We played our second game last night - using only 500pts (instead of the recommended 650pts) in 25mm scale on 6x4 table. It was Romans v Classical Indians. We found that, as in our first game, their appeared little advantage or opportunity for the Roman to make use of their 'Drilled' status. With the addition and use of just a couple of pieces of terrain the Indians were able to nearly cover the entire frontage of the table (even at 500pts) and march forward. This made the Roman Cav and LH ineffective as it could not manoeuvre around the flanks and just became shooting practice for the Indian bowmen. We accept there is always the possibility of flank marching these BGs - not ventured to such things yet. My playing partner has experienced WAB and apparently this rules system is 'basically line them up and march forward'. Both he and I are concerned that, at the 25mm scale at least, FOG may be going down a similar route. Are there any more experienced play testers who can give their experiences of using manoeuvre to 'out-fox' their opponent - especially in 25mm!!
PS - Please don't take this as a negative post I really do want these rules to be great and succeed!
PPS - Off to Reigate next Thursday and hopefully see how the experts use manoeuvre under this system - I hope!!
Manoeuvre in 25mm
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
In my experience the big benefits of drilled vs undrilled is the ability to redeploy. For example to turn 90 and move rather than just turn 90. To wheel near the enemy etc.
I am suprised you found little space at 500 points, I have only played one 25mm game and that was at 800 points but there was some scope for maneuver on the flanks at least.
I will arrange another 25mm game ASAP.
Hammy
I am suprised you found little space at 500 points, I have only played one 25mm game and that was at 800 points but there was some scope for maneuver on the flanks at least.
I will arrange another 25mm game ASAP.
Hammy
-
Bugle999
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:16 am
- Location: London (S.E.) UK
Hammy,
Where abouts in the country do you play your games - anywhere near S. London per chance...?
You mention the flanks - we thought there was nothing preventing setup right to the edge of the board (i.e. unlike DBM where you are forced into having a 4 Element wide 'open' flank at game start [25mm scale])) - I had 8 man bow units (Avg. Bow. Swordsmen) fulfilling this role on both sides of the table.
My Roman opponent tried to redeploy with his Cav etc., but as I moved first (double move) and could shoot up his LH skirmishers there was nothing stopping me closing the range before he was able to complete this. The limiting factor was that he could only move two moves each turn (less the deducton for wheeling) and it just did not give him enough time to get away, yet alone redeploy as he wished?? I ended up getting him in the flank actuallty!
Maybe a 3rd move should be considered if troops are say 12 MU's away from enemy, or something similar.
Appreciate your comments...
Cheers.
Where abouts in the country do you play your games - anywhere near S. London per chance...?
You mention the flanks - we thought there was nothing preventing setup right to the edge of the board (i.e. unlike DBM where you are forced into having a 4 Element wide 'open' flank at game start [25mm scale])) - I had 8 man bow units (Avg. Bow. Swordsmen) fulfilling this role on both sides of the table.
My Roman opponent tried to redeploy with his Cav etc., but as I moved first (double move) and could shoot up his LH skirmishers there was nothing stopping me closing the range before he was able to complete this. The limiting factor was that he could only move two moves each turn (less the deducton for wheeling) and it just did not give him enough time to get away, yet alone redeploy as he wished?? I ended up getting him in the flank actuallty!
Maybe a 3rd move should be considered if troops are say 12 MU's away from enemy, or something similar.
Appreciate your comments...
Cheers.
I am based in the FoG hotbed of Manchester where I am fortunate in so far having played at least 8 different people at the club alone!!Bugle999 wrote:Hammy,
Where abouts in the country do you play your games - anywhere near S. London per chance...?
Our armies were not wide enough to fully fill the table. From memory I had a Selecucid army with two BG's of 12 pike, 1 BG of 2 elephants, 1 BG of 4 Agema, 1 BG of 4 line cavalry, 1 BG of 4 Thorakitai, 1 of 6 Thracians, 1 of 8 MF archers, 2 of 6 LF archers and 1 of 2 Slingers.You mention the flanks - we thought there was nothing preventing setup right to the edge of the board (i.e. unlike DBM where you are forced into having a 4 Element wide 'open' flank at game start [25mm scale])) - I had 8 man bow units (Avg. Bow. Swordsmen) fulfilling this role on both sides of the table.
