Disturbing Trend?

[MesaDon]

Seems to be a trend to go with massive numbers of missle units and other units that evade when attacked in DAG battles. I have trouble enjoying a you shoot - I pursuit (friutlessly) battle. Now I don't care about the win-loss column so much as battle that are closer to the scenerios that came with the game. This is scaring me off of issuing open challenges just to play new foes. UGH. I hate those 10 to 20 turn run and gun missle wars.
Is it just me or do I need counseling?

[Paisley]

I find bigger point battles (700+) tend to make shoot and scoot a less attractive tactic, usually because they have to bring along some non shoot/scooty types too who are easy prey, and because there is less room for extreme manouevering which gives in my opinion a much more satisfying game - and more realistic to boot. In the 400 point battles though, it's too easy to avoid your foe for long periods - they tend to be more unrealistic games of manouever (that can still be fun sometimes).

[Blathergut]

This is how many of the DAG battles seem to go. Each side may weight one flank...but the opponent pulls back the weak flank to avoid your might. Most of my DAG games have ended up with lines perpendicular to starting positions.

The fact that the maps are large (at 400-600pts) makes this even worse. Terrain can help if difficult stuff plunks down on the sides to narrow the field a bit.

I suppose you need to have something on each flank to try and scoot those skirmishers away.

I've tried weighting the centre and just pushing through...but one flank or the other will become encircled because of so much space.

It is disappointing in some ways. The original scenarios were nice in that there was not as much room on the flanks and not so much shooty type stuff to scoot around.

[Paisley]

I always pick the densest terrain option, even with Macedonians etc. It closes the battlefield down more which, as you say, helps.

[MesaDon]

I am also curious as to how javelin and other missle units have unlimited supplies. This is possibly the most unrealistic part of FoG. A limit on how many turns they can use missle attack would help and also solve the problem of to many missle units as who would stock up on these units if their value dropped after a few attacks. Either that or redo the evade ability.

[Paisley]

I think one can assume that only a small fraction of each unit actually fire in every turn.

[neil123]

While I agree of most things said here I dont believe small maps is the solution, I really dislike maps where you can anchor your flank on a map edge. Better to try to sort out the way skirmishers are defined than have smaller maps. Even in beta it was complained about skirmishers running around tooeasily. I for one would like to see movement reductions - including evade moves- (or chance to not move) of all units out of command range. That would immediately sort out skirmishers running around behind lines willy nilly.

[Paisley]

I don't think maps should be small necessarily, but in may 400 point games armies manouever in ways unheard of in the ancient world. Look at the great flanking manoeuver that was Cannae. Did Hannibal's men ride round the Roman flank? No. They beat the horse opposite them in a head on clash then moved behind the Romans. Very few ancient battles involved wide, unopposed flanking sweeps. Yet the DAG encourages them because the maps are often too wide for the armies.

In a way I'd like a CMT to be necessary for any movement except a straightforward forward move in the unit's 'charge cone'. That would simulate things like the Spartan disorder at Leuctra and make withdrawals like Philip's at Chaeronea risky unless supervised by an inspired general. (slightly off the point, I know).

[neil123]

Exactly, the flanking maneuvers should be MUCH harder than they are now - I totally agree common FOG tactics don't reflect the average ancient flanking move. But somehow we need the rules to punish not protecting your flanks. The only way I can think of is making more use of commanders range to influence movement. Maybe making "realistic (for want of a better word) command and control an option would allow players (like you and me I think who want to fight something that feels right rather than be purely competitive) enjoy ourselves but also allow those who enjoy the what I call skirmish battles enjoy them selves as well!

[Blathergut]

Often the DAG battles play like a miniatures game once played long ago (but nameless here), where infinitisimal "pinging" of corners and manouevering geometrically were the norm and so disappointing as a game experience.

Your point about flanks is perfectly on the spot. Armies stretched out to match opponents. (Somehow this was usually achieved...and maybe if commanders knew it wasn't possible, they refused battle in the first place). (Ya, I know, you out there can find some examples of the opposite, but not a lot in the great run of ancient battles.)

Flank fought flank. If one collapsed, then encirclement could happen.

In PC FoG, all units act independently so they are free to scatter/scoot/manouever as they will.

I would like some major penalty for turning and moving in your rear arc, like the TT version. Troops can turn 180. C'est tout! Then you can move. Then you can turn back around. That will take you 3 turns unless you are skirmishers who may be able to turn-move some-turn back. As it is now, drilled troops turn-move-turn back each turn...resulting in the cranking battle lines.

[TheGrayMouser]

Perhaps all troops should be "undrilled" in turns of movement except for the "lightest" of the light

[Paisley]

Well if a CMT was required for anything except a move forward within the charge cone, I think that might do. If you turn and move and turn again, as currently allowable, that'd be 2 CMT to pass - one for each about face. Do that with a whole line of heavy infantry and watch the disruption...

Perhaps allow drilled troops a free single hexside change of facing.

Missile troops who move and fire (bar lights) should have a huge penalty on their firing - perhaps a single dice only.

And give a hefty morale penalty to any unit, bar lights, that does not have at least one non-light unit on a flank.

A potential problem is the rebalancing required, given that some units would have to become a bit cheaper relatively speaking.

