Slitherine

Can anyone from the FOG PC team tell me why in the Mid-Republican Roman army list there is only one third of the amount of Velites allowed to a legion and also only a third of the amount of cavalry that should be allowed given the size of the armies that can be fielded. Also why are the velites downgraded to unprotected yet in the TT version they can be graded as protected to simulate their superiority against similar troop types.

Now before anyone gives me the 'numbers don't really mean anything speech' please don't bother, as the numbers clearly do matter or else how on earth can effectiveness between troops types ever be measured. As a serious historical wargamer for many years these things do matter to me whether they be on a PC or in a TT rule set. I am sure that I am not the only person who can go through the lists and wonder why on earth the numbers say this and yet history says something else entirely. As this is supposed to be a historically based game correct proportions of troops within an army are very important to give the right feel to an army and to lend an air of authenticity to the rules. The numbers of troops within a unit are what they are, whether I agree with them is irrelevant, but the correct proportion of troops should be adhered to no matter what and that is clearly not the case in some of the lists.

I didn't notice velites and cav are wrong. I was curious about them only being available as unprotected though.

Deeter

SRW1962 wrote:Can anyone from the FOG PC team tell me why in the Mid-Republican Roman army list there is only one third of the amount of Velites allowed to a legion and also only a third of the amount of cavalry that should be allowed given the size of the armies that can be fielded. Also why are the velites downgraded to unprotected yet in the TT version they can be graded as protected to simulate their superiority against similar troop types.

Now before anyone gives me the 'numbers don't really mean anything speech' please don't bother, as the numbers clearly do matter or else how on earth can effectiveness between troops types ever be measured. As a serious historical wargamer for many years these things do matter to me whether they be on a PC or in a TT rule set. I am sure that I am not the only person who can go through the lists and wonder why on earth the numbers say this and yet history says something else entirely. As this is supposed to be a historically based game correct proportions of troops within an army are very important to give the right feel to an army and to lend an air of authenticity to the rules. The numbers of troops within a unit are what they are, whether I agree with them is irrelevant, but the correct proportion of troops should be adhered to no matter what and that is clearly not the case in some of the lists.

Are the number of BGs allowed in the FoG PC lists incompatible with the FoG TT version of the list? (I hadn't noticed this but haven't double checked either.) Normally the FoG PC list minima and maxima are 1/2 the FoG TT lists although pikes are normally 1/3 since pike BGs are roughly the equivalent of 6 stands on the TT while other BG are normally the equivalent of 4. If you are basing your argument on the number of men each FoG PC BG represents, this was not considered when creating the FoG PC army lists since these just use a fixed ratio of the FoG TT lists. FoG TT does not specify a specific number of men per stand and in general seems not to consider different troops types to represent substantially different numbers of combatants other than possibly for special troops such as elephants and chariots. So the FoG PC army lists is one more place where the nominal number of men per FoG PC BG is completely meaningless.

Chris

In the TT rules the number of men in an element was given as approx 250 men. And I do know the rationale behind this, however if 4 figures on a HF base in the TT game represents approx 250 men then 2 figures for a LF base can be assumed to be roughly 125 men. In the TT rules if you only ever want to play competition style games and use the lists as your sole point of reference and dispense with the notion of actually reading about history etc. you will be extremely happy and think no more of it. However, if you don't just want to play competition style games and do want to do some independent reading and see the lists as a guide to aide play and not a sacred tome then you will not be happy with the numbers of troops and thus you will like myself change them to suite you historical prototype, and it is extremely easy to do so.

Unfortunately the PC version has fixed lists and fixed types which cannot be changed easily, which is fine in the competition style of game whereby you want a carefree unhistorical matchup with unhistorical troop ratios etc. and great if you don't want to bother with the idea of ever reading or researching a particular army. But if you don't like the lists etc. you cannot change them, you are stuck with them totally unless you go through the laborious task of making up armies for particular scenarios using the scenario editor, which is far from ideal.

The TT lists are simply put wrong, (and yes as stated before I understand the rationale behind them) but they are very simple to correct and between friends etc. this is great especially if the friends like to play their games of toy soldiers with some sort of historical slant. A Roman legion of this period would field approx 1200 Velites, 1200 Hastati, 1200 Princepes, 600 Triarii and 300 Cavalry, allied legions would be the same but provide up to 3 times as much cavalry per legion, this is even stated in the TT lists. As it was usual to field one allied legion for every Roman legion fielded you can easily average the cavalry at 600 per legion, obviously this could change depending upon circumstance, but the option to have this sort of ratio would be nice.

