Slitherine

How many stands would a 10 stand unit in orb count as v. shooting. Rules don't seem to state clearly, and possible interpretations include 3 (1 stand wide when fighting x 3 in depth), 6 (2 stand wide frontage x 3 in depth) to all 10 (2 stand wide on one face x3 and 2 stand wide on rear face x2).

Thoughts?

The rule on pg 122 says, "It is depicted by contracting the battle group to 2 files wide...."

and

pg 135: "Other troops count all bases in the front 3 ranks only."

Assuming "depicted" means "formed" then I think 2 files @ 3 bases per file = 6 bases when counting HPB.

Terry G.

You're quite right - the rules aren't explicit.

But - an orb 'fights in any direction. with one quarter of its bases, rounded up. Half of these, rounded up, count as front rank bases.'

I take that to mean that your 10 base BG fights with 3 bases in each direction, 2 of which count as front rank bases.

Assuming I've got that right I would say that it counts as 10 bases for shooting since all bases are in the first or second ranks.

Others however may have a different view.

Yup. Those summarize the two main competing interpretations. This one was purely academic (I missed the shots anyway) but for the life of me I can't tell which is correct from the text of the rules.

Since all the bases are in first and second rank all must count.

I think there is a difference between how the orb fights (1/4 bases fighting in any direction and half of these counting as front rank bases) and how HPB are calculated (2 files wide, front three ranks only).

Terry G.

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:I think there is a difference between how the orb fights (1/4 bases fighting in any direction and half of these counting as front rank bases) and how HPB are calculated (2 files wide, front three ranks only).

Terry G.

Exactly.

Marc

babyshark wrote:

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:I think there is a difference between how the orb fights (1/4 bases fighting in any direction and half of these counting as front rank bases) and how HPB are calculated (2 files wide, front three ranks only).

Terry G.

Exactly.

Marc

Given what an orb represents, it seems unreasonable to say that any BG over 6 bases is no more resilient than one of 6 because of how the stands to represent it are placed on the table. An orb really is a very different formation from a deep column or even a deep pike phalanx. (As a disclaimer, I argued that they should be counted at full value since all the bases are essentially in the first or second rank for fighting.)

Chris

It does model (albeit imperfectly) a denser formation being more vulnerable to fire, as squares were historically. The first-three ranks only thing does the same for columns.

iversonjm wrote:It does model (albeit imperfectly) a denser formation being more vulnerable to fire, as squares were historically. The first-three ranks only thing does the same for columns.

Square was more vulnerable to gunpowder weapons, due to them being able to pass through more then one person. Arrows, slings and javelins do not have such wonder powers. In fact being packed more tightly in such a situation would improve morale and mutual protection.

Some of the vulnerability resulted from pass-through fire, some was from the depth and density - i.e. a shot that missed the front was more likely to hit someone else in the back.

In any case, even if you don't buy that an orb would be more vulnerable than a 2-wide column, its equally unclear to me why a big unit in a two-wide column (which counts as six stands) could make itself less vulnerable to missle fire by the simple expedient of having everyone face outward. [/i]

iversonjm wrote:In any case, even if you don't buy that an orb would be more vulnerable than a 2-wide column, its equally unclear to me why a big unit in a two-wide column (which counts as six stands) could make itself less vulnerable to missle fire by the simple expedient of having everyone face outward.

Because it makes the shooting rules work. If you have a large unit with a small frontage more casualties are concentrated on the forward troops. In orb they are all close to the front.

Its far from perfect as heavy shooting from just one flank would cause panic in that flank, which may spread to the remainder. Perhaps the rules need to be more complex.

philqw78 wrote:Perhaps the rules need to be more complex.

Bite your tongue.

Marc

iversonjm wrote:Some of the vulnerability resulted from pass-through fire, some was from the depth and density - i.e. a shot that missed the front was more likely to hit someone else in the back.

In any case, even if you don't buy that an orb would be more vulnerable than a 2-wide column, its equally unclear to me why a big unit in a two-wide column (which counts as six stands) could make itself less vulnerable to missle fire by the simple expedient of having everyone face outward. [/i]

Was an Orb in the Classical world actually formed that way or is it more akin to a Napoleonic square in being a hollow formation? My opinion is probably the latter rather the former from a quick google but not conclusive. (It does appear it was a round formation for the Romans rather than rectangular/square.) I belive the Orb formation in the FoG should not be assumed to be the same as the use of massive squares/very deep pike formations during the Rennaissance like the Swiss schiltrons and Spanish Tercios that would have been essentially dense formations with the outer ranks facing outward. (The Napoleonic equivalent of the latter would be the Austrian Battalion masse formation.)

Chris

My understanding of the Macedonian version of the orb (which was used as a demonstration against the Illyrians, IIR) was that it was more akin to a shiltron, but its been a while since I've cracked open Arrian.

The "orb" formation in FoG was probably intended to represent a variety of different formations adopted by many nations. Whether the orb should be more vulnerable or less probably depends on the tactics of the specific nation. Romans in a close order defensive formation with locked shield probably should be less vulnerable (and perhaps treated as wearing heavy armor). I am not sure about other nations.

Personally, for simplicity, I do not think an orb should be treated as the equivalent of a column. A four base BG should not be less vulnerable to misssile fire than a 12 base BG. The density of the two formations would be the same. In this case, the only difference would be the area occupied.

Delbruck wrote:The "orb" formation in FoG was probably intended to represent a variety of different formations adopted by many nations. Whether the orb should be more vulnerable or less probably depends on the tactics of the specific nation. Romans in a close order defensive formation with locked shield probably should be less vulnerable (and perhaps treated as wearing heavy armor). I am not sure about other nations.

Personally, for simplicity, I do not think an orb should be treated as the equivalent of a column. A four base BG should not be less vulnerable to misssile fire than a 12 base BG. The density of the two formations would be the same. In this case, the only difference would be the area occupied.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. A four base BG of pikes in four ranks is the same density as a twelve base BG of pikes, only the area would be different. In the rules these two BG require different numbers of hits from missile fire to count as 1 per 3, e.g. 1 vs 3. Are you saying that the same BGs in orb should both be treated the same? I'm confused.

Chris

I'm not. The rules state that all bases in orb are in the first 2 ranks. So all bases count when calculating HPB. The rest of this is opinions, and some, if implemented, would mean extra rules.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. A four base BG of pikes in four ranks is the same density as a twelve base BG of pikes, only the area would be different. In the rules these two BG require different numbers of hits from missile fire to count as 1 per 3, e.g. 1 vs 3. Are you saying that the same BGs in orb should both be treated the same? I'm confused.

The arguement is made that an orb should be treated like a column for missile fire purposes because the formation is more dense and vulnerable to missiles. In reality this may or not be true. But the size of the formation has nothing to do with the density and vulnerability to missile fire.

As an example think of Naopleonic squares. One 1000 man square is not going to be more vulernable to missile fire than four 250 man squares. If anything the smaller squares may be packed tighter than the single more open square. But for game purposes we will probably treat them all the same. Also with Napoleonis rules, as an example, we may distinquish between column, line and square. The rules may state the square formation looks similiar to a column but with the rear ranks facing in the opposite direction. But this does not mean the that the column and the square are treated the same way.

My basic point is the vulnerability of orbs should not be based on the size of the orb. It should be based on the vulnerabity of the formation itself.

Hal

Phil,

Can you give me a page reference to the rule that says that all stands in the orb are in the first two ranks? That's what we looked for but couldn't find, and apparently settles the question. I don't really care what the rule is, as long as I know that there is a rule.

Thanks,

Matt