Slitherine

With the translation from the tabletop to hexes, does the computer program allow units to gang up 2:1 when a line clashes? That is, where on the tabletop you would have unit A facing unit 1 and unit B facing unit 2, on the tabletop you culd have A and B ganging up on 1, whilst 1 and 2 are ganging up on B. Is this the case? And if so, doesn't it seriously distort the combat system?

I am just getting started with the game, and as far as I can see this is how it works, but I'm a bit overwhelmed by everything that's going on, so I'd like to make sure I'm understanding correctly.

Thanks!

andrewgr wrote:Is this the case? And if so, doesn't it seriously distort the combat system?

I don't play the TT version but I consider this a problem, as lines tend to crumble to dust within a few turns.

You are correct. Unlike the table top, you can mount numerous sequential attacks that can drag a fresh unit down to routed in one turn if you're lucky. It does distort the combat system, but both sides get to use it so I guess it evens thing out. You'll find the main thing ported over from the TT is the POAs and CMTs. It's not the TT, but still fun.

Deeter

Another difference is that in the TT version units can and quite often are of different sizes and frontages, which all have a bearing on the overall affects of combat etc. Obviously with the use of hex's frontages and unit sizes have become standardised and this can lead to what may seem like exaggerated effects in combat, where units may seem to drop like flies as enemy units focus their attention on them. However if you look at it from the point of view that each unit on the pc version may be the equivalent of a fraction of a TT unit it really means that when one routs its like a small portion of a tt unit routing but the main body staying put.

Just to clarify that here is an example:

A 600 point SOA Medieval French TT starter army has the following units

1 x CinC (non combat leader base)
2 x Sub-Gens (non combat leader bases)

Men-at-arms - 3 BGs each of 4 bases of mtd knights
Genoese Xbows - 1 BG of 6 bases of MF
French Xbows - 2 BGs each of 6 bases of MF
Voulgiers - 1 BG of 8 bases of HF
Peasants - 1 BG of 8 bases of Mob

total of 8 units

In the pc version it would translate to:

6 x Men-at-arms (inc the 3 generals)
3 x Genoese Xbows
6 x French Xbows
4 x Voulgiers
4 x Peasants

total of 23 units

So, in this example you get 3 times the amount of units in the pc version. some armies it can be more extreme especially when some foot units can be 12 bases stronger, thus worth 6 pc units (mostly pikes)

If you look at the combat mechanism help entry, a BG is limited to failing one cohesion test per combat type (missile, impact, melee) per turn, e.g.

9.
* A battle group may only fail one cohesion test as a result of impact combat per player turn.
* A battle group retains the die roll from its initial impact combat in a single player turn, and uses that same die roll in all subsequent cohesion tests from losing an impact combat in a single player turn.

So ganging up on a unit with multiple impact attacks or melee attacks will cause additional casualties but will not cause it to fail additional cohesion tests if it has already failed one.

Chris

But in subsquent melee phases, ganging up does help tremendously. And in fact it's useful at impact too as if your first unit fails to isrupt the enmy, your second unit gets another chance... but it's in the melee rounds where it becomes fatal.

I don't mind it too much as it encourages having a supporting unit to plug the gap and it adds a sort of tactical choice too. I'm uncertain as to how unrealistic it is as each counter represents a number of sub units, so concentrating 'mass' to one 'side' of the counter is sort of plausible.

I think you are spot on with what you say.

I actually think it seems more realistic to have these 'sub-units' falling apart ratther than the whole block of units disappear in one sudden event. ALthough admittedly this can still happen with subsequent infectious routs etc. but is usually less likelyand so holes appear in battle lines and it gives a more pleasing simulation of the look of the confusion of battle. Big units in the TT version look a little too neat by comparison when engaged in melee or disordered by terrain etc. and the pc version does recreate a real sense of chaos and confusion.

the main difference between the two games is in the PC games treating of overlaps. They term it support and if you have more than 1 hex capable of combating a single hex the target will lose 1 die per enemy support, this is in addition to losing dice for being disrupted or fragged but I believe you can not be reduced to below a single die per combat regardless.

In the TT game overlapping an enemy gives you extra attack dice but the overlapped enemy can not hit the overlappers back.

I think possibly having both SUPPORT and GANGING UP is what makes things a trifle too much. Support isn't really needed if ganging up is allowed as ganging up actually simulates support pretty well - and is more effective (and I think, on balance, I'd prefer ganging up, which allows player choice, to the computer determining which foe is assigned to be attacked by each of my units).

Paisley wrote:I think possibly having both SUPPORT and GANGING UP is what makes things a trifle too much. Support isn't really needed if ganging up is allowed as ganging up actually simulates support pretty well - and is more effective (and I think, on balance, I'd prefer ganging up, which allows player choice, to the computer determining which foe is assigned to be attacked by each of my units).

Ganging up and supporting units really only become decisive in my experience when a BG is not part of a solid line. A BG in a line can normally only be hit by two opposing BGs and while this will reduce its effectiveness to some degree, it doesn't tend to be a decisive effect overall when two lines of equal troops are engaged. (Pikes are a partial exception to this due to the way in which they rapidly lose effectiveness as soon as they reach 25% casualties but I think that would be better addressed by a possible change in the 75% threshhold or in the point cost for pikes.) In those cases where two lines are clashing frontally, the enemy normally has about as many of your units at a disadvantage for this as you do. It is BGs that are outflanked or otherwise isolated that really suffer from the support and ganging up and this is really similar to the TT game where such units are similarly vulnerable due overlaps and exposure to flank and rear attacks.

Chris

I agree with Chris's last post. However as most of the benefits for maintaining lines (& even having some support to the immediate rear) is buried within the helpfiles many players are just not aware.

