Reward for historical Formation

[Hendricus]

It would be great if troops get a reward for being in the formation they are trained for.
Phalanx should get a reward for being in line, both flanks with a friend.
Legion should get a reward for being in checkerboard, two friends supporting their back.
I think an increase in quality would be an excellent way to reward those historical formations.
The quality is lost as the formation is lost but regained the moment formation is in place again.
How about that as an idea ?

[JorgenCAB]

It would be great if troops get a reward for being in the formation they are trained for.
Phalanx should get a reward for being in line, both flanks with a friend.
Legion should get a reward for being in checkerboard, two friends supporting their back.
I think an increase in quality would be an excellent way to reward those historical formations.
The quality is lost as the formation is lost but regained the moment formation is in place again.
How about that as an idea ?

Romans did not deploy in checkerboard because of moral boosting effects but for maneuver effects. All units should be positively effected by having their flanks covered, this can't be magically transferred to just some units. Human psychology work the same on pretty much all humans.

A Roman army would still close their lines to a cohesive line as they clashed with the enemy.

To be honest I'm no fan of unrealistic magic bonuses just to promote a specific behavior, I also don't think it would help the AI either. These behaviors should be promoted by the game mechanics themselves. Such as keeping your units in line is promoted by the fact that a unit can't be attacked by more than one enemy unit and can't be flanked. A unit will also get negative modifier if threatened in a flank during cohesion tests. So keeping units in line is already a good thing to do.

Moving units in checkerboard formation is not really important because every army is moving in cohort sized chunks and because of the turn mechanics it is not really needed. In reality this formation makes it far easier to maneuver an army but it will require a form of discipline no other army except the Romans possessed at this time. No other army would dream of having the same flexibility of movement as the Romans enjoyed and even Roman cohorts would not have the total freedom they do in the game either. But it is a game and you need some compromise to make things work.

[Strategiusz]

IMO one of the main historical feature that is not reproduced in this game (and in many if not all games) is that there is no sense (or there is only a little sense) to use more than one line of cohorts. IMO there should be some way to withdraw from melee by infantry units without being routed and being replaced by fresh units.

Maybe melee should sometimes stop and maybe there should be a new command "swap units" if there is a friendly unit on the back. Maybe it should be possible only for Roman (then they could be nerfed in quality maybe).

[Jagger2002]

---It would be great if troops get a reward for being in the formation they are trained for. ---

Actually, troops shouldn't be rewarded for doing what they were trained to do and were expected to do historically. Game parameters should already assume optimal performance when units are used in a historical manner.

Instead, troops should be penalized if used in an unhistorical manner which violates military principles confusing the troops and shaking their confidence and morale.

Minor point but important.

[TDefender]

IMO one of the main historical feature that is not reproduced in this game (and in many if not all games) is that there is no sense (or there is only a little sense) to use more than one line of cohorts. IMO there should be some way to withdraw from melee by infantry units without being routed and being replaced by fresh units.
.

It is in FoG 1.

"+1 (cohesion test) There are adjacent friends other than light foot or light horse in their rear.

http://www.slithdata.net/files/fog/manu ... manual.pdf

[JorgenCAB]

IMO one of the main historical feature that is not reproduced in this game (and in many if not all games) is that there is no sense (or there is only a little sense) to use more than one line of cohorts. IMO there should be some way to withdraw from melee by infantry units without being routed and being replaced by fresh units.

Maybe melee should sometimes stop and maybe there should be a new command "swap units" if there is a friendly unit on the back. Maybe it should be possible only for Roman (then they could be nerfed in quality maybe).

How much evidence do we really have Romans could do this during a battle with any actual frequency. Most battle seem to suggest that reinforcements plugged gaps as they opened in the front line. I'm not sure it would be possible to take an entire Cohort with the width of nearly a hundred yards have it march of and then march in with another cohort, in the middle of a chaotic battle. Even if troops needed to rest and recuperate I don't think they would miss the opportunity to follow a retreating enemy and enter into the middle of their battle line. But otherwise the replacement of front soldiers in a rotational way should be internal to the units in the game. Things like what you suggest should rather be on occasion, such as a unit breaking off combat if beaten. If you have reserves you can march them into that gap, but this should be more or less available to anyone who keep reserves behind his lines. I don't think this should be in the hands of the player to decide when a unit disengage or not. If you fight against an assaulting Warband they will just follow the unit which seem appropriate.

