Slitherine

I was hoping for a custard pie fight between Dave and Raven. I might pay good money to see that. Although probably not much.

nikgaukroger wrote:If the children would kindly stop squabbling ...

The way to stop the squabbling is to have Richard declare and put in the FAC when and how a kinked column may turn or expand. Until he does this is going to continually reoccur as it is currently a blank spot in the rules and a significant group of players want to fill in the blank with home brewed solutions. This can be as simple as saying that "a kinked column expands and turns according to the normal rules for movement" (which is what I think happens in the absence of a rule to the contrary in any case), or he can write whatever other rule he wants.

iversonjm wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:If the children would kindly stop squabbling ...

The way to stop the squabbling is to have Richard declare and put in the FAC when and how a kinked column may turn or expand. Until he does this is going to continually reoccur as it is currently a blank spot in the rules and a significant group of players want to fill in the blank with home brewed solutions. This can be as simple as saying that "a kinked column expands and turns according to the normal rules for movement" (which is what I think happens in the absence of a rule to the contrary in any case), or he can write whatever other rule he wants.

The 180 degree turn requires a bit more thought - the current movement rules arent that clear.

Turning 90 is very clear - what happens and how to do it. Some people just dont think they should be able to.

There's an interesting collage of Roman drills in Ludus Militis:

http://www.ludusmilitis.org/articles/LM ... y_2010.pdf

It's a bit of a big file, and I suspect you need a big caveat that this is from looking at the surviving literature on drills, rather than what actual soldiers would be able to do on an average day. Still, it's interesting.

Page 19 is a column of march wheel 90 left or right.

Page 27 has how to reform the front of a unit (e.g. what FOG calls a wheel). Essentially, officers go forward onto the new orientation, then the centre four files wheel and take their alignment from the officers, then the rest of the unit comes up in stages.

There are several other funky drills and what sounds a more practical soldiers view from the Peri Strategikes on page 42.

Wheeling and the resultant kinks is always a point of contention in rules. Not just FOG. It was in DBM and I can think of others. Usually the answer is people don't get worked up about it until they do, then it is a gunfight at the OK corral.

So as clear and definiative as can be in an FAQ would be handy.

The problem is of course compounded with people looking at it from modern drill, to what they think was done in the ancient days, to wheeling sticks and game rules and it all ends up a mess with everyone pounding the table.

Add that in games terms sometimes a column is game function and sometimes it a maneuver column and sometimes it is a combat formation. And at different times you imagine people inside a base doing stuff all ends up to be able to argue in just about any direction.

The problem for poor RBS coming up with a FAQ while needed has to be fleshed out thoughtfully.

All the reference to British army drill procedures is completely spurious in relation to ancient warfare - we've little idea of the on-the-ground "drill" movements of troops on the ancient battlefield. More likely a case of "follow me chaps" and "when he blows the trumpet you blokes with yellow shields rush over there and take the hill".

This clip is of much greater relevance (skip advert):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

zoltan wrote:All the reference to British army drill procedures is completely spurious in relation to ancient warfare - we've little idea of the on-the-ground "drill" movements of troops on the ancient battlefield. More likely a case of "follow me chaps" and "when he blows the trumpet you blokes with yellow shields rush over there and take the hill".

This clip is of much greater relevance (skip advert):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

The comparison with British army drill procedure certainly doesn't indicate how it was done in ancient warfare. What it is useful for is to indicate that what appears to be a simple maneuver on the tabletop is much more involved in real life. In addition, modern procedure for executing a "wheel" may well present a plausible upper limit for how efficiently the maneuver could be performed while maintaining a formation.

Interestingly, it appears that FoG specifically calls out the case of wheeling on a narrow front for special handling while in actuality it would probably be simpler to perform than wheeling on a wider front. In some ways it might be better to penalize a column's combat capabilities rather than restricting its movement. For example, if a column was treated as skirmishers in combat with reduced number of dice and inability to cause cohesion loss with a flank or rear charge to battle troops until it can get out of column.