Again I will state I don't care about the numbers per unit, so long as the proportion of troops are correct, and again I will state that numbers do matter or else how do you:

a) Compare the effectiveness of one historical troop type against another as you do need to know that 100 of troop type a can defeat 300 of troop type b (this MUST have been considered when making the original game rules).

b) Make up a historical scenario if no reference to troop value as expressed in terms of numbers of men is given.

c) Have any sense of proportion within a given army or battle.

The proportions of numbers of troops for a mid Republican Roman legion in the TT lists are correct if you assume each base, regardless of the number of figures, is about the same number of men. Due to minimum BG size, the Roman Cavalry BG's do represent more than 1 legion worth of cavalry. If you do a legion with 2 x 4 base BG of Hastati/Principes, 2x2 base BG of Triarii and 2x4 base BG of velites and use a stand as being 300 men, this works out exactly right for the foot of the legion. At this scale, 1 BG of Roman cavalry would represent the cavalry for a Roman legion plus the cavalry for an allied legion. (The number of figures suggested per stand in FoG TT is merely a way of differentiating different troop types and in this case is based on the older WRG basing commonly in use and where originally the specific number of figures did indicate how man men the base represented. This is no longer true for FoG TT which retains the existing basing system for convenience rather than as using a specific number of men per figure scale.)

This doesn't sound inaccurate to me and I think playing the game with double the number of BGs of LF than the list allows and with 1 1/2 to 2 times the cavalry would give you an army that would not feel historically correct for a mid-Republican army where the primary force is the HF.

Chris

Sorry but that argument just does not wash at all, thats just a total fudge.

Ignoring numbers of actual men on a base for a moment, the simple fact is that 1200 skirmisher order troops would occupy far more area both in frontage and depth than 1200 close formation troops, simple and undeniable fact! Also ground scale can easily be acquired from the missile ranges which have been totally and utterly ignored in the PC version (the TT version did somewhat comply with this). Therefore the notion that four bases of skirmishers can be the same number of men as four bases of heavy infantry is total rubbish if they occupy more or less the same space as they do in the TT version. The PC version does try to address this of course with its notional idea of a figure scale which is approx one figure to 250 actual men.

In the PC lists you can field only 4000 cav and 8000 velites, this compared to the legions HF totalling 60,000 (not counting the penal legions) is totally at odds with history. No, sorry this won't do, you cannot have it both ways by saying the TT says this so we should ignore the PC game, but have a figure scale on the PC game anyway and use it for creating scenarios etc. As for WRG (not a fan of the DBX's at all) they did have merit in trying to make the troop scale fit in with the ground scale etc. as is the norm in most every TT and PC game, and again it comes to the unanswered question of rationalising what you see on the PC game to what was historically available.

Unless Polybius was wrong I would look to field a Roman army of 4 legions, two of which would be Roman and 2 of Allied and each would be:

1200 velites (8 bases in the TT version, or could be 4 bases in the PC version)
1200 hastati (4 bases in the TT version, or could be 2 bases in the PC version)
1200 princepes (4 bases in the TT version, or could be 2 base in the PC version)
600 triarii (2 bases in the TT version, or could be 1 base in the PC version)
300 cavalry or up to 900 in the Allied legion (1-3 bases in the TT version 2 as an average, or 1 base as an average in the PC version)

Now forgetting numbers in the PC version these should be the troop ratios. But the PC version makes the difference between HF and LF as 3-1 (1500-500) so going on that according to the PC version you should have 3 velites to each hastati or princepes fielded to be historically accurate. Now, which way is it? TT way or PC way? If so, both are wrong and both conflict with each other! Thats a fact!

As I said before the TT version can be fixed very easily to suit the taste of anyone who disagrees with the lists, the TT game needs the same ability built into the system, open ended lists for people who want to create scenarios or make historically accurate armies to play against their mates.

Now I thought this was supposed to be a historical simulation of ancient warfare, if it is then these sort of questions will be asked time and again by anyone who desires some sort of historical accuracy, and time and again the fudge response will not wash as it does not add up in any way shape or form.

I've been arguing Polybian numbers since beta, particularly when there were too many Roman cav.

Deeter

Hmm not sure what the big deal is here although I do apreciate your interest in historical accuracy... However lets discount # of men per unit as it doesnt effect game mechanics altough you make a good point.

So if i make an army on the mid rep. list and I buy 20 princeps and hastati, the game forces you to also buy 10 velites and 5 triari

25 HF to 10 LF This is pretty close to your source of 3000 heavy foot to 1000 velites per legion , 1-3 , in terms of the ratio of BG's, not exact but pretty close.....
#'s of actual men? Yeah it does get skewed and the above axample would be 37500 HF vs 5000 LF or 7-1
But then again, its the # of BG's that count....

It's pretty simple really.

