Summary of Proposed Changes

[david53]

Are you sure abou that? That may change too. The list was proposed and not complete.

Its not realley

What it is doing is allowing shooty cavalry both drilled and undrilled a chance to be used as LH are now.

The idea that a line of shooty cavalry could'nt do what LH do ie turn move and turn back seemed strange to me.

If this stays in along with the 180 degree turn I would hope to see more shooty Cavalry on the tables.

In the past once the enemy came real close ie 1mm away what could they do? now you have an option.

This too me is one of the best changes in V2.

I definitely like this change for shooty cavalry as well, but given my druthers with the current draft, I'd much rather do it with drilled ones than undrilled for only a point more per base.

Chris

I have just finished a game of FOG V2 with Paul at the club both experienced players with FOG. I can say there are lots of changes that will effect people this +1 to proper troops shot at by skirmishers, this will effect the game play. I think with the effects on LH you will now actually see unprotected superior Cavalry.

Since the table edge is now the end of the world ie you fall of it with skirmishers on all sides sould'nt you get rid of the - for proper troops being within the 6mu limit as it is now the end of the world in game term's I mean.

I think one of the winners is Lancers of all types you still get -1 for losing to lancers but also - 1 for losing in the impact not just for lancers put it wou'nt hurt them.

[rbodleyscott]

I think one of the winners is Lancers of all types you still get -1 for losing to lancers but also - 1 for losing in the impact not just for lancers put it wou'nt hurt them.

True, but you are aware that the -1 for losing impact is instead of the -1 for suffering 2 or more hits more than inflicted, aren't you?

Of course any change that increase the relative effect of the impact phase is going to help lancers - unless we took away the -1 for losing against them. (Which would I think be harsh).

Incidentally, changes to MF currently in gestation will make lancers less effective against (most) drilled non-archer MF, and against deep formations of (most) undrilled non-archer MF.

[batesmotel]

Consider basically any of the eastern Elephant armies, the example we always use being Classical Indian.

In your standard Classical Indian army, your fighting force is 5-6 units of elephants, and 1-2 units of heavy chariots. VS say, Romans or Pike, you will try hard to only fight with these units, and keep all of your foot (unprotected) back for rear support and overlaps.

What are the generals supposed to do in such a situation? Obviously one hangs out with the chariots, but the rest are merely cheerleaders.

It is difficult to see how even an Indian elephant general could make elephants do more damage to the enemy (score more "hits"). Neverthless, he still affects their cohesion tests.

While not an expert on elephants, I suspect they probably exhibit herd behavior and if you assume that an elephant mounted general would be on a herd "leader" then I can see where this might well influence the rest of the herd to fight harder. Unfortunately I don't know what there is in terms of historical accounts that might document this one way or another. Maybe in Indian sources?

Chris

[batesmotel]

Its not realley

What it is doing is allowing shooty cavalry both drilled and undrilled a chance to be used as LH are now.

The idea that a line of shooty cavalry could'nt do what LH do ie turn move and turn back seemed strange to me.

If this stays in along with the 180 degree turn I would hope to see more shooty Cavalry on the tables.

In the past once the enemy came real close ie 1mm away what could they do? now you have an option.

This too me is one of the best changes in V2.

I definitely like this change for shooty cavalry as well, but given my druthers with the current draft, I'd much rather do it with drilled ones than undrilled for only a point more per base.

Chris

I have just finished a game of FOG V2 with Paul at the club both experienced players with FOG. I can say there are lots of changes that will effect people this +1 to proper troops shot at by skirmishers, this will effect the game play. I think with the effects on LH you will now actually see unprotected superior Cavalry.

Since the table edge is now the end of the world ie you fall of it with skirmishers on all sides sould'nt you get rid of the - for proper troops being within the 6mu limit as it is now the end of the world in game term's I mean.

I think one of the winners is Lancers of all types you still get -1 for losing to lancers but also - 1 for losing in the impact not just for lancers put it wou'nt hurt them.

I think the edge of the world cohesion effect definitely needs to remain now that it will be even harder to get around a flank with skirmishers, at least for foot and probably for everyone. What armies did you use for the game and were you using any shooty cavalry mixed with LH? That looks to me to be the right way to go now with the +1 when testing for shooting from skirmishers.

Chris

[timmy1]

Strat.

Why do you say 2 rank deep Pike are unhistoric? Reading the sources suggests that Alexander fought some of his battles with the Pike in 8 ranks - which equates to 2 rank in FoG.

Interested if you have seen a different interp. in sources not available to me.

Regards
Tim

[rpayne]

Consider basically any of the eastern Elephant armies, the example we always use being Classical Indian.

In your standard Classical Indian army, your fighting force is 5-6 units of elephants, and 1-2 units of heavy chariots. VS say, Romans or Pike, you will try hard to only fight with these units, and keep all of your foot (unprotected) back for rear support and overlaps.

