Quote from: LawrenceG on November 05, 2024, 11:58:06 AM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 05, 2024, 09:41:01 AM
By the way, I completely agree about the need for a rule change to stop hitting UGs in the flank with a frontal charge. But rule changes won't be happening at the moment....
Richard
What would they do instead?
I suppose it could use the same principle as shooting: you can only charge the nearest base in the file.
Unless you start behind the flank, obviously.
The other thing about hitting the side in this way is that it takes the pluses for back ranks away from the front base because they have to fight the file contacting them (if I have the rule right). You could say that all the bases in the file get the full bonuses as though they were the front base and it was only contacted on the front. So for example the front of a pike block could get bonuses for all four ranks and so could a base in the same file contacted via the side. It means double counting some bases which is against the principle that each only fights once but it reflects the larger situation (we assume it is a frontal attack but then don't give all the bonuses any other frontal attack would face)
QuoteThe other thing about hitting the side in this way is that it takes the pluses for back ranks away from the front base because they have to fight the file contacting them (if I have the rule right)
That may need confirmation as I understood they could ignore that "flank" contact and fight forward giving bonuses to the front .
It would be interesting to be 100% sure of how to play "Keil" or even profound phalanxes
I agree with dodgy flank contacts being worth a fix long-term.
Don't think the Swiss need a fix, well not as much as James IV :D
Quote from: badhabum on November 05, 2024, 02:59:30 PM
That may need confirmation as I understood they could ignore that "flank" contact and fight forward giving bonuses to the front .
Sorry I didn't quite explain my suggestion properly. Imagine two deep spear. A cavalry units hits them front at an angle and steps on into the second rank with another base so counting as two frontal contacts. At the moment the spear player could claim +2 for the front one and no plus for the back (fighting forward as you say). I'm saying he should get+2 for both -if it is a frontal contact work out the factors as though you contacted the front
Quote from: daveparish on November 05, 2024, 04:29:55 PM
Quote from: badhabum on November 05, 2024, 02:59:30 PM
That may need confirmation as I understood they could ignore that "flank" contact and fight forward giving bonuses to the front .
Sorry I didn't quite explain my suggestion properly. Imagine two deep spear. A cavalry units hits them front at an angle and steps on into the second rank with another base so counting as two frontal contacts. At the moment the spear player could claim +2 for the front one and no plus for the back (fighting forward as you say). I'm saying he should get+2 for both -if it is a frontal contact work out the factors as though you contacted the front
or count contacts per file, file owner picks which one is a combat in the charge. in melee, one is combat the other an overlap
Actually that's much simpler than my idea. This rules writing caper is more difficult than it looks isn't it ;-)
Perhaps we should start a new thread now? We seem to have moved off the issue of the Swiss to the bigger issue of a potential rules adjustment.
Wouldn't that just make Keil/Pike stronger as you could increase your 'frontage' and tie up more units by sitting at a weird angle?
Although I'm struggling to visualise how kiel utilises wheel charges to create favourable situations - is it just by contacting multiple enemies with one kiel?
My proposal for a rule change would be that flank contacts would only be permitted for a flank charge. If you start in a position that is not valid for a flank charge then you can only contact the front.
If you declare a charge but the target moves so that it no longer is a valid flank charge then you would be permitted to move but not contact the UG. Alternatively you could choose not to move, so would still be able to do a prompted action in the movement phase, but you wouldn't get any card back.
I would also like to see a rule so that you cannot declare a charge in a direction such that the wheel would reduce the number of files that would make contact with the enemy (compared to charging directly ahead). The intention would be to stop wheels to ensure reduce the number of files that make contact (normally because an UG is at a disadvantage in the charge phase). This would need to be thought through though.
Along with this I would remove the rule that enemy skirmishers prevent TuGs wheeling beyond the point that they would contact the SuG (unless the SuG stands obviously).
As with all potential rule changes, this would need to be taken in the whole.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM
My proposal for a rule change would be that flank contacts would only be permitted for a flank charge. If you start in a position that is not valid for a flank charge then you can only contact the front.
