Field of Glory Ancients version 2

[spikemesq]

Flank Shooting: I also think that flank shooting should offer more than frontal shooting. Yes, this benefits skirmishers that many feel are too powerful/useful. OTOH, it seems odd that troops that are vertically distant from the shooting victims (e.g., rear ranks beyond 3) do not help the target BG but troops horizontally distant (the other end of a wide BG) still count against tests caused by flank shooters. Something based on the "first three ranks" rule could be:

While you make good points, another set of napoleonic rules explained why they don't have flank fire. Historically it was very rare. Gamers because of base sizes do it far too much by comparison. At these scales it would be very hard. Even one base over you really are not raking the deck or crossing the T. You would be shooting into the line from an angle.

Not sure I follow you here.

The flank shooting I am thinking of would be entirely from the side/rear (e.g., eligible for flank charges). Currently, an 8-pack can literally ignore a 4-pack skirmishers beyond their flank/rear. They cannot trigger a test and cannot charge. Boosting the effect of such shooters (e.g., calculating the HPB for the closest 3 ranks) would escalate the 8-pack's concern by giving the skirmishers a chance to cause a test if they score two hits. The benefit would only apply if there are no other shooters (at which point their added dice suffice). It should not be too unbalanced since the 8-pack can simply move away from the skirmishers (no ZOC) or turn to refuse the flank.

[stecal]

I dont think flank shooting should more effective in killing power (POA), but treating being shot at in the flank or rear within 6 MUs perhaps could get the -1 for threatened flank in the CT test.

[timmy1]

Because of the initiative system used, certain historically important armies are not always viable in a form that would be typical of their historical counterpart. These tend be armies that were feared by their historical opponents and which largely fought in rugged terrain, which they used as a weapon in itself. Rugged terrain tends not to be condusive to livestock breading. The lists in the FoG Companions that match the historical prototypes not to have enough initiative modifying troops to ever reach +4 PBI. I am thinking of armies such as:

Basques
Illyrians
Dalarmna Swedes
the early period Late Swiss (Mortgarten etc)
Thracians
Zagros Higlanders

I am sure that there are others in areas such as Indo-China and the Tibetan mountains. The rugged terrain these people lived in tended not to support such a high population density so the armies were often small.

Proposal for certain historically justified armies only, there is the option to expend points to purchase a PBI modifier. The cost must be high enough for it not to be seen as a freebie. If costed right, it will enable certain armies to have the option of fighting in terrain that made them viable but at a cost in army size.

Option to purchase PBI. Purchased PBI only available as per the army lists in the companion volumes (and in most cases only for a specific campaign or range of dates). Purchased PBI cannot be used to take the PBI above +4. If it is purchased and gets above +4, the points so spent are wasted.

+1 PBI 45 points
+2 PBI 70 points (not cumulative with the +1 - it is either / or)

Not all armies will have the option to purchase the +2. From the above list only the first 4 would get the +2 option.

[david53]

Allow more BGs but make it harder for them to arrive.

[DavidT]

Players with mounted armies tend to have a greater chance of winning the PBI than infantry armies, allowing them to select the terrain which suits them more often. Therefore armies which historically fought in denser terrain are disadvantaged are are less likely to be seen.
Make the roll to select terrain a straight die roll with no PBI modifier. this gives both players an equal chance of getting the terrain type they wish.
A second roll is then made to determine who selects terrain pieces first, deploys second and moves first which uses the PBI modifier.

[spikemesq]

I dont think flank shooting should more effective in killing power (POA), but treating being shot at in the flank or rear within 6 MUs perhaps could get the -1 for threatened flank in the CT test.

I agree that POA is not a good place to tweak flank shooting.

The problem with a CT modifier is that you have to cause a test to use it.

The core of my gripe/issue is this:

. . . .
. . . .

= LF/LH shooters facing right
= target 8-pack of non-skirmishers facing up/down

The shooters can do nothing (with or without a CT modifier) because 2 hits won't cause a test. If they are LF they cannot charge. I can't get past the fact that a unit (even one of skirmishers) gets all but zero benefit from obtaining what should be an ideal position. To be clear, I don't propose that the skirmishers should have the power that they would in DBM here. Instead, a slight adjustment to shooting could inject some value into obtaining this position.

If the 8-pack were facing left, the shooters could provoke a test because only the first three ranks count for HPB. Regardless of facing, half the target BG should be too far away from the shooting to bolster the target's morale.

