March mode

[TheSkirmishLord]

I noticed on a lot of maps that there are features, such as gaps between mountains, that would allow surprise flank movements but the distance is too great. What's even worse is when you play against someone who decides to turtle at the back of a large map and it takes most of the game moves to move to his location.

Is there any chance of implementing a March Mode? Units could go into march formation, such as Pikes going into a square and have at least double the movement. To offset the advantage of this the units would take one move to transfer to or from march mode, they would have no ZOC, could not attack, and any attack on them would be treated as a flank attack. This would only be useful if you had long distances to go since 8 squares would be the break even point.

[rbodleyscott]

It is something we could consider for the future. However, it also makes deployment less critical as it is easier to redeploy. And we do know that historically deployment was indeed critical - e.g. the Battle of Ilipa.

[Kabill]

It is something we could consider for the future. However, it also makes deployment less critical as it is easier to redeploy. And we do know that historically deployment was indeed critical - e.g. the Battle of Ilipa.

While it would be easier for a player to redeploy, their opponent could also close in on them more quickly, so I think that would balance out.

E.g. If normally it would take a player 4 turns to advance on their opponents position, they would be able to advance in 2 turns instead, halving the amount of time the other player has to redeploy their troops.

Further, in redeployment, maneovreability is at least as important as speed. If "march mode" increased move speed but had no effect on the turns you could make, I don't think it would help very much (and you're opponent could march to advance on your position, possibly making redeployment less easy than currently since a player who was already deployed could rapidly close while the other player is unable to turn their units any better to redeploy them).

I'm undecided whether or not I actually think adding something like this would be good. But given what I've written above I'm not sure it would make redepoyment much if at all easier.

[jomni]

Deleted double post

[jomni]

March mode should be done at the operational level. When both armies are this close, I don’t think they should be doing march formation anymore. So the decision to flank must be done before the battle has started. I.e. the Flank March occurrence in Pike and Shot and Sengoku Jidai. Come to think of it, is Flank March implemented in FoG2?

An improvement to the original Flank March mechanics of P&S is to make it voluntary. Before the start the players of both sides assign units that will do Flank March. Then they will arrive at some random turn. If flanking contingents meet at the same side, off-map, they will auto resolve (out of the control of the C-in-C). The winners of the off map battle (whatever is left) will then arrive from the flanks. This mechanic was implemented in Takeda and I like it a lot.

[MVP7]

Are there any historical examples of ancient armies getting in and out of marching column in middle of a battle to move short distances? It sounds weird and not something that would be done on tactical level.

[Archaeologist1970]

Lake Traseme? I think hannibal caught the entire Roman army in column march.

[SnuggleBunnies]

And they were unable to deploy into battle order and crushed, yes?

[rbodleyscott]

March mode should be done at the operational level. When both armies are this close, I don’t think they should be doing march formation anymore. So the decision to flank must be done before the battle has started. I.e. the Flank March occurrence in Pike and Shot and Sengoku Jidai. Come to think of it, is Flank March implemented in FoG2?

Yes

[Archaeologist1970]

I dont think its unhistorical to have column marches along as they carry a risk in using it. I do think its unhistorical for someone to turtle in the back and draw a game out unnecessarily. If this helps that, why not add it?

[76mm]

Why not just make scenarios longer?

[jjaquemond]

Agree with Jomni /MVPZ - March mode would be done much more at the operational level. Remember these aren't Napoleonic era troops with professional drill and training, that can snap from line to column. Historically in this Era deployment was pretty fixed once the armies lined up for battle. However you have my sympathies dealing with Turtling opponents...

[TheGrayMouser]

We don’t even really have full knowledge of exactly how the myriad troop types fought in “ normal formation” to add in a dubious “march column”. What is it supposed to represent? Super deep ranks but only a few files wide? Then a unit should be multiply grids deep. Which troops or nations marched in cadence(any?) ? Which troops could easily form in battle formation, versus ones that would be hard pressed to do so? Which troops don’t even carry their own armor( hoplite for sure, others?) Too many variables I think to handle with one “column for all”. Anyway, it wasn’t until late 18th c that troop could shake out of 2 company wide columns and form line. Even Frederick the greats army needed at least a mile from the enemy to form up from approach march to perpendicular battle line.