[JorgenCAB]

IMO one of the main historical feature that is not reproduced in this game (and in many if not all games) is that there is no sense (or there is only a little sense) to use more than one line of cohorts. IMO there should be some way to withdraw from melee by infantry units without being routed and being replaced by fresh units.
.

It is in FoG 1.

"+1 (cohesion test) There are adjacent friends other than light foot or light horse in their rear.

http://www.slithdata.net/files/fog/manu ... manual.pdf

I wonder why this is not the case on FoG2, there is only a malus for having a threat in your flank or rear.

[JorgenCAB]

---It would be great if troops get a reward for being in the formation they are trained for. ---

Actually, troops shouldn't be rewarded for doing what they were trained to do and were expected to do historically. Game parameters should already assume optimal performance when units are used in a historical manner.

Instead, troops should be penalized if used in an unhistorical manner which violates military principles confusing the troops and shaking their confidence and morale.

Minor point but important.

Yes, that would be a more sane approach. Isolated units should have more shaken moral, such as being out of command range or no friends to support their flanks or rear.

[TDefender]

IMO one of the main historical feature that is not reproduced in this game (and in many if not all games) is that there is no sense (or there is only a little sense) to use more than one line of cohorts. IMO there should be some way to withdraw from melee by infantry units without being routed and being replaced by fresh units.
.

It is in FoG 1.

"+1 (cohesion test) There are adjacent friends other than light foot or light horse in their rear.

http://www.slithdata.net/files/fog/manu ... manual.pdf

I wonder why this is not the case on FoG2, there is only a malus for having a threat in your flank or rear.

Just give a rapid look to the manual, you'll find some more lack from FoG 1

[JorgenCAB]

Just give a rapid look to the manual, you'll find some more lack from FoG 1

We have been told that many changes have to do about the AIs capability of exploiting them versus humans, I would like an advanced command option in MP or Hotseat games that introduce more Command and Fog of War features. An option not available if playing against the AI. That way you can please most people. The ones that want a bit more realism and those that want a looser more gaming experience. I'm not saying I don't enjoy the game as it is, I just hope they at least consider it.

[Strategiusz]

How much evidence do we really have Romans could do this during a battle with any actual frequency. Most battle seem to suggest that reinforcements plugged gaps as they opened in the front line. I'm not sure it would be possible to take an entire Cohort with the width of nearly a hundred yards have it march of and then march in with another cohort, in the middle of a chaotic battle.

The Romans used cohorts as wide but shallow units and they used even 3 lines of cohorts. Why did they do that instead of use only one line of deeper cohorts and use multiple ranks of centuriae as a mobile units to patch gaps? And isn't a wide shallow cohort harder to command than a deeper and narrower cohort. For me it looks like they did withdraw and swap whole cohorts.

[JorgenCAB]

How much evidence do we really have Romans could do this during a battle with any actual frequency. Most battle seem to suggest that reinforcements plugged gaps as they opened in the front line. I'm not sure it would be possible to take an entire Cohort with the width of nearly a hundred yards have it march of and then march in with another cohort, in the middle of a chaotic battle.

The Romans used cohorts as wide but shallow units and they used even 3 lines of cohorts. Why did they do that instead of use only one line of deeper cohorts and use multiple ranks of centuriae as a mobile units to patch gaps? And isn't a wide shallow cohort harder to command than a deeper and narrower cohort. For me it looks like they did withdraw and swap whole cohorts.

Well, this is most likely a very idealized way of how ancient battles was fought.

The Romans would approach in three lines with gaps in their lines. Once they approached close with the enemy their gaps would be closed and basically the first and second line would merge into a solid line with the third line in support (roughly 30% of the legion). This does not mean that 70% of the legion was in the front fighting all the time, this would depend on the length of the battlefield and how long the front needed to be. A Cohort could probably deploy both in a narrow or wide frontage as evident from several battles. The game simply can't handle these dynamic force structures. It was quite common for ALL armies to vary the deployment depth based on the frontage width you needed to cover and not unique to the Romans. What was unique to the Romans was their enormous resilience and ability to keep fresh men on the front line, in the game this would basically be their quality and the third line would in the game be the 30% of the units you keep there to plug any holes that occur in the line or to react to any flanking threats.

