Slitherine

Please change the rear support rules so even troops of lower quality can provide support.

I have read many accounts of historical battles where the better troops were in the first line and the peasants in the second.

Under FoG there is no advantage to deploying like this.

This would also make 'Poor' troops better value than at present.

RichardThompson wrote:Please change the rear support rules so even troops of lower quality can provide support.

I have read many accounts of historical battles where the better troops were in the first line and the peasants in the second.

Under FoG there is no advantage to deploying like this.

This would also make 'Poor' troops better value than at present.

I can see an argument to rear support from the same number of bases of one grade lower or half the number of bases of equal or better troops.

I don't think this needs to be overcomplicated, my view is to keep the conditions for rear support as they are now, but additionally allow the supporters to be one grade lower.

kevinj wrote:I don't think this needs to be overcomplicated, my view is to keep the conditions for rear support as they are now, but additionally allow the supporters to be one grade lower.

So 4 poor MF crossbow for example can provide rear support to two BGs of 8 average spearmen?

So 4 poor MF crossbow for example can provide rear support to two BGs of 8 average spearmen?

I don't have a problem with that in principle. They are highly likely to get splattered if one of the spear BGs goes down, rout one, get one free!

So 4 poor MF crossbow for example can provide rear support to two BGs of 8 average spearmen?

Or better they can support two BG of elite Varangian!

olivier wrote:

So 4 poor MF crossbow for example can provide rear support to two BGs of 8 average spearmen?

Or better they can support two BG of elite Varangian!

Not if the rule was that they could only provide support for troops one grade higher, you would need Superior crossbowmen to support your Varangians!

Historically, the guard stayed behind the troops.
With your proposition, you reinvent the cheerleader squad who support and applause their better.
A lot more easier to support Kn or other Sup troop. It's not really an advantage to "average Joe" type.

This would not be the same as the DBM position where a command of 6 Knights, 12 Inferior Bow and a Psiloi became unbreakable because only the Knights ever saw any action, in FOG a BG providing rear support is itself vulnerable if the unit it is supporting is routed.

hammy wrote:

kevinj wrote:I don't think this needs to be overcomplicated, my view is to keep the conditions for rear support as they are now, but additionally allow the supporters to be one grade lower.

So 4 poor MF crossbow for example can provide rear support to two BGs of 8 average spearmen?

ATM, 4 average Crossbows can provide rear support to two BGs of 8 average spearmen, so it would not be that big a change.

Why not make each supporting element choose which BG they would like to count as supporting?

kevinj wrote:This would not be the same as the DBM position where a command of 6 Knights, 12 Inferior Bow and a Psiloi became unbreakable because only the Knights ever saw any action, in FOG a BG providing rear support is itself vulnerable if the unit it is supporting is routed.

...especially if you are trying last night at the club to use an experimental tactic of a 1 deep unit of Gallic warband sacrificed to hopefully disrupt a line of pike units at impact, accepting that it will get destroyed in the inevitable ensuing rout, but in so doing will allow 2 units of Gaesati to follow up with a devastating charge into the disjointed, disrupted pikemen.... but when the MF roll long twice in their routs, and burst through the Gaeasati after failing to disrupt any pike at all... allowing the Pike to charge in and vaporise the whole lot ...it can all go horribly wrong quite quickly indeed...

hammy wrote:

RichardThompson wrote:Please change the rear support rules so even troops of lower quality can provide support.

I have read many accounts of historical battles where the better troops were in the first line and the peasants in the second.

Under FoG there is no advantage to deploying like this.

This would also make 'Poor' troops better value than at present.

I can see an argument to rear support from the same number of bases of one grade lower or half the number of bases of equal or better troops.

Would allow the English at Hastings to put the best troops in the front with the not so good ones behind and gain some benefit from it.

