Slitherine

Some time ago I posted comments that I thought FoG provided the best recreation of ancient battles I'd seen so far. Whilst I still think this is the case I have some difficulty with certain aspects of how the game plays out. I'm posting a couple of those thoughts to see what others think, if my experiences are the norm, and whether thee are any suggestons on how these 'faults' (if thats what they are) could be corrected.

1. Frequently through ancient and medieval times troops gradually moved from havy armour to lighter armour. I have understood that a major reason for this was they could move easier with lighter armour without a great loss in protecton (eg. hoplites). This suggests that protected foot shouldn't be too much different from armoured foot in many cases, ie. were later hoplites really inferior to armoured hoplites? My reading of history suggests otherwise. Ofcourse it may be that there historical opponents were other hoplites, or lightly armoured Persians.

2. Western European medieval battles often (if not usually) consisted of successive lines of troops. I've not seen this on the FoG battlefield, nor do I think the 'rear support' rule suitably encourages such a battlefield formation. I have ideas on how this could be changed, but I'd like to see other peoples thoughts.

There are more points, but I'll start with these and see what others think.

You might wish to check out the Field of Glory Ancients Version 2 sticky in the General Discussion section Alan?

You will some of your thoughts represented there.

Just seen that topic. I've been offline for a week moving house. Moderator - feel free to delete this topic or move it appropriately.

petedalby wrote:You might wish to check out the Field of Glory Ancients Version 2 sticky in the General Discussion section Alan?

You will some of your thoughts represented there.

That topic is to collect a list of suggestions- not for ongoing discussion of the validity or appropriateness of suggested changes.

Ongoing debate regarding an alredy submitted suggestion is being deleted from the thread.

AlanCutner wrote:Some time ago I posted comments that I thought FoG provided the best recreation of ancient battles I'd seen so far. Whilst I still think this is the case I have some difficulty with certain aspects of how the game plays out. I'm posting a couple of those thoughts to see what others think, if my experiences are the norm, and whether thee are any suggestons on how these 'faults' (if thats what they are) could be corrected.

1. Frequently through ancient and medieval times troops gradually moved from havy armour to lighter armour. I have understood that a major reason for this was they could move easier with lighter armour without a great loss in protecton (eg. hoplites). This suggests that protected foot shouldn't be too much different from armoured foot in many cases, ie. were later hoplites really inferior to armoured hoplites? My reading of history suggests otherwise. Ofcourse it may be that there historical opponents were other hoplites, or lightly armoured Persians..

In think hoplite armour got less common because of the increasing scarcity of tin (for bronze) and the poverty associated with generations of peoplonesian war.

I woudl argue that throughout medieval time armour got heavier and heavier until the advent of decent firepower.

AlanCutner wrote:2. Western European medieval battles often (if not usually) consisted of successive lines of troops. I've not seen this on the FoG battlefield, nor do I think the 'rear support' rule suitably encourages such a battlefield formation. I have ideas on how this could be changed, but I'd like to see other peoples thoughts.

There are more points, but I'll start with these and see what others think.

I agree. A proper second line is inviting disaster due to breakthrough from routhing troops. Rear support is generally just a shoulder of a rear BG hoping to stay partly behind but where they can easily get out of the way if the front line routes.

What si your proposal?

If a non-skirmish BG in melee could be replaced by a BG in a rear support position it would massively increase the incentive for a more historic second line. Obviously there are many practical issues with the mechanisms around this, so its an outlin suggestion only.