Granted there weren't wide open flanks and most of the table was fought over but my serious combat frontage was really only 4 bases of pike, 4 of heavy cavalry, 5 bases of decent MF, and 2 bases of elephants. that is 15 bases hard fighting frontage or 90cm which is only half the table. The rst of my line was light troops and archers, hardly power troops. I didn't have much if any of a reserve and when my MF archers were ridden down by cavalry things cam unravelled rather quickly.
That sounds rather odd. If I had a BG of drilled cavalry and didn't want them to fight MF archers (an interesting decision actualy as if the cavalry can get in they should butcher the bow) assuming I was outside 6 mu and had a general I would make a CMT to turn 90 away from the threat and move (one move) then move again. I would now be 10 mu sideways from the archers and would be able to move another 10 mu the next turn.My Roman opponent tried to redeploy with his Cav etc., but as I moved first (double move) and could shoot up his LH skirmishers there was nothing stopping me closing the range before he was able to complete this. The limiting factor was that he could only move two moves each turn (less the deducton for wheeling) and it just did not give him enough time to get away, yet alone redeploy as he wished?? I ended up getting him in the flank actuallty!
Maybe a 3rd move should be considered if troops are say 12 MU's away from enemy, or something similar.
Appreciate your comments...
Cheers.
Your description seems very odd to me, I feel I must be missing something.
Hammy
I haven't found the full list for the Seleucids but I am sure about the composition. I think it was an 800 point army. Yes it pretty much filled the width of the table but there were significant gaps and I has no reserve.markm wrote:Hammy,
you surprise me.
As you know we played our first few games at 25mm, and at 650pts we had no open flanks, hence shifting to 15mm at 800 for a better game.
Perhaps it is that I am used to 500AP DBM doubles, the table certainly felt no more corwded to me than a doubles DBM game.
Hammy
-
Bugle999
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:16 am
- Location: London (S.E.) UK
Hammy and FOG team,
We have done some further work on what appears to be a potential 'hurdle' for manouvre in 25mm scale.
Below is a 650pt Army showing the frontage etc. that we think might help highlight our concerns:
.........Type.....................Points...........Frontage mm
1 Inspired Commander......50.................n/a
2 Troop Commanders........70.................n/a
2 Elephants.......................50.................120 (single ranked)
2 Elephants.......................50.................120 (single ranked)
4 Heavy Chariots...............80.................240 (single ranked)
6 Cavalry..........................36.................180 (double ranked)
6 Light Foot.......................30..................180 (double ranked)
8 Bowmen.........................48.................240 (double ranked)
8 Bowmen.........................48.................240 (double ranked)
8 Bowmen.........................48.................240 (double ranked)
8 Bowmen.........................48.................240 (double ranked)
8 Javelinmen.....................48.................240 (double ranked)
Fortified Camp...................24.................n/a
..........Totals....................650.................2040
As you can see the maximum frontage of this Army is 2040mm. A 6' x 4' table is only 1830 wide - so even with NO terrain the width is easily covered (there is likely to be at least some 'useful terrain' to help reduce the required width even further). It should be noted that 'Average' troops were selected in this Army for ALL foot where the option exists to select 'Poor' troops that would also increase the potentail frontage. Finally, Classical Indian is by no means one of the 'widest' armies available as it has some expensive troop types within its rank, large Warband type Armies would probably be even wider!
We initially looked at the 650pts recommended for 25mm thinking this might be the problem. We concluded there might be some possibility to reduce the recommended points to 600pts, but this then adversely effects personal choice as the 'complulsory percentage' of troops required becomes even higher than it currently is (subject of another post).