Basically, I submit that the "first three ranks rule" reflects (a) concentrated missile-fire and (b) partial ignorance on the part of the rear ranks. Thus, it makes sense to discount the value of distant ranks from shooting effects. They are too far from the action to dilute missile fire and cannot see why their pals are slowing down, dying, etc. When the shooting comes from beyond their sight-line, the far end of troops in line similarly should not reassure those troops suffering missile fire. By contrast, where the shooting is from the front, although it is also concentrated on part of the target BG, the far end of the line knows what is causing the harm and, therefore, supply a morale benefit.

Again, I only propose changing HPB from shooting entirely from the flank. If the flank shooters are combined with frontal shooting, the current rules work fine IMO because the additional dice are sufficient.

I think that rear shooting also should have more effect than frontal shooting, but the mechanics are trickier. Here, a POA adjustment might be valid (Protected often means shielded, which should not matter to the rear), but that may go too far. The HPB rule has similar logical appeal, but I don't know how you could adapt that rule for rear shooting. Perhaps only those stands that are shot count for HPB (making rear shooting cause a test on almost any hit), but that would penalize larger groups of rear shooters as more shooting dice may require more hits because there are more target stands. Even a rule that any hit from solely rear shooting causes a CT might be valid.

Spike

[hazelbark]

The problem with the rear shooting, and I get your points and they have validity, is that it would turn the game toward the gamey side. Remember the days of the LH fleeing into your rear and buttox of this and toenail of that. It just creates an incentive for these tactics that appear far more common on the game table than history.

[Eques]

-What I like, and hope you will retain, is the way FoG does not insert arbitrary rules in a vacuous attempt to mimic history. Any mimicking of history comes about organically from the standard rules. There is no nonsense along the lines of "ooh historically the Greeks did well against the Persians so Greeks get a plus 1 poa against Persians" or "Romans get +1 on CMTs because Romans were well drilled."

-I would like to see a standard set of base sizes and tabletop for 1/72 plastics as at the moment 15mm bases are too cramped and 25mm bases too big, especially for close order troops. I think 1/72s look better set against other 1/72s.

-It would perhaps be a good idea to separate out the quality of troops in missile and hand-to-hand situations.

[Eques]

• Eliminate skilled swordsmen, it does not add enough to be worthwhile and as others have said it is overkill on the Rome vs. Barbarian interactions.
• Consider doing something to help the troops that have swords only. Right now they are pretty worthless, but several chinese armies have front rank sword, rear rank bow which is just terrible. Similarly, the Indian armies with their MF with sword are a pretty worthless troop type. They should probably be about as good as as sword/lt spear as they cost the same AP...Perhaps sword only troops should get a PoA light mounted light spears - at least then they could charge bows...

I hope you DON'T make too many changes of this type. Historically Romans did totally pulverize much larger barbarian armies (ask Boudicca or Cassivelaunus) and similarly a lot of historical troop types were rather bizarre, problematic or worthless. For me the fun of playing with such an army would be finding the best way to use such troops and learning to work with an army's weaknesses as well as its strengths.

After all the points system is there to ensure parity of opportunity.

[azrael86]

What I like, and hope you will retain, is the way FoG does not insert arbitrary rules in a vacuous attempt to mimic history. Any mimicking of history comes about organically from the standard rules. There is no nonsense along the lines of "ooh historically the Greeks did well against the Persians so Greeks get a plus 1 poa against Persians" or "Romans get +1 on CMTs because Romans were well drilled."

Interesting. Do you really think this is the case? The same process is handled via the weapon/POA system. Naturally it works OK for the troops in question but distorts other results.

[madaxeman]

Undrilled (ie barbarian) troops in terrain have a very limited ability to do anything about troops moving past terrain - turning, moving, expanding all takes about a week, in which time enemies have often just swept past any terrain on table.

Some ability for units to simply "occupy" terrain pieces and emerge from them in a variety of facings might make terrain more interesting and make undrilled armies more viable?

[spikemesq]

Undrilled (ie barbarian) troops in terrain have a very limited ability to do anything about troops moving past terrain - turning, moving, expanding all takes about a week, in which time enemies have often just swept past any terrain on table.

Some ability for units to simply "occupy" terrain pieces and emerge from them in a variety of facings might make terrain more interesting and make undrilled armies more viable?