It would be difficult to try and get a second line in while your first line is in the way. On the other hand changing the +1 to a +2 would be too much as it would allow fragged troops to ignore the fragged modifier if there was a line of troops behind them.
I don't bother with a second line as I run Selucids vs Romans and I have enough problems with the Romans having a longer front line and trying to keep them from circling my flanks. My opponent often uses rear support, the superior spears can support 2 front line 4 packs of legionaries. Not always much help and when they do break I am into his spears usually on the pursuit. I have managed to send them packing more than once too. If I can do enough damage to him that +1 for rear support does not make much of a difference. It has saved his troops from dropping cohesion though on a few occasions.
If we run his ancient Spanish they always get rear support but I find it makes little difference to cohesion just a second line for the pursuers to deal with.

deadtorius wrote:It would be difficult to try and get a second line in while your first line is in the way. On the other hand changing the +1 to a +2 would be too much as it would allow fragged troops to ignore the fragged modifier if there was a line of troops behind them.
I don't bother with a second line as I run Selucids vs Romans and I have enough problems with the Romans having a longer front line and trying to keep them from circling my flanks. My opponent often uses rear support, the superior spears can support 2 front line 4 packs of legionaries. Not always much help and when they do break I am into his spears usually on the pursuit. I have managed to send them packing more than once too. If I can do enough damage to him that +1 for rear support does not make much of a difference. It has saved his troops from dropping cohesion though on a few occasions.
If we run his ancient Spanish they always get rear support but I find it makes little difference to cohesion just a second line for the pursuers to deal with.

An alternative to CT bonuses is to give the front BG a +poa so long as the rear support is equal in number. to the supported BG.

Alternatively simply allow routing troops to interpenetrate steady troops if they start thier route not in contact with enemy. This removes the main problem with forming in depth while providing incentive to not be too close to teh action (ie supoprt from 6-8 inches behind)

Re the rear support issue, the ancient battles to my (limited) knowledge where there was more than one line quite often caused problems for the second line when the first routed. At Magnesia for example, didn't the scythed chariots and subsequently the Arab cavalry disrupt the Seleucid left wing when they broke? Also, at Zama Hannibal's 3rd line I believe closed ranks to prevent the routing 2nd line passing through, and hence (presumably) prevent being disordered? I think maybe the message is stay a decent distance away so that you can move out of the way or to allow the routers to be destroyed. How about a "Zama" rule that enables certain troops (Heavy Foot?) to prevent routers passing through, automatically destroying the routers but preventing the cohesion loss?

I agree however that the rules don't especially enourage multiple lines - but maybe there just aren't enough troops on the table? The rules favour a wide, thin deployment rather than a narrow, deep one because flank attacks are so deadly.

Marc

hannibal wrote:I agree however that the rules don't especially enourage multiple lines - but maybe there just aren't enough troops on the table? The rules favour a wide, thin deployment rather than a narrow, deep one because flank attacks are so deadly.

I've played a trio of games between Greeks (with well protected flanks) against Persians (with 25% more troops) which forced the Persians into multiple lines. The rear lines proved a liability - at least in terms of how I played the lines and I admit to needing to learn more. The rear lines generally ended up disrupted by the routing forward lines and then hit by pursuing Greek armoured hoplites. The result was to magnify Greek losses.

What I've learned from this is that rear support lines need to be managed very, very carefull with not too many troops. If I tried it again, the rear lines would be in column (maximum 2 bases wide) at the seams of the forward battle groups to allow forward lines that rout or, if non-light foot, evade to easily by-pass the rear lines. A couple of 2 wide by 4 deep columns on the seams of each side of a 8 base (4 x 2) front line BG would give the forward BG a +1 for rear support. Once the forward line moves past the rear line, the rear line can than expand for a continuous front but more likely (almost certanly so if it consists of undrilled troops) it will be hit by the enemy whilst still in column so expansion will more likely be in melee.

Lord knows what would happen if the front line starts shifting about to "conform". It could raise havoc with managing the rear support lines.

Perhaps the rules should be changed that if there are gaps at least 1 base wide within 1 base width of each routing base to allow routers to move past - with appropriate move deductions.

