Slitherine

philqw78 wrote: But I'm on my way to spread my genes elsewhere.

Wonder why you went missing from some of your games?

david53 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:

david53 wrote:But I would agree to 6MU move for LH if the same was done to Medium foot take a MU of them and have them move at 3MU.

So drilled MF are the problem, but you want to cut all MF movement. Any chance this is because MF bow/longbow(often undrilled) are the biggest threat to LH/Cav shooters?

I see.

Not at all don't play them much whats not great for foot armies(not me don't use them) is the majacial Drilled armoured medium foot in 4 base BGs dancing around like fairies. I don't mind them I dance around them and then run them down with a lances but once again for undrilled foot that you've said you want to see more on the table allowing less dancing by Medium foot will alow them to come out to play that is heavy foot undrilled.

I'm not really sure what points you are making here.
Do you mean:

Not at all, I don't play against them (MF shooty armies) much. What is not great for (most) foot armies (but it's not a problem for me because I don't use foot armies) is the (opponent's) magical drilled armoured medium foot in 4 base BGs dancing around like fairies. I don't mind them. I dance around them and then run them down with lancers.

Allowing less dancing by medium foot will allow more of the undrilled foot (i.e. undrilled heavy foot), that you've said you want to see more of on the table, to come out to play.

In other words, you don't understand the problem that heavy foot have, because you have never been on the receiving end of it.

And your solution alone won't work because LH armies will still dance around undrilled heavy foot, giving them a boring and pointless game. However, it will give mounted armies further advantage over drilled MF. Apparently mounted armies are the only kind of armies you use, so your proposal appears to be self-serving, rather than intended to address the actual problem that other players experience. It may not have seemed like that to you, but perhaps you haven't thought the issues through as much as you might have done, nor looked at them from other people's points of view.

lawrenceg wrote: And your solution alone won't work because LH armies will still dance around undrilled heavy foot, giving them a boring and pointless game. However, it will give mounted armies further advantage over drilled MF.

There you go again missing the point once again or maybe not I was talking about Medium drilled foot but you seem to want to go back to LH maybe cause you use drilled medium foot.

BTW don't just think your the only one smart enough to think things through my my your the smart one today I find that a great attitude in wargamers I'm right everyone elese is wrong, don't pick on the troop types i like.

For some reason your on this dull LH game arguement I have had many enjoyable skillful games playing against LH armies in the past as well as against Drilled medium foot armies.

My input was to say that the difference between LH and Drilled Medium foot to me is small yes its 3mu but once the medium foot get close handled correctly they can see off LH.

Now back to HF undrilled now both LH and Drilled medium foot can run rings round undrilled foot as you say I agree now you say by dropping a MU of LH and Medium drilled foot will give the LH an advantage how so, all it allows is HF a chance or add an MU to HF and leave the rest as they are.

Now I have used LH armies in the past and have not failed to tell people that fact but have you used drilled MF armies since you seem to think they should'nt be changed.

david53 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:

david53 wrote:But I would agree to 6MU move for LH if the same was done to Medium foot take a MU of them and have them move at 3MU.

So drilled MF are the problem, but you want to cut all MF movement. Any chance this is because MF bow/longbow(often undrilled) are the biggest threat to LH/Cav shooters?

I see.

Not at all don't play them much whats not great for foot armies(not me don't use them) is the majacial Drilled armoured medium foot in 4 base BGs dancing around like fairies. I don't mind them I dance around them and then run them down with a lances but once again for undrilled foot that you've said you want to see more on the table allowing less dancing by Medium foot will alow them to come out to play that is heavy foot undrilled.

Again, as Lawrence says, intentional or not, you are saying

Drilled MF are too manoevrable (note - not that they are too fast per se); In particular the turn 90 and move full distance I presume.
Therefore you propose

ALL MF should move shorter.

this is illogical and appears to be selfserving.

Firstly, MF have to move faster than HF - auxiliaries are faster than legions, peltasts faster than pike etc. Historical fact
Secondly, you penalise one of the worst troop types in the game - undrilled MF - reducing its move, making it harder for it to perform its historic role of securing terrain
Thirdly the effect on a drilled MF unit is marginal, turn 90 and move 3 is still pretty good, and easily enoughto escape HF.
Finally, as everyone has said, HF are too slow to force a result in 3.5 hrs - because they move only 3MU. So you suggest reducing MF to the same, hence preventing them from doing so. I usually use MF, not to run away from HF but to chase Bw/Sw cav and LH across the open table.

The problem - with MF and indeed other troops as well IMO, is the turn 90 and full move - this needs addressing first. Something like drilled MF or drilled/undrilled cav have to CMT to turn 90 and move either half or (normal -1MU). Failure would allow turn and not move.

LH CMT to turn 90 and move full;failure allows turn and move half.


hope that clarifies.

azrael86 wrote:Firstly, MF have to move faster than HF - auxiliaries are faster than legions, peltasts faster than pike etc. Historical fact

Is it! Since they can't tell if auxilliaries should be MF or HF, peltasts are open order skirmishers so don't count, but many hellenistic types can also be either M or H where did this fact come from? Or is this a percieved fact because they always have in wargames rules.

