Slitherine

I have always thought that 4 rank deep phalanxs shoud count as "supported" in cohesion tests. What do you think?

It can be a general rule (and by the way i could improve the performance of poor / unprotected armies) and barbarian armies.

If a units has in a third and fourth rank at least half the number of bases of the first two ranks it gets "support" from itself.

Opinions?

I would say equal to. But also it gives battle BG with 3rd rank LF a big advantage.

Are there actually that many battles where a second line did any good?

There are some (i.e. much less than half) battles where there was a second line, but batttles where the second line actually did anything are few and far between.

And before somebody get's clever, I am ignoring the fact that the first line was often skirmishers in classical warfare.

My Principate Romans love this idea.

dave_r wrote:Are there actually that many battles where a second line did any good?

Dave, this is n't about a supporting line of BG. Its about a bonus for deeper BG. Though I assume the bonus for pike is an extra plus POA over spear.

timmy1 wrote:My Principate Romans love this idea.

Due to 3rd rank of LF no doubt.

philqw78 wrote:

dave_r wrote:Are there actually that many battles where a second line did any good?

Dave, this is n't about a supporting line of BG. Its about a bonus for deeper BG. Though I assume the bonus for pike is an extra plus POA over spear.

Why would extra deep units get bonusus? 12 strong battle groups that are deep have significant advantages if used properly.

I fear most of the ideas on here are just too off the wall. We need a couple of tweaks not whacking great changes.

I liked the idea of troops acting as overlap perhaps automatically being on evens (or better if they would normally be at ++). That would even out the enormous BG's lasting for ages.

Don´t tercios get autosupport in FoG-R?

Yes, but they are Spanish

robertthebruce wrote:Yes, but they are Spanish

jajaj!

Ranimiro wrote:Don´t tercios get autosupport in FoG-R?

As do keils, however, the reasoning wasn't depth, just sheer size. They also count as 2 BGs if large enough.

What is the historical evidence that being in a deep formation had benefits to morale that were not available to shallower formations?

We already have many mechanisms that encourage depth (number of dice makes you take a second rank of most troops, Pike and spear get rank POAs, base losses and expansions in melee can make use of rear ranks, first three ranks count for casualties). Do we need another one?

The second line of BGs giving rear support I can understand - historically they were there to sort out enemy coming round the flank or breaking through.

grahambriggs wrote:historical evidence

Wazzat?

zaknafir wrote:

robertthebruce wrote:Yes, but they are Spanish

jajaj!

jejeje

grahambriggs wrote:What is the historical evidence that being in a deep formation had benefits to morale that were not available to shallower formations?

Sort of, but not really in the way people are suggesting.

If we look at the Strategikon as an example we see that increasing depth of formations is seen as a way of bringing them up to an acceptable standard, and better troops can be a few ranks shallower at still be at that standard. In terms of BG depiction these varying numbers of ranks are subsumed within different BGs using the same weapon systems.

grahambriggs wrote:What is the historical evidence that being in a deep formation had benefits to morale that were not available to shallower formations?

We already have many mechanisms that encourage depth (number of dice makes you take a second rank of most troops, Pike and spear get rank POAs, base losses and expansions in melee can make use of rear ranks, first three ranks count for casualties). Do we need another one?

The second line of BGs giving rear support I can understand - historically they were there to sort out enemy coming round the flank or breaking through.

Well, the fact is that we don't know much about how the second lines worked, but we do know for Roman accounts of battles that they were important (at least for them). We also know that the depth of the formation counted to put more pressure onto the enemy. That is why Thebans doubled their phalanx and that is why Romans doubled the depth of their maniples in Cannae, in the idea of breaking through brute force. Now it is not something contemplated in the rules and, if we want to see historical battles, I fear it is not possible to conceive general rules that are only thought for specific armies. Making depth count more could give extra options for players to the price of seeing less historical deployments in depth.

Other rulesets solve this question by defining a set of possible formations and defining in the list what kind of formation every unit can adopt. It is an idea, but far from FoG concept.

