Slitherine

Hi

Just some questions about how to use a BG with 8 HF and 4 LF with bow.

1) If we have 2 ranks of HF and a third rank of LF, do the LF can shoot ?

2) Is it possible to make a formation with 1 rank of HF, 1 rank of LF and then 1 rank of HF ? In this case is it possible to the LF to shoot ?

3) If we make a formation with a block of 8 HF in two ranks and group on one side the 4 LF also in two rank, is it possible to the LF to shoot ?

4) If we put the LF on the first rank (to permit shooting) and the BG is charged by an ennemy, is it possible to evade the LF behind the HF before impact ?

5) How is it possible during manoeuvre phase to re-arange the disposition of a mixed battle group, for example put the LF in front or in rear of the HF ?

Apologize if my query seems a little bit odd ...

Thanks

Hervé

hcaille wrote:1) If we have 2 ranks of HF and a third rank of LF, do the LF can shoot ?

No, only give supporting fire in impact phase vs mounted.

2) Is it possible to make a formation with 1 rank of HF, 1 rank of LF and then 1 rank of HF ? In this case is it possible to the LF to shoot ?

Yes and yes - but hardly worthwhile at 1 dice per 2 bases.

3) If we make a formation with a block of 8 HF in two ranks and group on one side the 4 LF also in two rank, is it possible to the LF to shoot ?

Yes

4) If we put the LF on the first rank (to permit shooting) and the BG is charged by an ennemy, is it possible to evade the LF behind the HF before impact ?

No

5) How is it possible during manoeuvre phase to re-arange the disposition of a mixed battle group, for example put the LF in front or in rear of the HF ?

Interesting question. We don't envisage this being done because it is really rather pointless. I won't comment on whether the rules actually allow it to be done other than by contractions and expansions, because opinions may differ.

This query is often asked, but really such manouvres are of little practical value in the game. We would suggest that players' mental energies would be better spent on macro-tactics.

In our last game i have a group of infantry like this : 8 HF on two ranks and 4 LF in the third rank. My opponent throw a BG of 4 Cv with bow and shoot at me. I wish it is possible to re-arange my BG in order to have 4 HF, 4 LF, 4 HF so i can shoot at him and if he charge me the HF in front rank can get the impact. In shooting i have two dice at 4+ and if i manage to have 2 hits, the Cv must have to make a CT at -1 so it can be interrested.

I wonder if it's possible during the melee phase to exchange the second and third rank to have maximum dice during combat.

I think the LH shooting behind the HF is not useless because if you have the opportunitie to group 1D or 2D with another shooting BG you can force a CT. Against a big infantry BG i'm agree with you that it is not interrested.

Hervé

hcaille wrote:I wonder if it's possible during the melee phase to exchange the second and third rank to have maximum dice during combat.

As far as I can see there is no rule that permits such an exchange. (But I may be missing something)

We have assumed, we hope correctly, that the only movement in melee is to expand or fill gaps caused by casualties. Bases contributing to the combat cannot be used for expanding if I remember correctly. Therefore, I would assume the second rank LF must remain where they are and contribute their one dice per two to the fight.

rogerg wrote:We have assumed, we hope correctly, that the only movement in melee is to expand or fill gaps caused by casualties. Bases contributing to the combat cannot be used for expanding if I remember correctly. Therefore, I would assume the second rank LF must remain where they are and contribute their one dice per two to the fight.

Sounds right to me Roger.

Hi

Following my though about HF/LF formation, is it possible during the manoeuvre phase to do this mouvement :

A represent HF
B represent LF

Initial formation :

.....AAAAAA
.....ABBBBA

During manoeuvre phase, the BG contract in this formation

.....AAAA
.....AAAA
.....BBBB

The idea is to allow LF to shoot and if there is a threat the ranks are contracted.

Thanks

Hervé

hcaille wrote:Hi

Following my though about HF/LF formation, is it possible during the manoeuvre phase to do this mouvement :

A represent HF
B represent LF

Initial formation :

.....AAAAAA
.....ABBBBA

During manoeuvre phase, the BG contract in this formation

.....AAAA
.....AAAA
.....BBBB

The idea is to allow LF to shoot and if there is a threat the ranks are contracted.