Probably easier to adjust the CMT chart to give Undrilled MF more agility, like Aux in DBM.

[ethan]

• Eliminate skilled swordsmen, it does not add enough to be worthwhile and as others have said it is overkill on the Rome vs. Barbarian interactions.
• Consider doing something to help the troops that have swords only. Right now they are pretty worthless, but several chinese armies have front rank sword, rear rank bow which is just terrible. Similarly, the Indian armies with their MF with sword are a pretty worthless troop type. They should probably be about as good as as sword/lt spear as they cost the same AP...Perhaps sword only troops should get a PoA light mounted light spears - at least then they could charge bows...

I hope you DON'T make too many changes of this type. Historically Romans did totally pulverize much larger barbarian armies (ask Boudicca or Cassivelaunus).

Romans as superior and armoured swordsmen will still do this to protected, average barbarians.

[pezhetairoi]

This is probably too big to change, but I would like to see less difference between cavalry and light horse troop types.
Unprotected cavalry and light horse are often used in the lists as interchangeable options (for example Skythians and Huns), but they play very differently and adhere to very different rules. It is odd. They are the same -- unarmoured men on horses who tend to skirmish instead of close for combat. To me this exposes a minor flaw in the troop classification system. The authors kindly let you make the choice for yourself (and I appreciate that) but the historical truth likely lies somewhere in the middle -- that Cavalry and Light Horse were mostly indistinguishable and in many cases could fill each others' perceived roles.

[ATXPaul]

I play Classical Greece, so take the following cum grano salis:

I would like to see light horse and light foot not be invulnerable. As it stands, with heavy infantry, the enemy will move to within 2, javelin me, force me to charge on my activation, then evade up to six inches.

In all of my games (approximately six, so not many but enough) I have caught light foot once, and light horse never. They're simply invulnerable against my Greeks, while completely discombobulating my formation with forced charges and pulling my skirmishers themselves out of position to simply cover for them.

I've never read about an entire battleplan go to waste because the phalanxes went on a wild goose chase of enemy skirmishers.

[Eques]

You could make it clearer in the rules that players should stick to the criteria laid down in the army lists.

At the moment for example everyone, but everyone, with a Persian army maxes out on medizing hoplites whether or not they are playing against Greece, 479 BC (which makes me wonder why they wanted a Persian army in the first place).

[david53]

I play Classical Greece, so take the following cum grano salis:

I would like to see light horse and light foot not be invulnerable. As it stands, with heavy infantry, the enemy will move to within 2, javelin me, force me to charge on my activation, then evade up to six inches.

In all of my games (approximately six, so not many but enough) I have caught light foot once, and light horse never. They're simply invulnerable against my Greeks, while completely discombobulating my formation with forced charges and pulling my skirmishers themselves out of position to simply cover for them.

I've never read about an entire battleplan go to waste because the phalanxes went on a wild goose chase of enemy skirmishers.

The Spartans lost a whole army too athenian skirmishers in the great war between them. it was a battle on an Island can't remember the name will find it out(the lights came up to them shot at them threw javilins and when the Spartans charged they evaded and came back again, in the end they surrended to them)

[pcelella]

The Spartans lost a whole army too athenian skirmishers in the great war between them. it was a battle on an Island can't remember the name will find it out(the lights came up to them shot at them threw javilins and when the Spartans charged they evaded and came back again, in the end they surrended to them)

That would be the Battle of Sphacteria.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sphacteria

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[pcelella]

Although I don't think there needs to be any major changes to the rules (maybe just tweaks and some list adjustments), I'd like to see a rewrite that is more newbie friendly. At present FoG seems to be a ruleset that has gotten wide adoption from the pre-existing population of Ancient wargamers, but as far as I can tell, it has brought in very few new gamers who weren't already Ancient gamers to begin with. I think that when newbies peruse the rules, they are not layed out in a way that makes it easy to find information, the writing is a little too dry and legalistic, and the graphics, although attractive, don't have enough examples. And some full color illustration that aren't simply reprints of already published Osprey material would also be an improvement.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[footslogger]

Something that may bear more thought about the rules is that all BG are equal in value from an AP point of view. You can kill some armies or get a winning draw without touching any of the core troops. I doubt a legion is terribly bothered if all the hired auxiliaries run away for example. I'm not sure how to do things differently because in some armies it's not as clear when there are "core" troops and non-core troops (such as WotR armies) and other armies where skirmishers really are the army.