Slitherine

I tend to play Seleucids a lot simply because I like the tactical flexibility that cavalry gives. I don't really get the same enjoyment of creating a line and marching it into an enemy and hoping that the battle goes my way.

In my opinion real success comes when you can flank an opponent and attack his line from the rear. So, for me, the game is about trying to do that whilst stopping the opponent from doing it to me. There are other armies with cavalry, but I really got frustrated with them a few months ago (I think I was playing Pyrrhics at the time) when opponents attack a cavalry unit and it evades through all the units around it disrupting them. Similarly, I'd send cavalry to stop enemy flanks and they'd simply be forced (evaded) out of the way. Because of this I moved to Seleucids, they have Elites and Cats and I know that when they are engaged they will stand.

Once the changes come to allow a commander to dictate behaviour, then I'm sure I'll play other armies more.

I'm already engaged in new battles with Carthage, Jewish and Slaves and have been set some interesting challenges! In one game I'm faced with walls of Elite Legions and I've no idea how I'm going to win - especially since they have allies with cataphracts to supplement their armoured cavalry!

Morbio wrote: In my opinion real success comes when you can flank an opponent and attack his line from the rear.

I'd be interested to know how many times you've actually been able to attack an opponent's line from the rear?

Sure, I've been able to attack the odd unit, or if I'm really doing well even a handful of units located on a flank from the rear, but I've never been able to pull off a cavalry charge on the rear of my enemy's line. And no one has done it to me, either, so I 've got to say that I've never seen it.

The issue is that, once engaged, the lines fall apart so quickly that if the cav starts on the flank, it virtually never has the time to intervene in the center before the game is over. And if the enemy line is not engaged, they simply turn to face you... And it is rare indeed where a player cannot throw some MF or HF unit in the path of your cav to keep them engaged for a few turns.

76mm wrote:

Morbio wrote: In my opinion real success comes when you can flank an opponent and attack his line from the rear.

I'd be interested to know how many times you've actually been able to attack an opponent's line from the rear?

Sure, I've been able to attack the odd unit, or if I'm really doing well even a handful of units located on a flank from the rear, but I've never been able to pull off a cavalry charge on the rear of my enemy's line. And no one has done it to me, either, so I 've got to say that I've never seen it.

The issue is that, once engaged, the lines fall apart so quickly that if the cav starts on the flank, it virtually never has the time to intervene in the center before the game is over. And if the enemy line is not engaged, they simply turn to face you... And it is rare indeed where a player cannot throw some MF or HF unit in the path of your cav to keep them engaged for a few turns.

You are right, it is quite difficult to truly cross the T or have any concerted rear attack with troops en masse, but i think that was rare historically as well. What i find effective is attacking in echelon with a deeper formation on the assaulting flank (kinda like the Theban aproach) If you can crumple that one spot of an enemy flank you will eventually will get quite a few rear hits... The timing of when to committ your refused flank to pin the non engaged enemy line is the tricky part!

TheGrayMouser wrote:You are right, it is quite difficult to truly cross the T or have any concerted rear attack with troops en masse, but i think that was rare historically as well. What i find effective is attacking in echelon with a deeper formation on the assaulting flank (kinda like the Theban aproach) If you can crumple that one spot of an enemy flank you will eventually will get quite a few rear hits... The timing of when to committ your refused flank to pin the non engaged enemy line is the tricky part!

Totally agree, although I've found that once you batter one flank, success generally comes not from rear hits (I don't seem to get that many), but from the fact that you can often get 3-1 units on the last BG in the enemies line, and once they break, they disrupt the next, etc. But for me, it is usually a slow process, often too slow to save my refused flank.

Also, I think that one of the reasons a rear attack was rare historically was because troops would "hear footsteps" and flee upon the mere sight of enemies to their rear, long before someone was actually sticking a pike in their back. This seems to be totally missing in FoG (someone else raised this point recently, but I forget who...)

76mm wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:You are right, it is quite difficult to truly cross the T or have any concerted rear attack with troops en masse, but i think that was rare historically as well. What i find effective is attacking in echelon with a deeper formation on the assaulting flank (kinda like the Theban aproach) If you can crumple that one spot of an enemy flank you will eventually will get quite a few rear hits... The timing of when to committ your refused flank to pin the non engaged enemy line is the tricky part!

