Slitherine

Hello, I’ve been greatly enjoying FOGII recently. It seems to be very realistic, and it was easy to learn. I’m no expert on the topic, but I do have a few possible ideas on how realism could be increased. Please let me know what you think...

1. For pike phalanxes, my understanding was that they had the relative effectiveness shown in the game, but that such formations were usually not the “decision arm” of an army, since an opponent could attempt to keep back, and the pikes were more difficult to strike with than shorter weapons. However, in the game, the pike phalanx seems like an unstoppable scythe when advancing forward. It should, but maybe more slowly. Perhaps the combat “intensity” for pike phalanxes could be reduced (few losses on both sides unless one side or the other is flanking), allowing them to be a more historical “anvil”, but still able to be a slow hammer if needed.

2. If one side wins the skirmisher battle, it’s often a fleeting advantage, since skirmishers usually cannot engage the main forces once battle is joined. It makes sense that they could not attack an enemy frontally with missile fire when engaged in combat (friendlies are too close), but it seems to me that the skirmishers would be capable of engaging the flanks or rear of enemy formations, even if they are in hand-to-hand combat (perhaps with a lower intensity barrage when engaging the flank).

3. It should be possible to attempt withdrawal from combat. Needless to say, this should be very difficult, but it was a valid historical tactic in several battles even with heavy troops. Of course, the heavy troops were often considerably more skilled than their opposition in these scenarios, so limitations would need to exist (perhaps withdrawals could only happen versus heavier forces, with undrilled heavy counting as “heavier” than normal heavy). There should probably be a chance that the withdrawal does not occur, depending on a cohesion check for the withdrawing unit, and there should also be a chance that the enemy unit catches the withdrawal underway, and the withdrawing unit gets disrupted instead (with higher quality and lighter enemies increasing the chance that this happens). This could be useful to replicate tactics such as those at Chaeronea, and it would also allow light troops that get “caught” on one turn to get away with only moderate punishment, instead of usually being forced to fight until routed.

4. Phalanxes (both hoplite and pike) could vary greatly in depth, which was often a critical strategy in battle. It would be great if we could somehow adjust this before a battle starts. It’s already represented in the marathon scenario. This could let thinner pike phalanxes with a depth of eight (two models) or twelve be used, and it would allow hoplite phalanxes to go thin at four ranks (one model) or thick at twelve or sixteen ranks.

5. The frontage density seems a bit too standardized for units. They seem to act properly, but would not phalanxes be more dense than shown, and skirmishers be less dense? It might be a lot of adjustment for no practical change for the main units, but for skirmishers, it might make sense to have the units be half the size they are now (perhaps as an option, for people who are willing to control lots more annoying little units to achieve historical densities).

6. It seems to me that for many types of medium and heavy units, they should be able “about face” a little more easily than they do now. Perhaps they should have enough movement to go one square forward after an about-face? It was certainly an easier maneuver than wheeling a line 90 degrees.

7. The Macedonians seem to be missing their hypaspists. It thought this was odd, until I saw phalangite/pike units labeled as hypaspists in some of the epic battles. Were these units not elite hoplites, represented by “veteran hoplites” in the game? I thought the idea behind the Macedonian army was that these flexible hypaspists (compared to pike phalanxes) and cavalry on the right wing could quickly gain a decision, while the phalangites kept the main enemy force occupied.

Thanks

Neutrino_123 wrote:1. For pike phalanxes, my understanding was that they had the relative effectiveness shown in the game, but that such formations were usually not the “decision arm” of an army, since an opponent could attempt to keep back, and the pikes were more difficult to strike with than shorter weapons. However, in the game, the pike phalanx seems like an unstoppable scythe when advancing forward. It should, but maybe more slowly. Perhaps the combat “intensity” for pike phalanxes could be reduced (few losses on both sides unless one side or the other is flanking), allowing them to be a more historical “anvil”, but still able to be a slow hammer if needed.

Phalanxes did attack in many battles, and the successors tended to use them as the decisive arm.

2. If one side wins the skirmisher battle, it’s often a fleeting advantage, since skirmishers usually cannot engage the main forces once battle is joined. It makes sense that they could not attack an enemy frontally with missile fire when engaged in combat (friendlies are too close), but it seems to me that the skirmishers would be capable of engaging the flanks or rear of enemy formations, even if they are in hand-to-hand combat (perhaps with a lower intensity barrage when engaging the flank).

Skirmishers are rarely if ever mentioned in battle accounts after the initial stages of the battle - we did not want to give them more of a role than they appeared to have historically.

3. It should be possible to attempt withdrawal from combat. Needless to say, this should be very difficult, but it was a valid historical tactic in several battles even with heavy troops. Of course, the heavy troops were often considerably more skilled than their opposition in these scenarios, so limitations would need to exist (perhaps withdrawals could only happen versus heavier forces, with undrilled heavy counting as “heavier” than normal heavy). There should probably be a chance that the withdrawal does not occur, depending on a cohesion check for the withdrawing unit, and there should also be a chance that the enemy unit catches the withdrawal underway, and the withdrawing unit gets disrupted instead (with higher quality and lighter enemies increasing the chance that this happens). This could be useful to replicate tactics such as those at Chaeronea, and it would also allow light troops that get “caught” on one turn to get away with only moderate punishment, instead of usually being forced to fight until routed.

Opinions differ as to whether Philip's "withdrawal" at Chaironeia was a tactical manouvre or whether he was simply pushed back. Roman line replacement occurs within each Hastati/Principes unit (each represents 4 maniples).