I just think that allowing the player to choose when a unit retire are just too much power in the hands of the player, this should simply be part of units internal mechanism.

[julianbarker]

I agree. There is tons of evidence that Romans used the flexibility their maniple and cohort organization gave them in various ways depending on the enemy and the terrain. Against elephants they closed up or opened up depending on tactics. In open plains they spread their frontage, in broken terrain they kept their formation and options open. The whole point of Roman armies of this era is that they are flexible. Don't get fixated on the checkerboard. I have always thought it made no sense, but when you read the original sources for their battles it makes sense precisely because they don't rigidly fight in the checkerboard.

[Cheimison]

I just think that allowing the player to choose when a unit retire are just too much power in the hands of the player, this should simply be part of units internal mechanism.

Yeah, given the sheer scale of each individual model this is something that's more likely going on inside of the unit than anything the player can see externally. It's abstracted away into the very idea of a 'cohort' as a cohesive entity, rather than 500 individual guys.

[TheGrayMouser]

Conjectual wish list bucket commentary, but one simple way to make the game(any game really) more realistic in regards to what YOU do as THE GENERAl would be "enhancing" the FOW as has been posted previously.

So:
You have no access to the exact unit stats of moral and # of men when the battle starts ( of yours or the enemy units.) You must gauge the depletion in the ranks based on the models left ( and with some randomness added so you cant anally retentive count and do the math for more complex things like rear rank pike POAs.)

Cohesion levels would be masked by blurry descriptives like: "concerned", " apparently steadfast". ( and these would be in Latin for effect) These could overlap so "concerned" might be steady or disrupted. "Exhausted" could mean a unit that is fragged, or just over a threshold of certain casualties, or both ( or neither, maybe it was just a close call last combat!!).
Anyway the point is you don't know the stat but need to extrapolate based on the units actions, its opponent, how long its been in the line getting pounded on etc. Your experience playing the game no doubt would be quite important.

Hell, lets ramp it up. You buy troops based on points about their superior quality etc and you would still do that. However, once the battle started the game would add randomness to the quality levels, and you wont know what it is. So that superior Cataphract could be a little better or a little worse than superior. There could occasionally be a little kicker where with an extreme roll it could be dumped to average. After all, as many a general has said : Courage needs to be re-born every day.

I think the TT game Piquet has that mechanic, you really don't know how good a unit is until they face the first charge.

Rout levels certainly would also be hidden, instead, once you were down say a 15% differential, the display instead would hint that "your army has some slight concerns that you will not lead them to victory".
etc etc

Would you choose to charge a unit hoping to rout it ( and possibly end the battle right there) or change its facing to prevent a rear attack from your opponent on his turn, if you aren't quite sure If that targeted unit is fragged? If you knew the score was 50% yours to 59% enemy? Do ya feel lucky? With the stats displayed as is, of course you would charge!
The realization that a battle was actually over never seems to have been instantaneous, nor even after the "overness" was recognized, that you won or lost it. So why shodl you know that shooting a poor slinger whose 1 man away from the auto rout level will seal the victory( actually that not quite fair, I believe this game actually does put a little fuzzinesss on the exact # of the autorout, I think)

The only certainty you would ever be of a troops cohesion level would be if it refused to charge, as you would know it was fragged.
Perhaps as a concession you would be notified that a unit rallied, even if you had no idea it been disrupted in the first place.


I'm positive games would play much differently, reserves would be kept more often. Attacks might unfold by wings and play out in stages instead of the "all in" every time. Skirmishers likely would pepper an enemy line until out of ammo and then skiddle away so heavies can then charge home as soon as possible IN CASE you disrupted a unit. Currently you can "shoot and see" and then make the decision. Or gang up until you get a disruption and then switch targets like coordinated salvos from radio equipped battleships I'm sure spot decisions like that wernt common in ancient battles.

Anyway, in this case I would be OK if the AI "cheated" by having access to YOUR units stats as AI's cannot yet count on intuition.