[MesaDon]

What about reducing the number of times that bowman can shoot before running out of arrows (maybe a trip to the baggage area to rearm. That owuld apply more so to javelin units since, really, how many javelins can a man carry into battle. It would add to the value for keeping that baggage camp intact and give a real penalty for losing it.

[petergarnett]

What about those battles of 800-1000 points where there are no wide flanking moves - you have to beat the opposing units on the flank to get past? If you introduce CMT's how will that effect such battles.

I'm also not aware of many ancient battles where missile units ran out of ammo. And if you reduce the effectiveness of such units what happens when SoA comes out & you maybe find archers unable to stop french knights?

[Blathergut]

If you find the shooty-skirmishy LH types a pain in la derriere, you can always try:

a) charge said pain with some cheap LF...(slings are esp. good for this)...said shooty-type will most likely not evade

b) charge now held said pain with something more substantial...MF with spears are esp. good for this...

c) keep everything close....your main line + your LF etc ...so that each supports the other...

[MesaDon]

What about those battles of 800-1000 points where there are no wide flanking moves - you have to beat the opposing units on the flank to get past? If you introduce CMT's how will that effect such battles.

I'm also not aware of many ancient battles where missile units ran out of ammo. And if you reduce the effectiveness of such units what happens when SoA comes out & you maybe find archers unable to stop french knights?

I don't play over 500 points and when you are suddenly faced with an army consisting of a min. of 25 missle units ..... as for the french knights against archers that is an entirely different era therefore army makeup would be different with inproved bows etc. My original main point was that because of the special abilities of missle units the number and ability for them to influence battles is greater than in most battles I have looked over. In other words they are over represented. Now before anyone says it, I will pick my foes carefully and not accept any battle that is against an army of missle units (boring). So there.

[SRW1962]

I tend to agree with most of the sentiments here with regards to ultra nippy light units and flanks, they are annoying and can lead to a very frustrating game at times.

From my own experience of being a long serving Mid-Republican Roman player (and a stickler for correct battle formations) always being outnumbered by my Carthaginian counterpart (literally for 15 years or more at TT level, and now on the bloody pc!) in lights and especially light cavaly (or any cavalry to be exact) I had to quickly come to terms with the annoying sods.

For the pc version I use the sheepdog approach, their lights are sheep and my lights/med foot/cavalry are the sheepdogs. with well timed and executed charges I can literally push them off the table in the direction I want or even catch them with melee troops and destroy them. It does take a certain knack to get to grips with, but with this method I have destroyed (player v player hotseat games) parthians with late republican romans, carthaginians with mid romans and allsorts of horse archer armies.

I will quite often target the light troops immediately and destroy them with a tight co-operation between all arms of my army, or sometimes I will totally ignore them (this takes a brave man, especially when they are running around the flanks) as I see them as flies that are simply annoying. I just push relentlessly forward with my main battle troops and destroy their battle troops, if you keep your nerve this will pay dividends. My armies always go on the attack from the word go and I give them no room behind their lines to run away to, so well placed/directed charges can literally drive them off the table.

Good use of terrain can help too, but I don't rely on this as it can also work against you. I will charge LH/LF with LF archers or slingers just so my meatier troops can get to grips and destroy them as their LH/LF will not evade if charged by a weaker opponent, so for this purpose a few LF troops can easily sort out hordes of horsearchers etc. if backed up with MF or HF or even Cav.

My mates are all obsessed with flanks and flank attacks and as it has been quite rightly said in other posts here it was not a big envelopement of the flanks in real battles that constituted a flank attank but a weighted flank that destroyed the troops in front of it and then turned inwards to fight against the main battle line.

Try it out against the pc for a few games, preferably with romans and just a few lights in your army, once you get to grips with the idea your top heavy LF/LH oppnents will soon have to change tactics.

The idea for such tactics I got from a guy called Alexander the Great, he used cretan archers and agrianian javelinmen to attack persian light horse in some battles as he was usually outnumbered in the extreme by the persian LF/LH/Cav.

[deeter]

How about those Bosporans. Suddenly, everyone is goifng for them and field masses of bow cav. I wonder why people want to play such a boring (for both sides) game? Is winning everything? Lots of shooty armies at TT tournamanents, lots of draws because they are timed.

Too bad there isn't a filter to deny shooty players to accept your challenge. I don't mind losing, I do mind frustration.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Although using utlra light troops to attack and pin mere light units so heaviers can folllow up is definetely a common tactic, and i use it myself, I kind of wish it was not possible, or at least not as easy...
There is something that is a little too "gamey" about using naked slingers to charge and pin javelin men w shields so a medium can then finish them off
At the very least such troops should refuse to charge more often which would force a decision on the player: use them historically for harrasment and missle fire, or attempt to pin and get the "no!" and youve wasted that units turn.

[MesaDon]

How about those Bosporans. Suddenly, everyone is goifng for them and field masses of bow cav. I wonder why people want to play such a boring (for both sides) game? Is winning everything? Lots of shooty armies at TT tournamanents, lots of draws because they are timed.

Too bad there isn't a filter to deny shooty players to accept your challenge. I don't mind losing, I do mind frustration.

Deeter

I agree (I think) I don't mind losing in an action packed slugfest not a minuet. I can't dance so I get frustrated.