Slitherine

How about stopping feeding bases into melees?

1) The receive in column then expand later to avoid poor impact factors will be gone.
2) Players will need to get BG's into combat formation earlier, hence less fancy moving immediately prior to contact.
3) Fewer rules

I can appreciate it might look odd if two large BG's hit with a single base and remain offset. However, I have rarely seen this happen. The restrictions on wheeling in charges make this unlikely if one side wants to avoid it.

rogerg wrote:How about stopping feeding bases into melees?

1) The receive in column then expand later to avoid poor impact factors will be gone.
2) Players will need to get BG's into combat formation earlier, hence less fancy moving immediately prior to contact.
3) Fewer rules

I can appreciate it might look odd if two large BG's hit with a single base and remain offset. However, I have rarely seen this happen. The restrictions on wheeling in charges make this unlikely if one side wants to avoid it.

The problem with this kind of changes is to what extent the game would change. If any of this changes are planned I would go rather for fixed formations that let you determine the PoA's (no more PoA's per file as it is very complicated to allocate dice when disrupted or broken and you have to pay attention the whole time). That way we can have formation in depth (4 ranks), single line, standard battle battle line, column, orb, standard line supported by archers. The expansions and contractions would be then transformed into changing formation and thus the feeding of bases would not be allowed as you wouldn't be able to change your formation during a combat. What I would not forbid is sending troops from the extreme of the line to the combat. as I find that very useful to avoid stupid combats that last more only because of the few dice involved.

In the other hand, I think you are right that those tricky twists of the rules should be avoided.

Rather than removing feeding in bases you could prevent expansion in melee. Then if two offset BG hit they could still feed in but only by moving an unengaged file to become an engaged one.

Not sure what bad things thiw would cause but it would mean that getting hit in column would not be pretty.

Feeding in is one of the few ways in which larger BGs can make their numbers bear. With this change a smaller, better quality BG would just need to hit the end of a big one with an overlap and it would eventually beat it.

It would make smaller BG even better. 4's of drilled foot would rule even more.

philqw78 wrote:It would make smaller BG even better. 4's of drilled foot would rule even more.

Not if you can feed in unengaged files.

The suggestion is I think there to prevent charges in columns then expanding. My ammendment essentially allows troops to keep the same formation but still to feed bases in.

Could we say: no expansion/feeding bases in the first melee phase? That would be a discouragement to going into column before charging purely to minimise impact phase vulnerability, since the disadvantageous melee phase that follows would be quite scary too. And it would mean that if you get to charge against somebody still in column, you get an advantageous melee phase to reflect the advantage you should accrue for catching them not ideally deployed.

That "you can only match an existing overlap in your opponents turn" thingy seems to encourage cheesy wheels and work against larger units bringing their weight of numbers to bear in practice.

Is that another thing to look at tweaking in the same vein?

Well since previously people have agreed a fighting column is ahistorical.

Define columns and then give them an auto -- POA in all cases even flank attacks.

That would clean that up rather significantly.

hazelbark wrote:Well since previously people have agreed a fighting column is ahistorical.

Define columns and then give them an auto -- POA in all cases even flank attacks.

That would clean that up rather significantly.

I totally agree: simple and nice. I would give them always a +1MU to movement (or a fixed movement of 5MU to all troops in column regardless of terrain) so that there is some sense to form a column in game terms. It can be worked even a move distance chart for columns.

hazelbark wrote:Well since previously people have agreed a fighting column is ahistorical.

Define columns and then give them an auto -- POA in all cases even flank attacks.

That would clean that up rather significantly.

Why not just allow overlaps in Impact? People will son stop charging in column vs wider BGs.

stenic wrote:
Why not just allow overlaps in Impact? People will son stop charging in column vs wider BGs.

I think that both are needed. The idea of columns being always at --PoA is because a column was not a combat formation in Ancient times. It was used to march quickly without getting your ranks disorganized. The other idea of getting, let's say, one die per overlap at impact would be good to reinforce larger BG's. Certainly it would need some extra wording to solve tricky twists. I would do it so that larger BG's always get at least 1 extra die if they have more bases.

Strategos69 wrote:

stenic wrote:
Why not just allow overlaps in Impact? People will son stop charging in column vs wider BGs.

I think that both are needed. The idea of columns being always at --PoA is because a column was not a combat formation in Ancient times. It was used to march quickly without getting your ranks disorganized. The other idea of getting, let's say, one die per overlap at impact would be good to reinforce larger BG's. Certainly it would need some extra wording to solve tricky twists. I would do it so that larger BG's always get at least 1 extra die if they have more bases.

Perhaps larger BGs could get a POA adjustment in impact. Either a straight + or a conditional + if the net POAs are - or -- (like mounted LtSp but in reverse).

Or they might get a +1 CT bonus for impact combats.

Larger would calculate from total BGs in impact, so if a 4-pack charges an 8-pack, the 8-pack is larger, but if 2 4-packs charge the 8-pack, it is not.

spikemesq wrote:Perhaps larger BGs could get a POA adjustment in impact. Either a straight + or a conditional + if the net POAs are - or -- (like mounted LtSp but in reverse).

Or they might get a +1 CT bonus for impact combats.

Larger would calculate from total BGs in impact, so if a 4-pack charges an 8-pack, the 8-pack is larger, but if 2 4-packs charge the 8-pack, it is not.

I suspect that would end up just a little complex to implement. How would your treat offset charges, so two 4s charging an 8 with the sides having mutual overlaps? What if the charge was at an angle with stepping forwards etc.

One extra dice for overlap at impact is nice. I am a little concerned that it could lead to more standoffs but woudl be willing to give it a go.

Overlaps at impact would be too complicated. I don't think impact is much of a problem. Given that initial contact is the most difficult part of wargame rules, I think FoG doe it very well.