I love turn based games so I am not knocking this one for not having a complicated command system. Such a thing would have to be an integral part of the program and it seems doudtfull one could be retro added. The above perhaps is just another way to simulate some sort of way to have players behave like real commanders with out imposing command rules that no matter how good, always have exceptions and oddities that rear up. A seemingly good command system for game play might be the antithesis of how a battle really ebbed and flowed in real life, even if the end results are reasonably historic ( there was an old critique of GMTS Great battle games specifically about this phenom)


I'm totally speculating I would enjoy this too. There might be a cold uneasy feeling about a battlefield with limited stats. Perhaps you might wonder if the game is one big bug and its just flipping coins for the results Maybe I would feel immense relief upon the returning to the comfort of the current standards of FOW, where I have absolute knowledge of the feelings of all my digital warriors thru out a game, how many are left alive etc, as I view them from my command center ornithopter high above the battle field.

[JorgenCAB]

Could not agree more.

[Hendricus]

IMO one of the main historical feature that is not reproduced in this game (and in many if not all games) is that there is no sense (or there is only a little sense) to use more than one line of cohorts. IMO there should be some way to withdraw from melee by infantry units without being routed and being replaced by fresh units.
.

It is in FoG 1.

"+1 (cohesion test) There are adjacent friends other than light foot or light horse in their rear.

http://www.slithdata.net/files/fog/manu ... manual.pdf

So they got rid of that rule, by purpose or oversight ?

[rbodleyscott]

IMO one of the main historical feature that is not reproduced in this game (and in many if not all games) is that there is no sense (or there is only a little sense) to use more than one line of cohorts. IMO there should be some way to withdraw from melee by infantry units without being routed and being replaced by fresh units.
.

It is in FoG 1.

"+1 (cohesion test) There are adjacent friends other than light foot or light horse in their rear.

http://www.slithdata.net/files/fog/manu ... manual.pdf

So they got rid of that rule, by purpose or oversight ?

On purpose, so as not to degrade the AI. There are excellent reasons to have a partial reserve line without such a rule. Hellenistic armies did not use reserve lines anyway, so it isn't realistic for them. Even the Romans only had a partial rear line - with gaps opposite the units of the "second" line.

[Kaede11]

On purpose, so as not to degrade the AI. There are excellent reasons to have a partial reserve line without such a rule. Hellenistic armies did not use reserve lines anyway, so it isn't realistic for them. Even the Romans only had a partial rear line - with gaps opposite the units of the "second" line.

As it is right now I think that even if you play as hellenes, ignoring reserves is basically leaving everything up to luck. Therefore if your statement is right, hellenistic armies are not designed to work as they did historically. Just pointing that because no matter what army I choose, I always keep reserves, it seems to be the best way to avoid bad luck.

[JorgenCAB]

On purpose, so as not to degrade the AI. There are excellent reasons to have a partial reserve line without such a rule. Hellenistic armies did not use reserve lines anyway, so it isn't realistic for them. Even the Romans only had a partial rear line - with gaps opposite the units of the "second" line.

As it is right now I think that even if you play as hellenes, ignoring reserves is basically leaving everything up to luck. Therefore if your statement is right, hellenistic armies are not designed to work as they did historically. Just pointing that because no matter what army I choose, I always keep reserves, it seems to be the best way to avoid bad luck.

The main "problem" might be the speed by which combat sometimes are concluded. Since it is highly probable that at least some units get disrupted during the initial impact such units might break relatively fast. When we look at ancient battles then lines tended to hold for quite some time, even if they were of inferior troops as long as they were not seriously out numbered or fought someone in their flanks or rear.

Sometimes I think that combat between units simply go too fast and certainly the number of casualties are much too high. Units were in general more about cohesion than loosing men in large numbers even if drawn out combat would eventually take a toll on number of men killed or wounded. We often see that number of men lost before a formation break are very low and some battles have extremely few casualties on the winning side. One of the battle doctrine of the Roman army was to allow the opponent a good escape rout in order to reduce their own losses not the enemy. Casualties on both sides would usually mount if you trapped enemy troops so they had to fight to the death.

All in all I think these problems stem from the facts that we fight with relatively small units against each other, in reality battle lines would fight more cohesively and reserves could be transferred between units in the back line or second line a bit more fluently. Units simply fight in too small chunks and might be a bit easy to break in general.