Yes this is legal, but I think you are trying to over micromanage the game. You can, of course, do this, but then you will have a gap in your line and will be overlapped. This will almost certainly more than counterbalance the miniscule advantage you would get from 2 LF dice shooting (on a 6 base frontage!). Moreover, your battle group will be exposing a lot more frontage to the enemy, and if the enemy have missiles is far more likely to suffer cohesion loss itself than to inflict any.

I would humbly suggest that your mental energies would be more effectively spent on creating a coherent overall plan (and a continuous battle line) rather than trying to scrape a tiny bit more mileage out of your mixed formations. I really don't think that this sort of "twiddling" is the right way to achieve success in FoG.

Dear Scott,

I do agree with you, we must look at the large picture . But on the other side, Hervé is also right to try to maximise his BG . When the army list compels you to take a BG of mixed LF and HF, you may at least expect some efficiency of it .

If the LF is next to worthless because either it cannot shoot because it is in the third rank, or at second rank gives next to no support in melee, one may wonder why such a combination did exist

LF part of a BG should be more usefull than to serve as a "third rank" and make the BG bigger .

I really wonder if there should not be a mechanism that would enable the LF to interact more with the HF ( in same BG ),perhaps have the LF in front retreat as a third line when charged or other ideas , but I agree it becomes micromanagment .

bahdahbum wrote:If the LF is next to worthless because either it cannot shoot because it is in the third rank, or at second rank gives next to no support in melee, one may wonder why such a combination did exist

In our opinion to blunt an enemy charge - which they do by extra dice in the impact phase.

A 3rd rank also very significantly reduces the chance of the enemy inflicting cohesion drops from shooting as the formation advances. This is why I am saying that Hervé will not, in fact, be getting the best out of his BG by adopting the formation he suggested.

I am only trying to be helpful. Of course, he is welcome to try it.

In terms of effectiveness in historical terms the LF are representing a relatively small number of men. Things like the single rank of foot archers behind 8 ranks of legionarii in Arrian's formation against the Alans for example. So we should not be expecting significant effect IMO.

Whether they are worth the points on table is a different question.

I am currently undecided. Certainly they can be a cheap way to increase the numbers in your BG, especially if the majority af the BG are expensive troops like Superior legionarii. However, if backing up Armoured troops the effect against shooting is probably minimal as the BG is unlikely to suffer 1HP2B unless really ganged up on and, as has been mentioned in other topics, you tend to suffer 1HP3B in close combat anyway so their usefulness there is moot. On the other hand they allow you to absorb casulaties in base losses so can be of a benefit in prolonged melee and increase the break point on the BG.

When I wrote

LF part of a BG should be more usefull than to serve as a "third rank" and make the BG bigger . I meant what Scott said, blunt the ennemy charge . Sorry english is not my mother language

Other than that, I am not so sure about their usefullness . But it is already something if they "beaf up" ranks ( is it correct beaf up )

Jacques, IIRC Richard (not Scott ) can at least read French so for complex questions it may be worth posting in French and English.

"Beef up" is certainly correct

How is Nathan liking FoG BTW?

nikgaukroger wrote:Jacques, IIRC Richard (not Scott ) can at least read French so for complex questions it may be worth posting in French and English.

Indeed I can. So can Simon. Sadly my French is largely only "read only". I find it impossible to construct complex answers in French. But by all means post in French (as well as English for the benefit of non-Francophones) and I will reply in English.

Point taken

Nathan is adapting nicely, just has to learn to watch his flanks

My only problem with FOG for now is the lack of opponent for now on Brussels, but I hope there will be more players after february . I will introduce FOG at the TADEFIG club and convinced them to organise a tournament in february 2009 ( will keep you informed ) .