A better approach might be to have a double time march that could be used once per game per unit, and by instigated by command group only. ( all units under one commander). After the move ( which can’t allow for impact or entering a grid adjacent to any enemy, and would be double , and exclude lights pacs etc) all units are disordered and remain so until they pass a cohesion test

[edb1815]

March mode should be done at the operational level. When both armies are this close, I don’t think they should be doing march formation anymore. So the decision to flank must be done before the battle has started. I.e. the Flank March occurrence in Pike and Shot and Sengoku Jidai. Come to think of it, is Flank March implemented in FoG2?

An improvement to the original Flank March mechanics of P&S is to make it voluntary. Before the start the players of both sides assign units that will do Flank March. Then they will arrive at some random turn. If flanking contingents meet at the same side, off-map, they will auto resolve (out of the control of the C-in-C). The winners of the off map battle (whatever is left) will then arrive from the flanks. This mechanic was implemented in Takeda and I like it a lot.

That's the way in works in the TT game. I just had a recent P&S MP game where my random flank march consisted of one lonely artillery unit.

[MVP7]

If the "tactical marching column formation" increased the speed of the unit by 2 squares the infantry would be moving as fast as cavalry. If the formation increased the movement speed by 1 square it would take 12 squares or four turns of non-stop marching on top of the two formation change turns just for the formation to break even with regular marching. And that is of course only on top of this Napoleonic sounding maneuver being unhistorical and uncharacteristic for ancient/medieval warfare. Units marching into battle before deploying into fighting formation is one thing but constantly switching between the two like an ancient transformer would be just ridiculous.

I also don't see any reason to add some UI cluttering forced march consumable (the kind of which have been steadily ruining total war games since medieval 2) with so draconian downsides to its use that it would be virtually unusable pseudo-option. Even if running march only moderately disordered the unit for the rest of the turn and was usable at any time it would just result in entire armies constantly running into positions which would be very unauthentic behavior. Maybe it's something that could be considered for medium infantry but at least heavy foot should definitely not be running around the battlefield like light infantry.

The armies in FoG2 are already probably far more capable of well organized small unit and large scale maneuvering than what real ancient and medieval armies probably were. Issues with cheesy multiplayer behavior must not be attempted to be solved with some highly artificial BS unit capabilities but instead by game modes that heavily discourage players from turtling, corner camping and other unsportsmanlike tactics.

[TheGrayMouser]

@mvp7, I can’t help but think all that was directed on a whimsical suggestion of a forced march idea that I made versus having any sort of march columns. ( which I agree are not needed). Anyway fog 1 had “double moves” which I never cared for but people seemed to like it (?perhaps the tt crowd especially)

Regardless, my comment really only had to do with the lack of interest in seeing march columns, I have no comments on how any of these thing can or can’t influence bad player behavior.

[TheSkirmishLord]

I don't think this idea would hurt deployment at all since the idea of march mode would be to travel to locations that would be out of reach no matter how troops are deployed.
By using a turn to move in and out of march mode, the break even point becomes four turns with the march mode advantage not being seen until the 5th turn. For that reason, it couldn't be used to close short distances on an enemy in order to take an advantageous position. It could be used to march around mountains, large lakes, or parallel to a river that can only be crossed at certain points. Over 10 moves, you would be able to move 32 spaces instead of 20.
With units treating all attacks as flank attacks, this formation would be very risky and vulnerable to cavalry attacks. I think this feature would only be used to take advantage of unique map features or to close distance on someone hiding at the back of a large map.
What comes to mind is Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy's maneuver in the battle of Dorylaeum in 1097.

[MVP7]

@ GrayMouser Yeah, I thought you might not have been serious with that one.

Anyways, medium infantry having an option to move 3 squares at the cost of being moderately (or maybe even severely) disordered and only have limited ZOC until next turn would be far preferable to general Optimus Primus ordering his legionaries to transform into chariots and race to the enemy positions at the edge of the map.