This would mean if the opposing Ug is in line with your front edge you could never charge it , even with a wheel as you'd be contacting on the side edge.
perhaps something as simple as 'A charge contacting the side edge of an enemy file but not as a flank charge, must immediately align to the front edge of the contacted file or itsfront corner if it creates a supporting file, chargers choice. If it cannot align due to space, not distance (make it a 2bw slide) it may not declare the charge'
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM
If you declare a charge but the target moves so that it no longer is a valid flank charge then you would be permitted to move but not contact the UG. Alternatively you could choose not to move, so would still be able to do a prompted action in the movement phase, but you wouldn't get any card back.
potential cheese there with angles and a counter charge
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM
I would also like to see a rule so that you cannot declare a charge in a direction such that the wheel would reduce the number of files that would make contact with the enemy (compared to charging directly ahead). The intention would be to stop wheels to ensure reduce the number of files that make contact (normally because an UG is at a disadvantage in the charge phase). This would need to be thought through though.
that'll take some interesting and precise wording as the wheel determines the charge path., Two enemy tugs near one other, one directly aligned and ahead of your charging Tug , one not. A wheel can target both enemy tugs but would reduce the number of bases contacted on the enemy Tug to your front.
Perhaps the solution would be in the alignment rules? force chargers to align to maximise base contact, making it a 2 base width shift for that purpose and alter the order so the charged Tug has first option to align, so could limit it to a single base shift, that removes some potential bree. If they dont align then the Charger must align by the maximum.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM
Along with this I would remove the rule that enemy skirmishers prevent TuGs wheeling beyond the point that they would contact the SuG (unless the SuG stands obviously).
As with all potential rule changes, this would need to be taken in the whole.
total removal opens the way for some potentially odd situations. How about a Sug within 1BW of an opposing Tug that declares a charge which includes a wheel must be immediately displaced to 1BW away, or maybe 1bw from its current position, the wheel may extend to the new line of the sug. This improves the wheel scope, represents the skirmishers backing off as it sees the enemy tug start to maneuver and improves the skirmisher survivability as they are now further away (risk/reward for the Tug). If the Tug charges straight ahead , no displacement for the skirmishers, bunny in the head lights.
Matt,
Thanks for your feedback. I was trying to state principles, not come up with precise wording.
My first proposal, the principle is only contact flanks if you are making a valid flank charge. If the UG is in line with the (extended) front edge of an enemy UG, then it either has to move forward a fraction or wheel and wait to the following turn to charge. Don't see a problem with that.
(Before you raise it, there would be not pressing forward onto the flank if you contact frontally.)
My second point I got the wording wrong. The principle is that if due to earlier movement in the charge phase your valid charge is no longer valid you would get an option. If the charge target moves and you are in a situation where you cannot contact frontally and aren't in a valid flank charge position - then you would have the option to move in the charge phase but not make contact or wait and have the option of moving in the movement phase.
My third point - it would need careful wording. The principle is simple enough, don't wheel to reduce the overall number of enemy files contacted (this could be across multiple UGs).
Not sure what odd situations you are thinking of (there may be some I haven't thought of). The SuG will still have the normal evade options. The TuG is just not limited by the SuG when choosing it's charge direction.
I emphasise, changes like these would have to be taken in the whole and tested extensively.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM
Along with this I would remove the rule that enemy skirmishers prevent TuGs wheeling beyond the point that they would contact the SuG (unless the SuG stands obviously).
Given that, IMO, the wheel allowance in a charge is quite generous I don't have much of an issue with skirmishers restricting wheels.
QuoteI would also like to see a rule so that you cannot declare a charge in a direction such that the wheel would reduce the number of files that would make contact with the enemy (compared to charging directly ahead). The intention would be to stop wheels to ensure reduce the number of files that make contact (normally because an UG is at a disadvantage in the charge phase). This would need to be thought through though.
I have read the answer so yes it needs a good wording but when we conform at impact, you can also conform to reduce the number of files in contact as long as you remain in contact with the contacted target ( you generally have to be the first to conform to be able to do it )
The skirmishers's job is to disorganise the opponent and amper his movements so why should they not limit the charge possibilities by limiting the possible angle of the charge ?
I heartily DISagree with the move to restrict frontal charges that contact a flank. If you don't want one of your units to be hit in this way protect it with good positioning of it and other units. Complex rules to mitigate poor choices is a bad idea.
