Slitherine

Hi

Discussing last night we were left wondering why it is so much harder to turn through 180 degrees and move than it is to turn through 90 degrees and move.

Practical experience of moving large bodies of re-enactors about in period formations and costume comes down heavily in favour of it being no harder to turn to the rear and move off than to turn to the flank and move off. *

Indeed, if anything, moving to the flank is the harder of thr two, but FOG has it the opposite way round.

Could someone explain why the rules appear to contradict practical experience ?

Pete

* One of the discussers has commanded bodies of hundreds of Pike and Shot, the other similar sized groups of Vikings/Saxons.

A few reasons.

1. It doesn't appear to have happened often in actual battles (other than skirmishers) so you don't want it in the game.

2. 180 degree turns were by things like Laconian counter march which are rather pnderous.

3. It'd be crap for the game.

You could argue that it would be more historical to make the turn and move possible, but make any BG that does it, or is within 3 MU of one that does it, take a cohesion test as if they had seen a BG break.

But it is quicker and simpler just to ban it. The result is the same.

guthroth wrote:Hi

Discussing last night we were left wondering why it is so much harder to turn through 180 degrees and move than it is to turn through 90 degrees and move.

Practical experience of moving large bodies of re-enactors about in period formations and costume comes down heavily in favour of it being no harder to turn to the rear and move off than to turn to the flank and move off. *

Indeed, if anything, moving to the flank is the harder of thr two, but FOG has it the opposite way round.

Could someone explain why the rules appear to contradict practical experience ?

Pete

* One of the discussers has commanded bodies of hundreds of Pike and Shot, the other similar sized groups of Vikings/Saxons.

But you can do it if your outside 6mu and got a general with you.

Only if your drilled Dave and I assume you would need a general with each BG if you wanted to turn each BG and move.

Undrilled may be a whole different proposition. Would you want to turn and move a BG not knowing if the next BG in line would be able to follow you?

Rob

Considering the number of times that a body of troops has been recorded to cause panic in surrounding troops for moving in retrograde, I would think it would be good to have the option in the game, with the same effects as seeing friends break for nearby BGs.

Robert241167 wrote:Only if your drilled Dave and I assume you would need a general with each BG if you wanted to turn each BG and move.

Undrilled may be a whole different proposition. Would you want to turn and move a BG not knowing if the next BG in line would be able to follow you?

Rob

With undrilled its a complex as you say and if you have a general the second move is stright forward.

But I can't see why you'd want to move like that at all.

I have done that with Cavalry but thats different.

Dave

I think that Pete is just pointing out an incoherence based on his experience. And I think he is right. However, regarding the game experience, it seems to me that the main idea of easing 90 degrees comes to let victorious troops to exploit gaps in the main line. And making 180 turns more difficult avoids some players playing a phalanx as if it were a group of skirmishers.

In fact, reading about the battles on the sources, what we don't find many times is many manouvering before the battle. Most of the manouvering took place while deploying and that is not described (Arrians description of Issos is a good example). Both commanders tried, if possible, to extend their lines to match their ennemies and then both lines clashed. Something so simple sometimes is hard to be found in many AAR's. That's why I liked some deployment rules like the ones of the Ruleset Armati.

A BG is meant to represent more than one unit. Quite possibly it is several lines of independent units. Not quite the same as one body all about facing.

Strategos69 wrote: In fact, reading about the battles on the sources, what we don't find many times is many manouvering before the battle. Most of the manouvering took place while deploying and that is not described (Arrians description of Issos is a good example). Both commanders tried, if possible, to extend their lines to match their ennemies and then both lines clashed. Something so simple sometimes is hard to be found in many AAR's. That's why I liked some deployment rules like the ones of the Ruleset Armati.

That applies mostly to classical battles though, less so to medievals and especially not to highly mobile mounted armies, like Turks, Mongols and so on.

My view is leave well enough alone.
The current system is simple (this helps) and by deploying in 1/4's somewhat represents the commanders choices.
If one wants to replicate a more complicated process then that is between consenting adults and should be kept indoors.