Chris

batesmotel wrote:

zoltan wrote:All the reference to British army drill procedures is completely spurious in relation to ancient warfare - we've little idea of the on-the-ground "drill" movements of troops on the ancient battlefield. More likely a case of "follow me chaps" and "when he blows the trumpet you blokes with yellow shields rush over there and take the hill".

This clip is of much greater relevance (skip advert):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

The comparison with British army drill procedure certainly doesn't indicate how it was done in ancient warfare. What it is useful for is to indicate that what appears to be a simple maneuver on the tabletop is much more involved in real life. In addition, modern procedure for executing a "wheel" may well present a plausible upper limit for how efficiently the maneuver could be performed while maintaining a formation.

Interestingly, it appears that FoG specifically calls out the case of wheeling on a narrow front for special handling while in actuality it would probably be simpler to perform than wheeling on a wider front. In some ways it might be better to penalize a column's combat capabilities rather than restricting its movement. For example, if a column was treated as skirmishers in combat with reduced number of dice and inability to cause cohesion loss with a flank or rear charge to battle troops until it can get out of column.

Chris

This dicussion has absolutely nothing to do with the realities of ancient warfare, and everything to do with realities of tournament play.

I think Chris' solution makes the most sense. Penalize a BG's combat ability.

Hal

batesmotel wrote:The comparison with British army drill procedure certainly doesn't indicate how it was done in ancient warfare. What it is useful for is to indicate that what appears to be a simple maneuver on the tabletop is much more involved in real life. In addition, modern procedure for executing a "wheel" may well present a plausible upper limit for how efficiently the maneuver could be performed while maintaining a formation.

Thanks Chris, exactly what I was trying to say. The fact that drills shown in the 'Guard' video above were actually used (they are lifted from Napoleonic drill procedures) indicates that they needed to do something to overcome the physical limitations of a wheel. Soldiers don't deliberately complicate things on a battlefield. If they are complex there is a good reason for it.

batesmotel wrote:Interestingly, it appears that FoG specifically calls out the case of wheeling on a narrow front for special handling while in actuality it would probably be simpler to perform than wheeling on a wider front.

I think it would have to do with speed. I remember Napoleon's Battles by Avalon Hill used to have a 'wheeling template' and it was slower to do a wheel 3 bases wide than 1 base wide. And by that, I'm not saying that you covered less of an angle but the outside guy still moved the same distance... I mean the outside guy would move less and less as the 'wheel' got wider and wider. I think this is accurate.

batesmotel wrote:In some ways it might be better to penalize a column's combat capabilities rather than restricting its movement. For example, if a column was treated as skirmishers in combat with reduced number of dice and inability to cause cohesion loss with a flank or rear charge to battle troops until it can get out of column.

Well, I was thinking of a similar thing last night... but I don't think it's a thing that we can really include as it would require a re-write of the rules.

One thing that I don't think has been taken into consideration is the 'dismiss' and 'formup' options. Let's say that the commander of the formation at the top of this thread wanted to have a solid line 2 bases wide defending the terrain feature.

Well... I say 'let him do it', but it's going to cost. A 'voluntary fragment' and put them where you want them to be would (to my mind) indicate a 'dismiss' and 'formup' command. The commander would say to the file leaders "I want a line over there from that tree to that shrub with the first cohort on the left" and the sub commanders would take command. How they would get them there would be chaos for a time (the unit would be fragmented) and if they were elite they would recover quicker than if they were poor. If they had an inspirational commander they would recover quicker than they would if they had a normal Lucius running the show.

Unfortunately they didn't include this sort of thing in the rules, and it's too late to put them in now. It would include your 'combat disadvantage', Chris and cover my 'don't do anything stupid in the proximity of the enemy'.

Again, my caveat of "I don't know what the rules say, so don't crucify me" (appropriate as that may be).

grahambriggs wrote:Page 27 has how to reform the front of a unit (e.g. what FOG calls a wheel). Essentially, officers go forward onto the new orientation, then the centre four files wheel and take their alignment from the officers, then the rest of the unit comes up in stages.