As a modern comparison as well. Marching in the open order is no faster than marching in close order. The LI (Rifles now) do both close and open at the same, faster, speed as well.

azrael86 wrote: Firstly, MF have to move faster than HF - auxiliaries are faster than legions, peltasts faster than pike etc. Historical fact

Really?

Really, really?

With such surety I assume you can support this.

I'll accept peltasts as they are LF

david53 wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: And your solution alone won't work because LH armies will still dance around undrilled heavy foot, giving them a boring and pointless game. However, it will give mounted armies further advantage over drilled MF.

There you go again missing the point once again or maybe not I was talking about Medium drilled foot but you seem to want to go back to LH maybe cause you use drilled medium foot.

It is likely that I did miss the point. It might just be me, but I find your writing style difficult to understand.

BTW don't just think your the only one smart enough to think things through my my your the smart one today I find that a great attitude in wargamers I'm right everyone elese is wrong, don't pick on the troop types i like.

For some reason your on this dull LH game arguement I have had many enjoyable skillful games playing against LH armies in the past as well as against Drilled medium foot armies.

Just to absolutely clear on this: Have you played many enjoyable games with heavy foot armies against LH armies and/or drilled MF armies (where you have the heavy foot army)?

My input was to say that the difference between LH and Drilled Medium foot to me is small yes its 3mu but once the medium foot get close handled correctly they can see off LH.

Now back to HF undrilled now both LH and Drilled medium foot can run rings round undrilled foot as you say I agree now you say by dropping a MU of LH and Medium drilled foot will give the LH an advantage how so, all it allows is HF a chance or add an MU to HF and leave the rest as they are.

Sorry, I misinterpreted "allowing less dancing by Medium foot will allow them to come out to play that is heavy foot undrilled". I thought you were advocating allowing less dancing by Medium foot (only) and no change to LH.

Now I have used LH armies in the past and have not failed to tell people that fact but have you used drilled MF armies since you seem to think they should'nt be changed.

1. I do think they should be changed, but I don't think they are the only thing that needs changing.

2. My armies are:

Ancient British (sometimes use 1 BG drilled MF and 1 BG drilled Cav Roman ally)
Early Irish (all undrilled)
Kyrenean Greek (1 BG drilled MF, one BG drilled cavalry)
Dominate Roman
Later Sicilian (1200-1267, so no Almughavars)
(plus Khazar not painted yet - LH/Cav)

philqw78 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:Firstly, MF have to move faster than HF - auxiliaries are faster than legions, peltasts faster than pike etc. Historical fact

Is it! Since they can't tell if auxilliaries should be MF or HF, peltasts are open order skirmishers so don't count, but many hellenistic types can also be either M or H where did this fact come from? Or is this a percieved fact because they always have in wargames rules.

As far as I can see it is because it always has been. IIRC Phil Barker based his close and loose order move rates on C19th British military march rates - close order being the normal rate, loose order as the rapid rate (whatever the actual term was) - but not on anything from the ancient/medieval world.

azrael86 wrote:The problem - with MF and indeed other troops as well IMO, is the turn 90 and full move - this needs addressing first. Something like drilled MF or drilled/undrilled cav have to CMT to turn 90 and move either half or (normal -1MU). Failure would allow turn and not move.

Personally, I suspect the problem is not detail like that, but the more general issue that troops who don't want to fight what is in front of them can move out of the way long before the enemy can reach their position, and there is no risk or penalty for this.

Historically it just didn't happen. If you ordered your troops to run away from the enemy en masse, they wouldn't wait around to hear your next set of orders and the rest of the army would soon follow their example.

The exception is shooty cavalry armies, who were fairly notorious for "feigning flight".

Possibly the two are separate problems - the one I describe at army level, and the turn-and-move making for too much manoeuvre when BGs are close to each other and individualy fencing for local advantage.

azrael86 wrote: this is illogical and appears to be selfserving.

Of course I can say the same about any of your thoughts of course not because as you say they are historical facts.

If you had taken time to read what I had said on this forum there are in one breath say they want more undrilled foot armies on the table and I say that medium drilled foot will run rings around them unless something is done me as I have said play mostly mounted(not always LH) you then for some reason think I want to pick on a Drilled Medium foot army not me I fought one last weekend so what, I was honestly thinking of those that want to play undrilled 9th and 10th century armies with some chance of success.

lawrenceg wrote:
Historically it just didn't happen. If you ordered your troops to run away from the enemy en masse, they wouldn't wait around to hear your next set of orders and the rest of the army would soon follow their example.

Now how many times have I had medium drilled foot turn 90 and move along the line within 6MU of me loads how to stop it who knows, but till you do how many undrilled Medium/Heavy foot armies will you see on the table 34 Armies field Warfare 8 Undrilled but 3 of them could have 16 bases drilled troops(EAP) also 2 were Britians with lots of chariots and 16 armies of drilled foot also in a period with Rome at its heart only one Gallic army.

lawrenceg wrote:
1. I do think they should be changed, but I don't think they are the only thing that needs changing.

