Slitherine

Stop all turn 90 degrees and move ability except for Cavalry and light troops

david53 wrote:Stop all turn 90 degrees and move ability except for Cavalry and light troops

I would say: stop all formation changes when within enemy charge range.

Just half the distance that can be moved, by all

Just half the distance that can be moved, by all

a bit difficult for the HI to goes to the enemy camp

olivier wrote:

Just half the distance that can be moved, by all

a bit difficult for the HI to goes to the enemy camp

Limit wheels to 45 degrees if the move includes a turn.

We need to keep the rules simple and the geometry problems to a minimum. The suggestion of all CMT's being passed on 8's is the better suggestion. A more simple rule and an additional limit on the effectiveness of skirmisher shooting as well.

david53 wrote:Stop all turn 90 degrees and move ability except for Cavalry and light troops

also stop capabilities of turn 180 degrees for HF and MF.

For example: in some case with MF in front of HF I turn 180 and then move away, saying HF can catch me considering distance for moving

It's not accettable turning some BG's and going away from enemy
Sergio

sergiomonteleone wrote:also stop capabilities of turn 180 degrees for HF and MF.

What if they have enemy to their rear?

philqw78 wrote:

sergiomonteleone wrote:also stop capabilities of turn 180 degrees for HF and MF.

What if they have enemy to their rear?

It's a difficult one as you can't predict all the possible situations but it would be useful to make it risky for all troops other than skirmishers to move away from enemy BGs. How about this:

A BG has to take a cohesion test if at the beginning of its move it is within 6 MU of an enemy BG and wishes to end its move further away from all enemy BGs within 6 MU.

Another solution is that any BG that fails a CMT can't move or change formation. It's assumed the unit failed to respond to orders, fell into disorder and the officers spent the rest of the turn getting things under control. Makes fannying around near the enemy that much more interesting.

jlopez wrote:Another solution is that any BG that fails a CMT can't move or change formation. It's assumed the unit failed to respond to orders, fell into disorder and the officers spent the rest of the turn getting things under control. Makes fannying around near the enemy that much more interesting.

I like this. It makes life very dangerous, but does magnify the effect of superior troops.

jlopez wrote:Another solution is that any BG that fails a CMT can't move or change formation. It's assumed the unit failed to respond to orders, fell into disorder and the officers spent the rest of the turn getting things under control. Makes fannying around near the enemy that much more interesting.

This seems like overkill to me. A big change that would have to be playtested a lot.

Perhaps there should be a new line in the movement table:

Turn 90 or 180 degrees to face nearest enemy - Simple for all

Hope this changes would be for Cavalry and Infantry units alike, as don't think there is any reason why a barbarian cavalry unit could turn 90º degrees and move and a disciplined roman cohort not.

At the moment the game is well balanced between Cavalry and Infantry armies, don't spoil it, please

Phil, my Swiss and Dominate and Principate Romans want to know what is the problem with 'but does magnify the effect of superior troops'...

VMadeira wrote: At the moment the game is well balanced between Cavalry and Infantry armies, don't spoil it, please

Is it now last Monday I played a game at the club against a Swiss army.

By the end of it I confirmed why I think something is wrong with this part of FOG AM.

The swiss were turning and moving all night no worries superior and drilled IC around rerolls 1s need five to pass.

They after three hours play had failed one CMT and that only cause he got within 6mu of my base edge.

David, I didn' t saw your game so I cannot evaluate how bad it was, but at a distance it doesn't shock me that drilled superior formed infantry, commanded by a great general, be able to maneuvre very well.

It doesn't feel right IMO that 500 barbarian cavalrymen, would maneuvre better than those Swiss though, you don't seem concerned with excess maneuvrability on cavalry and skirmishers.

Additionnaly if you reduce the ability of BGs to perform maneuvres, you will increase the duration of the game, as the units will take more turns to get in position to fight (for example after breaking an opponent and pursuing).

V

I know it is not the exactly the same but have you ever watched reenactors with pike attempting to turn 90 degrees and retain formation? For the pike block our historical sources make it clear that retaining the formation is key to success. For barbarian undrilled horsemen, the sources suggest that they relied less upon formation for effectiveness.

The FoG:R rules model this by allowing them to manouvre more easily relative to the pike block than in FoG:AM. Looking at the effect, the rules authors seem to be saying that while the Swiss might be able to manouvre more quickly per man, as a unit it takes longer because the thing that takes the time is dressing the line. Barbarian horse do not need to do that.

I think that Pikes move are to easy actually, IMHO they must move as "other undrilled" column

Ok, I understand that pikemen for example could have some difficulties in maneuvring due to the long pikes, that however does not apply to other infantry formations.

However I also have to see a few hundred wild horsemen trying to turn 90º move and retain formation? It does not seem more simple, to me at least.......also what about chariots, can they even turn 90º ???????

If you want to restrict maneuvres, that's fine but it should be for everybody, infantry and mounted.

BTW I still believe that restricting maneuvres is a nice way to increase game length, which I don't think it would be very good.

V, with experience you might find that reducing manouvre makes players focus on getting stuck in...

Just a thought.