What are the generals supposed to do in such a situation? Obviously one hangs out with the chariots, but the rest are merely cheerleaders.

It is difficult to see how even an Indian elephant general could make elephants do more damage to the enemy (score more "hits"). Neverthless, he still affects their cohesion tests.

While not an expert on elephants, I suspect they probably exhibit herd behavior and if you assume that an elephant mounted general would be on a herd "leader" then I can see where this might well influence the rest of the herd to fight harder. Unfortunately I don't know what there is in terms of historical accounts that might document this one way or another. Maybe in Indian sources?

Chris

This is the nutshell version of the way war elephants are trained.

Each elephant has a single handler. The elephant is paired with the individual handler from birth, and regards the handler as a parent/brother/etc. The idea is that it will protect the handler as if it is protecting the herd.

Having lived in India, ridden elephants, and seen such things as trained temple elephants that take donations and bless people etc, I can say that they're extremely intelligent animals and are capable of following directions very well.

That's why I'm finding it a little odd that the generals cannot inspire the handlers into inspiring the elephants. They're definitely smarter than horses, at least.

[Blathergut]

Celtiberian HF in 10paks (3-3-3-1) are niiiiIIiIiiice.

The ability to self-support is nice. No need for extra points behind you to get the +1. Two 10paks + two 6pak LF out front = 188pts. Facing three 4pak Romans, average, will cost the Roman 120 + velites out front (40) + rear support (2 triarii @ 26pts each) = 212.

I've run the Celtiberians into Romans a couple times and the three files of Romans (throwing 6 dice) need to hit 5 out of 6 to get that -1 for per 2 bases. All in all it seems to have made the contest much more even...until something disrupts or the Romans lose a base!

[Blathergut]

Superior Romans seems to be less of a deal now. The 4paks break on losing the 2nd base and no more skilled sword. I think I will run average with 4pak average behind and see how that works out.

I did have one question:

If a routing BG of Roman HF runs into another in it's initial rout, then it bursts through, right? To interpenetrate it has to be after that first rout?

[Strategos69]

Strat.

Why do you say 2 rank deep Pike are unhistoric? Reading the sources suggests that Alexander fought some of his battles with the Pike in 8 ranks - which equates to 2 rank in FoG.

Interested if you have seen a different interp. in sources not available to me.

Regards
Tim

You are right that Alexander phalanx is known for using less pikemen than Succesors and less deep deployments. I meant two lines (as in Roman deployments). What I meant is that usually hoplites and pikemen were deployed without any troops in the rearguard because they were not expected to lose (and if they did, you could consider the battle lost). I can't recall examples of several lines acting like that (maybe Gaugamela is a counter example) Now we could see some interpenetrations that do not feel too historical (I will try it in my next game and post it here). Needs to be tried, but I see pikemen and offensive spearmen behaving more regarding interpenetration and support like the undrilled troops (adding more troops to support in rear ranks) rather than allowing interpenetrations.

[shadowdragon]

Is it even possible to have 4 bases of unbroken Pikes any more anyway?

I thought there were some army lists with 4 of them, but I may be misremembering from DBM days.

WOTR Yorkist has one BG of 4 bases (max).

[shadowdragon]

Superior Romans seems to be less of a deal now. The 4paks break on losing the 2nd base and no more skilled sword. I think I will run average with 4pak average behind and see how that works out.

I did have one question:

If a routing BG of Roman HF runs into another in it's initial rout, then it bursts through, right? To interpenetrate it has to be after that first rout?

I've been running some battles with the Romans having 6 base BG versus Gauls with 10 bases. So far the Romans are better off in 6 paks as the line doesn't fall apart from the loss of a couple of bases on a BG.

[timmy1]

Strat.

That makes sense to me. Let us know how it plays.

Regards
Tim

[hazelbark]

Is it even possible to have 4 bases of unbroken Pikes any more anyway?

I thought there were some army lists with 4 of them, but I may be misremembering from DBM days.

War of the Roses English 4-16 total bgs in 4-12

The yorkist pretender can have 4 BGS each of 4 bases.

[Blathergut]

Superior Romans seems to be less of a deal now. The 4paks break on losing the 2nd base and no more skilled sword. I think I will run average with 4pak average behind and see how that works out.

I did have one question:

If a routing BG of Roman HF runs into another in it's initial rout, then it bursts through, right? To interpenetrate it has to be after that first rout?

I've been running some battles with the Romans having 6 base BG versus Gauls with 10 bases. So far the Romans are better off in 6 paks as the line doesn't fall apart from the loss of a couple of bases on a BG.

Romans 2 deep or 3 deep?

[shadowdragon]

Superior Romans seems to be less of a deal now. The 4paks break on losing the 2nd base and no more skilled sword. I think I will run average with 4pak average behind and see how that works out.