You really have to have your rear supports in a column for their own safety alright. The Romans are lucky that being able to field BG's of 4 bases they only need 2 behind for rear support so getting around that little group is easy.
Larger rear BG's have to be in a column or its it burst through city when the front routs. You are also correct that most likely the enemy will hit the rear supports while they are still in column as the routers have to clear them before they can attempt to expand out. I have run into this issue several times when we first started playing as the only 2 armies we had were Spanish and Romans. I have had lots of practice with rear support and routing lines playing Spanish. When I got my Selucid army up and running that was a different situation. Now I don't have the troops to spare or the desire to bother with rear support.
I do believe that ancient armies did indeed run into problems with their own troops routing through the second line and causing problems. I think that allowing heavies in a line to close ranks and threaten to kill their own routers is a good idea as I could see a real general faced with this dilemma having to make the same decision and death to the routers might mean the second line survives.
From what I have read of the Persians most of their army was poor quality observers who were there for the plunder but not expected to or intending to actually join in the fight. Big mass of troops must do wonders to unnerve your opponents though

The other part is undrilled troops in rear support suffer even more in their ability to postively respond to a breakthrough. So the masses of troops folks that could benefit with rear support are in these weird columns to let people stream past, then they don't deploy out easily.

Well its either start in column and allow the routers to run by or stand in line get burst through and then you start fighting disrupted. Being in column will reduce your opponents impact dice, 1 or 2 stands only and then you can match any overlap to one side, then in your turn expand out.
Personally I would rather stand back there in column then stand in a full line and take maximum impact dice while disrupted. Your choice though.

I agree that rear support does not work very well - you have to use columns rather than the historical lines.

Try it with a front line of 12 base MF. You need a column of 6 supporting and it isn't easy to keep all 6 bases within the rear support range and outside the 3" test for seeing a rout range, especially if the front rank charges. Then if your column fails its CMT to move short you have to spend the next two melee phases with no rear support as well.

IMO routers should be able to interpenetrate. If this caused a CT rather than an automatic drop it would still allow for some disruption, or the suggestion above that you only drop if the pursuers were in contact might work. You might allow a CMT by the supporters to prevent the interpenetration.

Feels to me that if an army makes use of rear support the rules should encourage a proper second line of better troops, which is what ancient generals tended to do. If the second line is inferior to the first then you would expect them to be upset if the front line broke, but if they were better then perhaps not. Rear support in columns just feels wrong.

I'd support trying something like:
- Only count supporting troops in 1st 2 ranks as rear support - encourage lines rather than columns
- Steady HF can choose to "close ranks" and prevent routers interpenetrating, who are then lost
- Other troops take a CT if burst through by routers of equal or worse quality (maybe with a -1 modifier?) if these are not in contact with pursuers
- In other cases cohesion loss still applies

Marc

I think part of the problem is the state of the enemy troops.
In a "real" battle, we can imagine that they are tired, disorganized and somewhat out of control by the time they have broken your front line. Or possibly have become so in the subsequent pursuit.
In FoG they are usually fresh and steady when they make contact with your second line, not always, but usually.
Your second line, rather than having an advantage by being well-rested, ordered and prepared, are usually caught at a disadvantage by having been involuntarily interpenetrated or out of position in a column.
So I find the only advantage is the +1, but if you are not likely to lose or have an IC ... just extend your line.

Additionally fleeing troops who have passed through a steady friendly line may be more likely to recover, as they must feel they have reached safety. This isn't reflected in the rules either (probably due to complexity).

Perhaps pursuing troops should have some reduced combat factors, count as disordered or something to that effect.

Additionally fleeing troops who have passed through a steady friendly line may be more likely to recover, as they must feel they have reached safety. This isn't reflected in the rules either (probably due to complexity).

Actually it is. Pursuers will be stopped by the second line so routers can easily get outside the area where rallying isn't allowed.

Perhaps pursuing troops should have some reduced combat factors, count as disordered or something to that effect..

having pursuers count as disordered until they pass a CMT to stop pursuing is an excellent idea!

having pursuers count as disordered until they pass a CMT to stop pursuing is an excellent idea!

I agree

Pursuers disordered......?

Can't agree more. It's more realistic, and would place more importance on command. Also depth in the attack as well as defence would be more of an issue.

RobKhan