I think it makes sense to allow at least as many bases to support one troops one grade higher, but the problem is this will lead to having BGs of 8 poor troops in column supporting two average BGs, which will look silly, and certainly not give the correct impression of an ancient battle that is intended.
What if routing troops did not automatically disrupt friendly troops they burst through, but instead cause a CT ? This would mean that supporting troops could be in a proper formation and (especially with a general nearby) have a reasonable chance of staying steady when burst through by routing front line troops. I think this could lead to deployments that look more like what we expect from an ancient battle.

What if routing troops did not automatically disrupt friendly troops they burst through, but instead cause a CT ? This would mean that supporting troops could be in a proper formation and (especially with a general nearby) have a reasonable chance of staying steady when burst through by routing front line troops. I think this could lead to deployments that look more like what we expect from an ancient battle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This part is a good idea and I think reasonable...other rules do this (lasalle for Nappy's comes to mind). whether or not lower grades can support doesn't matter too much to me.

Polkovnik wrote:I think it makes sense to allow at least as many bases to support one troops one grade higher, but the problem is this will lead to having BGs of 8 poor troops in column supporting two average BGs, which will look silly, and certainly not give the correct impression of an ancient battle that is intended.
What if routing troops did not automatically disrupt friendly troops they burst through, but instead cause a CT ? This would mean that supporting troops could be in a proper formation and (especially with a general nearby) have a reasonable chance of staying steady when burst through by routing front line troops. I think this could lead to deployments that look more like what we expect from an ancient battle.

This is far better than the columns we see now. If the support passes the CT the router is removed, if not it continues routing and bursts through.

And possibly allow half as many to support if a grade higher. Then the guard can be left at the back to support and cheer up the remainder, as they are secure in the knowledge that the best troops in the army can dash forwards and support them if things go wrong.

This is far better than the columns we see now. If the support passes the CT the router is removed, if not it continues routing and bursts through.

Im not convinced this would stop people using columns. if the routers can shift past the column there is no reason to take a CT at all.

MatthewP wrote:

This is far better than the columns we see now. If the support passes the CT the router is removed, if not it continues routing and bursts through.

Im not convinced this would stop people using columns. if the routers can shift past the column there is no reason to take a CT at all.

Perhaps only the first two ranks of the column should be able to offer rear support?

Perhaps each supporting element should have to decide which BG it is supporting?

Polkovnik wrote:I think it makes sense to allow at least as many bases to support one troops one grade higher, but the problem is this will lead to having BGs of 8 poor troops in column supporting two average BGs, which will look silly, and certainly not give the correct impression of an ancient battle that is intended.
What if routing troops did not automatically disrupt friendly troops they burst through, but instead cause a CT ? This would mean that supporting troops could be in a proper formation and (especially with a general nearby) have a reasonable chance of staying steady when burst through by routing front line troops. I think this could lead to deployments that look more like what we expect from an ancient battle.

It depends how deep the bases of the poor troops are. If they are MF or mob, a column of 8 supporting would have it's front within 3MU of the supported friends. CHT, hit by pursuers: ugly.

RichardThompson wrote:Please change the rear support rules so even troops of lower quality can provide support.

I have read many accounts of historical battles where the better troops were in the first line and the peasants in the second.

Under FoG there is no advantage to deploying like this.

This would also make 'Poor' troops better value than at present.

Maybe poor troops were deployed to the rear of the decent troops to protect them rather than to give some beneift to the decent troopsup front. The poor guys can still protect them from rear attacks, which they shoudl eb in a position to do with intercept moves. I think a bigger disincentive to deploying in depth is becuase the front rank tends to take thre rear with it when it breaks due to burst-throughs. simply make it less risky by either allowing routing troops to interpenetrate enemy front to rear and you may get more reasonable looking deep deployments rather than the silly columns ot the rear of where battlegroups join.

In FoG:R the columns have largely disappeared because of 3 things.

1, Division has replaced battle line. In a Division everyone (with minor exceptions) has to be a base width or more apart apart - you do see Roman manipular looking checkerboard formations (which is where the Dutch tactics came from)

2, the support can be 1 grade lower

3, MOST IMPORTANT, the support does not have to be directly behind the join.

It is a bit more complex than that but not very much more.