leaders will tend to do better than those whose armies have broken down into small autonomous groups and/or with individual units roaming about on their own. Mac's idea is really testing how good players are at maintaining the coherence of their army even when their losses are mounting and they are moving towards their breaking point.

Why don't you give mac a game and see how it feels?

[TheGrayMouser]

How old do you think I am!

I brought up that particular battle to illustate the army I used(500 ap's). Only two leaders, the CnC who was a mere field commander, and one troop leader who was also the Swiss allied leader. My tactics w that army are quite basic, the knights , all 9 or so are the hammer and are backed by the CnC, the swiss are the anvil and or a reserve . The other 50% of the troops, all medium spears and crossbows, filled in the gaps between those two elements and basically just provide support. nothing fancy and the kights certainly didnt try any kind of sweeping flank maneuver, nor did any of the mediums. I just dont like the idea that based on a command and control structure you are testing , 50% of my troops would only be able to move 2/3 of their nominal allowance (or 50% allowance as i did have some poor heavy spears kicking back with the camp wenches) Any ways, i wouldnt mind testing what you two are doing, things usually make more sense when you try them ist hand.

[stockwellpete]

I brought up that particular battle to illustate the army I used(500 ap's). Only two leaders, the CnC who was a mere field commander, and one troop leader who was also the Swiss allied leader. My tactics w that army are quite basic, the knights , all 9 or so are the hammer and are backed by the CnC, the swiss are the anvil and or a reserve . The other 50% of the troops, all medium spears and crossbows, filled in the gaps between those two elements and basically just provide support. nothing fancy and the kights certainly didnt try any kind of sweeping flank maneuver, nor did any of the mediums. I just dont like the idea that based on a command and control structure you are testing , 50% of my troops would only be able to move 2/3 of their nominal allowance (or 50% allowance as i did have some poor heavy spears kicking back with the camp wenches) Any ways, i wouldnt mind testing what you two are doing, things usually make more sense when you try them ist hand.

Two leaders was it? OK, well I would say that was a bit ahistorical really. And it was obviously a bit high-risk in gaming terms (although that Swedish army of mine could not have fought its way out of a paper bag!). Under mac's system you would probably have needed another "field" commander. To go into one of mac's battles with only two leaders would mean that you couldn' really risk them in melee and you would have to keep them well back. Whereas if you have four leaders then they can all fight from the outset (which they did in medieval warfare) and you would only have to be more circumspect if one of them was killed. So that is an interesting dimension in itself, I think.

Yes play against mac and see what you think. It doesn't mean a massive change but you do need to think carefully about your leaders and where you put them.

[TheGrayMouser]

Well, that is where i must disagree with ya. Dont want to put you on the spot and hold you literally to your last post , but you indicated that the tempo of that battle seemed reasonable and wasnt ahistoric, but now that you found out i only had 2 leaders it is ahistoric? I am fully aware of the weakness in that list but it is also the standard oob I use for that army and it is the same one I used in the LOEG in season 3 and it did pretty well, considering the opposition. As for the risk of losing a leader? Sure it is risky but I view that army line up a a high risk, high reward type army and my usage of that army reflects that . As for the risk in that battle we played, well, I only commited my CnC near the end as a coup de grasse type thing, and my Swiss barely got engaged prior to the battle ending. It could have gone horribly wrong if my knights failed to bowl over your swedish allies, and the lack of leaders could have been a disaster but my point though it is my choice regarding leaders, and i dont think i should be punished for that.
I understand what you are saying about the standard formations of medevial armies, ie foward, rearward and main "battles" , maybe, just maybe a reserve... However again i view leaders in FOG as leaders that stand out , not as hierarchal commanders of formations.

Oh well, i wont likly post in here too much more since i dont want it to sound like every time i post it is soley to disagree w adding a command an control structure. Alot of great ideas in here! I just dont see how it could work, but then again , for every player there is going to be a differnt opinion on what they want the game to be.


That being said, I ironically have a germ of an idea for a command system that is very similar to the one in Steel Panthers Three, stay tuned while i churn this over in my head

[Aryaman]

I will also like to see battlelines forming and not commando actions. IMO if you want that you have to give that a decissive advantage in combat, so instead of limiting movement, what about giving higher bonus for flank support and being within command?
I also like the idea that units under command of a leader should work as allies, only attached to that leader, sort of combat brigades, but we could maybe create som sort of CIC structure by giving additional bonus to the leaders within the coimmand radius of the overall leader. The net effect should be that

1) Players would buy several leaders to keep BGs in command, creating Combat Brigades

2) They will deploy them forming battlelines

3) They will try to keep them close to the overall leader

4) Deployment and battle planning would be more careful, as well as battle manouver, no more swarming hordes.

