Slitherine

There is historical evidence that some troops in a rear line prevented routing front lines bursting through them. Example: Hannibal's veterans at Zama.

Would there be mileage in representing this? The Zama example was what we term as Superior Heavy Foot blocking average Heavy foot. I imagine medium and light foot would be too loose to do this. And I'm not sure if it happened with mounted troops? However, tactics such as Tamurlane driving civilians in front of his army, French Knights killing routing Genoese crossbowmen mught be examples? Are there chinese examples of suicide squads where this might help?

So perhaps the routers bursting through should have an exception for HF of a better grade if the routers first contact would be the front edge or front corner of the BG, at the option of the player controlling those BGs. Not sure what should happen to the routers. First thought would be that they do the same as they do with other things they can't move through - turn and move.

Could allow this for Medium, cavalry, knights foot too?. Seems to mostly occur when the routers are of a lower class. Are there examples of troops of equivalent class doing this?

On the Rear Support thread I suggested that troops that are burst through take a CT, and only drop a level if they fail. A further suggestion was that if they pass they CT, the routing troops do not burst through at all, but are removed (dispersed). This would represent the supporting troops not allowing the routers to pass through. This would be a way of modelling what you suggest. It could be limited to just foot troops if that is what is supported by historical evidence.

From what I recall at Zama the Gauls and Spanish did not disperse, I thought they were held in place or something like that. Been quite a while since I read anything about that battle. Would be nice to be able to stand behind a unit and not risk dropping cohesion if they burst through you. I like the idea of taking a CT but perhaps the routers should just keep on going regardless of how your troops did. They might be able to open rout lanes in their lines similar to what they did for lights who evade?

I like this idea. I also think it helps with the rear support problems - the rules encourage rear support in columns so that troops don't get burst through - don't remember ever reading situations where that occurred. There are instances like Zama where BETTER QUALITY troops were deployed behind, the idea being I guess that the poorer stuff in fron would at least tire the enemy out - as a general that makes your best troops more likely to survive and gives a better chance of them turning the game. I guess that the Roman set-up with Triarii in the rear is also similar - but maybe better not to go there!

My vote would be that better quality troops (except where interpenetration is currently allowed anyway) can choose to prevent routers bursting through (who would be lost). That way superior troops could be deployed as a second line properly and could take advantage of any disrupted or weakened pursuers. I'm not sure that a CMT is required - would that just discourage people from deploying a second line? Maybe there is a CMT for troops of equal quality to do the same?

Marc

grahambriggs wrote:Seems to mostly occur when the routers are of a lower class. Are there examples of troops of equivalent class doing this?

I can't think of any battles where POORER troops were deployed as a proper second line, although I'm sure that someone will correct me. There are obviously some battles where masses of poor troops were present but did not participate, but I don't consider this to be the same thing. It mostly seems to me that better troops were held back. I guess if you were an ancient general you would have some thought to preserve your best troops, so having expendable troops tire the enemy out and then committing your best troops at a decisive moment to turn the battle seems sensible, attrition of these troops would be lower and you have more to fight another day.

It would be nice if you could represent this in FOG but the rules don't encourage you to put your best troops behind, both because they are disrupted when the unit in front routs, and also because you run the risk of your army breaking before your best troops fight - in FOG you need to lead and fight with your best troops.

It seems too hard to fix this second point, but I wonder whether something simple can be done to tweak the rear support rules so that the supporting troops are not disadvantaged if they are better quality - not too revolutionary I think?

hannibal wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Seems to mostly occur when the routers are of a lower class. Are there examples of troops of equivalent class doing this?

I can't think of any battles where POORER troops were deployed as a proper second line, although I'm sure that someone will correct me. There are obviously some battles where masses of poor troops were present but did not participate, but I don't consider this to be the same thing. It mostly seems to me that better troops were held back. I guess if you were an ancient general you would have some thought to preserve your best troops, so having expendable troops tire the enemy out and then committing your best troops at a decisive moment to turn the battle seems sensible, attrition of these troops would be lower and you have more to fight another day.

It would be nice if you could represent this in FOG but the rules don't encourage you to put your best troops behind, both because they are disrupted when the unit in front routs, and also because you run the risk of your army breaking before your best troops fight - in FOG you need to lead and fight with your best troops.

It seems too hard to fix this second point, but I wonder whether something simple can be done to tweak the rear support rules so that the supporting troops are not disadvantaged if they are better quality - not too revolutionary I think?

Too hard? How about a +2 for a CT if supported by a unit with better morale.

It can be done but I'm not sure it's desirable from a historical point of view. To be honest, there aren't that many armies I can think of other than Romans (incl. Byzantines) that routinely deployed second lines near enough to the front line to actually be of any use. I can think of even fewer that sent the rabble ahead while their betters cheered them on. Most deployed all the heavy troops in line and got on with it.

hannibal wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Seems to mostly occur when the routers are of a lower class. Are there examples of troops of equivalent class doing this?

I can't think of any battles where POORER troops were deployed as a proper second line, although I'm sure that someone will correct me. There are obviously some battles where masses of poor troops were present but did not participate, but I don't consider this to be the same thing. It mostly seems to me that better troops were held back. I guess if you were an ancient general you would have some thought to preserve your best troops, so having expendable troops tire the enemy out and then committing your best troops at a decisive moment to turn the battle seems sensible, attrition of these troops would be lower and you have more to fight another day.

It would be nice if you could represent this in FOG but the rules don't encourage you to put your best troops behind, both because they are disrupted when the unit in front routs, and also because you run the risk of your army breaking before your best troops fight - in FOG you need to lead and fight with your best troops.

It seems too hard to fix this second point, but I wonder whether something simple can be done to tweak the rear support rules so that the supporting troops are not disadvantaged if they are better quality - not too revolutionary I think?

Well, allowing better quality to not be burst through was the suggestion....

Re second lines of troops, there are quite a few examples. Granted they weren't necessarily providing support:

Byzantines used a second line of not quite so good troops to support the first line. Hannibal at Zama was in 3 lines.

French at Agincourt were multiple lines. Persians at Granicua had a second line of hoplites. Alexander at Gaugamela had a second line of Greeks, etc.

Another answer could be.

A BG that is routing that did not begin the JAP phase with an enemy in contact can be removed by the player from the board. It cannot be rallied.

This allows the current penalty of lines too close together to have burst through problems. Incentivizes staying in contact with routers to hope to drive them through a suport line. And allows the rear support to be back and not have to be in strange columns.

Also is fixed with a simply entry in the sequence of play

Polkovnik wrote:On the Rear Support thread I suggested that troops that are burst through take a CT, and only drop a level if they fail. A further suggestion was that if they pass they CT, the routing troops do not burst through at all, but are removed (dispersed). This would represent the supporting troops not allowing the routers to pass through. This would be a way of modelling what you suggest. It could be limited to just foot troops if that is what is supported by historical evidence.

I like this concept, as I noted on a different thread. I would only allow the CT for subsequent routs after the first - the first would always result in a drop in level. Also, a catastrophic fail in the CT could result in a 2 level drop. Would allow for foot moving through foot, and perhaps horse through horse.

If you wanted to reflect the different quality of troops then a CT modifier could simply reflect the difference between the quality of each BG - i.e. that makes better quality troops more likely to stand when burst through by poorer ones, and vice versa. So, poor troops burst through by elites would suffer a -3 on the CT.