So, getting to your point, I think that more attention should be paid to depth. That way armies can form a smaller front and break through a point in the enemy line. Columns should not provide rear support. It should be considered more carefully which units can get rear support and why. For example, I can't see the idea of feeling supported being cavalry and having infantry behind, but I can see how units would feel more confident if they know their flanks are secure (+1 in CMT for units that have two units side by side in both flanks, with exceptions like having elephants, charriots, etc). It is a sort of autosupport that helps to form compact battle lines but avoids isolated units standing in the middle of nowhere. That's something only reserved to Spanish tercios

But adding depth to legionary or hoplite formations does add to their chances of breaking through the enemy and, indirectly, makes them less likely to lose morale in the current rules.

Consider a legionary battlegroup one deep. Even if it has a ++ POA it will struggle against enemy in two ranks. Hoplites even more so as they lose POAs AND dice.

Consider a three deep battle line of hoplites vs a two deep lline of similar hoplites. The three deep line has a slight advantage initially (less chance of a -1 for 1 hit per 3 bases). As soon as bases are lost though the advantage tilts substantially in the favour of the three deep group (more dice, better POA, and the smaller group will soon get the -1 for being down 25%). Also, the deeper formation is braver, as it's winning more combats so not having to test.

grahambriggs wrote:But adding depth to legionary or hoplite formations does add to their chances of breaking through the enemy and, indirectly, makes them less likely to lose morale in the current rules.

Consider a legionary battlegroup one deep. Even if it has a ++ POA it will struggle against enemy in two ranks. Hoplites even more so as they lose POAs AND dice.

Consider a three deep battle line of hoplites vs a two deep lline of similar hoplites. The three deep line has a slight advantage initially (less chance of a -1 for 1 hit per 3 bases). As soon as bases are lost though the advantage tilts substantially in the favour of the three deep group (more dice, better POA, and the smaller group will soon get the -1 for being down 25%). Also, the deeper formation is braver, as it's winning more combats so not having to test.

Yes, you are right that 3rd rank does not solve the problem if we do not make a diference between units relying on charges and units relying on volley launch. That is also the reason why I suggested getting the PoA for the 4th rank instead of the 3rd. That way it is risky as the hits are calculated taking into account the first 3 ranks (should it be changed to 2 to avoid too deep formation being seen too often?), but you can have have some benefits: extra PoA's in impact and maybe in melee too. That way Barbarians can reinforce their formations to the price of possibly being disordered more easily by enemy fire (which was what pila were intended for, by the way). I think that in game terms it can be a plus as players will have the choice between larger front or deeper formation and victory in one point.

Let's think why pikes get the PoA for the 4th rank. If we consider that only the first five rows of pikes were pointing at the enemy, the rest of the formation just provided pushing effect and protection from shooting. Why then pikemen would be the only to exploit that effect?

Strategos69 wrote: Let's think why pikes get the PoA for the 4th rank. If we consider that only the first five rows of pikes were pointing at the enemy, the rest of the formation just provided pushing effect and protection from shooting. Why then pikemen would be the only to exploit that effect?

Because you have to simulate that five rows effectively engaging the enemy is at least twice as many as other troop types and pike formations most definitely relied on pushing as a battlefield tactic which isn't always certain for other formations.

jlopez wrote:

Strategos69 wrote: Let's think why pikes get the PoA for the 4th rank. If we consider that only the first five rows of pikes were pointing at the enemy, the rest of the formation just provided pushing effect and protection from shooting. Why then pikemen would be the only to exploit that effect?

Because you have to simulate that five rows effectively engaging the enemy is at least twice as many as other troop types and pike formations most definitely relied on pushing as a battlefield tactic which isn't always certain for other formations.

Well... this is interesting. We demand historical evidence that deeper formations have an impact on the combat and morale but the we "assume" than a man handling a 12 feet long spear with both his hands and a small shield hanging from his shoulder is able to "push" from a 12th or 16th rank but a roman or barbarian who has a larger shield and can put away his sword away and grab the shield with both his hands doesn´t have the ability to do the same "pushing" from a 6th or 8 rank?

Don´t missunderstand me. I am completely ok with the first part, just can´t see why the later isn´t true. I think that giving some benefits to deeper formations either than pikes can bring a number of benefits for the game.

We can see larger battle groups of lesser quality troops more often.

A detriment to swarm armies.


And if you think than that will cause that elite armies will deploy in deep columns and just cut through the enemy line:

Autosupport wont make them fight any harder, just gives the poorer troops the option to resist longer
Overlapping can counter this manouber.