Also the use of skirmishers to restrict wheels during charges is also a perfectly valid choice of when and how to use units.
Quote from: steads on November 06, 2024, 04:38:25 PM
I heartily DISagree with the move to restrict frontal charges that contact a flank. If you don't want one of your units to be hit in this way protect it with good positioning of it and other units. Complex rules to mitigate poor choices is a bad idea.
Also the use of skirmishers to restrict wheels during charges is also a perfectly valid choice of when and how to use units.
I agree with you
Up front, I am not opposed to rule changes that improve the game. However, I am currently with Steads on one key point - I do not understand how, using the current rules, keils are routinely getting onto flank files from the front if enemy TuGs are mutually supporting each other. Of course, it might be easier once the 'battle line' fractures.
The changes suggested might go beyond simply preventing cheesy micro-manoeuvres, which I agree is a noble aim. If we force TuGs to line up fully in charge combat, as opposed to preventing files from stepping forward to contact rear ranks, there will be less opportunity for players who are 'outgunned' to minimise the potential damage from their more powerful charging opponents. This will make devastating chargers, charging lancers and the like, more effective. In short, we are also playing with internal game balance and the balance between game and simulation.
Again, I am not against rule changes but I am strongly advocating that we tread carefully by clearly establishing what we are trying to achieve and thoroughly test potential changes. Sorry if I am telling people to 'suck eggs'. Also, it might be worth seeking Simon's views.
Quote from: badhabum on November 06, 2024, 04:32:29 PM
The skirmishers's job is to disorganise the opponent and amper his movements so why should they not limit the charge possibilities by limiting the possible angle of the charge ?
In principle I agree that is a SuGs role. But I think blocking charge angle is a poor representation of this given that SUGs die when contacted otherwise or just get shoved out of the way unceremoniously during move. Coming to MeG as a new player this rule was a 'whiplash' moment and feels incredibly gamey in the context of the rest of the rules and role of SuGs in other phases.
You also need to consider it in combination with the proposal to limit 'why you can wheel and how much' so you're not wheeling to avoid combat (why are you charging then?) which I think is probably going to be the best and most elegant change of all the proposals.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM
My proposal for a rule change would be that flank contacts would only be permitted for a flank charge. If you start in a position that is not valid for a flank charge then you can only contact the front.
If you declare a charge but the target moves so that it no longer is a valid flank charge then you would be permitted to move but not contact the UG. Alternatively you could choose not to move, so would still be able to do a prompted action in the movement phase, but you wouldn't get any card back.
I would also like to see a rule so that you cannot declare a charge in a direction such that the wheel would reduce the number of files that would make contact with the enemy (compared to charging directly ahead). The intention would be to stop wheels to ensure reduce the number of files that make contact (normally because an UG is at a disadvantage in the charge phase). This would need to be thought through though.
Along with this I would remove the rule that enemy skirmishers prevent TuGs wheeling beyond the point that they would contact the SuG (unless the SuG stands obviously).
As with all potential rule changes, this would need to be taken in the whole.
1. I don't see the use case for this. I think this is OK to allow additional contacts.
2. This isn't necessary without 1.
3. This I am strongly in favour of, or some variation thereof. You should have to wheel to maximise contact.
4. I'm in favour if this accompanied some limitations to wheeling during charges.
What is it about frontal charges that hit the flank that suggests a change might be beneficial?
QuoteIn principle I agree that is a SuGs role. But I think blocking charge angle is a poor representation of this given that SUGs die when contacted otherwise or just get shoved out of the way unceremoniously during move. Coming to MeG as a new player this rule was a 'whiplash' moment and feels incredibly gamey in the context of the rest of the rules and role of SuGs in other phases.
Perhaps MEG does underestimate the value of skirmishers on a real battle field :)
A SUG does not "die" but is dispersed and so cease to function as a coordinated unit
Now it was their job to screen and amper enemy heavy infantry units ( and cavalry ) hence it does not bother me to see them doing the job they are assigned too
Quote from: badhabum on November 07, 2024, 08:12:00 PM
QuoteIn principle I agree that is a SuGs role. But I think blocking charge angle is a poor representation of this given that SUGs die when contacted otherwise or just get shoved out of the way unceremoniously during move. Coming to MeG as a new player this rule was a 'whiplash' moment and feels incredibly gamey in the context of the rest of the rules and role of SuGs in other phases.
