Game report: Sicilian versus Communal Italian, c 1250 AD

[lawrenceg]

We made up the army lists by translating from DBM.

Sicilians (me)

OOM Type number
1 4 x Communal/Mercenary knights (RKnO) : Average knights drilled heavy armour lance sword
2 6 x Saracen archers (PsO) Average LF drilled unprotected bow
3 6 x Saracen horse archers (LHF) Average LH drilled unprotected bow
4 6 x Saracen Javelinmen (Reg AxS) Superior MF drilled protected light spear sword:
5 6 x Saracen archers (PsO) Average LF drilled unprotected bow
6 4 x Mercenary crossbowmen (RBwO) Average MF drilled protected crossbow
7 6 x Communal Spearmen(RSpI) Average HF protected drilled defensive spear
8 4 x German knights (RKnI wedges): Average knights drilled heavy armour lance sword
9 6 x Saracen archers (Bw I ) Poor MF undrilled unprotected bow
10 3 x Communal crossbowmen (half) (RBwX) Average HF protected drilled defensive spear
10 +3 x rest (RBwO) Average MF protected drilled crossbow
11 6 x Feudal knights (Irr KnO): Superior knight undrilled Heavy armour lance sword
12 6 x Saracen archers (PsO) Poor LF drilled unprotected bow
13 4 x Berber cavalry (LHO) Average LH undrilled unprotected javelin light spear
IC, 2 x TC

Lombard League (Lance Flint) (from memory)

8 x Communal Spearmen(RSpI) Average HF protected drilled defensive spear
8 x Communal Spearmen(RSpI) Average HF protected drilled defensive spear
6 xCommunal crossbowmen Average MF protected drilled crossbow
6 xCommunal crossbowmen Average MF protected drilled crossbow
8 x Average LF unprot bow
4 x Superior Knight drilled lance bow
4 x Superior Knight drilled lance bow
4 x Superior Knight undrilled lance bow
4 x Average Knight drilled lance bow
4 x Average LH unprotected light spear
8 x Mob
8 x Mob
4 x TC


Lance’s LH were "Berrovieri mercenary light horse with sword, shield and some crossbows". He decided that there were not enough crossbows to justify a crossbow capability (perhaps half the bases with crossbow, half without?) and for some reason gave them light spear (but no javelin) instead of swordsmen capability, which I would have thought more logical. I wonder whether the shield would justify "Protected".

We gave all our HF/MF protected status, although the figures had a lot of mail, and crusader crossbowmen of the period are recorded as being virtually immune to Saracen arrows, so we wondered if an option to be armoured was warranted.



Terrain was a load of rough and difficult going down the two short table edges with the centre open. We had both decided to narrow the field as we felt we were strong on a narrow front.

I decided to attack his spearmen, which were all on one flank, by shooting them up with Saracen archers and then charging with knights once they were disrupted, plus the MF javelinmen coming round the flank out of the terrain. Unfortunately my knights got too close, then charged spontaneously before the spearmen were disrupted. The impact had no effect. I disrupted one of the spear BG in melee so couldn’t break off and got routed in the next bound. The spearmen pursued into contact with my poor MF bow in the JAP. In my bound I charged the javelinmen into the flank of the spearmen, who broke in the melee IIRC. However, the second BG of spearmen charged in with some knights and broke the bowmen and fragmented the javelinmen (double 1 for CT, rerolling double 1).

In the centre my superior knights charged his, but he had a general. He won the impact by a large margin and disrupted my knights, which broke soon after. His BG pursued , remaining in contact for three pursuits before autobreaking my BG. They were then surrounded by skirmishers and routed by shooting. My last knight BG was then charged by more superior knights with a general and were soon routed.

On my left I was seriously outshot, losing the mercenary crossbowmen by autobreak. Having the IC there saved me from any cohesion loss up until then. My communal troops fought off charging knights, but lost two bases to failed death rolls. However, a combined front and flank charge did the trick, losing me the game.

General comments:

Lance used his commanders a lot better than me. I still haven’t got the hang of it.
Being poor definitely hurt my poor BGs. They had to reroll quite a few sixes. This is very significant when you are shooting at hard targets that need a 5 or even a 6 to hit.
We had a lot of rules issues with conforming and with commanders movement/positioning. Some of these I’ve resolved this morning by careful searching and reading of the rules.

Rules issues.

