Some Questions on the expansion.

[jamespcrowley]

Will the new LoS rules be based around absolute spotting (if any of your units spots an enemy, all of your units can shoot at it) or relative spotting (only units that have LoS can shoot at the enemy BG).

I do hope it is the latter which will then preclude the current anamalous situation of missle units being able to fire through/over hills and woods at units they could not possibly see.

Will the army builder impose restrictions as to the percentages of different types of unit an army can be composed of? In other words will you be able to build an army entirely of skirmishers; thus making for a game which has the potential to never end, as they all go around endlessly evading.

[deeter]

I hope the army builder is linked to the FoG supplements' min/max thingy.

Deeter

[Surtur]

Individual line of sights would be great, but a lot harder to implent I suppose. Terrain would be playing a major role if this were the case, something I like, since it ads to the realism.

[deadtorius]

It would be nice if you could stand on a hill and shoot over the heads of troops on ground level, at present if you are on a hill all LOS is blocked regardless of elevation. At one point in beta I had brought up the fact that ranged troops were able to fire over hills forests etc, and I was told eventually they would fix that, guess the new LOS is the fix they promised.

[Xiccarph]

It would be nice if you could stand on a hill and shoot over the heads of troops on ground level, at present if you are on a hill all LOS is blocked regardless of elevation. At one point in beta I had brought up the fact that ranged troops were able to fire over hills forests etc, and I was told eventually they would fix that, guess the new LOS is the fix they promised.

Nice idea!

[IainMcNeil]

In the TT you cannot shoot over troops so we will nto be allowing it. The only time it occured was in a single body of troops which we already deal with.

LOS is still WiP so not sure exactly how it will end up.

You can only use troops they did historically and in historical proportions. Armies will be based on the army books so you will have to bring a historically correct force with maximums and minimums of each troop type.

[deadtorius]

In the TT rules you are allowed to shoot over troops if you are on a higher elevation than the intervening troops and they are at least 1 MU away from the shooters and at least 1 MU away from the target. page 82 overhead shooting
So standing on a hill should allow bows to shoot over friends standing on the ground if they are say 1 hex away from the shooters or the target..

[IainMcNeil]

I havent played the TT for a long time but I thought it was not possible. I'll need to check

[batesmotel]

In the TT you cannot shoot over troops so we will nto be allowing it. The only time it occured was in a single body of troops which we already deal with.

LOS is still WiP so not sure exactly how it will end up.

You can only use troops they did historically and in historical proportions. Armies will be based on the army books so you will have to bring a historically correct force with maximums and minimums of each troop type.

As a sanity check for LOS, presumably you will have to be able to shoot at least two hexes within any type of terrain, e.g. forest, since that is the minimum range that the hex grid and the fact that being adjacent to a unit means that you are in combat allow. I would think that it would also require that it should also be possible to shoot over any terrain obstacle, e.g. a hill/contour, where it is only one hex across between the shooter and the target. As a rationalization, it can be assumed that BGs are not necessarily completely within the hex they occupy on the map and hence could actually be closer to their target but not in actual combat with it.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

When I first purchased the game , having LOS was one of the items I was really hoping to see added. However after playing enough I am not so sure if for only the following concern: How will it effect the Ai performance?
Would hate to see an AI( which I feel is one of the best I have seen in a tactical wargame) bearing down on you w a purpose , only to suddenly move its units helter skelter just because one or 2 of your own units becomes "spotted" by the ai.

[grumblefish]

You can only use troops they did historically and in historical proportions. Armies will be based on the army books so you will have to bring a historically correct force with maximums and minimums of each troop type.

To be fair, you can't really use the Romans the way they were historically. The deep Roman formations are impossible in the game because units engaged in melee cannot withdraw.

I can never have the velites engage, then retreat and allow the hastatii to engage, and then retreat and let the principii engage, and then all run back to the triarii, unless I want to see my line routed at each stage. There is simply no orderly withdrawal method for units that are currently engaged, despite that being the norm for Rome.

[deadtorius]

I believe one of the TT game designers stated that there is not a system for disengaging from combat in any set of miniatures rules and that unfortunately we really don't have any idea how it was even carried out.
Aside from what I have read about the battle of Troy, where it seems warfare was very orderly and more structured with particular rules of war, it is hard to figure how Romans and howling Gauls or Germans would have ever had an understanding regarding breaking off. Guess we just have to make do with what we have as its based on the best assumptions historians have made.

[Paisley]

The Romans interchanged maniples and cohorts during 'natural lulls' in the fighting, generally if an enemy unit had been seen off or if both sides paused for breath as seems to have happened quite often in 'unit combats' (see Goldsworthy's excellent The Roman Army at War 100BC-AD200).

