Page 1 of 2
Charge Mechanism to deal with light troops
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:24 am
by timmy1
In one of the FoG:AM v2.0 posts it has been mentioned that the charge is a way to deal with light troops delaying heavy foot. That has the disadvantage that the heavy foot get broken up. If that is the intent of the game design, fine. If not how about this?
When declaring a charge, if two or more battle groups of foot troops (only) could only contact skirmisher BGs even with a 6 on the VMD, and (other than being within 6 MU of the skirmisher BGs) would qualify as a battle line, they can opt to take a CMT to charge as a battle line. If they pass, the BL takes one VMD roll and it applies the BGs of the BL.
Re: Charge Mechanism to deal with light troops
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:23 am
by david53
timmy1 wrote:In one of the FoG:AM v2.0 posts it has been mentioned that the charge is a way to deal with light troops delaying heavy foot. That has the disadvantage that the heavy foot get broken up. If that is the intent of the game design, fine. If not how about this?
When declaring a charge, if two or more battle groups of foot troops (only) could only contact skirmisher BGs even with a 6 on the VMD, and (other than being within 6 MU of the skirmisher BGs) would qualify as a battle line, they can opt to take a CMT to charge as a battle line. If they pass, the BL takes one VMD roll and it applies the BGs of the BL.
I think it was part of the game design otherwise the HF BL will just walk across the table without any chance of breaking their line.
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:29 am
by timmy1
Dave, I agree if all they are faced with is Skirmishers. However as soon as some battle troops are deployed against them the line will break up. The intent of this proposal is that HF not be delayed by only light troops. In Greek and Roman warfare there are not many recorded instances of light troops on their own delaying heavy foot just by being there. They either have to fight (in FoG throw some javelins and force the HF to fail CTs), move to some rough terrain like the Illyrians often did (when the battle line breaks up because of the different move rates), or bring up some supports.
As you say, if it was the authors intent that HF do get broken up by LF/LH then the rule should stand as it is today.
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:00 am
by BlackPrince
I think you need to keep charge to move on skirmishers, I know it seems that HF should just push back LF and I am sure it happened a lot but in the compressed nature of the game (limited time and space) you need to break up the BL a bit faster than what would have happened in an actual battle. Having said that I would like to see the following changes made to charges
With charges I would prefer to see the VMD roll removed because you can get some silly situations occur were you roll a bad VMD several times in a row and your BG moves at a snail's pace. I would like each unit to move a fixed charge distance which slightly more than their normal move and if they are drilled troops they can do a controlled charge if they pass a CT to pull up short at their fully normal move against any troops that evade. If a BG charges without orders then it must move its full charge distance. To compensate for the extra charge distance an evade move is now the evading BG's charge move modified by the VMD.
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:26 am
by petedalby
I also liked the previous suggestion that non-skirmishers could march to 2MU of skirmishers - that would stop 1 BG of 4 LH or LF delaying an entire wing of combat troops.
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:21 am
by timmy1
Pete, I like that but I think it would have to be limited to 2MU or the effective missile range of the skirmishers, which ever is greater.
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:31 am
by Jilu
Jilu wrote:dave_r wrote:pcelella wrote:
If this is a good idea, and it seems sensible to me if only heavy, and maybe medium foot can do this, why not let them 'push' of LH also?
Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/
Because that is what the charge mechanism is for? This used to be a problem in DBM, but I don't see it as being a problem in FoG.
It would be murderously difficult to do without introducing the potential for grand fromage.
you got a whole battleline that can be stopped by one light infantry. as in reality that LF would withdraw when the line advances why would a phalanx or legion charge LF ? as the LF by essence would refuse alll combat and simply recoil to continue harrassing.
We played Magnesia, and the first thing that happens is a skirmish battle, and then the romans must break up the formation of the battleline of the legions to charge the lights before the pikes can be engaged. That feels wrong.
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:53 am
by david53
Jilu wrote:Jilu wrote:dave_r wrote:
Because that is what the charge mechanism is for? This used to be a problem in DBM, but I don't see it as being a problem in FoG.
It would be murderously difficult to do without introducing the potential for grand fromage.
you got a whole battleline that can be stopped by one light infantry. as in reality that LF would withdraw when the line advances why would a phalanx or legion charge LF ? as the LF by essence would refuse alll combat and simply recoil to continue harrassing.
We played Magnesia, and the first thing that happens is a skirmish battle, and then the romans must break up the formation of the battleline of the legions to charge the lights before the pikes can be engaged. That feels wrong.
They would do it like the Spartans did against the Athenian lights who in the end defeated the Spartans without any Athenian Hopilites, just by waring them down with javilins and arrows. If you recieve casulties and can't give any back you will try and close with the lights to stop the shooting thats what they did the lights ran away came back fired again and on it went till the spartans were worn down. Thats what lights do and FOG seems to work well using them.
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:04 pm
by stecal
I thought this was by design so light troops could tease apart a battle line by forcing shock troops to take CMTs not to charge. If they do charge it is variable - same effect.
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:09 pm
by timmy1
Stephen, my proposal would not change the CMT not to charge rules in any way.
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:21 pm
by madaxeman
If evaders remained stationary, or were ALWAYS caught, on a 6-1 irrespective of actual separation distances that's focus the mind somewhat ...
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:25 pm
by timmy1
I still prefer Phil's "evaders take a CT" proposal.
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:44 pm
by kevinj
They would do it like the Spartans did against the Athenian lights who in the end defeated the Spartans without any Athenian Hopilites, just by waring them down with javilins and arrows. If you recieve casulties and can't give any back you will try and close with the lights to stop the shooting thats what they did the lights ran away came back fired again and on it went till the spartans were worn down. Thats what lights do and FOG seems to work well using them.