Just a musing really and unlikely to be popular (esp to the programmers) but I would like to see a big rule/process change, namely allowing no combat until all moves have been taken. At least as an option.

From a purely 'fun' perspective the system as-is cannot be faulted but it allows the player, as overall commander, far too much leeway to micromanage combat in just the way discussed in this thread. It is far too easy, having seen the results of a combat, to move another unit to attack the same target or to move on to another target. having seen the results of the first attack.

Having to make all your moves first would force players to think more in terms of a plan each turn which, once committed to, would have to be carried out. So you might, for instance, assign three BGs to attack an important enemy BG, only to find that the first combat routs the enemy and the other two BGs are therefore surplus to requirements. As it stands now, if you move your first BG to attack and it is successful you are free to move the other 2 BGs elsewhere - this is the equivalent, in the real world, of a commander saying "you attack and you other two sit there and wait; if the attack is not successful, choose to join in and/or go off and attack something else as you see fit"

In the hex based HPS games there are optional rules for allowing phases - side A moves, side B defensive fire, side A attack etc. and these rules do, I believe, impart a greater sense of realism and adherence to historicity, albeit at the cost of some additional complexity. Oddly enough, I don't think the 'move first, combat second' would add any additional complexity at all in FoG; it would just require a slightly different mindset and IMHO would push FoG a little closer to being an historical simulation and slightly less to being a 'game'. Not to everyones taste, of course, hence suggesting it as an option.

jimcrowley wrote:So you might, for instance, assign three BGs to attack an important enemy BG, only to find that the first combat routs the enemy and the other two BGs are therefore surplus to requirements.

I think, but am not sure, that the system you describe would be more interesting to me, and sounds (from the little I've picked up on this forum) closer to the TT rules, for whatever that's worth.

In addition you could also aggregate the combat of the three BGs rather than having them attack individually and sequentially.

I love the current game, even with it's foibles and oddities, but I agree with you.

Personally, I think all the moves should be made, then the results shown, say sequentially from left to right.

If necessary, a player turn could be of 2 or more phases, e.g.
1) Missile units move and fire. When complete the results shown. (Maybe movement and fire wouldn't be allowed)
2) Melee units move and engage. When complete the results shown.
3) Reserve units can move. Turn ends. (Maybe reserve moves should be done in the melee phase).

This would certainly improve the realism, but I appreciate that it would be a major re-engineering exercise, so unlikely to happen.

Morbio wrote:I love the current game, even with it's foibles and oddities, but I agree with you.

Personally, I think all the moves should be made, then the results shown, say sequentially from left to right.

If necessary, a player turn could be of 2 or more phases, e.g.
1) Missile units move and fire. When complete the results shown. (Maybe movement and fire wouldn't be allowed)
2) Melee units move and engage. When complete the results shown.
3) Reserve units can move. Turn ends. (Maybe reserve moves should be done in the melee phase).

This would certainly improve the realism, but I appreciate that it would be a major re-engineering exercise, so unlikely to happen.

The biggest problem with a multi-phase system is that it would seriously impede PBEM playability if it was necessary to have opposing player input during your turn. Phasing that can be done without requiring input from the other player would be more feasible without impacting PBEM playability. One of the biggest departures of the PC version from the TT rules is that the TT rules have a series of phases in the turn, generally: impact (make charges and resolve impact combat), general movement, missile, melee (continuing combat resolution), and then a joint action phase where units can attempt to rally, routs and pursuits continue, and both players can re-deploy commanders. For most of these phases, except general movement, input is required from both players. The current sequential implementation is much more suitable for multi-player games where it is very desirable for each player to be able to complete his turn asynchronously without the opposing player being required to be available at the same time.

Chris

But the 2 phase proposal I listed above could be done without involvement of the other player. It wouldn't slow down the game and it would be just as playable.

Morbio wrote:But the 2 phase proposal I listed above could be done without involvement of the other player. It wouldn't slow down the game and it would be just as playable.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't mean my reply as a specific criticism of your proposal for phasing, just a more general comment on why some types of phasing wouldn't work well, e.g. the TT rules phases. I think yours would although it would still allow more sequential combat than the TT sequence does.

Chris

Indeed, it will be hard to replicate the interaction of the TT..... unless of course, the designers move to a centrally hosted real-time game..... now there's a thought

yes that would be great however.... time zones, player availability, player time constraints would further complicate real time face to face combat.

I have pondered some of the problems of the combat system and had my own thoughts on the subject. What if you were locked into a permanent melee with the unit that was the target of the charge until such time as one of you breaks. You charge like normal the ever present arrow pops up but instead of being able to fight any adjacent unit you can only fight the guys you impacted, or in the case of flank and rear charges the normal support system kicks in which reflects the TT more where you have to break up your dice against flank and rear attackers. Also one engaged frontally you can't be targeted through your other front hex side by a charge. I have personally charged enemy lines and sent 2 of my units against the same target in a charge the downside of which is that during the ensuing melee the enemy that was standing beside my target now fights me at full strength. This would cut back on the ganging up issue.

Anyway just a thought on melee.

I agree with batesmotel that any phasing would need to be simple enough so as to require no involvement from the other player.

I envisage it as:

All moves taken, with combat limited to missile fire, then

all impact combats taken in which ever order the owning palyer desires, followed by all melee comats in the same way. There would probably be a need to add a different coloured arrow marker to distinguish between impact and melee and the player would not be able to resolve any melees until all impacts were finished.

Thus no need for the non-phasing player to be involved and no change to the current PBEM system. But a bit closer to the more realistic TT rules.

It would also be nice to have the aggregated combat rules as well, which would, I think, be possible in this phased system.