Pike&Shot for FoG players

[fogman]

If you have already gained good grasp of Pike&Shot and have extensive experience with FoG, please post your views on main similarities/differences between the two games in relation to:

*flow of the game
*tactics (what works here and not in FoG, and vice-versa; use of various types of troops, eg. light troops in P&S vs in Fog)
*quirks of the system that can be exploited by gamers (for example anarchy charges in FoG)
*any tangential topics that would be of interest to people with FoG experience.

thanks

[flatsix518]

Christian,

This is an excellent thread.

I'm going to give this some thought and post something.

Great idea!

John

[batesmotel]

Some obvious quick differences:
A few initial thoughts on substantial differences:

1) No double moves so your inital deployment is generally much more important than it can be in a FoG game with double moves.
2) No interpenetration so using multiple lines of troops is much different than in FoG. In general light troops are much less effective.
3) The value of lost units in P&S depends on the size of the unit so loging something like a unit of detachted musketeers or commanded shot has little effect on your army for the purpose of defeat. You won't defeat an army in P&S in general by just killing light troops.
4) Very few troops end up with a big impact or melee advantage in P&S so combats tend to go longer than in FoG. Getting the right match ups seems to be much less of a factor in P&S than in FoG. In many cases in P&S it seems like having an extra unti to get in a flank/rear charge on an enemy in combat or in pursuit is more important than getting the right initial match up.
5) Given the inability of most foot to charge mounted and the ineffectiveness of mounted charging most foot frontally, P&S frequently ends up being essentially separate foot and mounted battles.

Chris

Chris

[moncholee]

Some more:

1- Tercios can´t shoot to their sides or rear
2- No generals
3- No rear support

FOGR tactics work in Pike and Shot.

Regards,
Javier.

[cromlechi]

I have to confess I still don't understand Pike and Shot. Although I'm enjoying it it seems to lack the dynamic quality of FoG. I think this is partly due to the graphics which feels a bit like moving blocks around after a while. It's more cumbersome in some respects but this probably reflects the type of units depicted. I'm sure with more games under my belt I will start to appreciate its unique qualities more. However, I hope the FoG upgrade and expansions continue rather than get ported to this engine because I find that system more fun to play, at least at the moment.

[TheGrayMouser]

I have to confess I still don't understand Pike and Shot. Although I'm enjoying it it seems to lack the dynamic quality of FoG. I think this is partly due to the graphics which feels a bit like moving blocks around after a while. It's more cumbersome in some respects but this probably reflects the type of units depicted. I'm sure with more games under my belt I will start to appreciate its unique qualities more. However, I hope the FoG upgrade and expansions continue rather than get ported to this engine because I find that system more fun to play, at least at the moment.

They are very different games with different "feels". I continue to play FOG and look fwrd to the Unity version. I would much rather see this engine flesh out the Ren period, early 18th century and maybe some late medieval stuff rather than dive into ancients. I don't think in any near future we are going to see an engine that has over a thousand handpainted minitures to play with

[flatsix518]

I actually disagree.

I sincerely hope that the Pike & Shot style is applied to the ancient era. It would be a tremendous improvement over FoG Digital. In many respects.

There is room for both. I think Pike & Shot has more tabletop feel than FoG digital -- and I personally prefer that.

[fogman]

a couple of interrelated things:
melee seems to last longer.
die results are not extreme, and therefore combat is more predictable: no RAMBO units, which bother me a great deal in FoG.

not as good: as in FoG it is too easy for enemy light units to get behind your battle lines (and exhibiting impossible daring and initiative); and the battlefield can easily end up resembling an aerial dogfight (to borrow bloodphoenix's expression) with units scattered all over the place with no semblance of a frontline.

last but not least, as it is something i've advocated in my FoG games:
no double moves and no fog of war.

what we need is somebody to go through all the POAs and make a comparison.

[batesmotel]

There are very few situations where someone will have a double poa advantage unlike FoG. Keils (pike equivalent) in P&S normally give only a single POA so won't be at a double POA at impact and only in melee if they're still a Keil and have better armour (and I think that's really worth .5 POA now).

Mounted charging MF or LF in the open that isn't "protected" (by pikes in the formation or bayonets, etc) will have a double POA advantage if they also have an impact POA like lance or impact pistol.

