Slitherine

Strategos69 wrote: Anyone with some experience in military instruction will tell you than even advancing in formation is hard for drilled troops. Gaps appear, troops do not keep the line and some parts advance in an irregular way. And if you don't believe them, check the description of Polybius of Issos.

.

And yet we allow drilled armoured foot to do this very move?

david53 wrote:

Strategos69 wrote:
Regarding the topic, first, most of descriptions of Ancient battles do not include all the fancy turns we can do in FoG..

LH are supposed to be small groups riding up shooting falling back and others taking their place the square bases do no represent the actual troops.

I agree that battles including formed troops did not have the degree of manouver that we see in our games and that this is a problem. A number of ways have been discussed to sort that out. I'm not sure that a cohesion test is the best mechanism here. why should troops try to turn but break instead? Doesn't seem logical. I could buy in more to a mechanism that caused some kind of automatic disorder that needed a general's bolstering ability or something like that.

With regard to light horse (and to a degree some cavalry) there does seem to be a lot of fancy turns going on. e.g. the numidians at Cannae beat up one wing, fancy turn and move across to the other wing, fancy turn and go into the infantry rear. Standard horse archer tactics seemed to have little regard for formation, more so for nipping about and shooting.

I quite like the interaction between LH and other troops in terms of shooting, provoking a charge and evading. I can't see why LH should have to take CTs to do something that was their standard way of fighting. I'm not saying that I don't think there are issues with skirmishers, just that the proposed fix isn't to my taste.

david53 wrote:
And yet we allow drilled armoured foot to do this very move?

Yes, and I think that is not accurate. That is why by making troops test CT we would discourage those turns or made the generals face the consequences.

grahambriggs wrote:
I agree that battles including formed troops did not have the degree of manouver that we see in our games and that this is a problem. A number of ways have been discussed to sort that out. I'm not sure that a cohesion test is the best mechanism here. why should troops try to turn but break instead? Doesn't seem logical. I could buy in more to a mechanism that caused some kind of automatic disorder that needed a general's bolstering ability or something like that.

We should imagine the level of cohesion as the overall unit integrity, thus comprinsing fatigue, rank orders, soldiers dispersed and casualties taken. In that regard the CT works well. For sure it would be nice to account for any of these separately, but that would be difficult and overcomplicated (too many markers). The level of cohesion can comprise all that instead. As it has been suggested somewhere else, units might only break by close combat. That way you can have that units lose cohesion by manouvering but can't break. In that case a fragmented unit would remain still if tries to do one of these movements and fails the CT. The bolstering of a general would mean here very clearly to put the unit back to order.

grahambriggs wrote:I agree that battles including formed troops did not have the degree of manouver that we see in our games and that this is a problem. A number of ways have been discussed to sort that out. I'm not sure that a cohesion test is the best mechanism here. why should troops try to turn but break instead? Doesn't seem logical. I could buy in more to a mechanism that caused some kind of automatic disorder that needed a general's bolstering ability or something like that.

How about if you fail a CMT you are disordered. This disorder can be removed by not moving for a turn (so does not require a general). If a disordered BG fails another CMT it is severely disordered.

The same thing could be used when troops evade (as I suggested on another thread).

To answer the original question - The big problem for me with skirmishers is that they get to move twice over each pair of bounds, if they are charged. So you get ridiculous situations like LF moving faster than LH when the LH are chasing them, and Cavalry chasing LH, only for the LH to suddenly appear on the flank of the cavalry. These situations just don't make any sense, and don't reflect reality in any way.

Polkovnik wrote:To answer the original question - The big problem for me with skirmishers is that they get to move twice over each pair of bounds, if they are charged. So you get ridiculous situations like LF moving faster than LH when the LH are chasing them, and Cavalry chasing LH, only for the LH to suddenly appear on the flank of the cavalry. These situations just don't make any sense, and don't reflect reality in any way.

Well, routing cavalry can outrun LH if they did not start in contact. I've seen it.