Hi Graham,

Thank you for this. I haven't looked yet, so I'm just going by what you say above.

This is exactly what I was trying to show. A wheel is simple. A (what I'm calling) form is a lot more complex. The way the Romans seem to have done it (above) would be absolute CHAOS to try to change half way through.

Imagine this:
Stage 1:
officers go forward onto the new orientation
Stage 2:
then the centre four files wheel and take their alignment from the officers
Stage 3:
Oh, stop fellas. We want to about turn, and then expand two files.
Stage 4:
What the Jupiter?
Stage 5:
He said we're going to stop this formation change and then do something completely different.
Stage 6:
Ok, then the centre four files wheel and take their alignment from the rest of the unit
Stage 7:
officers go back onto the old orientation
Stage 8:
The unit does a counter march.
Stage 9:
officers go forward onto the new orientation
Stage 10:
then the centre four files wheel and take their alignment from the officers
Stage 11:
The unit is charged by three guys with fire hardened pointed sticks and wipe out the Legion. (exaggeration deliberate)

Wheel meet again...

"Form" - that's the word I was trying to remember from my squaddy days.

Left wheel - the so-called swinging gate approach to moving through a 90 degree arc. Physics dictates that a gate can only be so long before it breaks in the swinging movement.

Left form - the so-called move to the left in sub-units and all end up in a nice straight line again. No doubt cunningly devised when larger formations were required to change direction and commanders didn't want their gates to break.

Napoleonic wisdom was that a line can not be strong everywhere and columns were devised to punch through lines. This was probably the same in ancient times when a concentrated mass on a narrow frontage would have more 'punch' than a thin yellow line.

The kink in a column is just an artificiality caused by the hard-edged bases on which we mount our toy soldiers. On the ground, the mass of bodies would form a continuous mass and no kink (in the sense of base edges not perfectly aligned) would be discernible.

In the US Army we just did a "column left" or "column right" The guy on the appropriate corner in the front rank took one more step and then slowly marched in place while everyone else in the rank adjusted their stride to stay even until the entire front was facing the appropriate direction. Then the front rank marched at the half step until the rest of the formation caught up. Following ranks did the same as they reached the pivot point. I don't remember ever doing this with a frontage wider than 10 men.

zoltan wrote:Napoleonic wisdom was that a line can not be strong everywhere and columns were devised to punch through lines. This was probably the same in ancient times when a concentrated mass on a narrow frontage would have more 'punch' than a thin yellow line.

Hmm, no, not really.

People are often confused by this and you may not be but let me explain what I mean:

A Napoleonic Column is a series of lines behind each other.
A Napoleonic Line is a series of lines beside each other.

So, going back to the video of the 'Guards', the march past that they did would have been a 'column' - a series of lines marching past one after the another.

Going over to the ancient period:

Formations were a little different as they weren't focused on salvo of musket fire, but the 'getting in each others way' was still a real problem.

Take for example a Spartan Enomotia



If you consider that it seems simple for the Enomotia to do a 90 degree wheel (it is after all only 3 or 6 files across) then you have to consider that this is NOT what a base in a FoG army represents. A FoG base probably represents something like a Lochos (one level up from a Enomotia).

So, a Lochos (1 FoG base) 'wheeling' would require 4 Enomotia to each wheel - without getting in each other's way. The guy on the inside would have to right or left turn, march out about 10m and halt. This is JUST to make sure his tail is clear and in a straight line (avoid the kink). If he had a second Enomotia behind him adding support you can double that. So, a standard FoG formation of just one base frontage would have to march out 20 m to be 'straight'. That's just the inside guy. He is out there on his own until the rest of the formation catches up with him. The guy on the outside would not be able to keep up with that. No hope in hell. So they would be 'disorganized' until such time as the formation re-established a straight edge. There would be no mutual support to aid against skirmishers shooting. He and his three buddies would be there waiting. Pelted by arrows, rocks, javelins, you name it until the formation finished the 'wheel'. At that time they would be able to do something about the enemy skirmishers being rather annoying.