As some army lists are not available now I am "stuck" with 3 armies ( roman, seleucid and carthaginians ) . Our other three armies are waiting ( Khazars, Nicephorians and ch'in ) . I could not borrow some med army to make tests . Will have to lay with "make do" but for demo I keep my seleucid and romans it is better for public eye ( demo at the club to convince people to become foggers ) meet the ..

rbodleyscott wrote: Yes this is legal, but I think you are trying to over micromanage the game. You can, of course, do this, but then you will have a gap in your line and will be overlapped. This will almost certainly more than counterbalance the miniscule advantage you would get from 2 LF dice shooting (on a 6 base frontage!). Moreover, your battle group will be exposing a lot more frontage to the enemy, and if the enemy have missiles is far more likely to suffer cohesion loss itself than to inflict any.

I would humbly suggest that your mental energies would be more effectively spent on creating a coherent overall plan (and a continuous battle line) rather than trying to scrape a tiny bit more mileage out of your mixed formations. I really don't think that this sort of "twiddling" is the right way to achieve success in FoG.

Dear Richard

My reflexion come from a game when it should be useful to have some extra dice to shoot and i wonder why i cannot shoot with my LF. My opponnent have a BG of 4Cv facing my battle group of 4 Cv . The two are shooting to each other. My roman legionnaries (with LF support) are comming with angle partially on the flank of the Cv and there is no threat for them. If i can shoot 1 o 2 dice more i can force a CT or inflict a casualtie to the ennemy Cv.

I'm agree with you that is micromanagement but every little advantage you can have is important. Having 1 or 2 dice more is the same as having an overlap or having a + POA or the advantage of a hill ...

My intention is just to clarify how we can use LF in mixed BG as it is not very clear in the rules. Maybe you can add this to the FAQ. The LF are not really cheap (5 pts over 7 pts for the legionnaries) and it seems that they are not very usefull so i'm searching an other way to use it, and i think i'm not the only one

For example, i can take a BG of 8 MF Superior, Protected, Light spear, Swordsmen at 8x9 = 72 pts
or i can take a BG of 6 MF + 3 LF Superior, Unprotected, Bow at 6x9 + 3x6 = 72 pts

So i want to know what is the best for my army, that's all !

Hervé

hcaille wrote:My intention is just to clarify how we can use LF in mixed BG as it is not very clear in the rules. Maybe you can add this to the FAQ.

Fair enough

The LF are not really cheap (5 pts over 7 pts for the legionnaries) and it seems that they are not very usefull so i'm searching an other way to use it, and i think i'm not the only one

We don't intend them to distance shoot - if we did, we would have allowed them shoot from a 3rd rank. As Nik has said, they often only represent one rank of archers behind 8 ranks of close fighters.

We deem that they have sufficient effect by the extra dice they provide in the impact phase. Note that in your example of 6 MF and 3 LF, if fully engaged, the LF will provide 2 extra dice in the impact phase. (Because LF vs other troops lose 1 dice per 2 in the impact phase, which amounts to rounding up). So your BG of 6 MF and 3 LF will be better at resisting mounted attack than your BG of 8 MF.

Of course, in many mixed BGs the difference between the cost of the close fighters and the LF is greater, which makes them more cost effective. This sort of "discrepancy" is inevitable if we want to keep the points system reasonably simple.

Now it is also more clear for me . We should not forget that at some time, infantry was more organised to resist CV-CT charges as there was a lack of good melee infantry .

By the way, the Longbow is quite strongh . I know that the older bows were not so effective ( especially the selfbow ) . But was not the composite bow of some countries as good as a longbow ? I am not a specialist in archery and I suppose you have studied the subject before deciding how to implement t n the rules

bahdahbum wrote:By the way, the Longbow is quite strongh . I know that the older bows were not so effective ( especially the selfbow ) . But was not the composite bow of some countries as good as a longbow ? I am not a specialist in archery and I suppose you have studied the subject before deciding how to implement t n the rules

We have tried to draw a balance between the "longbows were super-weapons" viewpoint and the "composite bows were just as good as longbows" viewpoint. We hope we have drawn a reasonable conclusion by allowing longbows to be better vs well armoured foes. This may be as much to do with the type of arrow used as the power of the bow.