Bit late on this one, but for me the big problem with skirmishers is the double move - they evade but then can come back again in their own turn, making them far too mobile. It is practically impossible to catch LF unless you are LH and get luckly, and entirely impossible to catch LH, but not only that, while you are chasing them they have the ability to turn onto flanks etc in their own move. Makes skirmishers too strong as a troop type and their mobilitty needs to be restricted

Marc

hannibal wrote:Bit late on this one, but for me the big problem with skirmishers is the double move - they evade but then can come back again in their own turn, making them far too mobile. It is practically impossible to catch LF unless you are LH and get luckly, and entirely impossible to catch LH, but not only that, while you are chasing them they have the ability to turn onto flanks etc in their own move. Makes skirmishers too strong as a troop type and their mobilitty needs to be restricted

Marc

Half move after any turn. (not just for skirmishers though)

Idea for discussion:

At the end of a game, if there is no army rout, you inflict 1AP loss on a side for each shooty unit not already counting APs.

Rationale: no longer combat effective due to having expended all its ammo over the course of the day.

Maybe only if it had lost its camp (no resupply overnight).

Gives foot armies something to play for.
Shouldn't affect players who know how to win with shooty skirmish armies (rather than simply not lose).

lawrenceg wrote:Idea for discussion:

At the end of a game, if there is no army rout, you inflict 1AP loss on a side for each shooty unit not already counting APs.

Rationale: no longer combat effective due to having expended all its ammo over the course of the day.

Maybe only if it had lost its camp (no resupply overnight).

Gives foot armies something to play for.
Shouldn't affect players who know how to win with shooty skirmish armies (rather than simply not lose).

True but it would make for some very dull results

Fight, fight, fight, not much happens, last bound, Oh- I seem to have won....

I suspect that using such a rule would see the majority of players dropping skirmishers in droves. It would also see a fair number of 10-10 mutual breaks.

ditto for foot bow armies, which are not overpowered/ popular anyway.

The philosophy of FOG is that the primary purpose of shooting is unit disorganisation rather than inflicting casualties.

Arrows are cheap. Units which have been under fire all battle are more likely to be adversely affected than a unit which has run short of ammunition.

hammy wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:Idea for discussion:

At the end of a game, if there is no army rout, you inflict 1AP loss on a side for each shooty unit not already counting APs.

Rationale: no longer combat effective due to having expended all its ammo over the course of the day.

Maybe only if it had lost its camp (no resupply overnight).

Gives foot armies something to play for.
Shouldn't affect players who know how to win with shooty skirmish armies (rather than simply not lose).

True but it would make for some very dull results

Fight, fight, fight, not much happens, last bound, Oh- I seem to have won....

No more dull than Fight, fight, fight, not much happens, last bound, Oh.
Probably less dull than chase chase chase, not much fighting, last bound.

I suspect that using such a rule would see the majority of players dropping skirmishers in droves.

As quite a few of the changes being contemplated are intended to make skirmishers less attractive, that would seem to be a desirable outcome.

It would also see a fair number of 10-10 mutual breaks.

Yes, it might need toning down a bit in practice.

grahambriggs wrote: With regard to light horse (and to a degree some cavalry) there does seem to be a lot of fancy turns going on. e.g. the numidians at Cannae beat up one wing, fancy turn and move across to the other wing, fancy turn and go into the infantry rear. Standard horse archer tactics seemed to have little regard for formation, more so for nipping about and shooting.

Interesting - that an account describes a move like this tends to make me think that it was unusual, and hence commented upon.

Also, when you look at much later examples, such as the ECW or even the civil wars of the 13th cent much smaller and 'professional' forces seasoned commanders (Rupert, Prince Edward) seemed to eschew fancy manoevre in favour of wild pursuit when they beat the enemy flank.

Graham means the Gallic & Spanish cavalry at Cannae I believe, not the Numidians.

grahambriggs wrote: With regard to light horse (and to a degree some cavalry) there does seem to be a lot of fancy turns going on. e.g. the numidians at Cannae beat up one wing, fancy turn and move across to the other wing, fancy turn and go into the infantry rear. Standard horse archer tactics seemed to have little regard for formation, more so for nipping about and shooting.

"Fancy turn" could just be turning 90 in one move and moving off the next, not necessarily a "turn and move"

As has been pointed out on here in the past, the drill for turning 180 is fairly simple. The drill for turning 90 is quite complex as in FOG it involves each subunit changing the facing of its frontage, and then the subunits re-arranging themselves so that the old front rank od the BG is the new front rank of the BG. It is not simply each individual turning left or right.