Other than that there aren't many situations where one side has a more than a single POA advantage.

Chris

[rbodleyscott]

Salvo foot

[cromlechi]

I have to confess I still don't understand Pike and Shot. Although I'm enjoying it it seems to lack the dynamic quality of FoG. I think this is partly due to the graphics which feels a bit like moving blocks around after a while. It's more cumbersome in some respects but this probably reflects the type of units depicted. I'm sure with more games under my belt I will start to appreciate its unique qualities more. However, I hope the FoG upgrade and expansions continue rather than get ported to this engine because I find that system more fun to play, at least at the moment.

They are very different games with different "feels". I continue to play FOG and look fwrd to the Unity version. I would much rather see this engine flesh out the Ren period, early 18th century and maybe some late medieval stuff rather than dive into ancients. I don't think in any near future we are going to see an engine that has over a thousand handpainted minitures to play with

Having played some more games, particularly skirmish one's I'm getting it more now, it's a great game. I particularly like the Turkish Army.

[KiwiWarlord]

Really miss Generals. They play such a big part in FoG ( all FoG Rule-sets)

Please can they be included some how ?

Just a +1 for moral if they are close, or with a B.G., would be great.

I hear that a new version of FoG Digital is being released sometime soon, how are Generals going to be programmed in the new version ?

[Miletus]

Really miss Generals. They play such a big part in FoG ( all FoG Rule-sets)

Please can they be included some how ?

Just a +1 for moral if they are close, or with a B.G., would be great.

I hear that a new version of FoG Digital is being released sometime soon, how are General going to be programmed in the new version ?

I think this issue has been a recurring one. Generals simply didn't play the same role in the Renaissance as they did in earlier eras, IMHO, and including them would detract from the historical accuracy of the game.

[fogman]

i fail to see how generals would 'detract from the historical accuracy?'. In FoG, at least it 'explains' why some units seem to be tougher than they should and how they are able to rally when in melee for example. Here a disrupted unit you thought you had in the bag quite unexpectedly rallies and goes on to clobber your unit (which is of the same type). or when two lines of equivalent infantry line up and shoot at another and one is machine-gunned down and the other doesn't lose a single unit. If there was a good leader, then it would make it more comprehensible and you feel you have some control in the process. The game may use 1000 die throws but i find it to be as unpredictable as FoG in terms of outcomes and in FoG at least, things are transparent.

[Miletus]

i fail to see how generals would 'detract from the historical accuracy?'. In FoG, at least it 'explains' why some units seem to be tougher than they should and how they are able to rally when in melee for example. Here a disrupted unit you thought you had in the bag quite unexpectedly rallies and goes on to clobber your unit (which is of the same type). or when two lines of equivalent infantry line up and shoot at another and one is machine-gunned down and the other doesn't lose a single unit. If there was a good leader, then it would make it more comprehensible and you feel you have some control in the process. The game may use 1000 die throws but i find it to be as unpredictable as FoG in terms of outcomes and in FoG at least, things are transparent.

The extreme melee outcomes that occur pretty regularly in FoG don't seem to happen in P&S, at least not in my experience.

As for generals, I don't think it's controversial to say that their role on the battlefield changed markedly as part of the overall shift towards more modern warfare that began in the Renaissance. I don't see the rationale for introducing the micro management that their presence would necessitate, whereas their instrumental role in earlier periods is harder to ignore.

[fogman]

i had one cuirassier unit, almost full strength, attacked on the flank by a mounted arquebusier unit, it disrupted on contact, ok, then breaks on impact; you can't even do that in FoG if you attack from behind. i've seen two cases where attacking from behind resulting in a equal outcome on impact; so you can either get no damage beyond disruption or be broken; and i've completed exactly 4 mp games so far... so the question is how many die throws are used for cohesion because that seems more important than throws for combat.

as for the notion that modern warfare starting in the 17th century equates to leaders not having an influence... i fail to see how hannibal has more influence on the battlefield than napoleon. plenty of napoleonic generals led from the front, and so were civil war generals and i can't recall playing a tactical wargame in those periods where commanders were omitted because supposedly the conflict belongs to the realm of "modern warfare". so maybe there's a reason why leaders aren't used but 'modern warfare' isn't it.