I had an MF BG in column in difficult going. I moved the front of the column into the open and expanded, resulting in everyone being in the open. If the expansion had left some bases in the difficult, could I still have used the extra MU for column ? I thougt the answer was yes as it’s a GREEN advance (at column speed), then an expansion. But I've just (re)discovered that this has changed so now you have to do the expansion first (which is good).

I now had a BG in the open with an attached commander who was in difficult going. Would this cause the BG to move at difficult going speed?

I had a BG with 2 bases in contact with an enemy BG and 2 bases stepped forward to contact another enemy BG. When I conformed, should I have moved the two stepped forward bases back to line up with the rest (thus breaking contact)? Or should I have not conformed?

Lance had a BG in mutual partial front edge contact with one of my bases. His conform put him in overlap (i.e breaking front-edge-edge contact). Is this correct? This meant he could not expand to get an overlap for the one that was originally in front edge contact.

Non-conformed melee: Who is "as if in front edge contact" and who is in overlap? (grey is active player)




The majority of our melees were impossible to conform. We would both like to see conforming eliminated and non-conformed combat more tightly defined.

Suggestion (from Lance):

Make a foot and a mounted size base for each commander, so when he is attached to a BG or fighting in the front rank, or embedded (currently represented by a marker), he REPLACES a base of the BG. This avoids issues of him getting in the way or displacing bases.


Comment on the tip on page 38:

I think the quote should be "Quantity has a quality all of its own", not "Numbers…."

[lawrenceg]

Anyone got any opinions on these issues we weren't too certain about?

Lance’s LH were "Berrovieri mercenary light horse with sword, shield and some crossbows". He decided that there were not enough crossbows to justify a crossbow capability (perhaps half the bases with crossbow, half without?) and for some reason gave them light spear (but no javelin) instead of swordsmen capability, which I would have thought more logical. I wonder whether the shield would justify "Protected".

We gave all our HF/MF protected status, although the figures had a lot of mail, and crusader crossbowmen of the period are recorded as being virtually immune to Saracen arrows, so we wondered if an option to be armoured was warranted.

Rules issues.

I now had a BG in the open with an attached commander who was in difficult going. Would this cause the BG to move at difficult going speed?

I had a BG with 2 bases in contact with an enemy BG and 2 bases stepped forward to contact another enemy BG. When I conformed, should I have moved the two stepped forward bases back to line up with the rest (thus breaking contact)? Or should I have not conformed?

Lance had a BG in mutual partial front edge contact with one of my bases. His conform put him in overlap (i.e breaking front-edge-edge contact). Is this correct? This meant he could not expand to get an overlap for the one that was originally in front edge contact.

Non-conformed melee: Who is "as if in front edge contact" and who is in overlap? (grey is active player)




The majority of our melees were impossible to conform. We would both like to see conforming eliminated and non-conformed combat more tightly defined.

[shall]

General comments:

Lance used his commanders a lot better than me. I still haven’t got the hang of it.

Good news to me as we have tried to make the decisions on how to use commanders pretty important - it seems this is what you have found.

Being poor definitely hurt my poor BGs. They had to reroll quite a few sixes. This is very significant when you are shooting at hard targets that need a 5 or even a 6 to hit.

Indeed. Large blocks of cheap inferior Bowmen are not too hot at anything armoured...deliberately so.

We had a lot of rules issues with conforming and with commanders movement/positioning. Some of these I’ve resolved this morning by careful searching and reading of the rules.

Will try to cover as many as we can for you. See the other post on the non-conformist theory

Si

[shall]

Rules issues.

I now had a BG in the open with an attached commander who was in difficult going. Would this cause the BG to move at difficult going speed?

No. It does say that it is bases of the BG that affect its movement. Just trhe Commander is limited to LH sped for the terrain so it it werre Ps with a commander the commander may not be able to keep up at full speed. So you might reduce for that reason but it is a choice not compulsory to do so. Commanders and BGs are separate entities in the rules at present.

I had a BG with 2 bases in contact with an enemy BG and 2 bases stepped forward to contact another enemy BG. When I conformed, should I have moved the two stepped forward bases back to line up with the rest (thus breaking contact)? Or should I have not conformed?

Not comformed I suspect but i would need to see a diagram. You cannot break contact by any means other than braek offs and routs and pursuits

Lance had a BG in mutual partial front edge contact with one of my bases. His conform put him in overlap (i.e breaking front-edge-edge contact). Is this correct? This meant he could not expand to get an overlap for the one that was originally in front edge contact.