Although th 180 turn is an easy drill, the authors stated IIRC that turn 180 and move is prohibited because historically there was very little backward movement of troops. This philosophy should probably be extended in v2.0.

azrael86 wrote:
Interesting - that an account describes a move like this tends to make me think that it was unusual, and hence commented upon.

What it was unusual was the ability of controlling the pursuit, but not the manouver itself. There are other descriptions of similar manouvers, when victorius cavalry return to the battlefield and charge to other troops. In fact, in other account (I think it was the battle of Ipsos) cavalry troops are described as needing space to perform their turns and wheels to charge and flee and charge again. I don't see as a major problem the cavalry and light horse having a big mobility. The main problem to me with them is that they are overrated when fighting other infantry in frontal combat, which rarely happened.

However, I can see your point regarding infantry. Given the fact that the philosophy of game decided to mix hastati an principes, I can't see how all the turns allowed to troops fit in that philosophy of game of broad definition.

Regarding movement I can also see, besides the issue of double moves by skirmishers, as a very stupid situation when you try a complex move, you fail and you make anyway a simple move instead.

lawrenceg wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: With regard to light horse (and to a degree some cavalry) there does seem to be a lot of fancy turns going on. e.g. the numidians at Cannae beat up one wing, fancy turn and move across to the other wing, fancy turn and go into the infantry rear. Standard horse archer tactics seemed to have little regard for formation, more so for nipping about and shooting.

"Fancy turn" could just be turning 90 in one move and moving off the next, not necessarily a "turn and move"

As has been pointed out on here in the past, the drill for turning 180 is fairly simple. The drill for turning 90 is quite complex as in FOG it involves each subunit changing the facing of its frontage, and then the subunits re-arranging themselves so that the old front rank od the BG is the new front rank of the BG. It is not simply each individual turning left or right.

Although th 180 turn is an easy drill, the authors stated IIRC that turn 180 and move is prohibited because historically there was very little backward movement of troops. This philosophy should probably be extended in v2.0.

As Nik rightly corrected me this was Hannibal's Gallic and Spanish cavalry. I suspect that, having just smashed the Roman right wing cavalry, perhaps by dismounting, this was more a case of forming up again after a melee than some "turn and move" drill.

Nevertheless, those cavalry did move a long way in the battle. Break the right wing, ride round behind the roman army, break the left wing cavalry, reform and close in on the rear of the legions. That sounds further than would occur in a FOG game. So whether they just turn, or turn and move, they are covering a great deal of ground.

Perhaps that says that troops should be able to do more than a second move? Third Move?

grahambriggs wrote: Nevertheless, those cavalry did move a long way in the battle. Break the right wing, ride round behind the roman army, break the left wing cavalry, reform and close in on the rear of the legions. That sounds further than would occur in a FOG game. So whether they just turn, or turn and move, they are covering a great deal of ground.

Perhaps that says that troops should be able to do more than a second move? Third Move?

I think that this was a rather exceptional circumstance and it would not be a good idea to base a general rule on it.

nikgaukroger wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: Nevertheless, those cavalry did move a long way in the battle. Break the right wing, ride round behind the roman army, break the left wing cavalry, reform and close in on the rear of the legions. That sounds further than would occur in a FOG game. So whether they just turn, or turn and move, they are covering a great deal of ground.

Perhaps that says that troops should be able to do more than a second move? Third Move?

I think that this was a rather exceptional circumstance and it would not be a good idea to base a general rule on it.

Also the actual battle was about five times the size of an 800 point FOG game, so the dynamics would be rather different.

nikgaukroger wrote:
I think that this was a rather exceptional circumstance and it would not be a good idea to base a general rule on it.

Let me put Graham words differently: infantry does not last much to allow many times any encircling strategy. And there he has a better point. Most of Hellenistic battles are described as the result of the victorius cavalry wing as being able or not to come back to the battlefiled again in time to help their infantry in the center. That is why I suggested in other post that infantry (especifically heavy non poor infantry, maybe with differences depending on troop quality) should have one extra steady or disrupted cohesion point (maybe that can't be bolstered, as a marker you quit once it is lost) and that CMT should be forced in order to stop pursuits.

By the way Cannae is only one more of many battles with encircling manouvers, some succesful, some not: Zama, Gaugamela, Ipsos, Bagradas plains, Magnesia, Trebia, Raphia...