I did have one question:

If a routing BG of Roman HF runs into another in it's initial rout, then it bursts through, right? To interpenetrate it has to be after that first rout?

I've been running some battles with the Romans having 6 base BG versus Gauls with 10 bases. So far the Romans are better off in 6 paks as the line doesn't fall apart from the loss of a couple of bases on a BG.

Romans 2 deep or 3 deep?

Romans with 7 BG of 6 bases - 2 deep so that 7 X 3 = 21 bases wide. The Gauls have 8 BG of 10 at 3+3+3+1 for 8 X 3 = 24 bases wide. Besides the increased staying power, moving up to 6 paks reduces the effect of variance which helps the Romans since they are favoured in terms of "expected" result. With the 4 paks a couple of bad breaks and there's a hole in the line that the Gauls can exploit with their superior numbers (80 bases to 42).

[Blathergut]

RBS et al: Are you considering something similar to the break off moves for foot in FoG R? Would Romans be able to break off back through a rear BG?

[Blathergut]

Superior Romans seems to be less of a deal now. The 4paks break on losing the 2nd base and no more skilled sword. I think I will run average with 4pak average behind and see how that works out.

I did have one question:

If a routing BG of Roman HF runs into another in it's initial rout, then it bursts through, right? To interpenetrate it has to be after that first rout?

I've been running some battles with the Romans having 6 base BG versus Gauls with 10 bases. So far the Romans are better off in 6 paks as the line doesn't fall apart from the loss of a couple of bases on a BG.

One nice thing though about being in 4paks with Romans, if one does break, the BG beside it can hold up a large barbarian BG with just one base in contact with it. When a 6pak goes, it leaves a big hole.

The combo of 1HP2B + auto-support has been giving the Celtiberians either +1 or sometimes even +2 on cohesion tests when they lose melee (with an ally gen. in with them). Combats have been much more of a grind. But the + for armour still keeps the Romans in there, even with a base loss here and there and disruption upon ocassion.

Generals definitely have to lead the large barbarian BGs into impact!

[stecal]

RBS et al: Are you considering something similar to the break off moves for foot in FoG R? Would Romans be able to break off back through a rear BG?

If we can have a special rule for Bill & Bow interpenetration I don't see why Roman Legionaries cant have a similar rule for line relief

[nikgaukroger]

RBS et al: Are you considering something similar to the break off moves for foot in FoG R? Would Romans be able to break off back through a rear BG?

I think no is the simple answer to that - for all the previously stated reasons

[VMadeira]

A few comments, on the proposed changes:

IMHO in general there are many improvements, there are some things I don’t agree or don’t like, but I will speak of those things I believe can cause some problems or I believe don’t solve the problems they are meant to solve.

- LH will be heavily penalised under the new rules, they will clearly not be worth the points of equivalently equipped cavalry, they’re faster (which also means they can more easily evade out of table) and a little more manoeuvrable, but loose dice in shooting and combat, don’t cause cohesion reduction when flank/rear charging and cavalry in v2 is much better at evading charges then in v1.

- Hvy foot will find even harder to catch cavalry, now they can at least approach them and then try a lucky roll in the evade/pursuit, in v2 if they get to close, cavalry will just move away backwards.

- In principle the minus for troops fighting in column is perfectly justifiable, but:

most BGs when turning 90º to face a flank charge will be in column, so at -1 POA (but when turning to face rear charges, they keep formation so no -1 POA).
Worst, if a BG wants to charge an enemy and has to make a 90º turn, will have to wait 3 turns to charge it properly assuming it passes all tests, one turn to make the turn , one to get back to normal formation from column, and only in the 3rd may he charge without a penalty in POA.
But it gets worst, exactly the kind of troops that shouldn’t manoeuvre so well, are those that will not be affected by this problem, namely big groups of cheap undrilled troops. So a barbarian BG 3 bases deep, will be able to turn and in the next turn charge an opponent in the flank, while a roman cohort 2 bases deep, will have to wait 3 turns to charge. Also pikes will be at great advantage as they now are innately the most manoeuvrable kind of troops in the game, safe skirmishers ....

- 16 army break points limit, is an improvement, but still insufficient, in 3h30 is still an herculean task to make this score, specially if the opponent is a good player.

- Superior BGs auto-breaking as average, will make disappear those troops that are good to use at 4, but too expensive to have 6, I am thinking of knights, ghilmen (no sense in have them in 6s anyway), and many groups of veteran / elite status that have a limit on the BG sise of 4. These troops were effective historically, why do you want to penalise them? The problem with swarm armies is with average troops, most superior ones are too expensive for swarms. These one is major set back in the v2 rules, and combined to the above changes may will lead players to maximise their BGs to 16 average groups, instead of including the colourful and more interesting BGs of veterans/nobles whatever....that make the game interesting.