I think there's a difference between a line of skirmishers effectively matching an oncoming line and trying to wear it down and a single BG of LF holding up a whole line.
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:49 am
by expendablecinc
I am not sure what is trying to be corrected with all of these suggestions as this thread is looking like a dogs breakfast.
Is the problem:
That skirmishers prevent others from moving twice. 2nd moves are not designed for tactical use so I think skirmishers should be able to slow redeployment by harrasing marching enemy.
Skirmishers can help break up a solid line of shock troops - this is good design in my opinion - and the only real way that combined arms with inferior HF can take on a better quality foot army with less skirmishers.
Skirmishers boosting an army size and hence army break point - fair enough, needs fixing but not necessarily as coarse as a BG limit cap. Alternatives are:
- army lists half the LH BGs rounded down must be in sixes so less penny packets
- evading skirmishers off table is 2 AP
- skirmishers count as a full 2ap if broken but only count as half a BG for army BG count
eg
parthians with:
3 BG of cataphracts (3Bg)
1 Bg of city militia MF (1BG)
10 Bg of Lh (5BG)
4 Bg of LF (2 BG)
Army size 11 in terms of army break. the Cats and MF can be destroyed and count asl less than half the army but the skirmishers have to be very careful to skirmish only and not get caught. Even evading off table counts as 1AP but the BG only contributes 0.5 AP to the army break so this is the same as a 2AP evade off table cost).
I've had quite a few fairly dull games of HF vs Skirmishers wich is a shame but this is due to a bad matchup. Forcing the Skirmishers into a frontal battle swings it too far. giving some bonus for a 6:1 is alos not an elegant solution as it doesnt fix the root cause - it just gives players more reason to bitch and moan about their bad luck over a beer after the game.
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:37 am
by philqw78
expendablecinc wrote:Skirmishers boosting an army size and hence army break point - fair enough, needs fixing but not necessarily as coarse as a BG limit cap. Alternatives are:
- army lists half the LH BGs rounded down must be in sixes so less penny packets
- evading skirmishers off table is 2 AP
- skirmishers count as a full 2ap if broken but only count as half a BG for army BG count
A Mongol army would be very very small. Maybe 7 AP. But would only have to lose 4 BG of LH to break (2AP added, 8 taken away). Is that right.
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:26 am
by hammy
kevinj wrote:They would do it like the Spartans did against the Athenian lights who in the end defeated the Spartans without any Athenian Hopilites, just by waring them down with javilins and arrows. If you recieve casulties and can't give any back you will try and close with the lights to stop the shooting thats what they did the lights ran away came back fired again and on it went till the spartans were worn down. Thats what lights do and FOG seems to work well using them.
I think there's a difference between a line of skirmishers effectively matching an oncoming line and trying to wear it down and a single BG of LF holding up a whole line.
If a line of just HF is faced by a few skirmishers then perhaps but there are I believe historical incidents of just this happening. Granted the heavy foot are not slowed massively but they are certainly not advancing at the rate they would with no opposition.
If the heavy foot happen to have one BG of their own skirmishers then the situation changes significantly. A charge with their skirmishers will probably see the enemy skirmishers evade which will often allow the heavies to make a double move.
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:05 am
by nikgaukroger
hammy wrote:kevinj wrote:They would do it like the Spartans did against the Athenian lights who in the end defeated the Spartans without any Athenian Hopilites, just by waring them down with javilins and arrows. If you recieve casulties and can't give any back you will try and close with the lights to stop the shooting thats what they did the lights ran away came back fired again and on it went till the spartans were worn down. Thats what lights do and FOG seems to work well using them.
I think there's a difference between a line of skirmishers effectively matching an oncoming line and trying to wear it down and a single BG of LF holding up a whole line.
If a line of just HF is faced by a few skirmishers then perhaps but there are I believe historical incidents of just this happening. Granted the heavy foot are not slowed massively but they are certainly not advancing at the rate they would with no opposition.
Many years ago when this sort of thing was debated relating to DBM somebody looked at Xenophon's Anabasis and calculated the march rate of the 10,000 when they were being harried by a few hundred Persian skirmish types and it worked out to be pretty close to DBM movement rates for HF moving without march moves.
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:50 am
by jlopez
nikgaukroger wrote:
Many years ago when this sort of thing was debated relating to DBM somebody looked at Xenophon's Anabasis and calculated the march rate of the 10,000 when they were being harried by a few hundred Persian skirmish types and it worked out to be pretty close to DBM movement rates for HF moving without march moves.
True but they were probably fearful of unseen reserves as after the first day it was more than a few hundred skirmishers harrying them: "It was only after they had crossed it, however, that Mithradates appeared again, accompanied by a thousand horsemen and about four thousand bowmen and slingers"
and later: "In the course of this stage Tissaphernes made his appearance, having under his command the cavalry which he had himself brought with him, the troops of Orontas, who was married to the King's daughter, the barbarians whom Cyrus had brought with him on his upward march, and those with whom the King's brother had come to the aid of the King; besides these contingents Tissaphernes had all the troops that the King had given him; the result was, that his army appeared exceedingly large.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 2:book%3D3
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:35 pm
by expendablecinc
philqw78 wrote:expendablecinc wrote:Skirmishers boosting an army size and hence army break point - fair enough, needs fixing but not necessarily as coarse as a BG limit cap. Alternatives are:
- army lists half the LH BGs rounded down must be in sixes so less penny packets
- evading skirmishers off table is 2 AP
- skirmishers count as a full 2ap if broken but only count as half a BG for army BG count
A Mongol army would be very very small. Maybe 7 AP. But would only have to
lose 4 BG of LH to break (2AP added, 8 taken away). Is that right.
are you following me around the forum?
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:52 pm
by philqw78
Until the restraining order comes through