Given the scale of the game, I think this has to be assumed as happening at the cohort level (at the one unit = 1/3 legion scale). Alternatively, if one had Roman units of cohort size, say 500 men per unit then one could space the first line one hex apart. The second line would be two hexes back and in the intervals (so they can charge in support of their fellows next turn). The third line is one or two hexes behind that ready to plug gaps as the first line routs to where the general waits to rally them. That's imperfect of course, but it's about as close as the game could manage. Even within a cohort though, there's no reason to suppose centuries were all engaged at the same time. In ancient battles, combat often seems to have been sporadic along a front. It's hard to get that in a wargame without things becoming frustrating as units refuse orders to close etc.

In fact deploying the three-unit legion as a triangle with its apex toward the player allows plugging of gaps as individual units break off (rout).

It's fair to say that a 'break off' result, rather than an all out rout, might be a good intermediate option. The unit makes a rout move to the rear and ends disordered (or fragmented if already disordered, routed if fragmented), enemy following up as per current rules. Or perhaps 'breaking off' like that could be an option for disciplined troops within the command radius of a leader. There needs to be a penalty for so doing thogh, and disorder would seem to fit. Maybe.

[Examinondas]

But in FoG there is a disengage mechanism already implemented: the cavalry break-offs. In my opinion it works quite well, allowing for successive charges to be performed.

Why not use it (with modifications, of course) for the infantry?

[Paisley]

Well that's what I'm suggesting really, but modified so there is a disorder penalty. Infantry should not be able to retreat from close combat scot-free. With leaders in close support (as would be needed to supervise such withdrawals, disorder should be quickly rectified, and even with no leader present, the relief troops should be plugging the gaps.

And also, you don't want your infantry line disengaging willy-nilly like cavalry. You need some kind of control over where and when (in general, obviously Anarchy rules would allow for disobedient disengagement).

[Examinondas]

Sorry for the confusion Paisley, it looks like you posted while I was writing a reply to deadtorius' "TT game designers stated that there is not a system for disengaging from combat in any set of miniatures rules"

I agree (to a 80% ) with your post.

It's a real pity we can't have our own house-rules in a PC game!

[Polkovnik]

But in FoG there is a disengage mechanism already implemented: the cavalry break-offs. In my opinion it works quite well, allowing for successive charges to be performed.

Why not use it (with modifications, of course) for the infantry?

Because cavalry did break off historically, whilst infantry didn't.
If you can provide historical evidence of battles where infantry broke off voluntarily (i.e not routing) after being engaged in melee combat then I'm sure the authors would incorporate this into the rules (and the TT game also).

Also maybe you could explain how you think this would work in real life ?

[Examinondas]

Paisley has already provided enough information about infantry break-offs

[Paisley]

It depends how you regard melee combat to be honest.

Given the scale of the game (even if units are reduced from 1500 men to 500 for heavy foot), multiple rounds of combat must necessarily have lulls that would allow for withdrawals, as we know the Romans did, for instance.

There's also Philip II's steady withdrawal of his Macedonian foot that resulted in the dislocation of the Athenian-Theban lne at Charaeonea. This is impossible under current rules (and may be impossible to simulate even with the suggested 'penalised break off' too.

I'm not saying such a system is necssary, because it could be argued that at a 1500 man/unit scale, such withdrawal/replenishment can be assumed for the Romans. I'm just saying units were interchanged 'in combat' (please note inverted commas).

Really though, I'm not certain that the system could not be abused, and would further enhance the prowess of the Romans, who seem quite strong enough in the game already. But it is a possible option, and, I think, justifiable on 'realism' ground too (though as I say, the point could be agued either way).

Oh! There's also the Spartan practise of simulated rout, well attested.

There's also the questio of why units cannot be 'pushed back' rather than routed. It was quite common for troops to give ground whilst in combat without actually routing (the Spartans pushed the Macedonian phalanx back a quite considerable distance for instance). Again, modelling this might be more trouble than its worth. I'm all for improved gameplay myself. I don't want additions that overcomplicate matters .

[Paisley]

Appian's Civil War iii 68, Caesar's Gallic War i 25-6, and his Civil War i 45-6 all describe combats that ended with orderly withdrawals, not routs.

The Alexandran War and the Spanish War have accounts of lines being pushed back without being broken (and let's not forget Cannae, though I suspect teh Gauls did rout there as their casualties were horrendous for those on a winning side - but the Spaniards were pushed back a fair way without routing).

As I say, I'm not necessarily saying these features should be in the game, just that a good case can be made for having them.