Deployment?

[miffedofreading]

I think I now have a reasonable understanding of the movement, combat and morale functions in the game. Sufficient for my upcoming first game anyway...

Not immediately worried about the terrain rules, they look quite complex but for a first game I will just put a little terrain on an otherwise open board.

The one I don't fully understand is deployment. You break your army down into 4 quarters and give a number to each battlegroup. Then players take it in turns to deploy quarters.

So without any flank marches or ambushes (going to forget these for a couple of games) the 1st quarter may for example have battle groups 1,2,3 in it. Can they go anywhere on the board or do they have to go on the extreme left etc and then work your way right, or vice versa??

I don't really understand this bit at all.

I do get the everyone deployes 10MU from board edge. 15 if LF. And whoever wins the initiative phase gets to make the other guy deploy their first quarter of BG's first.

Andy

[pbrandon]

Take an example. A 13 BG army deplys 4-3-3-3, split into quarters, with the imbalance at the front end. A 14 BG army would be 4-4-3-3 and so on.

There is no restriction (except for the 10/15MU) on where each BG can be placed. They do not have to be grouped together. Even an ally can be split up (though you might pay a C+C price for this later). You can place one of the extreme left, the other on the extreme right. It is entirely up to you.

LF and LH can both deploy up to 15MU in.

Paul

[sagji]

The BGs can go anywhere in your deployment area. There is other restriction on placeing them - they don't have to go together.

[miffedofreading]

Thanks guys that is easy.

So I guess the only reason to put a battlegroup as number 1 or 2 or 12 is so that you can deploy the obvious units first. Skirmishers, main battleline?? And keep your strike cavalry for example to last to suprise the opponent....

Andy

[miffedofreading]

Thanks guys that is easy.

So I guess the only reason to put a battlegroup as number 1 or 2 or 12 is so that you can deploy the obvious units first. Skirmishers, main battleline?? And keep your strike cavalry for example to last to suprise the opponent....

Andy

[carlos]

Yeps. If you balance things really well you can deploy things together like:
#1 - all LH
#2 - all filler
#3 - all HF
#4 - all strike mounted

That way you are not giving away the position of your block of pike by deploying its first BG in the #2 slot for example.

[miffedofreading]

Sounds simple but effective

My favourite rules combination

[rbodleyscott]

Yeps. If you balance things really well you can deploy things together like:
#1 - all LH
#2 - all filler
#3 - all HF
#4 - all strike mounted

That way you are not giving away the position of your block of pike by deploying its first BG in the #2 slot for example.

This is how my orders of march became after my first few games. However, after a few more, there are some additional wrinkles to be added.

For example:

- If your strike cavalry are going to be in reserve in the middle, then why not deploy them early in the sequence? It isn't giving away anything much and allows you to deploy you front line melee troops later in the sequence.
- If you don't have many LH, deploy them last - that way you have a better chance of deploying them somewhere where they may delay a significant part of the enemy line while you press your attack elsewhere.
- Always deploy MF last if possible. They are the troops whose initial placement is most critical.

[carlos]

My Dominate Romans as they stand actually deploy, LH->Filler->Good mounted + Aux->Legions.

When you mention deploying MF last, does that stand for all MF or for MF that will actually have an active participation in the battle?

[hammy]

MF that can do something deplyed last is a good idea.

If there are two lumps of terrain it is nice to leave your opponent guessing which one you will be hitting hard.

[shall]

The mechanism has been kept simple to give lots of decision points. Some of the most important decisions are at deployment and we tried to make you spend time thinking rather than dealing with technicalities.

I played a game on Monday where I pondered my deployment of 2 cavalry BGs for a good 2 or 3 minutes and finally went for a particular plan. Ray and I reckoned at the end it was the most important "move" in the game. That one decision create an option for me to eventually turn a flank but gave away my safety net soemwhere else. It proved a good move about 2 hours later....

There is a lot of richness in how you do the deployment order and lots of methods can work.

I often keep a skirmish BG to the last as iut gives me a chance of creating a dominance in the early skirmishing.