Not sure I follow this one - could you explain a little more. A conform takes the shortest rout to full frontla contact, so if you shuffled sideway away from contact you went the wrong way.

Non-conformed melee: Who is "as if in front edge contact" and who is in overlap? (grey is active player)

Having failed to copy the diag... I will do my best and I think we will need to issue interps on the support website to vaoid clogging up the document too much. The principle is to imagine how it looked if conformed BG by BG with nothing in the way. Then give precendent to bases that are already in majority contact on any particular target. So in your example the right hand 3 bases in white fight those opposite them in partial edge contact - so 6 dice vs 6. The angled BG at the end - if it conformed would have 2 base in full concat which fight, 1 which would get in the way of the base in front edge contact and would not replace it as the other has a higher % of the "target" base covered but would get and overlap ont he left. So 4 dice vs 2 for the opponet. 10 dice (6 +4) vs 8 dice overall. Hope that sets some sueful rpecedents...we do need to enhance the rules a little on this one so i will be posting this to the authors forum too.

The majority of our melees were impossible to conform. We would both like to see conforming eliminated and non-conformed combat more tightly defined.

Well done indeed - how did you manage that! I have only bothered perhaps once every 3 or 4 games to get such a position.

Happy to try to more tightly define non-conformed combat but having tried removing conforming we found it had lots of problems so would rather keep it as the exception to the rule (well at least for the rest of us ).

Seriously though..............has anyone else played lots of games where they found they could rarely conform? Our mindset from ourntest games and from the comps so far is that generally confroming is the norm and non-conforming an exception to be dealt with to allow combats to carry on fairly. There are important visual/non-comp reasons to conform that we are wary of stepping away from - even if technically the ruless allow it.

Si

[rogerg]

Looking at the diagram I would say that A fights 2 and 1 is an overlap, 3 does not fight. B4, C5 and D6 all fight with E as the overlap. I have not got the rules with me, but I suspect it is not possible to have conforming in either side's bound.

Our games have seen a lot of melees where conforming is not possible. I am not sure if the rules can be written to define every case. It might be better not to try. Judging from the DBM experience this might just lead to more rules but less clarity.

My experience of the last decade of competition play suggests that, where rules do not cover every eventuality, players sort out what is reasonable. As soon as a rule appears, it gets used, perhaps 'exploited' would be more accurate. Looking again at the diagram, the problem here would come from someone trying to justify '3' fighting as an overlap. The risk in adding more rules is that in crafting a definition of overlap in non-conformed melee, the wording might imply that '3' did fight. Without such a rule there is only the intuitive, '2 conforms to A, 1 would be the overlap and 4 would be adjacent to 2 so there is no where for 3 to go'.

[shall]

Indeed Roger

My sense is to add a couple of principles to follow perhaps and then leave it at that for the rules...we can always provide diags galore on the web of how the authors view different example cases.

Putting too much in the rules risks putting of the new player for the sake of satisfaying our own well trained legalistic view of how to wargame. We a are keen to have a system which works for all of us but that also attracts many new players to our great hobby. So we need to strike the right balance.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

Looking again at the diagram, the problem here would come from someone trying to justify '3' fighting as an overlap. The risk in adding more rules is that in crafting a definition of overlap in non-conformed melee, the wording might imply that '3' did fight. Without such a rule there is only the intuitive, '2 conforms to A, 1 would be the overlap and 4 would be adjacent to 2 so there is no where for 3 to go'.

The words in bold were intended to prevent 3 from fighting.

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ as if they had lined up.

One file on each side of the bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ can fight as an overlap. It is therefore possible for opposing battle groups both to have an overlap on the same side. Overlaps are not permitted against bases in the middle of any edge of a battle group.

However, it is less than clear that this wording is intended to apply in this case. It is perhaps redundant anyway, because clearly "if they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ as if they had lined up" then 3 would not be able to fight.

So the question is, do we remove the sentence in bold as redundant and unhelpful, or do we try to clarify the wording?

[rbodleyscott]

--

[lawrenceg]

Lance had a BG in mutual partial front edge contact with one of my bases. His conform put him in overlap (i.e breaking front-edge-edge contact). Is this correct? This meant he could not expand to get an overlap for the one that was originally in front edge contact.

Not sure I follow this one - could you explain a little more. A conform takes the shortest rout to full frontla contact, so if you shuffled sideway away from contact you went the wrong way.