Totally agree, although I've found that once you batter one flank, success generally comes not from rear hits (I don't seem to get that many), but from the fact that you can often get 3-1 units on the last BG in the enemies line, and once they break, they disrupt the next, etc. But for me, it is usually a slow process, often too slow to save my refused flank.

Also, I think that one of the reasons a rear attack was rare historically was because troops would "hear footsteps" and flee upon the mere sight of enemies to their rear, long before someone was actually sticking a pike in their back. This seems to be totally missing in FoG (someone else raised this point recently, but I forget who...)

He he, I tend to count on chain disruptions a little too much in my own tactical planning.... Doesnt work to well vs a line of elites or a mass of superiors (like the Galatians) where neighboring units almost always pass their cohesion tests. The best thing to do vs elite legions is to try to be/attack somewhere else!

76mm wrote:

Morbio wrote: In my opinion real success comes when you can flank an opponent and attack his line from the rear.

I'd be interested to know how many times you've actually been able to attack an opponent's line from the rear?

Sure, I've been able to attack the odd unit, or if I'm really doing well even a handful of units located on a flank from the rear, but I've never been able to pull off a cavalry charge on the rear of my enemy's line. And no one has done it to me, either, so I 've got to say that I've never seen it.

The issue is that, once engaged, the lines fall apart so quickly that if the cav starts on the flank, it virtually never has the time to intervene in the center before the game is over. And if the enemy line is not engaged, they simply turn to face you... And it is rare indeed where a player cannot throw some MF or HF unit in the path of your cav to keep them engaged for a few turns.

I'd say I achieve this fully quite rarely - it really depends on the battlefield and the quality of the opponent. Often the threat of it is enough to draw off sufficient strength to give the frontal attack the edge. However, I quite often achieve a partial success, which when coupled with the chain of cohesion losses is enough to make the difference. By partial success I mean that I break into a flank and then get a rear attack on some units in the line.

GM posted about running away at the sound of anything to the rear. That's not really possible in this game, and I always coordinate my flanking moves with a threat (real or otherwise) to the line. If the line turns to the rear then it's toast.

When I play random games, I play all kinds of armies. Currently I am playing, the thracian roman client army, galiations, early sarmation max cheep lancers and spartan. I even played early persion and will be messing with lydian at some point.

When I play league play, I tend to play higher quality moral troops. Currently Parthian, which is very strong, but has problems with bad terrain. I would also play spartan or one of the barbarian horde armies. The great thing about fog PC, is I can play any army that I like. (No painting required)

If I flank someone with parthian, I have done a single envelopment right or left and I am fighting on a narrow front. That usually means I will win. If mine line is spread, I will lose. There are not enough cats for that. Generally around 15 cats for 500 points.

How about a handicap system? Based on your multiplayer win/loss ratio, get x% more/less BPs than your opponent. Lose and it goes down, win and it goes up. Would then self-balance.

On the other hand, I don't think multiplayer is broken, keeping it casual would be better than introducing things that get in the way of the FUN.

I would like a comment field on posting, and ability to reply at the end of a game though - I am getting to the point where I think Slitherine can work on the multiplayer experience (2v2 battles anyone?), rather than polishing the game system further.......

davouthojo wrote:How about a handicap system? Based on your multiplayer win/loss ratio, get x% more/less BPs than your opponent. Lose and it goes down, win and it goes up. Would then self-balance.

I think such a system would be very artificial, and might unduly influence which armies people would select. A person who likes to play as carthaginians might lose on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean he is a bad player. A person playing Late Repub Romans might win all the time, but it doesn't mean he is particularly good. In such cases the handicap would be pretty meaningless, if not counterproductive. I want to play with whatever army I am in the moood for, and not worry about how it will affect my handicap.

davouthojo wrote:How about a handicap system? Based on your multiplayer win/loss ratio, get x% more/less BPs than your opponent. Lose and it goes down, win and it goes up. Would then self-balance.

On the other hand, I don't think multiplayer is broken, keeping it casual would be better than introducing things that get in the way of the FUN.

I would like a comment field on posting, and ability to reply at the end of a game though - I am getting to the point where I think Slitherine can work on the multiplayer experience (2v2 battles anyone?), rather than polishing the game system further.......