4. Phalanxes (both hoplite and pike) could vary greatly in depth, which was often a critical strategy in battle. It would be great if we could somehow adjust this before a battle starts. It’s already represented in the marathon scenario. This could let thinner pike phalanxes with a depth of eight (two models) or twelve be used, and it would allow hoplite phalanxes to go thin at four ranks (one model) or thick at twelve or sixteen ranks.

This can be easily done for individual scenarios by adding such units in the squads file. As you say, we have done it for Marathon, and Odenathus has done it for Mantinea (user content).

5. The frontage density seems a bit too standardized for units. They seem to act properly, but would not phalanxes be more dense than shown, and skirmishers be less dense? It might be a lot of adjustment for no practical change for the main units, but for skirmishers, it might make sense to have the units be half the size they are now (perhaps as an option, for people who are willing to control lots more annoying little units to achieve historical densities).

Phalanxes actually had three densities of formation, we show them in the middle of these, which was the standard fighting formation. Skirmishers are in less dense formations, that is why there are only 4 figure on a light for base and the men are staggered rather than in a straight line.

6. It seems to me that for many types of medium and heavy units, they should be able “about face” a little more easily than they do now. Perhaps they should have enough movement to go one square forward after an about-face? It was certainly an easier maneuver than wheeling a line 90 degrees.

True, but we don't want to make it too easy for units to retire, as retiring in the face of the enemy was rare indeed, and attempts to do so often led to disaster when the troops panicked.

7. The Macedonians seem to be missing their hypaspists. It thought this was odd, until I saw phalangite/pike units labeled as hypaspists in some of the epic battles. Were these units not elite hoplites, represented by “veteran hoplites” in the game? I thought the idea behind the Macedonian army was that these flexible hypaspists (compared to pike phalanxes) and cavalry on the right wing could quickly gain a decision, while the phalangites kept the main enemy force occupied.

Opinions differ on this. We subscribe to the view that they mostly fought as phalangites.

Hello, thanks for replying.

1. Yes, but didn't phalanx battles have a tendency to be more drawn out than other battles? Pike phalanxes could be decisive, but just maybe a bit slower than other units potentially could be.

2. True, though I imagine that this is because they would often cancel each other out. Additionally, they would operate at lower densities than the units we have (maybe around half). In the situation where they won, they definitely wouldn't be able to have a large impact on the battle due to realistic units maybe having half the men in the space, and being low on ammo after fighting (plus, needing to move into position). Just considering things from a practical standpoint, victorious skirmishers would try to influence the flanks, not just stand there. They just should have very small effects in most situations.

3. Did not the Spartans execute similar maneuvers a few times during a battle? One of these definitely went sour for them. It should be very risky to withdraw from combat with similar or probably even slightly heavier units, to the extent that it wouldn't normally be done... However, I can imagine several scenarios where it would be useful, even with risk. One example would just be some skirmishers withdrawing after being temporarily caught out of position by a heavier unit.

4. Hmmm, okay, so a mod could handle such a thing then... I suppose it would still be nice for the normal army lists, but maybe not as high priority.

5. Assuming that the frontage is standardized to the roman legionary, wouldn't skirmishers would have 1/4 rather than 1/2 the total unit density? They need about twice the elbow room on either side to skirmish in the first place, and I assume that they would also want that much more room in front and behind them. One could get around this by assuming that they have a very deep formation, but that seems a bit extreme for skirmishers. That's what I was referring to in #2 above when saying that currently, skirmishers may be a bit too good at providing concentrated firepower. For a hoplite phalanx, wouldn't they have the same depth as the Romans, but twice the men per length of front? For a pike phalanx, I believe that recent research showed that the "dense" formation would be impractical as it wouldn't give enough room to thrust with the pike and require an unstable side-on stance. The more "open" formation would seem to be more of a marching order, since being too open would ruin the point of having pikes... Still, even the mid formation should be somewhere in between (well disciplined) hoplite and legionary formation. Again, the troop interactions seem to work for these heavy units, so I'm not saying it would be good to change the practical effects of the game here...

6. Well, I'm thinking this would be a situation in which the lines have not joined yet. It could even be troops marching laterally in formation and then just turning around since something happened elsewhere. For retreat in units engaged in combat, it should definitely be very risky (see #3).

7. Interesting! How would the less experienced right wing Greeks have potentially pushed back the best pikemen at Chaironeia, though? Do you have an book recommendations that discusses evidence for hoplite vs. phalangite?

Also, new items:

8. Impact foot seems to be partially from javelins. Would it not be better to diminish this effect for troops that have already made an initially "impact", or perhaps at least reduce it for troops already engaged? I suppose this could affect other impacts, too, which might be complicated...

9. Feature request: it might be fun to pick armies before a battle without seeing the terrain. This would let players avoid having potentially crazy computer-generated armies, but also lose the ability to customize the army for the battlefield.

To point number 1:

Phalanx battles are already drawn out compared to other types of combat. Offensive spears and Pikes are among the only shock troops in the game to not inflict an additional -1 die roll modifier on opponents that lose combat. Impact Foot (covers Legions and Warbands), Elephants, Lancers, and most chariots all confer this additional penalty on Impact and/or Melee.

This is one of the great weaknesses of Pikes, while they are strong in that they can win combat against most troops in the open, they break opponents slower than other types of shock troops while still producing pushback/followup responses and it makes them vulnerable to flanks. Meanwhile, Impact foot when they win combat on Impact, can break the morale of their opponents at a terrifying pace.

Interesting! How would the less experienced right wing Greeks have potentially pushed back the best pikemen at Chaironeia, though? Do you have an book recommendations that discusses evidence for hoplite vs. phalangite?

Sadly not. The evidence was discussed at great length in the Journal of the Society of Ancients many years ago.

http://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/

You can get a CD-ROM with all of the back issues from 1965-2015 for £35:

http://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/slingshot-back-issues