Another suggestion I would like to do is regarding Army morale, so that when an army has already 50% of their victory points gone there is a general penalization for all the units, making them easier to rout, and at 75% even more so. The net effect would be

1) Clear cut victories, no close runs in which plain luck decides victory

2) Armies that are disorganized rout while those who remain in command and keeping reasonable intact battlelines prevail, no more battles in which the victorious army is just a mess of units dispersed all over the field.

[stockwellpete]

Well, that is where i must disagree with ya. Dont want to put you on the spot and hold you literally to your last post , but you indicated that the tempo of that battle seemed reasonable and wasnt ahistoric, but now that you found out i only had 2 leaders it is ahistoric?

No, I think you are conflating two things though, TGM. The tempo was fine and it was similar to our "epic" league encounter, not ahistorical at all. But the fact that you picked one "field" and one "troop" commander (I couldn't remember what you had picked) I do regard as a tad ahistorical inasmuch as you were probably one "field" commander light. Some players, like you and like me, tend to play in a "historical way" anyway, so mac's ideas would not have as great an impact on us as other players with a more "ahistorical style", shall we say?

I am fully aware of the weakness in that list but it is also the standard oob I use for that army and it is the same one I used in the LOEG in season 3 and it did pretty well, considering the opposition. As for the risk of losing a leader? Sure it is risky but I view that army line up a a high risk, high reward type army and my usage of that army reflects that . As for the risk in that battle we played, well, I only commited my CnC near the end as a coup de grasse type thing, and my Swiss barely got engaged prior to the battle ending. It could have gone horribly wrong if my knights failed to bowl over your swedish allies, and the lack of leaders could have been a disaster but my point though it is my choice regarding leaders, and i dont think i should be punished for that.

OK, but you are "punished" already in the sense that units "out of command" suffer various penalties. what mac wants to do is just to increase your pain!

I understand what you are saying about the standard formations of medevial armies, ie foward, rearward and main "battles" , maybe, just maybe a reserve... However again i view leaders in FOG as leaders that stand out , not as hierarchal commanders of formations.

Right. I have not heard that view about the leaders before today. I have always thought of them as hierarchical commanders. What do other people think about this idea?

Oh well, i wont likly post in here too much more since i dont want it to sound like every time i post it is soley to disagree w adding a command an control structure. Alot of great ideas in here! I just dont see how it could work, but then again , for every player there is going to be a differnt opinion on what they want the game to be.

That being said, I ironically have a germ of an idea for a command system that is very similar to the one in Steel Panthers Three, stay tuned while i churn this over in my head

Well, it does work, TGM - and it is not too different from what already happens. Will you be consuming lots of beer while you contemplate the Steel Panthers?

[Xiggy]

That is great for Hoplites, Pikes, and Republican Roman, but what about the various mounted armies. The only way they win now is by finding exposed flanks and charging in. Will the point costs for mounted be reduced or will their combat factors increased to compensate for the added infantry cohesion.

With the current system it is very hard to just charge in frontally and beat any Pikes, Hoplites or to a lesser extent Romans.

[stockwellpete]

That is great for Hoplites, Pikes, and Republican Roman, but what about the various mounted armies. The only way they win now is by finding exposed flanks and charging in. Will the point costs for mounted be reduced or will their combat factors increased to compensate for the added infantry cohesion.

With the current system it is very hard to just charge in frontally and beat any Pikes, Hoplites or to a lesser extent Romans.

But if players are picking more commanders then their armies will be a bit smaller, maybe by 3 or 4 BG's, so there should be a bit more space for the horse armies to exploit. I would also think that "troop" commanders would be key for horse armies too.

[TheGrayMouser]

He he , many beers wil be consumed.

Ziggy raises a good point which i am concerned about as well. Horse archer armies arnt the hordes that many think they are (thats the Bosphorans) Look at Mamluks, the units they have are so expensive even at 500APs w 3 leaders , one has an army of 28-30 BP's . Pretty small in FOW terms. Those leaders are not going to give enough CnC to give you any chance of avoiding a crusdaer army that can make a wall of spears streching from one side to another of a map. No chance to get flanks or break up that formation, not unless you are forced to buy an inpired leader and all field commanders which will make your army even smaller!. And yes, a crusader player ( or any other larger cheap heavy infantry army) could forgoe xtra leadership and not have it matter so much vs specific opponents.
Another concern is i dont want tactics to turn into a mathemetically geometric excersize where two large medium foot armies vie for control of the map like this is some giant game of majong or something . People will become really good at positioning troops in ahistoric ways to squeeze evry ounce of a Cn C sytem based on radii. A unit here where its ok if can only move 1 hex per turn , a unit there that can move three , a unit up one hex and two to the left that can move 2 etc . A nice pattern that can befuddle your opponent that will never know what your units can and cant do! Not saying it wouldnt be challening or that tehre would be skill behind it, it just wouldnt feel like a battle anymore.