Slitherine

THE QUESTION
Is it true (as it seems to be) that mounted fighting disrupted/fragmented foot get no POAs?

If I'm wrong, could somebody point me to the proper spot in the rules?


WHY I ASK
If mounted really doesn't get an advantages when fighting disrupted or fragged foot that would seem to me totally weird. I had understood that one of the cornerstones of ancient combat was: "disorder opposing foot by softening them with bow or making them leave prepared positions then charge with mounted."

That has been reproduced in every ancients game I've ever played, but I totally don't see it here in FoG. Yes, I do see that disrupted and fragged foot troops (like all troops) lose dice and suck on cohesion tests but that's against any opponents, not just mounted.

The reality I thought was being simulated in other games was: Mounted charge a wall of prepared foot that have spears or whatever. If the foot keep in formation then it is difficult for anything but very heavy knights to charge in successfully - the horses shy away, get impaled on the forest of spears, etc. . Whereas if mounted are charging into or in the middle of a melee with foot who have become disordered, then the mounted have free reign to ride back and forth in their midst, killing the now isolated and 'running around' foot guys. And importantly, mounted do this better than anybody because of their speed, size and hitting power.

That was my understanding. Am I wrong about the reality? Does FoG take a different interpretation? Did I miss it in the rules?

Jonathan

PS - I've played three games of FoG and so far think it's a great game. So, awesome work guys.

. . . and thanks in advance for any help and sorry for the sort of "half rules question half game-mechanic-justification" post.

It depends, for starters being disrupted means losing dice, that applies vs. mounted and foot. After that it depends on how the infantry and the mounted are equipped. Assuming the mounted have lance and/or swordsmen capability and the foot is armed with either spears or pikes having the foot disrupted does help the mounted. As long as spear or pike armed foot is steady they deny the mounted their Lance and Swordsmen POAs. Once disrupted or fragmented this is no longer the case, hence the mounted basically gain a POA vs. the infantry.
Against infantry armed with other weapons then spears or pikes the mounted do not gain an immediate POA advantage from having the foot disrupted (they still profit from the foot looing dice of course), but then such infantry isn't nearly as resilient vs. mounted to start with, compared to their 'long pointy things' colleagues.

Ghaznavid wrote:It depends, for starters being disrupted means losing dice, that applies vs. mounted and foot. After that it depends on how the infantry and the mounted are equipped. Assuming the mounted have lance and/or swordsmen capability and the foot is armed with either spears or pikes having the foot disrupted does help the mounted. As long as spear or pike armed foot is steady they deny the mounted their Lance and Swordsmen POAs. Once disrupted or fragmented this is no longer the case, hence the mounted basically gain a POA vs. the infantry.
Against infantry armed with other weapons then spears or pikes the mounted do not gain an immediate POA advantage from having the foot disrupted (they still profit from the foot looing dice of course), but then such infantry isn't nearly as resilient vs. mounted to start with, compared to their 'long pointy things' colleagues.

Yeah - what he said...

What has helped me think of the POA system is this:

If they are troops that badly need cohesion to survive, a POA loss/gain will result from disruption/fragmentation. In all other cases it probably wont, and that's because they are individual fighters.

So, what you get is Spear/Pike lose their ability to deny sword at first (disrupted), then lose their ability to act as spearmen second (fragmented) and lose dice. Legionary types just lose dice, but are affected by the enemies lance the same either way.

Ian

and there is a -1 on cohesion tests for some foot fighting mounted..so this makes mounted more deadly in places...but no more so when the enemy disrupts or frgas tho

Blathergut wrote:and there is a -1 on cohesion tests for some foot fighting mounted..so this makes mounted more deadly in places...but no more so when the enemy disrupts or frgas tho

Unless that same MF is spearmen... death to MF spearmen when they disrupt vs lancers!