THis was the situation just before the combat that I provided the diagram for. Column E was originally edge to edge with D. Conforming moves you into full frontal contact OR overlap. If ABCD had been able to conform, E would clearly have conformed to overlap, so I see no reason why it should be any different when ABCD can't conform. But it did look a bit strange that E broke contact. Also if E had remained in partial frontal contact with 6 we could arguably have had:
E vs 6, E rear ranks expanded, overlapping 6,
D - 5, C - 4, B overlaps 4
A - 2, 1 overlaps A

[rbodleyscott]

How about this:

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ as if they had conformed. If two battle groups would conform to the same enemy base then the one which has the shortest distance to conform fights against it. If the distance is equal their player chooses which fights.

Only the ends of a line of bases counting as 'in front edge contact' can be overlapped. One enemy file can fight as an overlap at each end. It is possible for opposing battle groups both to have an overlap on the same end.

[lawrenceg]

How about this:

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ as if they had conformed. If two battle groups would conform to the same enemy base then the one which has the shortest distance to conform fights against it. If the distance is equal their player chooses which fights.

Only the ends of a line of bases counting as 'in front edge contact' can be overlapped. One enemy file can fight as an overlap at each end. It is possible for opposing battle groups both to have an overlap on the same end.

Overlaps are not permitted against bases in the middle of any edge of a battle group.

The wording in bold would not prevent 3 from overlapping A as A is not in the middle of a battlegroup. (And I'm not convinced that 3 should be prevented from overlapping)

However, it did prevent a "free overlap" in another melee that we had, so you definitely need it, or something like it. Not sure if the new wording does it: If we had

Code: Select all

XXXXXX
AAA
AAAYYYYY
AAAAAAA
   AAAA

where X, Y are friends, A is enemy,

one could assert that the front AAA in contact with X was a separate line of bases as if in frontal contact and COULD be overlapped.

[lawrenceg]

The principle is to imagine how it looked if conformed BG by BG with nothing in the way. Then give precendent to bases that are already in majority contact on any particular target. So in your example the right hand 3 bases in white fight those opposite them in partial edge contact - so 6 dice vs 6. The angled BG at the end - if it conformed would have 2 base in full concat which fight, 1 which would get in the way of the base in front edge contact and would not replace it as the other has a higher % of the "target" base covered but would get and overlap ont he left. So 4 dice vs 2 for the opponet. 10 dice (6 +4) vs 8 dice overall. Hope that sets some sueful rpecedents...we do need to enhance the rules a little on this one so i will be posting this to the authors forum too.

This principle give us something to go on and would be worth including in the rules. Looks like the principles need to be:
1. Work out how you would conform to each enemy BG in the absence of all other enemy BG.
2. If there are multiple possible frontal contacts, choose the one that would require the least movement from the conforming base.
3. Frontal contact takes priority over overlap.
4. Only a base edge that is on the edge of a BG can be overlapped.



In the absence of 456, you get: A2 B3 C overlaps 3, 1 overlaps A

In the absence of 123, you get B4 C5 D6 E overlaps 6, A overlaps 4

B4 is less movement than B3, so B fights 4.

C5 takes priority over the C3 overlap.

3 does not qualify as an overlap in either case so does not overlap anything. Principle 4 would prevent it overlapping A in any case.

THat works.

However, if white is the active player:

In the absence of E: A3 B4 C5, D6, 2 overlaps A (is this right, or does 456 move sideways to allow 23 to contact AB?)
In the absence of ABC: E6, 5 overlaps E

so you end up with A3 B4 C5 D6, 2 overlaps A.

A's combats are different. This may not matter.

[shall]

Ricahrds new wording includes those principles I think. Can we aplly the testers torching fire to them a bit and see if we can tighten them up without adding too many words.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

So could we get away with defining a set of principles rather than be more specific?

Something along these lines:

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases as they would have had if they had conformed, using the following principles:
1. Work out how you would conform to each enemy battle group in the absence of all other enemy battle groups.
2. If there are multiple possible frontal contacts, choose the one that would require the least movement by the conforming base. (If equal, active player chooses).
3. Frontal contact takes priority over overlap.
4. Only a base edge that is on the edge of a BG can be overlapped.

Note 1: Does point 2 adequately cover the situation where the ways that 2 friendly battle group would conform are incompatible. i.e. Having chosen which one has priority, how exactly does the other one (notionally) conform?

