Slitherine

>Probably the most significant issue with DBMM is it can be difficult to find people who play it, depending where you are in the world.

Yes. We sent your namesake on a highly secret undercover mission to convert the Ancients gamers of Manchester to the Dark Side. Guess how successful he was?

OTOH, FoG:AM has now largely dried up in Guildford, whereas there used to be several games per week. I think I've played one game this year. FoG:R and now perhaps FoG:N are part of the reason of course...maybe V2 will reverse that tide.

All part of the fun and games of an increasingly fragmented hobby...

kevinj wrote:

My point was not that 7th edition was better, just that mechanisms replicating a commander's imperfect control were once seen as highly desirable whereas today they seem to be viewed as rather tiresome inconveniences.

I can't see where you're coming from here as a number of the V2 changes are designed to reduce the manoeuvrability and control from V1.

I thought they were generated by people complaining they couldn't manouvre their undrilled foot very well?

There's a whole raft of changes for various reasons, don't start collapsing them together an trying to generalise motivation that way...

- Undrilled foot (and cataphracts) are indeed indeed ridiculously unmanoevrable in v1.

- LH were ridiculously over-manouevrable in v1.

Changes were asked for, by not completely overlapping set of people, to address both of those.

Nothing to impose any sort of C&C structure though, that is simply something that is out of scope for FoG.

ShrubMiK wrote: Nothing to impose any sort of C&C structure though, that is simply something that is out of scope for FoG.

Strangely though, there are elements of command and control in the game which have an influence:

- some pre-game elements with respect to army and general selection. It helps to think about how the generals and army will interact when designing an army list. For example, an army with a big undrilled heavy foot centre often wants the command radius of an IC to move it forward quickly.

- deployment. Putting generals in the right places to move screening troops up quickly is critical. Alos, putting all the generals in one area will leave the rest of the army in trouble.

- command decisions. Getting troops moving early enough is important. So the general often needs to decide to redeploy the cavalry on the very first move, or they won't be any use in the battle.

- moving close to enemy. Generals are critical to allowing some troops to make difficult moves and retaining control of shock troops.

- stopping pursuit or looting. Having a general makes a big difference.

While there are few specific C+C mechanisms, many of the above are critical uses of generals in the game.

I agree, and that's all good stuff but I don't really classify them as major "C&C structure" - or not enough to be worth mentioning in what I thought was the context* of this thread (in the same way I skimmed over ambushes, disguised troops, concealed commands, and delayed arrivals as being fog of war mechanisms in DBMM - all true, but only to a limited extent).

* obviously not the original context of this thread!

I have suggested before something like: that BGs trying to do anythng other than stay still, continue moving in the direction they were moving last turn,or charge or retire from something nearest to directly ahead of it (perhaps with some additonal criteria based on some things being considered more threatening than others and therefore taking precedence for the purposes of what is allowed without specific command from a general) should require a general within command radius either ot di it at all, or perhaps a CMT. That would mean that if you want to do complicated and wide ranging manouevres of your army, you need to ensure you have enough generalship to pull it off.

After all, you need a general to accompany an off-table flank march. Why not require a general in attendance to make an almost-flank-march conducted within the confines of the table feasible?

But over time I have come to the conclusion that different rulesets do different things are are fitted for people who like different sorts of games. Not necessarily mutually exclusive. And of course whatever ruleset I play inevitably has some features I don't like. So if I choose to play FoG on a particular day I am implicitly expecting and accepting a FoG-like experience, and there's no point in hoping it will fundamentally change. On a day I want a different experience I should just play something else.

Perhaps worth mentioning here is the Central London club's attempt of a year or two ago to change things up in FoG with a bit more randomness about what could move when and in what order, to get away from the "omniscient observer playing chess with the BGs" feeling. Was that using some sort of player defined command structure? I seem to remember there being a flurry of posts about it at one point, and thinking it looked like it might be quite interesting to try, but then all was quiet again.

ShrubMiK wrote:There's a whole raft of changes for various reasons, don't start collapsing them together an trying to generalise motivation that way...

- Undrilled foot (and cataphracts) are indeed indeed ridiculously unmanoevrable in v1.

- LH were ridiculously over-manouevrable in v1.

Changes were asked for, by not completely overlapping set of people, to address both of those.