Perhaps MEG does underestimate the value of skirmishers on a real battle field :)
A SUG does not "die" but is dispersed and so cease to function as a coordinated unit
Now it was their job to screen and amper enemy heavy infantry units ( and cavalry ) hence it does not bother me to see them doing the job they are assigned too
Maybe it does. Again, its quite jarring when the only time they do become an impediment to movement is right when troops are about to charge.
I think (and coming from a new player learning the game) I'd like that to other extend in some form to other phases or be changed.
FWIW I think Simon's overall approach to skirmishers seems pretty good and I wouldn't want to mess around with it. Unless there was a large imbalance in skirmishers between armies or unusual circumstances, they tended to cancel each other out and so not have much of an impact on the battle. Most contemporary writers seem to have regarded skirmishing as the ineffectual prelude to the real fighting.
Quote from: SteveO on November 08, 2024, 08:06:56 AM
FWIW I think Simon's overall approach to skirmishers seems pretty good and I wouldn't want to mess around with it. Unless there was a large imbalance in skirmishers between armies or unusual circumstances, they tended to cancel each other out and so not have much of an impact on the battle. Most contemporary writers seem to have regarded skirmishing as the ineffectual prelude to the real fighting.
Till Sphaecteria, till balearic slingers or Numidian cavalry ..
QuoteAgain, its quite jarring when the only time they do become an impediment to movement is right when troops are about to charge.
Remember you have an helicopter view
On the ground the skirmisher are a screen that can be dense and the guys that do charge do not see clearly what's behind that screen as they use their shields to protect them ( shields that could be shot trough ), warriors had to avoid missiles, had to maintain formation , there was dust and so on ...
Quote from: badhabum on November 08, 2024, 09:24:00 AM
Quote from: SteveO on November 08, 2024, 08:06:56 AM
FWIW I think Simon's overall approach to skirmishers seems pretty good and I wouldn't want to mess around with it. Unless there was a large imbalance in skirmishers between armies or unusual circumstances, they tended to cancel each other out and so not have much of an impact on the battle. Most contemporary writers seem to have regarded skirmishing as the ineffectual prelude to the real fighting.
Till Sphaecteria, till balearic slingers or Numidian cavalry ..
I'm willing to bet that if you played Sphacteria using MeG it would work out as a pretty good representation (although you could argue that it isn't really what MeG is set up to represent)
Balearic slingers and Numidian cavalry are suitable effective in MeG - in fact the former possibly have a bit more impact than they actually did in set piece battles IMO.
Quote from: steads on November 06, 2024, 04:38:25 PM
I heartily DISagree with the move to restrict frontal charges that contact a flank. If you don't want one of your units to be hit in this way protect it with good positioning of it and other units. Complex rules to mitigate poor choices is a bad idea.
Also the use of skirmishers to restrict wheels during charges is also a perfectly valid choice of when and how to use units.
100% agree with Mr Stead
Quote from: badhabum on November 08, 2024, 09:24:00 AM
Quote from: SteveO on November 08, 2024, 08:06:56 AM
FWIW I think Simon's overall approach to skirmishers seems pretty good and I wouldn't want to mess around with it. Unless there was a large imbalance in skirmishers between armies or unusual circumstances, they tended to cancel each other out and so not have much of an impact on the battle. Most contemporary writers seem to have regarded skirmishing as the ineffectual prelude to the real fighting.
Till Sphaecteria, till balearic slingers or Numidian cavalry ..
Well, Sphaecteria was one of the exceptions I alluded to where there was a large imbalance in skirmisher numbers. Carrhae is another. However, the generalisation that skirmishers usually did not decide battles on their own holds true noting there will be exceptions.
Guerrilla tactics during a campaign is another matter but not modelled by MeG.
As for Balaeric slingers and Numidian cavalry, they were well regarded skirmishers but how many battles did they win on their own? In short, I still think MeG's treatment of skirmishers is one of its stronger points and would not be keen to change it.
Win on their own is a high bar. But Numidian horse are arguably decisive in Cannae and Zama.
I am generally with Steve Stead on this.
I am quite adept at angling charges to step forward a file into enemy second or subsequent ranks but I don't think it should be allowed.
