Medieval combat?

[fsn]

Don't forget the rabbits. They were equal to the snails and more expressive.

Dangerous singly, but a walk* of snails can be lethal if they can corner you.


*Yes, that is one of the collective terms for snails.

[Last Hussar]

I was thinking more of smashing a hole in the line, and turning into the flank of the next unit. Rather than the flank of the whole army.

This is pretty much what happens in FoG, as mentioned above. Apart from the questionable melee results against archers, it's a pretty good tabletop game. It just happens to be on a computer.

[Ithoriel]

One of the things I like about the Strength and Honour rules is that units don't really take casualties though they may break due to adverse morale checks and the army as a whole may collapse if it suffers enough adverse events.

And earlier when I referred to flank - I was thinking more of smashing a hole in the line, and turning into the flank of the next unit. Rather than the flank of the whole army.

I think that was not uncommon, with the less committed sloping off early. Sometimes one whole flank of the army is winning while the other is losing.

[fred.]

Dangerous singly, but a walk* of snails can be lethal if they can corner you.


*Yes, that is one of the collective terms for snails.

What!!!

Are these your figures fsn, if so I commend you on the snail trails...

[steve_holmes_11]

Dangerous singly, but a walk* of snails can be lethal if they can corner you.


*Yes, that is one of the collective terms for snails.

Desperate measures lads - pass the salt.

[Big Insect]

And earlier when I referred to flank - I was thinking more of smashing a hole in the line, and turning into the flank of the next unit. Rather than the flank of the whole army.

Even then fred, I think it was exceptionally rare. Most soldiers/warriors are more concerned about protecting their own rears and flanks than exploiting an opportunity of wheeling and attacking an exposed enemy flank. I can see the formation advancing forward into a gap it has created and lending assistance to its own friendly flank units, but the blokes on the end of a line would be mighty cautious about exposing their own back or flanks.

Cheers
Mark

[Big Insect]

This is pretty much what happens in FoG, as mentioned above. Apart from the questionable melee results against archers, it's a pretty good tabletop game. It just happens to be on a computer.

I've got just about every FOG book available (I think) - so let me know if you want any of them? - although they are the original version - so I am not too sure how relevant they are any more.

I've moved on to ADLG.

[Big Insect]

Most sets of rules also handle exhaustion and attrition very poorly as it adds an extra layer of bookkeeping to an already overloaded gamers mind.
Armati handled both the issue of making breakthrough flanking movements and combat fatigue very well - but it produced a game, that whilst realistic was not popular.

[fred.]

Even then fred, I think it was exceptionally rare. Most soldiers/warriors are more concerned about protecting their own rears and flanks than exploiting an opportunity of wheeling and attacking an exposed enemy flank. I can see the formation advancing forward into a gap it has created and lending assistance to its own friendly flank units, but the blokes on the end of a line would be mighty cautious about exposing their own back or flanks.

Cheers
Mark

Indeed - and I am talking about what games give - not what is realistic. As was said above there are the limits of toy soldiers stuck on large solid bases, that do limit where they go. But whilst players are cautious about exposing flanks of units, they do so very willing in the perfect information situation they have, when they calculate they are safe to do so.

Games also focus very heavily on the position of units, before and after they have moved, but the actual time spent moving is almost instantaneous - which again gives a very odd perspective on the troops. Computer games like Total War give a much better idea of the time spent by troops moving, rather than jumping from A to B, then standing in B whilst all the other troops move. 

But somehow we accept all these compromises as they are what make a game actually playable and fun. 

[fred.]

Most sets of rules also handle exhaustion and attrition very poorly as it adds an extra layer of bookkeeping to an already overloaded gamers mind.
Armati handled both the issue of making breakthrough flanking movements and combat fatigue very well - but it produced a game, that whilst realistic was not popular.

Agree too, particularly on the exhaustion side. 


One game that handles attrition very elegantly is Rommel by Sam Mustafa where as combat quality degrades the ability to be effective against enemies drops as well as the unit becoming closer to breaking. And fresh units are super effective when deployed against these. 

I'm not familiar with Armati - but realistic and popular rarely go together!

[Last Hussar]

Just to be clear, by FoG I mean Fields of Glory computer game.

If what Mustapha has done in Rommel is similar to Blucher, I fully understand,  it isn't casualties,  it's fighting effectiveness.

[fsn]

Desperate measures lads - pass the salt.

     

[Last Hussar]

Surely garlic mayo with snail?

[steve_holmes_11]

Most sets of rules also handle exhaustion and attrition very poorly as it adds an extra layer of bookkeeping to an already overloaded gamers mind.
Armati handled both the issue of making breakthrough flanking movements and combat fatigue very well - but it produced a game, that whilst realistic was not popular.

I can quote some examples and trends regarding exhaustion, attrition and flanking.


WRG 7th introduced exhaustion.
I wasn't part of the "community" at the time, but I understand it was an unpopular idea.
Maybe due to poor implementation rather than being a failed idea.

Impetus provided the "impetus bonus" for fresh units, while worn units don't get the bonus.

To the Strongest tracks missiles, but combat attrition is one (disorder) then done.
Unless you're deep, deep deep, deep deep deep - etc ad infinitium.

The currently fashionable member of the alphabet soup consortium (the one with the coloured cards) does element removal.
Your elements are one and done, but this exhausts the group.