But would not those things be

a) Historical
b) Balanced by other pros and cons

Light Horse, being both Light and Horse, were extremely manouverable. That was their thing. But to balance that they were and are rubbish in close combat, only get 1 shooting dice per two bases and have to test to charge.

Undrilled foot were hard to manouvre. That is surely one of the key items of flavour of the ancient period. But they are cheap so you can have lots of them (another piece of ancient flavour). There are also other functions they can fulfil (rear support, pinning, holding territory or fortifications, threatening flanks). That they are hard to manouvre just adds to the interest and challenge. In one game I had recently my opponent refused one of his flanks and I spent the whole game trying to swing round my vastly extended line to catch it but didn't manage to. For me that was a highly satisfying reconstruction - exactly the sort of cock up an undrilled army might make in real life. See also my post "Some Thoughts on Undrilled Foot".

I don't know much about the historical cataphracts but would imagine their limited manouvrability was the price paid for their clout and defensive armour. Its having your cake and eating it to want a mounted metal fortress and then complain that its not very manouvrable. That would be like me complaining that Slingers are ridiculously weak in close combat. Now it may be that Cata's limited manouvrability makes them a niche unit type. Fair enough. That is surely part of the fun of ancient wargaming. There are still many reasons why you might include them - for a particular tactic, because you have spare points, for fun, for flavour, because you like them.

Its like in the other thread on Elephants. Some posters are complaining about how brittle they are. But I would hope that was deliberately written in by the FoG Designers. Historical elephants were powerful but brittle and unpredictable. I find it disturbing when people just think V2 should be there to remove any weaknesses from various troop types. Whereas in fact these weaknesses are an integral part of the game. If I had elephants I wouldn't want them just to be the same as infantry or cavalry but with different miniatures. I would want to try and capture the experience of struggling to control their awesome power. If that meant they sometimes go rampaging through my own ranks so much the better.

>I find it disturbing when people just think V2 should be there to remove any weaknesses from various troop types.

Some people maybe, but you are over-generalising. It's a straw-man line of argument.

And consider that a significant portion of the changes are introducing weaknesses to certian troop types...

>a) Historical

That's where the arguments come in. Historical is about opinion, hopefully backed up by some evidence (much of which is contradictory, unfortunately), not an objective fact.

In my view, it should be hard to make irregulars do complicated manouevres. But it should not be hard to make them turn on the spot to face the BG that has just waltzed around their flank and is preparing to charge them in the rear, with nobody left in front to pin them. I'm not aware of any historical examples of this happening.

Apparently an irregular rider can manouevre a horse pretty well...right up to the point at which you stick horse armour on it and it becomes a cataphract. Perhaps historically he turned the horse by dismounting and pushing, and it is now too heavy for him to budge quickly Give him some rudimentary drill, and he suddenly realises he's been going about it all wrong, there's a much easier way, nd for a measly 2 points he becomes much more effective.

Some people will point to one particular battle (Carrhae) as proof that shooty horse armies were invincible against non shooty horse armies and the way they are treated in the game is therefore historic. Others will point to other battles in which horse archers were held off at a greater distance and their shooting achieved nothing concrete, or risked getting too close and hit by shorter range missiles, or caught by a sudden charge.

And then finally there is a sizable body of opinion (not mine, but valid nevertheless) that historical simulation is less imprtant than a "fun" game, whatever that may mean to different people.

>b) Balanced by other pros and cons

A nice idea, but in practice the balance is missing in FoG in a number of areas. Some troop types and capbilities are clearly over-powered or under-costed, and others are vice-versa.

LH may be rubbish in close combat against heavier troop types, but if they can never be forced to fight against the heavier troop types and are having too much fun destroying them with shooting, that point is moot. Barbarian foot armies should have a chance of wearing down Romans by superior numbers, but the lack of a fatigue mechanism, and the likelihood that the Romans can destroy successive lines of hairy foot without losing bases or cohesion is a problem here.

So V2 changes are intended to address various issues, have been arrived at after extensive consultation and playtesting. To draw conclusions about the motivation and impact without actually having tried them extensively yourself (I assume?) seems a bit unfair. Especially when several people are telling you that superior Roman legions will still cut through those barbarian foot easily even after the changes, and that the results will be (in their opinion) more historic than the current situation!