I really like the idea of multi-multi-player games 2 v2 or 1 v 2 or 2 v 3.... etc. Would be great. This would really be a step forward to be able to create some great campaign scenarios where allies and mercenary troops can really be usefully potrayed.

Morbio wrote:

davouthojo wrote:How about a handicap system? Based on your multiplayer win/loss ratio, get x% more/less BPs than your opponent. Lose and it goes down, win and it goes up. Would then self-balance.

On the other hand, I don't think multiplayer is broken, keeping it casual would be better than introducing things that get in the way of the FUN.

I would like a comment field on posting, and ability to reply at the end of a game though - I am getting to the point where I think Slitherine can work on the multiplayer experience (2v2 battles anyone?), rather than polishing the game system further.......

I really like the idea of multi-multi-player games 2 v2 or 1 v 2 or 2 v 3.... etc. Would be great. This would really be a step forward to be able to create some great campaign scenarios where allies and mercenary troops can really be usefully potrayed.

I too heartily agree that 2 vs 2 (or more!) would be a great addition to multiplayer.

Would be neat but how would you handle it? Would 1 player make all his moves then send the game to his ally to play his turn who then sends it to the enemy? Would be nice but it might be very difficult to put into a workable system as the game is turn based and you almost need both players to have simultaneous access to the game to coordinate moves.

deadtorius wrote:Would be nice but it might be very difficult to put into a workable system as the game is turn based and you almost need both players to have simultaneous access to the game to coordinate moves.

No you dont!

The way I envision it is this, both players on a team have their own list (whether its a completely differnt army or a "partial army", ie 50% of the bp's" doeasnt really matter

I would say the host player is the one whom sets up the game as is now with terrain iniative etc... that player deploys his troops likly in a distinct deploy zone ie the left side, then the turn is passed to his teammate, he deploys (on the right or whatnot) and then to opponents one and two. Turns same order... Coordination would be making sure both teammates have a plan that they both understand and to make sure one player doesnt block his teamembers movement by bad moves etc

I think it would be a lot of fun!

TheGrayMouser wrote:

deadtorius wrote:Would be nice but it might be very difficult to put into a workable system as the game is turn based and you almost need both players to have simultaneous access to the game to coordinate moves.

No you dont!

The way I envision it is this, both players on a team have their own list (whether its a completely differnt army or a "partial army", ie 50% of the bp's" doeasnt really matter

I would say the host player is the one whom sets up the game as is now with terrain iniative etc... that player deploys his troops likly in a distinct deploy zone ie the left side, then the turn is passed to his teammate, he deploys (on the right or whatnot) and then to opponents one and two. Turns same order... Coordination would be making sure both teammates have a plan that they both understand and to make sure one player doesnt block his teamembers movement by bad moves etc

I think it would be a lot of fun!

So you would have to wait for 3 players to finish their moves before it came back to you In theory sounds good but I wouldn't want to play it in campaigns or tourneys as it has the potential to drag on.

That was my feeling as well, not to mention what happens when both allies attack one enemy?? Multi players on one side works well on the table top but I don't think it would do so well here on the PC.

pantherboy wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:

deadtorius wrote:Would be nice but it might be very difficult to put into a workable system as the game is turn based and you almost need both players to have simultaneous access to the game to coordinate moves.

No you dont!

The way I envision it is this, both players on a team have their own list (whether its a completely differnt army or a "partial army", ie 50% of the bp's" doeasnt really matter

I would say the host player is the one whom sets up the game as is now with terrain iniative etc... that player deploys his troops likly in a distinct deploy zone ie the left side, then the turn is passed to his teammate, he deploys (on the right or whatnot) and then to opponents one and two. Turns same order... Coordination would be making sure both teammates have a plan that they both understand and to make sure one player doesnt block his teamembers movement by bad moves etc

I think it would be a lot of fun!

So you would have to wait for 3 players to finish their moves before it came back to you In theory sounds good but I wouldn't want to play it in campaigns or tourneys as it has the potential to drag on.

Well, yeah, you would have to wait... I imagine more games played this way would be by private challenges, but simultanious play isnt going to happen (how often are just TWO FOg players sending turns back and forth every few minutes?)