There are lots of ways to play it. Certainly leaving strike forces until late is a natural plan - ditto Elephants, schythed chariots etc.

Si

[hazelbark]

- If your strike cavalry are going to be in reserve in the middle, then why not deploy them early in the sequence? It isn't giving away anything much and allows you to deploy you front line melee troops later in the sequence.

Yep I have found the first group of drilled knights can go out 1st with baggage. Same with like the serb ally knights in the ottomans. They are going to have their own TC so they will be able to start moving right away to where they are needed.

The big thing is that you have to be careful as you dpeloy your BGs since you have so many options that you don't find yourself creating a disjointed army responding to an opponents deployment.

[davem]

[quote="hazelbarkThe big thing is that you have to be careful as you dpeloy your BGs since you have so many options that you don't find yourself creating a disjointed army responding to an opponents deployment.[/quote]

That is certainly one way to deploy. I think I am some way behind you in games played so far, but for now my deployment is based more on what my plan for winning the game is. I try not to react too much to my opponents deployment as I do not consider myself experienced enough as yet.
I think I must be doing something right, because as yet I don't recall a game where I felt I was screwed from deployment

Perhaps the "historicity" of deployment decided in the commanders tent on the eve of battle is a viable game mechanism?

Regards

Dave M

[hazelbark]

I think I am some way behind you in games played so far, but for now my deployment is based more on what my plan for winning the game is. I try not to react too much to my opponents deployment as I do not consider myself experienced enough as yet.
I think I must be doing something right, because as yet I don't recall a game where I felt I was screwed from deployment

What I am suggesting is that what you are saying is the right thing. But in some of my beta games particularly witha mounted shooty army that is a real temptation to put a bit here and a bit there. That is a temptation that must be fought.

One of the things that is enjoyable about this game is that even a bad deployment is salvagable if you move quickly to remedy it.

Now I am sure some can invent a horrifically bad deployment. But a mere bad deployment you can fight your way out of....sort of.

[rayfredjohn]

Always deploy MF last if possible. They are the troops whose initial placement is most critical

I agree with RBS, especially if your MF are undrilled!

Ray

[PELAGIUS]

There is no restriction (except for the 10/15MU) on where each BG can be placed. They do not have to be grouped together. Even an ally can be split up (though you might pay a C+C price for this later). You can place one of the extreme left, the other on the extreme right. It is entirely up to you.


*How is this historical? I cannot recall a battle where allies were spread about like this. Very strange.

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius

[pbrandon]

I can't speak for the designers, but my impression is that FoG tries to pretty much let you do what you want to do with your troops. There are some limits on that but not many. However it tries to reward historical behaviour. If you want your poor protected MF Def Sp to charge Superior L, Sw Knights, they can, but it may not turn out that well. Similarly a dispersed ally command may well suffer from lack of C&C.

Paul

[hammy]

I can't speak for the designers, but my impression is that FoG tries to pretty much let you do what you want to do with your troops. There are some limits on that but not many. However it tries to reward historical behaviour. If you want your poor protected MF Def Sp to charge Superior L, Sw Knights, they can, but it may not turn out that well. Similarly a dispersed ally command may well suffer from lack of C&C.

That is pretty much it, if you have an ally of three BGs and you deploy one BG one on your far right flank, one in the centre and one on the left not only will they be harder to control but if any of them suffers cohesion loss you will almost certainly not be able to bolster them as the only general that can affext them is the ally general and he can only be in one place.

[nikgaukroger]

However, I think it is fair to say that such a separated deployment would indeed be unhistorical.

Mind you having done it accidentally once I can tell you that it does cause problems and I won't be doing it again

[PELAGIUS]

However, I think it is fair to say that such a separated deployment would indeed be unhistorical.

Mind you having done it accidentally once I can tell you that it does cause problems and I won't be doing it again

*Hmmmm so FoG does not enforce historical deployment. As another rules designer once said "I allow the player to make his own mistakes" or similar?

*So I can deploy as I wish, eg unhistorically, and then the historical stuff kicks in and kicks me?

*Yours disgracefully

*Pelagius