Me, I'll wait to try them out before reaching a definitive conclusion, but most of what I've heard sounds like it should be an improvement.

So V2 changes are intended to address various issues, have been arrived at after extensive consultation and playtesting. To draw conclusions about the motivation and impact without actually having tried them extensively yourself (I assume?) seems a bit unfair

Sure, but if I wait until V2 becomes official, and it does turn out to be chequers with miniatures then I will have missed my chance to put my opinions forward. This forum is for that purpose after all (even though I have arrived on the scene about as late as a battalion of undrilled foot). Of course I am coming across as a bit extreme but I feel its valid to sound a note of caution about the myriad posts I have seen demanding that such and such a troop type be able to do something it can't do, often without any regard for its historicity. So its not all straw manning.

Historical is about opinion, hopefully backed up by some evidence (much of which is contradictory, unfortunately), not an objective fact.

Yes there are lots of different interpretations but I was talking in very broad terms. Light Horse was by its nature manouverable. To complain about this is like complaining that the goalie is positioned inside the goal. The fact that Carrhae happened does mean the rules should make such an outcome at least feasible, though I agree it shouldn't make it inevitable.

Others will point to other battles in which horse archers were held off at a greater distance and their shooting achieved nothing concrete, or risked getting too close and hit by shorter range missiles, or caught by a sudden charge.

Could you not replicate these tactics within the existing rules?

And consider that a significant portion of the changes are introducing weaknesses to certian troop types...

Yes but all in the same spirit of homogenizing the troop types at the expense of historicity (IMO).

Barbarian foot armies should have a chance of wearing down Romans by superior numbers, but the lack of a fatigue mechanism, and the likelihood that the Romans can destroy successive lines of hairy foot without losing bases or cohesion is a problem here.

I agree that should be addressed. I have sometimes wondered why CC cohesion tests are only triggered by "losing" a combat rather than as a ratio of bases hit as in shooting. That would perhaps serve to replicate the attrition of cutting through row after row of barbarian warriors. I have also suggested they could limit legionary BG sizes to 4 bases, making them more vulnerable but maintaining their points of difference rather than just making them a superior warband.

Maybe also there should be more levels of PoA as, under V2, there will only be allowance for troops that are slightly better than their opponents and troops that are the same as their opponents, which is not nuanced enough. I agree that barbarians were not a complete walkover for Romans, but I also think they were more than slightly worse.

I also feel more attention should be paid to non-Superior legions - still pretty effective historically. I definitely think V1 gets them right with a double PoA but re-roll of 6s.

One other idea to pop in the toaster: maybe tournament organisers could say that Romans have to win a Decisive Victory or above to count as having won the round.

Eques wrote:Sure, but if I wait until V2 becomes official, and it does turn out to be chequers with miniatures then I will have missed my chance to put my opinions forward.

A view of someone who has taken part in the beta testing...a free view at that (so, remember you get what you pay for)...

I believe the authors have really tried to improve the game both in terms of playability and historicity. The changes are incremental and remove what has, with extensive game play, proven to be excessive advantages to merely significant advantages.

FYI - I can't remember the exact numbers for an equal points BG match between, for example, a superior, armoured Roman BG and an average protected barbarian BG but testing the various author proposals reduced "massively" the likelihood of Roman success from something like 95% to 85%. I don't know if this means "chequers" to you, but....I'd still rather be the Roman in that matchup. So, maybe more like chess with the Roman as the "queens" (queue Monte Python here) and the Barbarian as the "pawns". The "pawns" could still win but only if the "queens" are stupid, unlucky or both.

By the way, is it not a huge assumption that FoGAM v1 is historically accurate and that any adjustment in v2 reduces historicity? Is it not also possible that there is substantial room between v1 and "chequers"? Is it also possible that you are responding not to specific proposals made by the authors for v2 but to "loud voices" on the forum? Note that Richard has provided a list of v2 changes - albeit without the precise wording, but surely enough for anyone to determine close combat outcomes in v2.

Eques wrote:

So V2 changes are intended to address various issues, have been arrived at after extensive consultation and playtesting. To draw conclusions about the motivation and impact without actually having tried them extensively yourself (I assume?) seems a bit unfair

Sure, but if I wait until V2 becomes official, and it does turn out to be chequers with miniatures then I will have missed my chance to put my opinions forward.