I would be willing to wait a little longer between turns to have something like this, still likly get turns faster than traditonal snail mail games!

deadtorius wrote:That was my feeling as well, not to mention what happens when both allies attack one enemy?? Multi players on one side works well on the table top but I don't think it would do so well here on the PC.

Not sure why two allied players attacking one enemy would be a problem? I would envision it no different if you were playing a solo game and you made a house rule and only moved all your troops on the left flank ist and resolved all those comabts first, then moved all your units on the right etc... In the theoretical 2 player team , player one would move and resolve all the units/unit actions for those units he controls and passes turn, player 2 on his team would do the same and hit end turn, then the post turn actions would happen as in a normal game ie rallies, rout movement, anarchy for both team members, then side two , player one goes...

The only danger, which I wouldnt find that unrealistic is your teamate that goes ist might move units into your path messing up your battle plans, which is why you would need a chat function for planning, only visible to allies:)

I guess it's my turn to gripe. I pretty much have given up playing any games except for one league and against my brother mainly because I got tired of no more chat usage after the "thanks for the game and good luck" I enjoy to see what the other person thinks or read witty or irrelavant remarks. It just doesn't happen much anymore and that destroys some of the joy of the MP game. And for all you out there I am one lousy player that would select a army without caring about the chance of great victories and glory.

MesaDon wrote:I guess it's my turn to gripe. I pretty much have given up playing any games except for one league and against my brother mainly because I got tired of no more chat usage after the "thanks for the game and good luck" I enjoy to see what the other person thinks or read witty or irrelavant remarks. It just doesn't happen much anymore and that destroys some of the joy of the MP game.

Part of the problem here is that the game only allows you to make chat comments at the end of a turn. Sometimes I mean to say something but accidentally hit the send turn button (whatever it is called) before I type it in - and then it is too late.

It would be nice to be able to make a remark immediately after some disaster or strange event occurs. By the end of the turn you may forget, or it may seem not worth the bother.

I am inherently garrulous, and quite a fast typer, but find myself not writing much chat in most games.

Of course, if you do make remarks, and the other player never replies, that may be a bit disconcerting. However, you must consider that the other player is quite likely not to be a native English-speaker, whose English may not be up to badinage. We don't want to put them off either - it is cool that we can play games with wargamers in any part of the world.

deadtorius wrote:Would be nice but it might be very difficult to put into a workable system as the game is turn based and you almost need both players to have simultaneous access to the game to coordinate moves.

I'd imagine it would be a sequential set of moves. The players on one side would deploy/move (A, then B, then C) then the players on the otherside would move (D then E). At a macro level it is the same as the current game, i.e. one side moves then the other moves.

deadtorius wrote:That was my feeling as well, not to mention what happens when both allies attack one enemy?? Multi players on one side works well on the table top but I don't think it would do so well here on the PC.

I'd imagine that as each player moves then the battle results are resolved before the next player makes his moves, in th same way as individual unit conflicts are resolved within a player's turn. So, by the time it was player B's turn he would receive the game after player A's moves and conflicts are resolved. Of course there is a possibility that one allied player could block your moves, or chase off or destroy your target, but that's realistic in a battlefield if the officers don't communicate. I'd expect there to either be a secure in-game chat for each side (so they could share and discuss tactics) or people would use PMs in addition to the game (I prefer the former).

pantherboy wrote:So you would have to wait for 3 players to finish their moves before it came back to you In theory sounds good but I wouldn't want to play it in campaigns or tourneys as it has the potential to drag on.

You are correct. As GM said, some multi-player games now are almost real-time. I know that against certain opponents, e.g. Deeter, we often make 4 or 5 moves each of an evening. I monitor my games via the e-mail arriving on my mobile phone - the 'ding' is a prompt for me to pause the (TV), go make my moves, and then back to the TV (usually the History Channel... and the pause allows me to skip all the adverts ). However, not all battles are like that, some are 1 move every day, some are 1 every few days. One thing's for sure, the time between moves will be extended the more people that are involved. It may not suit all, but hopefully it'll suit many. I'm hoping that the possibilities for campaign games with countries with borders and allies, and the playability and interest benefits will outweigh the time delay. Of course, if you have 10 games on the go then the time delay per game should be less of an issue.