Note 2: Does the above make the last overlap positions bullet (P.39 approx) redundant, because overlaps will occur as if the battle groups had conformed?

" In cases where it was not possible to conform the troops already in melee: Front corner to front corner and side edge to side edge contact with a friendly base counting as fighting as if in front edge contact with enemy. (See the Melee Phase section)."

---------------------------

The alternative would be to keep my basic wording, altered as follows (in italics):

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ as if they had conformed. If two battle groups would conform to the same enemy base then the one which has the shortest distance to conform fights against it. If the distance is equal their player chooses which fights.

Only the ends of a line of bases counting as 'in front edge contact' can be overlapped, whether or not it is stepped forward. One enemy file can fight as an overlap at each end. It is possible for opposing battle groups both to have an overlap on the same end.

Of course, depending on the way the coforming rules are interpreted, "It is possible for opposing battle groups both to have an overlap on the same end.", may not actually be true. It won't be if they are deemed to be counting "as if in front edge contact".

[rogerg]

Please stop digging, this hole is already too deep.

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ as if they had lined up.

The above is all you need. The principles are (and please don't write them into the rules):
1) Conforming ought to happen (because we have figures on bases)
2) When it is not possible to conform, it should not be possible to get an advantage from the position.

In club and 'home' play wargamers will sort it out. In competitions anyone 'trying it on' will be stopped by the umpire. What we do not need is the burden of a lot of rules to read that attempt to explain the obvious.

(This is a bit like human rights legislation. When we didn't have it we knew what was right and did it. Now we have a lot of well intentioned law, too many lawyers and a lot of criminals getting through loopholes that no-one ever intended in the first place.)

[petedalby]

Well said!

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

Please stop digging, this hole is already too deep.

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ as if they had lined up.

The above is all you need. The principles are (and please don't write them into the rules):
1) Conforming ought to happen (because we have figures on bases)
2) When it is not possible to conform, it should not be possible to get an advantage from the position.

In club and 'home' play wargamers will sort it out. In competitions anyone 'trying it on' will be stopped by the umpire. What we do not need is the burden of a lot of rules to read that attempt to explain the obvious.

(This is a bit like human rights legislation. When we didn't have it we knew what was right and did it. Now we have a lot of well intentioned law, too many lawyers and a lot of criminals getting through loopholes that no-one ever intended in the first place.)

Ok, well if the "less is more" approach is what the public want, how about:

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact' and 'overlap' as if they had lined up.

This presumably replacing the whole of:

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ as if they had lined up.

One file on each side of the bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ can fight as an overlap. It is therefore possible for opposing battle groups both to have an overlap on the same side. Overlaps are not permitted against bases in the middle of any edge of a battle group.

[rogerg]

That would work for me.

[jre]

On average we have a non-conforming melee each battle, discounting flank charges which are easier to handle usually. In a friendly environment I see the brief version being all that you need. In fact I am pretty sure that is what we use, only in a few cases pondering who should a certain base fight.

The problem will be those "unfriendly" games with people you just met. Frontal combat will not usually be the problem, overlaps will be.

Going back to Lawrence's example, it is clear (at least to me) that A should fight 2, B 4, C 5 and D 6. The problem is whether 3 overlaps A or not (I assume nobody would dispute that 1 does). So we need something along the line:

A base with a neighbouring base of the same BG in side contact can only be overlapped by ONE enemy file.

A base with neighbouring bases of the same BG in side contact on both sides cannot be overlapped.

It could be discussed if the same BG limitation should be dropped or not. It would give a different effect than the current writing with its "edge" wording.

José

[rogerg]

"A base with a neighbouring base of the same BG in side contact can only be overlapped by ONE enemy file."

But if this base is stepped forward in a file by more than a base depth this would be an exception. Already we are heading for a complex definition, and we are starting to dig again.

The games against people you have not met will usually be in competitions, so there will be an umpire. Given that non-conformed melees are quite common, I think we will be better able to judge on this situation after Roll Call. Hopefully there will be enough of us there playing FoG to get some good feedback.

The real test of the need for more rules will be the number of umpire rulings required. In the example we are discussing, no-one has suggested that base '3' should be able to fight. We are merely suggesting that 'some people' might suggest it does. If no-one actually does suggest it, there is no need to expand the rules. Even then, adding more rules always seems to generate more areas to dispute and also adds to the complexity.