A unit of 100 men in close order will take up approx a quarter of the area that a unit of 100 men in skirmish order will take up, so on the face of that 1 BG of HF is the same number of men as 4 BG of LF. However, if we allow for the distortion in scale of depth as we are using figures (both in the TT and PC versions) then it would be easy to work out that 1BG of HF would be the same number of men as 2 BG of LF.

Now, in the TT version they are saying that HF and LF occupy the same amount of frontage and depth which is patently wrong, but in the PC version they are saying that HF occupy a third of the area of LF which is pretty close, but they use the TT lists and thus you only get a third of the number of LF in the Mid-Republican Roman Army that you should have, because they use a different unit scale. No matter how you look at it (unless you ignore the numbers and any notion of historical accuracy of course) it doesn't add up at all.

As I said the TT version is an easy fix, the PC version is totally fixable with a simple on/off button on the unit caps and user editable unit strengths so that unit scale is brought back into line with the obvious ground scale.

SRW1962 wrote:It's pretty simple really.

A unit of 100 men in close order will take up approx a quarter of the area that a unit of 100 men in skirmish order will take up, so on the face of that 1 BG of HF is the same number of men as 4 BG of LF. However, if we allow for the distortion in scale of depth as we are using figures (both in the TT and PC versions) then it would be easy to work out that 1BG of HF would be the same number of men as 2 BG of LF.

Now, in the TT version they are saying that HF and LF occupy the same amount of frontage and depth which is patently wrong, but in the PC version they are saying that HF occupy a third of the area of LF which is pretty close, but they use the TT lists and thus you only get a third of the number of LF in the Mid-Republican Roman Army that you should have, because they use a different unit scale. No matter how you look at it (unless you ignore the numbers and any notion of historical accuracy of course) it doesn't add up at all.

However, this presupposes that more units of LF would have the right overall historical effect. If 1 unit of LF has the overall game effect that 1,000 lightly equipped men would have (assuming HF represent about 1,000 men) - which I think LF do, given the complaints about the high casualties LF cause for the stated number of men - then the problem is not that there aren't enough units, but that they aren't physically dispersed enough.

If they had twice as many units but they were half as effective, that would probably get about the right effect, but merely doubling the number of LF units wouldn't.

Given the somewhat abstract representation of units and formations on a hexagon grid system, I submit that either both changes would need to be done or it is better to stick with the present representation.

By getting hung up on the bottom-up considerations, at the expense of the bigger picture, one is otherwise in danger of over-representing the effect of Roman velites.

In other words, the present proportions get the right overall effect - if for the wrong reasons, from a bottom up point of view. However FOG has always been intended to be a top-down design, not a bottom-up design. Concentrating too much on bottom-up considerations can lead to unhistorical results at least as much as adopting a more pragmatic (top-down) approach. This problem repeatedly shows its head in bottom-up wargames rules designs.

I would agree that the casualties caused by LF in the PC game are out of proportion with the number of men within a BG and double the number of LF BG's but halve their effect is a great overall solution. I am not however looking at it from a bottom up position but rather from the top down, as for me if you can make an army look right then it is easy to make it play right, if it looks wrong then it will usually play wrong.

As you know the TT system is different with no casulaties other than base removal and therefore a withering effect is not achieved through missile fire, which works great by and large, but the PC game does have this withering fire effect and that does totally distort the effect that LF or any missile troop can have. Personally I cannot see why they had to have the change in the first place, as the TT version was simple but effective and missile fire was not the be all and end all as in some other systems (warhammer) that will remain nameless.

As I have said the TT version was a very easy fix as all I did was double the number of velites and it did not distort the game at all as they had to be deployed in depth to stay within the confines of their own legions frontage so therefore most of them could not shoot anyway. This for me did give them the right historical effect in the TT game as well as the right historical look for the army, also I made my triarii deploy in a single rank which again looked right, but as I say an easy fix even if not competition worthy.

For me as a professional artist and designer the overall aesthetic is very important to me, as an amatuer historian the overall historical effect is important to me, so being greedy I would like to have my cake and eat it. In the TT version I can if I tweak the system, in the PC version I should be able to with a few tweaks here and there if it was made available as a feature.

The top down approach you subscribe to has advantages over the bottom up approach of other wargames systems, but it also has its disadvantages and this is clearly seen in army design, unhistorical proportions in this army but not in another for fear that the effect may be distorted, if thats truly the case then the effect was wrong to begin with. The 'Big Picture' is this, make the game play right and look right from the top down, it doesn't have to be an either or, it can very easily be both.

SRW1962 wrote:The top down approach you subscribe to has advantages over the bottom up approach of other wargames systems, but it also has its disadvantages and this is clearly seen in army design, unhistorical proportions in this army but not in another for fear that the effect may be distorted, if thats truly the case then the effect was wrong to begin with. The 'Big Picture' is this, make the game play right and look right from the top down, it doesn't have to be an either or, it can very easily be both.