2. My armies are:

Ancient British (sometimes use 1 BG drilled MF and 1 BG drilled Cav Roman ally)
Early Irish (all undrilled)
Kyrenean Greek (1 BG drilled MF, one BG drilled cavalry)
Dominate Roman
Later Sicilian (1200-1267, so no Almughavars)
(plus Khazar not painted yet - LH/Cav)

I agree certain things on LH need reviewing as I have stated 1 MU off no trouble with me they do that in FOG R. I have played against them with a Knight/HF army/MF army and yes they can be a pain. Maybe getting people to do the evades correctly ie wheel first to level and then measuring that in with the evade.

The Khazer are interesting as you have a choice of Lance/Bow depending on date
I have a early Scots army every unit undrilled and all medium apart from 2 HF units I would like to be able to use these but up against a drilled foot army no way to manouvre them

nikgaukroger wrote:As far as I can see it is because it always has been. IIRC Phil Barker based his close and loose order move rates on C19th British military march rates - close order being the normal rate, loose order as the rapid rate (whatever the actual term was) - but not on anything from the ancient/medieval world.

British Light Infantry and normal (heavy) infantry march speeds. The problem being that Light and heavy drill can and could be done in close or open order. So Mr Barker may have taken them a little out of context.

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:As far as I can see it is because it always has been. IIRC Phil Barker based his close and loose order move rates on C19th British military march rates - close order being the normal rate, loose order as the rapid rate (whatever the actual term was) - but not on anything from the ancient/medieval world.

British Light Infantry and normal (heavy) infantry march speeds. The problem being that Light and heavy drill can and could be done in close or open order. So Mr Barker may have taken them a little out of context.

To be fair to Phil, he was probably looking for something to base what he felt was the reality on - and that was for very much bottom up rules.

Still wrong though

As I said, out of context

Yup.

david53 wrote:

azrael86 wrote: this is illogical and appears to be selfserving.

Of course I can say the same about any of your thoughts of course not because as you say they are historical facts.

If you had taken time to read what I had said on this forum there are in one breath say they want more undrilled foot armies on the table and I say that medium drilled foot will run rings around them unless something is done me as I have said play mostly mounted(not always LH) you then for some reason think I want to pick on a Drilled Medium foot army not me I fought one last weekend so what, I was honestly thinking of those that want to play undrilled 9th and 10th century armies with some chance of success.

I didn't say you were selfserving, only that it appears to be so. I maintain that reducing the movement of all MF is likely to harm as many 9th&10th cent armies as it helps -a lot of them have MF.

I'm not sure why we're listing armies, but some armies I have that don't get out much (or did but have proved untenable).

Norse Irish - undrilled MF
Viking - undrilled HF
Classical Indian - undrilled or drilled MF
Hoplite Greek - undrilled or drilled HF
Welsh - undrilled MF
Swiss/Low Countries - drilled HF - OK they ARE tenable but chasing space is dull.

All have a much harder time vs shoot mtd than MF. (the indians would be OK but for exploding elephants).

azrael86 wrote: I didn't say you were selfserving, only that it appears to be so. I maintain that reducing the movement of all MF is likely to harm as many 9th&10th cent armies as it helps -a lot of them have MF.

Sorry but i do disagree with you the fact that once in 6MU I have to pass a CMT to wheel, I can only at any time do a CMT to turn from a line to a coloum and next go i can expand if i pass a CMT and on the third go i can move out in the same formation i was in before i turned thats 3 turns.

So in that time Drilled troops can turn 90 three times and move 12 MU and you say cutting drilled down will harm undrilled you can't harm something that can't do something already ie turn and move? Stopping turning when your in 6 MU or dropping the movement or both are required IMO that is which may be wrong.

You see the problum as LH driven I see there are things that can be done to make them less powerful yes but at the same time if you do that and allow the drilled MF to carry on doing what they want they will if not already become a over powerful troop type to me.

azrael86 wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:

azrael86 wrote: No, I can't imagine how a LH army could abuse that at all.

Please enlighten me. If a heavy foot army advances to take the middle of the battlefield, what can an army of "run away" troops do about it ?

It dodges past, gets behind undrilled foot, and hovers around with LH (who can't really damage the foot) near your centre line whilst the Cav sit in front of the foot.

Yes but the heavy foot are sitting on the centre line. So at game end they get the points for being closest. It doesn't matter that the LH are behind them.

david53 wrote:If you had taken time to read what I had said on this forum

As Lawrence points out above, this is often very difficult.

david53 wrote:......there are in one breath say they want more undrilled foot armies on the table and I say that medium drilled foot will run rings around them unless something is done me as I have said play mostly mounted(not always LH) you then for some reason think I want to pick on a Drilled Medium foot army not me I fought one last weekend so what, I was honestly thinking of those that want to play undrilled 9th and 10th century armies with some chance of success.

And that is a typical example. Maybe someone else can figure out what you are saying here, but I certainly can't.