What we did think would solve the problem and at least give a chance for effective manouvre/redeployment for a 'drilled army' to take place was the introduction of a 'flank area' that could not be set up within at game start (as in other ancient rule sets) [Except Ambushers]. This has the effect of making an undrilled 'first-moving' Army think firstly about expanding/moving into these 'flank areas' to protect their flanks as they advance OR rush forward to prevent movement/redeployment of their adversaries and take the risk of exposing these flanks. In either case, it benefits the drilled troops who can react and take advantage of the 'rush forward' OR are left the required space (and time) to redeploy whilst the undrilled Army sorts out protecting its flanks. We also thought a 3rd move option for certain troop types outside of 12 MU's might be a good option as well?
We would recommend an area of '4 bases width' on either flank - so 240mm (25mm scale) and 160mm (15mm scale). There are a number of other advantages we see from this introduction, but rather than go into further detail we thought it best to initially 'float' the idea to the FOG team for their reaction.
If this is not seen as a possible solution what else can be done to ensure that the 25mm Scale does benefit over existing rule sets by providing a realistic manouvre option.
Many thanks.
We have done some further work on what appears to be a potential 'hurdle' for manouvre in 25mm scale.
Below is a 650pt Army showing the frontage etc. that we think might help highlight our concerns:
.........Type.....................Points...........Frontage mm
1 Inspired Commander......50.................n/a
2 Troop Commanders........70.................n/a
2 Elephants.......................50.................120 (single ranked)
2 Elephants.......................50.................120 (single ranked)
4 Heavy Chariots...............80.................240 (single ranked)
6 Cavalry..........................36.................180 (double ranked)
6 Light Foot.......................30..................180 (double ranked)
8 Bowmen.........................48.................240 (double ranked)
8 Bowmen.........................48.................240 (double ranked)
8 Bowmen.........................48.................240 (double ranked)
8 Bowmen.........................48.................240 (double ranked)
8 Javelinmen.....................48.................240 (double ranked)
Fortified Camp...................24.................n/a
..........Totals....................650.................2040
As you can see the maximum frontage of this Army is 2040mm. A 6' x 4' table is only 1830 wide - so even with NO terrain the width is easily covered (there is likely to be at least some 'useful terrain' to help reduce the required width even further). It should be noted that 'Average' troops were selected in this Army for ALL foot where the option exists to select 'Poor' troops that would also increase the potentail frontage. Finally, Classical Indian is by no means one of the 'widest' armies available as it has some expensive troop types within its rank, large Warband type Armies would probably be even wider!
We initially looked at the 650pts recommended for 25mm thinking this might be the problem. We concluded there might be some possibility to reduce the recommended points to 600pts, but this then adversely effects personal choice as the 'complulsory percentage' of troops required becomes even higher than it currently is (subject of another post).
What we did think would solve the problem and at least give a chance for effective manouvre/redeployment for a 'drilled army' to take place was the introduction of a 'flank area' that could not be set up within at game start (as in other ancient rule sets) [Except Ambushers]. This has the effect of making an undrilled 'first-moving' Army think firstly about expanding/moving into these 'flank areas' to protect their flanks as they advance OR rush forward to prevent movement/redeployment of their adversaries and take the risk of exposing these flanks. In either case, it benefits the drilled troops who can react and take advantage of the 'rush forward' OR are left the required space (and time) to redeploy whilst the undrilled Army sorts out protecting its flanks. We also thought a 3rd move option for certain troop types outside of 12 MU's might be a good option as well?
We would recommend an area of '4 bases width' on either flank - so 240mm (25mm scale) and 160mm (15mm scale). There are a number of other advantages we see from this introduction, but rather than go into further detail we thought it best to initially 'float' the idea to the FOG team for their reaction.
If this is not seen as a possible solution what else can be done to ensure that the 25mm Scale does benefit over existing rule sets by providing a realistic manouvre option.
Many thanks.
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28288
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
DBM had this feature, but it does not really work. Players just expand into the gap on their first turn.Bugle999 wrote:We would recommend an area of '4 bases width' on either flank - so 240mm (25mm scale) and 160mm (15mm scale). There are a number of other advantages we see from this introduction, but rather than go into further detail we thought it best to initially 'float' the idea to the FOG team for their reaction.
Instead, in FoG we have made the area within 6 MUs from the table edge a scary place to be for non-skimishers by giving a -1 modifer on all their cohesion tests when in this zone..