Exhaustion is a bit like D&D hitpoints, we accept that combat is tiring.
A credible presentation requires balance between:
 * Few combatants should be immune to melee damage (which takes me back to some truly disappointing ancients games)
 * Sufficient damage steps which reduce unit efficiency.


A welcome development is the concept of melee support.
Units get some extras from friends in close proximity.
To me (and this is highly subjective) support feels a lot more credible than forcing a unit to wheel and "shut the door" on a flank.

[Last Hussar]

I like the system Blucher has of Elan. A unit normally starts with 6 Elan (Veterans/Elite more, raw less)

As you get shot at you may lose Elan.
In close combat you lose 1 Elan if you win. Losers can lose more, depending on winning margin.

The number of firing or combat dice you throw is equal to current Elan.

It's not about the numbers - how does the unit feel? It wraps firepower up with morale

[Gwydion]

WRG 7th was 'unpopular' because Phil had had an epiphany and changed the basis of the game. It wasn't really WRG Ancients 7th Edition it was a different game entirely and after investing in 1 thru 6 most Ancients players hated it.

[Last Hussar]

Think I've worked out where I'm going wrong with FoG II.

Archers (as opposed to Light Archers) are shown as being armed with Bow (obviously) short sword and shield (I assume buckler).

I've been charging armoured cavalry into them and not winning - indeed being held, or even retiring after melee.

I think I've not realised what a negative 'Rough' terrain is on the horse, and not checking that's where they have positioned themselves.

I set up a 'user defined' game - just a row of 9 archer units v 9 Horse. 3 archers are in'Rough', 3 in Fields (open) and 3 in Open.

'Knights and Sergeants' in the open were deadly, but in the rough really struggled. I'm going to read the manual a bit deeper, to see if I can find what 'Rough' is.

[fred.]

Gemini AI thinks this

In Field of Glory II (FOG2), terrain is a decisive factor, and for cavalry, Rough Terrain (such as scrub, rocky ground, or brush) is often a death trap. Unlike infantry, which may only be slightly hindered, cavalry units suffer severe mechanical penalties that strip away their primary advantages.
Here is a breakdown of the specific effects of Rough Terrain on cavalry in melee:

1. The "Disorder" Mechanic
Rough terrain causes cavalry to become Disordered. In FOG2, disorder is one of the most punishing states a unit can have:

• Combat Strength Penalty: A disordered unit fights with reduced effective numbers (roughly a 25% penalty to combat power).
• Cohesion Test Penalty: If a disordered unit has to take a Cohesion Test (morale check), it suffers a -1 penalty to the die roll, making it much more likely to drop to "Disrupted," "Fragmented," or "Broken."

2. Loss of "Open Terrain" POAs
Many cavalry units (especially shock cavalry like Lancers, Knights, and Cataphracts) rely on huge Points of Advantage (POA) that are conditional on being in "Open Terrain."

• The Rule: If either the attacker or the defender is in non-open terrain (like Rough), the combat is not considered to be in open terrain.
• The Result: Heavy cavalry often gets +100 POA for their lances on the impact phase. In Rough terrain, this bonus is completely lost. This turns a terrifying charge into a weak stumble.

3. Specific Capability Penalties

• Mounted Swordsmen: Cavalry units often have "Swordsmen" capabilities for the ongoing melee phase. While swordsmen usually get bonuses against infantry, being Disordered in rough terrain significantly offsets this.
• Medium vs. Heavy Foot: In the open, cavalry can often bully Medium Foot. However, Medium Foot (like Auxilia or Thracians) are not disordered by Rough terrain. This means the infantry fights at 100% efficiency while your cavalry is at ~75%, effectively flipping the odds in favor of the cheaper infantry.

4. Movement and Maneuver
While not strictly "melee combat," these factors dictate how the melee starts:

• Higher Movement Cost: It costs more Action Points (AP) for cavalry to move through or turn in Rough terrain. You are much more likely to be caught in a bad position or flanked because you cannot maneuver away.
• No Evasion Bonus: If your light cavalry is caught in rough terrain, their ability to evade an enemy charge is often compromised or slowed, making them easier to pin down and destroy.

Summary Table: Cavalry in Rough Terrain

Feature	In Open Terrain	In Rough Terrain
Status	Steady	Disordered
Combat Power	100%	~75%
Lancer/Impact Bonus	+100 POA (usually)	0 POA
Morale (Cohesion)	Normal	-1 to all tests
vs. Medium Foot	Favorable	Highly Unfavorable

Tactical Tip
If you are playing a cavalry-heavy army (like the Parthians or Mongols), avoid Rough terrain at all costs. If an enemy infantry unit is sitting in a patch of rough ground, do not charge them. Instead, use your horse archers to pepper them with arrows until they are forced to move out or their cohesion breaks.

[Last Hussar]

Yep, that would be it!
The texture for "rough" doesn't really show how rough it is. I wondered what was happening. I noticed in tonight's game, when my knights were absolutely trouncing the computer's units, that made me wonder.

Also explains why its knights wouldn't charge my mounted crossbows, I bet they kept ending up in rough, so it refused to charge; It just stood there while I peppered the unit with 2 of mine.

The game tends to set up most of the horse, especially the heavies, at the back. I redeploy them forward on the flanks.

Tonight it got too caught up with trying to counter these flank attacks,so the foot that did reach my line were easier to overwhelm. I didn't really need to do much with the flanks, I realised it was busy trying to counter that only about half of it's foot reached my line.