Now, half way THROUGH this formation change, people have been advocating that there is no reason why he couldn't expand. Well, an expansion is the supporting Enomotia doing a left or right turn, marching out as far as to clear the side edge of the Lochos, doing the appropriate turn and marching forward. Not overly complex, but not something you want to do while being pelted by arrows... and DEFINITELY not something you want to do when you're half way through the 'wheel'. You'd be as disorganized as all hell.

zoltan wrote:The kink in a column is just an artificiality caused by the hard-edged bases on which we mount our toy soldiers. On the ground, the mass of bodies would form a continuous mass and no kink (in the sense of base edges not perfectly aligned) would be discernible.

No. It's not. That's what I've been trying to say. The kink is very real. It is the online representation of the disorganization of having a unit half way through a rather complex maneuver. One that NOBODY on a battlefield who wasn't a complete IDIOT would do within proximity of the enemy.

Now FoG allows us all sorts of unrealistic things.

I've said it many times before, a left hand turn and march followed by a right hand turn is MUCH more simple than a wheel... however FoG allows people to wheel that cannot do a left march right. An about turn and march followed by an about turn is even more simple, but hardly anyone can do that. I understand why - we're trying to have a game here and it would be too easy to stuff around if you allowed all sorts of maneuver.

I think that the problem is that while those maneuvers are easy, it's hard to know what the enemy is doing. Do you do a left turn and march forward followed by a right turn? Why? Does the commander on the ground KNOW why it's 'from an aeroplane perspective' a good thing to do? Probably not.

In reality - in battles - people lined up and attacked. There was little or no maneuver. I can't remember if it was Tactica, but there was a set of rules that was pretty much like that... but they were boring. Probably realistic as hell, but not real good.

The thing I think we try to do with FoG is keep it realistic and fun at the same time.

For my part, in this thread, I'm simply talking about realism. What the rules writers want to do with it is up to them. IF they say a kinked column can expand and be in good order... no problems. We all know from the start of the game what you can and can't do. It may not be particularly realistic... but then neither is assessing combat by rolling dice.

I mean absolutely no disrespect in the above.

ravenflight wrote:

zoltan wrote:Napoleonic wisdom was that a line can not be strong everywhere and columns were devised to punch through lines. This was probably the same in ancient times when a concentrated mass on a narrow frontage would have more 'punch' than a thin yellow line.

Hmm, no, not really.

People are often confused by this and you may not be but let me explain what I mean:

A Napoleonic Column is a series of lines behind each other.
A Napoleonic Line is a series of lines beside each other.

So, going back to the video of the 'Guards', the march past that they did would have been a 'column' - a series of lines marching past one after the another.

Going over to the ancient period:

Formations were a little different as they weren't focused on salvo of musket fire, but the 'getting in each others way' was still a real problem.

Take for example a Spartan Enomotia



If you consider that it seems simple for the Enomotia to do a 90 degree wheel (it is after all only 3 or 6 files across) then you have to consider that this is NOT what a base in a FoG army represents. A FoG base probably represents something like a Lochos (one level up from a Enomotia).

So, a Lochos (1 FoG base) 'wheeling' would require 4 Enomotia to each wheel - without getting in each other's way. The guy on the inside would have to right or left turn, march out about 10m and halt. This is JUST to make sure his tail is clear and in a straight line (avoid the kink). If he had a second Enomotia behind him adding support you can double that. So, a standard FoG formation of just one base frontage would have to march out 20 m to be 'straight'. That's just the inside guy. He is out there on his own until the rest of the formation catches up with him. The guy on the outside would not be able to keep up with that. No hope in hell. So they would be 'disorganized' until such time as the formation re-established a straight edge. There would be no mutual support to aid against skirmishers shooting. He and his three buddies would be there waiting. Pelted by arrows, rocks, javelins, you name it until the formation finished the 'wheel'. At that time they would be able to do something about the enemy skirmishers being rather annoying.