[Miletus]

i had one cuirassier unit, almost full strength, attacked on the flank by a mounted arquebusier unit, it disrupted on contact, ok, then breaks on impact; you can't even do that in FoG if you attack from behind. i've seen two cases where attacking from behind resulting in a equal outcome on impact; so you can either get no damage beyond disruption or be broken; and i've completed exactly 4 mp games so far... so the question is how many die throws are used for cohesion because that seems more important than throws for combat.

as for the notion that modern warfare starting in the 17th century equates to leaders not having an influence... i fail to see how hannibal has more influence on the battlefield than napoleon. plenty of napoleonic generals led from the front, and so were civil war generals and i can't recall playing a tactical wargame in those periods where commanders were omitted because supposedly the conflict belongs to the realm of "modern warfare". so maybe there's a reason why leaders aren't used but 'modern warfare' isn't it.

I didn't say that modern warfare began in the 17th century. That would be an absurd proposition. What I said re generals was that their role changed as "part of the overall shift towards more modern warfare that began in the Renaissance". So I was talking about the start of a process, not the end product...

Re Hannibal and Napoleon, it's not a question of who had the greater degree of control, but of what the general's role was on the battlefield. There were examples of Renaissance generals leading the charge, but they were the exception rather than the rule, and there were good reasons for that grounded in the changing reality of warfare.

As for the role of chance, I've played over a hundred games against the AI and I can't agree with your assessment. P&S provides a narrower range of outcomes - and more predictable, rational outcomes - than FoG generally does, in my own experience (and in my own necessarily subjective view!). Of course there will be the odd anomaly, but IMHO P&S doesn't deliver the kind of extremes that FoG regularly seems to do.

[nikgaukroger]

i had one cuirassier unit, almost full strength, attacked on the flank by a mounted arquebusier unit, it disrupted on contact, ok, then breaks on impact; you can't even do that in FoG if you attack from behind.

It follows the tabletop of FoG:R where this is possible - although in most cases the odds will be more likely to deliver a drop on contact (because of the flank/rear attack) and then another drop due to losing the combat (although a double drop is possible).

i've seen two cases where attacking from behind resulting in a equal outcome on impact; so you can either get no damage beyond disruption or be broken;

A drop from the contact followed by a drop in the "impact phase" melee is the most common result in my experience - however, as there is then the "melee phase" combat in the same turn a break then is not unusual but in no way automatic.

and i've completed exactly 4 mp games so far... so the question is how many die throws are used for cohesion because that seems more important than throws for combat.

In tabletop FoG:R - which is what this game is closely based on - cohesion is often more important than combat (although shooting is probably more effective in the table top in the short run), although losing combat will result in a cohesion test so ...

FWIW a single "dice roll" of 2 dice is used for the cohesion tests just like the tabletop.

[pantherboy]

I thought the reasoning behind the exclusion of generals was that it is too difficult to create an AI that can take into consideration such factors. That is one of the reasons why there is no rear support etc. as the AI would be unable to effectively use such factors and thus make the AI weaker than it is.

Per fogman's question regarding his cavalry routing to my cavalry I calaculate it to be a 5 in 12 chance of routing. On 2d6 if you roll a total of 2 or less than it is a double cohesion loss. You went to disrupted due to the flank charge, then lost the combat badly incurring greater than 5% casualties (-1 cohesion test), total combat damage suffered this turn exceeds total cobat damage inflicted by a large margin (-1 cohesion test) and Disrupted cohesion state (-1 cohesion test).

[flatsix518]

Miletius wrote: "Of course there will be the odd anomaly, but IMHO P&S doesn't deliver the kind of extremes that FoG regularly seems to do."

I have to say my FoG experience is similar to Miletius. I quit playing FoG digital because I felt many games I played were decided by extreme results. Which is OK in a close game -- not OK in a game where one player is completely outplaying another.

I had it go both ways, winning and losing. Got tired of it.

Having said that...I also realized that a number of top-notch players seemed to be strong enough in their play to not be as impacted by those results. I just couldn't close the gap to that level of play. I was close sometimes, but not consistently enough.

John