Despite what you say, an Indian army is a wider than average army. If it deploys in a single line of BGs it risks being smashed through at one end. I cannot imagine a Roman army outflanking anyone. Surely the Roman plan against a "wall to wall" army should be to smash through at one end and roll the enemy up? (like Lucullus at the Battle of Tigranocerta). Cavalry are never going to be of much use against an Indian army.
Nevertheless, we do recognise that there is an issue. The problem (if there is one) really lies in the size of table available. On 6'x4' tables 25mm is always going to be a more "straight up and down" game than 15mm unless armies of 2/3 the size are used (i.e 533 points). This is less true in FoG than in DBM (because 25mm troops don't move and shoot further than 15mm troops as well as being wider) but cannot be completely overcome.
Unfortunately, tournaments seem to be constrained to 6' x 4' tables for logistical reasons. However, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot play club games on a larger table to allow more room for manoeuvre.
Of course, a lot of historical battles were in fact fought on battlefields where flanks were fairly secure. For such battles a 6'x4' table is probably more realistic than a larger one. Even where one side had a cavalry advantage, such as at Cannae, this was usually employed in beating up the weaker enemy cavalry frontally rather than riding round the flanks. Only after the enemy cavalry had been defeated was the enemy foot outflanked.
-
Bugle999
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:16 am
- Location: London (S.E.) UK
I take on board your comments...
However, our whole emphasis was that it would do exactly as you say and take the undrilled Army at least one turn to expand into the flank i.e. they are delayed from rushing forward and restricting the room available for manoeuvre by the drilled Army for at least one turn. In FOG with the added restriction for 'simple' moves on any second move this might easily be extended to 2 turns - this is a significant amount of time/delay when a whole battle may only be 8-12 turns etc!
I think the 'flank zones' did work well in DBM as it gave a more manoeurable Army a focus as to where to launch their attack (in the knowledge that their opponent might be focussed on expansion and not able to do anything much else).
I have no issue with the 'scary place' -1 modifier (quite like it) - however this applies equally to both sides so the drilled BG obtains no advantage.
I know it is not your fault that 6x4 is the table size of choice for tournaments, as it is at most clubs plus few homes can fit in an 8x5. If you however recognise the issue how are you planning to rectify it or reduce its effect...I am certain you have the skills/experience in the team to offer a solution? Unfortunately, the result of NOT addressing the issue will be that the 25mm is an inferior game with less manooeuvre options (as in prevous rule sets). This suggestion surely merits more serious consideration as a potential solution - even if one of a few 'Suggestions' for 25mm Scale in an Appendix at the back...?
I know the majority of the team are mainly 15mm players but can you please take a close look at this...there are alot of 25mm players out there already and we want to attract them away from some less realistic and 'expensive' alternatives?
By the way, many thanks again for the speed of response - very impressive.
However, our whole emphasis was that it would do exactly as you say and take the undrilled Army at least one turn to expand into the flank i.e. they are delayed from rushing forward and restricting the room available for manoeuvre by the drilled Army for at least one turn. In FOG with the added restriction for 'simple' moves on any second move this might easily be extended to 2 turns - this is a significant amount of time/delay when a whole battle may only be 8-12 turns etc!
I think the 'flank zones' did work well in DBM as it gave a more manoeurable Army a focus as to where to launch their attack (in the knowledge that their opponent might be focussed on expansion and not able to do anything much else).
I have no issue with the 'scary place' -1 modifier (quite like it) - however this applies equally to both sides so the drilled BG obtains no advantage.
I know it is not your fault that 6x4 is the table size of choice for tournaments, as it is at most clubs plus few homes can fit in an 8x5. If you however recognise the issue how are you planning to rectify it or reduce its effect...I am certain you have the skills/experience in the team to offer a solution? Unfortunately, the result of NOT addressing the issue will be that the 25mm is an inferior game with less manooeuvre options (as in prevous rule sets). This suggestion surely merits more serious consideration as a potential solution - even if one of a few 'Suggestions' for 25mm Scale in an Appendix at the back...?