You are already way too late for V2. Playtesting was completed last year and the rules would already be published if Slitherine had not responded to the players' response to their original plan to publish in digital format only.

Eques wrote:I feel its valid to sound a note of caution about the myriad posts I have seen demanding that such and such a troop type be able to do something it can't do, often without any regard for its historicity.

You may also notice that people making those demands get pretty short shrift from the community here, not to mention the authors. If you don't think that, we'll have to try harder...

shadowdragon wrote:I believe the authors have really tried to improve the game both in terms of playability and historicity.

As another playtester, I agree with this. What most of us want is to increase the variety and make more options valid within the game. That is in no way the same as homogenising the variety of troop types.

Eques wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:There's a whole raft of changes for various reasons, don't start collapsing them together an trying to generalise motivation that way...

- Undrilled foot (and cataphracts) are indeed indeed ridiculously unmanoevrable in v1.

- LH were ridiculously over-manouevrable in v1.

Changes were asked for, by not completely overlapping set of people, to address both of those.

But would not those things be

a) Historical
b) Balanced by other pros and cons

I believe the general feeling was that there were two manouverability issues:

1. Skirmisher manouverability and shooting power was such that unhistorical results were occuring.

2. The manouverability differential between drilled and undrilled battle groups was too high, leading to unhistoric results. Particularly, drilled MF were seen as too good even against drilled HF. It also applied to mounted troops. For example, in V1 drilled MF can form the centre of the army. If they're over-matched then they can easily avoid contact. Turn and move to the flank could be used. Or the whole centre can turn round and simply walk away. So, my standard tactic with Aztecs is to have a few average drilled MF BGs in the centre and the good stuff on the wings. The centre keeps the enemy honest, then walks away when they get too close. Easy to do, but it doesn't feel like historical to me.

It seemed an odd result that a Roman army consisting of Auxilia and skimishers would normally beat a Roman army consisting of legionaries and cavalry.

I don't think there's been a great deal of change to the undrilled manouvers, but the drilled guys have been clipped a bit.

1. Skirmisher manouverability and shooting power was such that unhistorical results were occuring.

Genuine question, is it really true that Skirmishers have that much ability to affect the result of a game?

In the (admittedly limited number of) games I have played they have performed in pretty much the way they did historically - shot off a few arrows, neutralised enemy skirmishers and then run away when charged (thereby effectively removing them from any further impact on the battle).

I suppose it would be different for armies actually based around skirmishers but then again such armies could be pretty effective historically.

Eques wrote:

1. Skirmisher manouverability and shooting power was such that unhistorical results were occuring.

Genuine question, is it really true that Skirmishers have that much ability to affect the result of a game?

In the (admittedly limited number of) games I have played they have performed in pretty much the way they did historically - shot off a few arrows, neutralised enemy skirmishers and then run away when charged (thereby effectively removing them from any further effect on the battle).

I suppose it would be different for armies actually based around skirmishers but then again such armies could be pretty effective historically.

Yes absolutely they can, especially in combination with other troops that shoot. My most recent competition I used Early Persian:

2x8 drilled MF bow
3x4 undrilled Cav bow
2x2 drilled Cav bow
2x4 LH bow
3x6 LF bow
8 LF bow

= 49 shooting dice

string the army out really wide and shoot, shoot, shoot. The proper units are fairly manouverable and the skirmishers wriggle in to add two or three dice. It might not sound much but 4 superior dice plus 3 average dice is a lot more effective than just 4 superior dice: more tests, more minuses. Doesn't look that threatening on paper but when most of your armmy is being shot at most of the time you'll get unlucky somewhere and a unit will get shot down, piling the pressure on the units around it.

It beat two later seluecids and two Late republican roman. OK two of those armies had also gone for lots of light stuff (which was a turkey shoot) but the other two were proper hardcore foot.

Well for me that is just good play on your part.

Nothing wrong with winning by shooting if your a Persian army, that's just using your strengths effectively.

But Persian players often complain they're not strong enough in close combat and that choosing EAP is therefore pointless.

Well my argument is they can still win (and Romans and Seleucids still lose). It just depends who plays to the respective strengths and weaknesses better.