Okay, I think I see that. Basically:

1) unsteadiness takes POAs away from spear guys v. everybody
2) unsteadiness makes MF more likely to fail cohesion tests v. mounted
3) unsteadiness takes away dice from everybody v. all opponents
4) unsteadiness gives all enemy sword guys POAs against you

I don't know dude, that sounds like meager pickings. Not in terms of the general effect of unsteadiness but specifically in terms of unsteady foot versus mounted.


IRRITATING REQUEST FOR UNDERLYING GAME MECHANIC JUSTIFICATION REQUEST BELOW - IGNORE AT WILL

Like I said, everything I've read pushes the idea that mounted troops were the worst thing that could happen to disordered foot - of all types, not just spears - and the FoG combat mechanism does have a little of that but . . . . I don't know man, a lot less than other systems. And even if I get the idea that unsteady foot swordsmen would have been better off than unsteady foot spears versus mounted, it just seems like the calculation in FoG landed in a place that A) just seems a little weak and B) disagrees with at least the main other system I've played which is 7th/Warrior.

Like I said, ignore at will. But I play wargames mostly to understand ancient battles and so when systems differ I really want to know why, not because my pet tactic (well a little of that) doesn't work anymore, but really because I want to understand the history books I read. I rely on you guys.

Jonathan

jonathankosread wrote:Okay, I think I see that. Basically:

1) unsteadiness takes POAs away from spear guys v. everybody
2) unsteadiness makes MF more likely to fail cohesion tests v. mounted
3) unsteadiness takes away dice from everybody v. all opponents
4) unsteadiness gives all enemy sword guys POAs against you

No, you haven't quite got it.

1) Disrupted (what you're calling unsteady) takes the ability of the spear to refuse sword, but they still maintain their spear factor.
2) Disrupted/Fragged makes EVERYONE easier to fail cohesion tests vs anyone. Being MF makes it easier to fail even if you're steady.
3) Disrupted you lose 1/3 of your dice, fragged you lose 1/2.
4) Disrupted does allow sword yes, fragged you lose spear as well.

Ian

If STEADY is the start state of all troops, is it not okay to call all the other degraded states UNSTEADY?

But thanks for the clarification of the specific differences between DISRUPTED and FRAGMENTED

jonathankosread wrote:If STEADY is the start state of all troops, is it not okay to call all the other degraded states UNSTEADY?

Yes, there are two states in one way of talking - steady and unsteady, but that doesn't necessarily clarrify whether their spear/pike works or not - you need to further clarify whether they are disrupted (unsteady) or fragmented (unsteady).

If you're disrupted spear you still count as spear, but don't refuse the sword factor, but if you're fragmented you're effectively not even spear anymore. It most definitely is a big deal.

Ian

Thanks dude. Precision is important.

So, as far as I can tell, the only situation where UNSTEADY foot have a disadvantage specifically against mounted is:


UNSTEADY pike/spear foot fighting lancers during Impact


Is this right?

Jonathan

Yes. Is that bad? If I was disrupted the only reall difference between fighting foot and mounted would be if I had some anti-moutned factor to lose (ie negating the shock mounted bonus) which is what you describe below.

jonathankosread wrote:Thanks dude. Precision is important.

So, as far as I can tell, the only situation where UNSTEADY foot have a disadvantage specifically against mounted is:


UNSTEADY pike/spear foot fighting lancers during Impact


Is this right?

Jonathan

Not bad by definition, just really different from what I'm used to, and what I had assumed was the historical record. But I'm no expert - in fact I rely on these games to tell me how things worked.

Anyway, thanks for the help. And if anybody wants to weigh in on the effects of mounted on unsteady foot, I'm interested.


Jonathan

There is also the break-off mechanism vs steady foot which allows the mounted to remain and kill off (hopefully) unsteady foot quicker - also they avoid the potential of being shot at which they can be if they break-off.

This is specifically a mounted/foot interaction.

Ian

jonathankosread wrote:Not bad by definition, just really different from what I'm used to, and what I had assumed was the historical record. But I'm no expert - in fact I rely on these games to tell me how things worked.