That is certainly the gold standard to which rules writers should aspire. However, experience teaches me that "can very easily be both" is a tad optimistic.

However, each to their own.

rbodleyscott wrote:

SRW1962 wrote:The top down approach you subscribe to has advantages over the bottom up approach of other wargames systems, but it also has its disadvantages and this is clearly seen in army design, unhistorical proportions in this army but not in another for fear that the effect may be distorted, if thats truly the case then the effect was wrong to begin with. The 'Big Picture' is this, make the game play right and look right from the top down, it doesn't have to be an either or, it can very easily be both.

That is certainly the gold standard to which rules writers should aspire. However, experience teaches me that "can very easily be both" is a tad optimistic.

However, each to their own.

OOh, thats a bit disappointing as a reply.

To expect a game to look right and play right isn't a 'tad optimistic' as you put it, its a realistic goal that should be achieved and furthermore is easily achievable.

I will stress however, that I am not knocking the TT version as they are very easy to adapt to fit with historical scenarios etc. but the PC version does lack that ability, so please don't feel that I am in any way attacking the underlying rule system that you helped to design. Also I do appreciate that you have taken the time to respond with well thought out comments and I also note that the PC designers have not thus far made any comment.

May I also take the opportunity to say that FOG TT are the 'gold standard' in ancient wargames rules in my humble opinion and the PC version can also aspire to be with some extra work on it.

It does look right and play right. What you're saying is it is not a perfect simulation. This is very different and never what was intended and not something 99.9% of people would ever want to play

If this is what you are looking for I'm afriad you're never going to be happy!

iainmcneil wrote:It does look right and play right. What you're saying is it is not a perfect simulation. This is very different and never what was intended and not something 99.9% of people would ever want to play

If this is what you are looking for I'm afriad you're never going to be happy!

A significant part of the issue here are the rather bogus strengths assigned to the BGs in FoG PC. Given you are using the FoG TT army lists which are not scaled and designed this way as Richard described, adding the arbitrary strengths that are assigned for FoG PC inherently distorts what the game is representing and will quite reasonably lead to complaints such as this and other ones about how 500 LF with butter knives should not have any chance at all of beating 1500 well equipped legionaries. FoG PC is not intended as a perfect simulation but the unit strengths as currently used just make it more obviously imprefect and lead to justifiable complaints such as this one about the number of velites allowed.

Chris

No they dont mean anything and are there for flavour. If we took it out the majority of people would enjoy the game less as it loses flavour. It is something people are just going to have to accept or turn off by clicking the button that lets them turn it off

I still don't see why do can't enable an option to turn off the unit caps in the army lists, which are clearly artificial and arbitrary as you start to create larger armies (not to mention the fact that you cannot create 1000 or even 800 pt armies with many of the nations in RoR because of unit caps).

iainmcneil wrote:It does look right and play right. What you're saying is it is not a perfect simulation. This is very different and never what was intended and not something 99.9% of people would ever want to play

If this is what you are looking for I'm afriad you're never going to be happy!

I would have to disagree with this statement.

If the unit numbers for each type were all the same as an example 1000 apiece, then I would be fine with that on the basis that I can see that the abstraction of having different images to suggest different troop types in an area encompassed by a hex that could fit the men inside. Now, if this is what you are saying is happening then thats okay, but the fact that you decided to give units a different troop value depending upon type is suggesting something entirely different, and as bates has pointed out this is very confusing indeed.

I am not looking for Plato's chair, so the idea of perfection is not an issue at all, but I am looking for something a little better than what we currently have and the ability for user defined numbers or all the numbers being the same value would actually be better. I actually really love the game which is why I do care enough to push to make the game better, and yes I would like to see more enhancements so that users can make and save their own armies and terrain easily and effectively to be used in multiplayer or hotseat games.

As for being happy I am happy but improvements with the game would make me happier.

76mm wrote:I still don't see why do can't enable an option to turn off the unit caps in the army lists, which are clearly artificial and arbitrary as you start to create larger armies (not to mention the fact that you cannot create 1000 or even 800 pt armies with many of the nations in RoR because of unit caps).

I totally agree with this sentiment and this is one of the things that I am pushing for, a simple on off button would be good.

iainmcneil wrote:No they dont mean anything and are there for flavour. If we took it out the majority of people would enjoy the game less as it loses flavour. It is something people are just going to have to accept or turn off by clicking the button that lets them turn it off

If you are going to leave them then why not set them to numbers that reflect the way teh BGs are used when developing the limits for the DAG (and quite possibly for the historical scenarios as well since LF and LH don't seem to be there in triple the numbers I would expect with the unit strengths as given). Of course if all BGs had a uniform strength of 1000 or 1500, I guess it would lose some of the unrealistic, artificial flavor it has now

Chris