Slitherine

It has been proposed that troops who would normally need to pass a CMT to wheel within 6 MUs of the enemy should have to test at any distance from enemy.

This was the situation in earlier versions of the rules, but was changed to only testing within 6 MUs of enemy to reduce the seemingly excessive numbers of tests required early in the game.

The proponents of the change feel that the game has speeded up enough that this is no longer an issue, and that forcing undrilled troops to test to wheel at all times will better differentiate between drilled and undrilled troops.

I am opposed to this proposed change for the following reasons.

• 1) The original reasons for removing testing for wheeling outside 6 MUs still apply - to reduce the number of CMTs required early in the game, and to facilitate the armies getting to grips with each other.
  
  2) Despite what some have said, there is already a big difference between drilled and undrilled troops (other than skirmishers and cavalry). This is not apparent in the early stages of the game, but makes a huge difference once the going gets tough later in the game.
  
  3) The effect of making undrilled troops CMT to wheel at any distance from the enemy is huge and:
  
  • a) It probably excessively differentiates between drilled and undrilled troops, bearing in mind that even drilled troops were not usually trained to wheel in this era. Most wargames rules allow more manoeuvre that is strictly historically realistic - however, while restricting armies to lining up and moving straight forward may be realistic for much of our era, it does not make for a very enjoyable game. Historically, drilled armies usually lined up and moved straight forward in the same way as undrilled armies, so if we allow drilled armies to behave otherwise, undrilled should also be able to do so. Also, there is an argument that the initial wheeling outside 6 MUs is part of the lining up process, and that the part of the battle usually reported in historical accounts represents only the part of the game after the armies have lined up.
    
    b) It further increases the advantage of cavalry armies over undrilled foot armies. This will not improve game balance.
    
    c) Making MF that difficult to manoeuvre seems wrong.
    
    d) Skillful opponents can force a CMT already by moving troops within 6 MUs of the undrilled troops.
    
    e) One of the things that has been favourably commented on (in comparison with DBM) is that AoW allows undrilled foot to get to grips with the enemy - the proposed change would work against that.
  4) In my opinion the apparent (slight) under-cost-effectiveness of drilled over undrilled foot can be dealt with by reducing the extra cost of drilled unprotected foot from +2 to +1.

Your views are sought.

I agree with Richard. I don't think there is any need to change this rule for all of the reasons above plus Drilled troops have access to a range of Complex Moves that Undrilled troops just cannot perform at all anyway. No need to further penalise undrilled troops - especially at the expense of more CMTs in the early stages of the game. I like the fact you don't need them in the early stages - it makes the game flow nicely.

I also agree that no change is neccessary. Outside of immediate contact, troops are calm and are able to follow the direction and lead of their chiefs, kings etc. Close to the enemy excitement sets in, there's lots of cheering, shild bashing etc - then it's up and 'em straight at the enemy. The rules as they stand allowed our warband at Usk to get into a series of fights.

My feeling is that as wew are only talking about wheeling the current rules are fine. I can't imagine a circumstance where a group of barbarian warriors miles away from a battle that they really want to get involved in find the concept of turning a problem.

There is an argument that perhaps a second move for undrilled should require a CMT to make it more difficult for undrilled troops to coordinate. This would add the odd dice roll but not an excessive amount and would also distinguish between drilled and undrilled a bit more at a distance.

To be honest even outside 6 mu there is a big difference between drilled and undrilled. Drilled can turn 90 and have a chance of moving. Undrilled only have a chance of turning. That is a huge gulf in maneuver.

I think we should look at a more even keeled version of the full issues. Two things were mentioned of interest at the comp:

1. Drilled don't feel worth their points at times
2. There is potential cheese in full base shifts

So the complete idea might be to as a package:

Only allow 1 base shifts ourside of 6 MU of enemy
Taking CMTs for direction changes outside 6" - so for wheels

The game may still then be very fast as most movement should be foarward and 3 shifts getting you 3MU of redelpoyment for free. But if you want to redelpoy more significantly with a 45 degree wheel and march it forces tests. This would then bring back some of the extra value of drilld to move in this way while the warband hordes find it hardr to to do this and have to shift as best they can.

So the issue is whether the two combined might work. The real question wqill be how often a wheel is needed instead of a shift. Drilled troops then pay their way a bit more as well.

Si

shall wrote:1. Drilled don't feel worth their points at times

Perhaps not, but that is not an argument in favour of over-representing the difference between drilled and undrilled (beyond what is historically justifiable) to match the current points system.

As Hammy said:

I can't imagine a circumstance where a group of barbarian warriors miles away from a battle that they really want to get involved in find the concept of turning a problem.

Better to change the points system IMO.

shall wrote:2. There is potential cheese in full base shifts

This is an entirely different issue, which is not in dispute. The authors are all in agreement that full base width shifts should be restricted to outside 6 MUs of enemy. We probably also agree that half base width shifts only be allowed if necessary to avoid collisions.

Better perhaps to hear others views than ours Richard........

Si

I don't think the change is justified.
There is a huge difference between drilled an undirlled knights of HF.
The only change I would suggest is that Undrilled need to pass a CMT to slide.

I don't see a problem with things as they are. My worry with a change would be slowing down the first few moves, for no real benefit.

Sounds like I am agreeing with Richard

Don M

I dont want my beautifully painted barbarian horde's entire chances of winning to be undone before they even close with the enemy because some tiny Regular LH(S) army commanded by Senator Reigatus Cheesus deploys all his troops in a corner and maneuvers round my flank with impunity whilst I fail a couple of early dice rolls that prevent me even wheeling towards the corner where he is set up.

Just my two penneth on my regular concern that making ability to maneuver an apparently pivotal part of the rules will make it hard to sell them in certain quarters !

tim
www.madaxeman.com

No need to change current rule as I believe that it is only when the enemy is close that the confusion of irregulars manouvering to effect would be an issue.
John

I think I agree with Richard on this.

4) In my opinion the apparent (slight) under-cost-effectiveness of drilled over undrilled foot can be dealt with by reducing the extra cost of drilled unprotected foot from +2 to +1.

And I definitely support this proposal.

Pete