Anyway, thanks for the help. And if anybody wants to weigh in on the effects of mounted on unsteady foot, I'm interested.


Jonathan

What you likely have not still understood is the level of FOG. In FOG a base is near an unit of other rules (if you compare FOG base that represents near 250 men with WRG 6th edition where a miniature represents 20 men, you see a base in FOG is equivalent to an unit of 12 miniatures of WRG 6th edition, or Hoplite Warfare, Newbury, etc). So the mechanic of fight cannot be too sophisticated. More, the POA system needs a little of time to be full understood. For example, if your opponent in a normal situation would have a +POA, and something happens which negate this POA so you fight at even, it's the same if such situation give you a +POA.
FWIW, IMO disorder don't upgrade killing power of mounted troops, but downgrade power of foot to stop them.

You've missed the breakoff. Mounted must break off from steady foot. So if the foot lose cohesion the mounted carry on fighting them. If they remain steady, the mounted bounce off after 2 rounds of combat and stop fighting the foot entirely That may be the missing extra element in the interaction you are looking for?

marioslaz wrote: What you likely have not still understood is the level of FOG. In FOG a base is near an unit of other rules (if you compare FOG base that represents near 250 men with WRG 6th edition where a miniature represents 20 men, you see a base in FOG is equivalent to an unit of 12 miniatures of WRG 6th edition

My understanding of WRG 6th/7th is that a figure (very, very roughly) represents about fifty dudes. So for, say, close order infantry that means about 200 soldiers per base. I play 7th/Warrior a lot and the mechanisms/scale of abstractions are pretty similar to FoG - which makes sense if the scales are as equivalent as you say they are.

It's BECAUSE the scales are so similar that I was curious about the discrepancy in the way the authors of the two sets deal with unsteady foot v. mounted combat.

Jonathan

marioslaz wrote: For example, if your opponent in a normal situation would have a +POA, and something happens which negate this POA so you fight at even, it's the same if such situation give you a +POA.

Yeah, exactly. That was my original question. Regardless of the mechanism - plus POA for me or minus for you - it seemed, and this was confirmed by everybody, that there was very little of this +/- that was specific to unsteady foot versus mounted.

marioslaz wrote: FWIW, IMO disorder don't upgrade killing power of mounted troops, but downgrade power of foot to stop them.

I had always thought it was both based on the following picture of combat:

Unsteady foot, instead of presenting a solid wall into which mounted had to charge, were broken into little groups of guys trying to fend off the lances and sword strokes of the thundering mounted in their midst. So foot ability to kill was downgraded by their disorganization and their terror, and mounted ability to kill was upgraded because they could do what they do best, ride down isolated guys and skewer them or chop their heads off.

But like I said, I'm not an expert. That was just what I had read and reasoned out trying to understand other rule sets and accounts of ancient battles.


Jonathan

jonathankosread said:

I had always thought it was both based on the following picture of combat:

Unsteady foot, instead of presenting a solid wall into which mounted had to charge, were broken into little groups of guys trying to fend off the lances and sword strokes of the thundering mounted in their midst. So foot ability to kill was downgraded by their disorganization and their terror, and mounted ability to kill was upgraded because they could do what they do best, ride down isolated guys and skewer them or chop their heads off.

Having been a 7th ed player for decades, an historian and a teacher, I think FoG works well at reproducing historical effects.

Disruption is the BEGINNING of problems for the infantry - you have made several statements which say DISORDER is the worry for infantry and you are most definitely right - to become disordered was a most severe problem as your quote states.

In FoG, the next stage after disruption is fragment which is a major decline - disruption is beginning of that decline. FoG just makes the decline effect take a while longer than it did in 7th. By the time you reach fragment, only extradordinary liuck can save you. Disruption puts you on the back foot - many small issues are combined which makes all outcomes unpleasant (eg CT test, dice etc). Should you recover from that, good luck to youbut I suspect not many players think it is a minor inconvenience in combat!

Jingghis (Khan of course!)