"If you know your enemy and know yourself you need not fear the result of a thousand battles"

It's true that you need to know exactly what you're doing with the army both in terms of army list and play. It's one of those situations where if you get it just right it's very effective but a little bit wrong and it goes very badly. Plus, you're reliant on waiting for the shooting to do it's work on enemy morale. Sometimes it won't work.

What I have found, though, is this strategy only works if the entire army is manoverable. So you only have close combat on your own terms. I've tried the army with the undrilled MF archers - i.e. the date range before you can change these for LF Bow. While they do shoot a bit better overall they are far worse. You just find that something tough heads straight for them and they can't escape. Well, they can run from the start but then you're not putting any pressure on with them.

In my mind it's a a good example of the manouver problem with v1. The LF are hugely better because they can escape from trouble. The get off more shots through the game as they keep coming back to shoot. If, say, they were facing 4 bases of armoured legions they might make them test 2-3 times in the game. The MF might do that but might not, and then they get slaughtered in melee. But the MF are more expensive.

grahambriggs wrote:It's true that you need to know exactly what you're doing with the army both in terms of army list and play. It's one of those situations where if you get it just right it's very effective but a little bit wrong and it goes very badly.

Well yes you have to be good at the game to win but that's OK surely.

For me the danger is that your Roman/Seleucid opponents now go away and start muttering that bow-armed armies are too powerful.

Meanwhile your less successful Persian colleagues are moaning that heavy foot is too powerful against medium foot.

I know you say this is not how it works but I do detect such influences in some of the V2 revisions.

Well, I think we're just going to have to disagree there.

People have complained that shooting is too effective in FoG.

People have complained that shooting is not powerful enough in FoG.

Ergo, any change to how shooting works in the rules would presumably result in you concluding that the authors had bowed to pressure from players, and select from the available quotes accordingly.

You are also effectively assuming stupidity, weakness, or collusion on the part of the authors? In actual fact, they *should* be listening to player feedback and concerns, but at the end of the day making their own judgement. My opinion is that is what they have done, and I can show a bit more respect for the process even if I don't agree with all of it. Especially not with several suggestions of mine having fallen on completely deaf ears over the past couple of years

Let's see....using my impact/melee spreadsheet calculator I used for some of my beta testing.....

A 4 base Roman unit (superior, armoured, impact foot, skilled swordsman at 14 pts per base) versus a late medieval dismounted men-at-arms in full plate armour (superior, heavily armoured, heavy weapon at 16 points per base)

With v1....after 1 round of impact / melee:

The probability of the Roman BG cohesion states are steady (78%), disrupted (15%), fragmented (5%), routed (1%).
The probability of the dismounted Knight BG states are steady (47%), disrupted (30%), fragmented (20%), routed (4%)

With v2:

The probability of the Roman BG cohesion states are steady (69%), disrupted (24%), fragmented (6%), routed (1%).
The probability of the dismounted Knight BG states are steady (51%), disrupted (35%), fragmented (12%), routed (2%)

Such an outrageous change!

Also, consider an 8 base, average, protected MF Gallic unit (impact foot, swordsman) with double overlaps versus a 4 base, superior, armoured, Roman (impact foot, skilled swordman) - for just the melee phase - equal points by the way:

With v1, the Romans have a 14% chance of losing cohesion while the Gauls have a 36% chance.

With v2, the Romans now have a 24% chance of losing cohesion and the Gauls 21%.

Again it's outrageous that (at equal points) a Roman unit that allows itself to be isolated and overwhelmed by barbarian numbers should have no better than even odds of winning! Outrageous.

And, by the way, for that Roman vs Gallic encounter, if the Gauls can't bring their numbers to bear the probabilities are 2% to 66% for v1 compared to 6% to 48% for v2.

People can express their opinion but it's my opinion that their opinion is a version of "crying wolf".

Fair enough, good use of numbers.

But I have seen lots of comments on these forums along the lines of:

"That might have been the case under V1 but not under V2.." or "That army becomes a lot more viable under V2" or "When V2 arrives I think we will suddenly start to see a lot more of...|"

All of which suggested to me that V2 was quite a big paradigm change (not just on Romans).

Just out of interest what are the numbers for average and poor legions?

Eques wrote:I know you say this is not how it works but I do detect such influences in some of the V2 revisions.

Erm, would you mind sharing with us all which armies do you actually own and play with/against ?