I know the majority of the team are mainly 15mm players but can you please take a close look at this...there are alot of 25mm players out there already and we want to attract them away from some less realistic and 'expensive' alternatives?
By the way, many thanks again for the speed of response - very impressive.
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28288
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Well we certainly welcome suggestions. One of our main aims has been to make the 6'x4' 25mm game more similar to the 15mm game than has been the case with other sets of rules.
I speak as someone who (out of sheer perversity) has taken Hsiung Nu and Skythian armies to 25mm DBM competitions. (Placed just over half way up the chart).
I speak as someone who (out of sheer perversity) has taken Hsiung Nu and Skythian armies to 25mm DBM competitions. (Placed just over half way up the chart).
-
Bugle999
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:16 am
- Location: London (S.E.) UK
Just to clarify...are you taking forward the ideas we have posted in this thread for further consideration/implementation (e.g. empty flank sectors at deployment and 3 Move possibility if at 12M's or further) or have they been dismissed and you are awaiting other suggestions...? Hopefully the former.
Many thanks in advance.
Many thanks in advance.
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28288
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
We are awaiting other suggestions, though nothing is as yet ruled out.Bugle999 wrote:Just to clarify...are you taking forward the ideas we have posted in this thread for further consideration/implementation (e.g. empty flank sectors at deployment and 3 Move possibility if at 12M's or further) or have they been dismissed and you are awaiting other suggestions...? Hopefully the former.
Many thanks in advance.
My sense with 25mm is that it has a game with reserves more than flanks. A bit in the same way that a 1000pts double game feels different to an 800pts singles game. Certainly 25mm has a different feel but that was the idea - 2 games for the price of one and all that.
I have always wanted a 25mm Early Imperial Roman army so now is my chance to get painting.
Si
I have always wanted a 25mm Early Imperial Roman army so now is my chance to get painting.
Si
-
Bugle999
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:16 am
- Location: London (S.E.) UK
As suggested in the original post, maybe a small Appendix for 'optional/recommended' rules in 25mm Scale would give the best of both worlds. In relation to Si's post thereby giving 3 potential different game feels - or '3 for the price of 1'...? I would have thought this covers all eventualities. Fingers crossed from someone itching for some decent manoeuvre in 25mm!! Thanks again.
I just joined the beta team so sorry if this is old news...
Sounds like a lot of the issues has to do with the fact that 15mm & 25mm figures all move/shoot the same distance but have different base sizes. What is the rationale of keeping move/shoot distance the same in the two different scales? (My favorite solution is that offered by Arty Conliff's rules where the regular measurement is used for 25mm, and for 15mm one just use a "2/3 scale reduced" ruler...
Milton
Sounds like a lot of the issues has to do with the fact that 15mm & 25mm figures all move/shoot the same distance but have different base sizes. What is the rationale of keeping move/shoot distance the same in the two different scales? (My favorite solution is that offered by Arty Conliff's rules where the regular measurement is used for 25mm, and for 15mm one just use a "2/3 scale reduced" ruler...
Milton
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28288
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
msoong wrote:I just joined the beta team so sorry if this is old news...
Sounds like a lot of the issues has to do with the fact that 15mm & 25mm figures all move/shoot the same distance but have different base sizes. What is the rationale of keeping move/shoot distance the same in the two different scales? (My favorite solution is that offered by Arty Conliff's rules where the regular measurement is used for 25mm, and for 15mm one just use a "2/3 scale reduced" ruler...
Milton
I am afraid that giving 25mm troops longer move/shoot distances (than 15mm) actually makes the problem worse - it favours "forward crunch" armies even more.
Giving them the same move distances was a design innovation specifically designed to make 25mm games more feasible on 6x4 tables. We are rather proud of this bit of lateral thinking!
If you think about it, there is no logical reason why the two scales need to have difference move/shoot distances. Base depths are not to scale anyway. If you assume that 25mm bases contain 50% more men than 15mm bases, everything (apart from base depths) is to the same scale.