Now, half way THROUGH this formation change, people have been advocating that there is no reason why he couldn't expand. Well, an expansion is the supporting Enomotia doing a left or right turn, marching out as far as to clear the side edge of the Lochos, doing the appropriate turn and marching forward. Not overly complex, but not something you want to do while being pelted by arrows... and DEFINITELY not something you want to do when you're half way through the 'wheel'. You'd be as disorganized as all hell.

zoltan wrote:The kink in a column is just an artificiality caused by the hard-edged bases on which we mount our toy soldiers. On the ground, the mass of bodies would form a continuous mass and no kink (in the sense of base edges not perfectly aligned) would be discernible.

No. It's not. That's what I've been trying to say. The kink is very real. It is the online representation of the disorganization of having a unit half way through a rather complex maneuver. One that NOBODY on a battlefield who wasn't a complete IDIOT would do within proximity of the enemy.

Now FoG allows us all sorts of unrealistic things.

I've said it many times before, a left hand turn and march followed by a right hand turn is MUCH more simple than a wheel... however FoG allows people to wheel that cannot do a left march right. An about turn and march followed by an about turn is even more simple, but hardly anyone can do that. I understand why - we're trying to have a game here and it would be too easy to stuff around if you allowed all sorts of maneuver.

I think that the problem is that while those maneuvers are easy, it's hard to know what the enemy is doing. Do you do a left turn and march forward followed by a right turn? Why? Does the commander on the ground KNOW why it's 'from an aeroplane perspective' a good thing to do? Probably not.

In reality - in battles - people lined up and attacked. There was little or no maneuver. I can't remember if it was Tactica, but there was a set of rules that was pretty much like that... but they were boring. Probably realistic as hell, but not real good.

The thing I think we try to do with FoG is keep it realistic and fun at the same time.

For my part, in this thread, I'm simply talking about realism. What the rules writers want to do with it is up to them. IF they say a kinked column can expand and be in good order... no problems. We all know from the start of the game what you can and can't do. It may not be particularly realistic... but then neither is assessing combat by rolling dice.

I mean absolutely no disrespect in the above.

You are still trying to equate modern drill with ancient tactics. It won't work. Let it go. YOU CANNOT EQUATE MODERN DRILL WITH ANCIENT MANOEVER. As an example, during Napoleonic times a column was approaching a bridge, the column had no way of turning 90 degrees. It simply wasn't in the manual. They went too far to wheel. It took four hours for the whole column to turn 90 degrees, mainly as the officers were moving each individual one at a time so the marker system didn't fall apart. So your assumption that a left turn is easier than a wheel is not true, based upon what period you are talking about. I appreciate that even Napoleonic isn't ancient, but it does show the differences between modern thinking and what happened as little as two hundred years ago.

Personally, I think ancient infantry would struggle to complete a 90 degree turn. Forwards and backwards was fine. Wheeling was just about OK. Everything else was right out. But from a game perspective if you don't allow these things it doesn't work. In ancient times, usually there was communication before a battle. Things were agreed, if one army didn't want to fight they would stay behind the fortifications or in a city, otherwise they had to make do with what they had. The opposition could either besiege the city or fortifications, or move somewhere else until they would fight. It's one of the reason the Romans were so succesfull - if they didn't want to fight they just stayed behind the fortifications they just built the night before.

We aren't trying to re-create the dysentery and starvation and such like of a campaign, but we need to simulate some of the pre-battle jiggery pokkery, which is where the manoever comes in. It's a game mechanism that must happen for the game to work. Trying to equate modern methods to ancient drill is simply nonsensical.

dave_r wrote:You are still trying to equate modern drill with ancient tactics. It won't work. Let it go. YOU CANNOT EQUATE MODERN DRILL WITH ANCIENT MANOEVER.

How do you figure that considering I deliberately used Spartan formation and what we know of Spartan military doctrine of expansions, contractions, and basic formations.