-
Bugle999
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:16 am
- Location: London (S.E.) UK
Milton, thanks very much for the suggstion. However, I think the issue is not the move/shooting distances, as Richard says, making them the same as 15mm is a clever FOG idea. The main problem is the additional 'width coverage' that a 25mm Army gives you with it's bigger base sizes (even with the reduced Army size of 650pts), this is especially so at game start when the entire width of the table can be covered. This has the effect of reducing the potential for flanks, manoeuvre and redeployment. Hopefully, one of the existing suggestions or some other 'spark' of genuis will be adopted that offers a solution prior to the final release of the rules. Thanks again for your suggestion though.
Thanks for the reply.
Even though move/shoot distance isn't called out as the issue at hand, I think the base size to distance ratio is a metric that will subtly affect game play besides just the "25mm armies can cover the board problem".
Just a few I can think of right now...
1. Say there are 4 stands lined up side by side in a BL, and there's a reserve unit behind them somewhere to the right who wishes to travel parallel to the BL front line (i.e moving right to left in a lateral movement behind the main lines). If distance:stand size ratio is different as stated in the rules, a 15mm game will have the reserve "clearing" the main BL (and then be ready to do a right face and then charge out) much sooner than a 25mm game.
2. Wheeling: A BL in 15mm wheeling a distance of 4 MU will have traveled much further in terms of angular movement than a comparable BL in 25mm. (meaning that a 15mm MU wheels faster in real terms)...
All this (there's probably more if I put my mind to it) will make some manuever possible in one scale and not possible in the other. Not sure if that's a difference between scales that the designer intended...
Milton
Even though move/shoot distance isn't called out as the issue at hand, I think the base size to distance ratio is a metric that will subtly affect game play besides just the "25mm armies can cover the board problem".
Just a few I can think of right now...
1. Say there are 4 stands lined up side by side in a BL, and there's a reserve unit behind them somewhere to the right who wishes to travel parallel to the BL front line (i.e moving right to left in a lateral movement behind the main lines). If distance:stand size ratio is different as stated in the rules, a 15mm game will have the reserve "clearing" the main BL (and then be ready to do a right face and then charge out) much sooner than a 25mm game.
2. Wheeling: A BL in 15mm wheeling a distance of 4 MU will have traveled much further in terms of angular movement than a comparable BL in 25mm. (meaning that a 15mm MU wheels faster in real terms)...
All this (there's probably more if I put my mind to it) will make some manuever possible in one scale and not possible in the other. Not sure if that's a difference between scales that the designer intended...
Milton
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28288
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
What you say is true but I think it is a different issue and not the one that is causing the perceived problem. The issue (if I understand it correctly) is not that 25mm troops can't manoeuvre as well as in 15mm, but that they have less room to manoeuvre.msoong wrote:1. Say there are 4 stands lined up side by side in a BL, and there's a reserve unit behind them somewhere to the right who wishes to travel parallel to the BL front line (i.e moving right to left in a lateral movement behind the main lines). If distance:stand size ratio is different as stated in the rules, a 15mm game will have the reserve "clearing" the main BL (and then be ready to do a right face and then charge out) much sooner than a 25mm game.
2. Wheeling: A BL in 15mm wheeling a distance of 4 MU will have traveled much further in terms of angular movement than a comparable BL in 25mm. (meaning that a 15mm MU wheels faster in real terms)...
All this (there's probably more if I put my mind to it) will make some manuever possible in one scale and not possible in the other. Not sure if that's a difference between scales that the designer intended...
Allowing them to move further exacerbates the latter problem by allowing the enemy to close the gap between the armies faster.
-
Bugle999
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:16 am
- Location: London (S.E.) UK
Richard has hit the nail on the head - it is that 25mm has less room to manoeuvre than in 15mm. This therefore adversely effects 'drilled' and/or 'mounted' troops who, 1. do not have as much space to out manoeuvre their opponent and, 2. with the potential for cheap undrilled troops to fill the width of the table and rush straight forward, the time/room to redeploy (again exasabated by the space taken up by their own troops). The two current suggestions on the table (empty flank sectors at deployment and 3rd move at 12MU's) do go some way to helping resolve the issues (if not entirely). Interested to hear any other possible solutions.