Incidentally:

You're the one who asked how to wheel.
You're the one who wanted to know how to do a 180 degree turn in the middle of a wheel.

ShrubMiK asked:

ShrubMiK wrote:What do we want to/think should happen?

To which I answered.

I've given hard evidence as to what happened one hundred years ago, and extrapolated from this how difficult a wheel even THEN, with a couple of thousand years of military theory behind them. Somehow you think it would have been easier.

GrahamBriggs offered:

grahambriggs wrote:There's an interesting collage of Roman drills in Ludus Militis:

http://www.ludusmilitis.org/articles/LM ... y_2010.pdf

Have you read it?

But what we're left with (if you had your way) would be:

dave_r wrote:Personally, I think ancient infantry would struggle to complete a 90 degree turn. Forwards and backwards was fine. Wheeling was just about OK. Everything else was right out.

A personal opinion backed up by nothing but... "I think" and reference to a recreation society.

Sorry Dave - I'm not biting on your bait. I'm NOT arguing with you further. Have your opinion... I really don't care what it is... I've pretty much answered what ShrubMiK asked.

Does anyone have a video of cat chasing its tail. That's where this has gone.

Or possibly 20 cats chasing their tails?

signed

A cat who got tired of the chase

hazelbark wrote:Does anyone have a video of cat chasing its tail. That's where this has gone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00XElYd9Avw

ravenflight wrote:

dave_r wrote:You are still trying to equate modern drill with ancient tactics. It won't work. Let it go. YOU CANNOT EQUATE MODERN DRILL WITH ANCIENT MANOEVER.

How do you figure that considering I deliberately used Spartan formation and what we know of Spartan military doctrine of expansions, contractions, and basic formations.

No - you took a Spartan formation and applied modern square bashing to it.

Incidentally:

You're the one who asked how to wheel.
You're the one who wanted to know how to do a 180 degree turn in the middle of a wheel.

No I didn't. I asked when a column with a kink in it turned 180 degrees what happened to the kink. To which you applied a whole bunch of modern drill to "prove" it couldn't be done.

I've given hard evidence as to what happened one hundred years ago, and extrapolated from this how difficult a wheel even THEN, with a couple of thousand years of military theory behind them. Somehow you think it would have been easier.

Extrapolated - i.e. guessed. That is not hard evidence.

GrahamBriggs offered:

grahambriggs wrote:There's an interesting collage of Roman drills in Ludus Militis:

http://www.ludusmilitis.org/articles/LM ... y_2010.pdf

Have you read it?

Nope, I'm guessing he just put the link up and hoped it proved something?

But what we're left with (if you had your way) would be:

dave_r wrote:Personally, I think ancient infantry would struggle to complete a 90 degree turn. Forwards and backwards was fine. Wheeling was just about OK. Everything else was right out.

A personal opinion backed up by nothing but... "I think" and reference to a recreation society.

That's why I said personally. That is based on reading battle accounts of actual ancient battles. The reference to a recreation society is every bit as relevant as modern drill.

Sorry Dave - I'm not biting on your bait. I'm NOT arguing with you further. Have your opinion... I really don't care what it is... I've pretty much answered what ShrubMiK asked.

That's now the second time you've said that - is that just so you can get the last word in? It's no good saying you aren't going to respond and then respond five times afterwards?

There was a looong discussion on the Ancmed forum on whether ancient troops could turn 90 degrees and whether they could wheel. As I recall, the consensus was that they probably could not.
However, as Dave says, it's not really relevant as this is just a game mechanism we are talking about; a wargame which basically allows troops to go forward and crash into each other isn't very exciting.
So discussions of drill are missing the point.
Whether kinked columns can turn 90 or 180 degrees should be decided by the game effect it has. If it allows cheese, maybe it should not be allowed.

pyruse wrote:There was a looong discussion on the Ancmed forum on whether ancient troops could turn 90 degrees and whether they could wheel. As I recall, the consensus was that they probably could not.

Though Xenephon describes how cavalry should do it IIRC