The base depth is very artificial and the interaction a bit messy. Perhaps a rule change to the stepping forward rules to stop files from a unit making frontal contact from stepping forward into the flank of their target?
Quote from: paulstovell on November 09, 2024, 12:23:16 PM
Win on their own is a high bar. But Numidian horse are arguably decisive in Cannae and Zama.
Well, they were certainly important. Anyway, I am not arguing that skirmishers could not be effective, only that unusual circumstances were required for them to be battle-winners. There were a number of ancient battles where skirmishers decided the day. However, I still believe MeG has got skirmishers right.
As for the main point of this thread, I personally agree with stopping excessively complex manoeuvre that IMO slows games, gives cheesy effects and creates arguments. However, not all players will agree as they place greater emphasis on playing the game than concentrating on the few, high-level decisions ancient generals actually had available to them once battle was joined. It's a conundrum as there is no correct answer, only personal preference.
QuoteAs for Balaeric slingers and Numidian cavalry, they were well regarded skirmishers but how many battles did they win on their own? In short, I still think MeG's treatment of skirmishers is one of its stronger points and would not be keen to change it.
I thibk the skirmishers are usually underestimated. They did not win battles by themselves but heavy close order infantry also rarely won battle by themselves. It's the combo that wins or at least gives the edge and yes there are battles as Marathon but as for Sphaecteria it did not happen every day . But that's perhaps another topic .
Otherwise frontal charge : do not change the rules
QuoteI would also like to see a rule so that you cannot declare a charge in a direction such that the wheel would reduce the number of files that would make contact with the enemy (compared to charging directly ahead). The intention would be to stop wheels to ensure reduce the number of files that make contact (normally because an UG is at a disadvantage in the charge phase). This would need to be thought through though.
Maybe this could be done by obligating the charger to maximize the number of contacts their unit makes. This would allow them to wheel to contact multiple units while avoiding the game-ism of wheeling to minimize a disadvantageous charge.
Would it be as simple as only allowing wheels during a charge which increase the amount of files in contact?
In this way, if you've managed to line up a direct charge AND your opponent can't alter with a countercharge then you can be rewarded with the favourable #of files engaged.
BUT, if you're pulling some 70degree wheel to make sure only 1 file hits that would be a hard no from the rule.
This could be taken a step further and require if a wheel is used, that it shall be used to maximise files in contact within the limitations of movement and other TuGs.
Quote from: Hayung_is on January 14, 2025, 02:35:40 PM
Would it be as simple as only allowing wheels during a charge which increase the amount of files in contact?
In this way, if you've managed to line up a direct charge AND your opponent can't alter with a countercharge then you can be rewarded with the favourable #of files engaged.
BUT, if you're pulling some 70degree wheel to make sure only 1 file hits that would be a hard no from the rule.
This could be taken a step further and require if a wheel is used, that it shall be used to maximise files in contact within the limitations of movement and other TuGs.
This is a minefield for actual policing: if you wheel 1 or 2 degrees more or less you can follow up to get another base in, is prone to difficulties of measuring the 1 base width follow-up. It is fiddly and likely to generate lots of playing time friction and even umpire calls :( :(
Quote from: steads on January 15, 2025, 09:27:41 AM
Quote from: Hayung_is on January 14, 2025, 02:35:40 PM
Would it be as simple as only allowing wheels during a charge which increase the amount of files in contact?
In this way, if you've managed to line up a direct charge AND your opponent can't alter with a countercharge then you can be rewarded with the favourable #of files engaged.
BUT, if you're pulling some 70degree wheel to make sure only 1 file hits that would be a hard no from the rule.
This could be taken a step further and require if a wheel is used, that it shall be used to maximise files in contact within the limitations of movement and other TuGs.
This is a minefield for actual policing: if you wheel 1 or 2 degrees more or less you can follow up to get another base in, is prone to difficulties of measuring the 1 base width follow-up. It is fiddly and likely to generate lots of playing time friction and even umpire calls :( :(
I agree with Steads entirely. It would be nice to stop the 'minimum contact' charges, which are cheesy, ahistorical, and a bad thing, but getting clear language to stop it would be difficult.
Quote from: steads on January 15, 2025, 09:27:41 AM
Quote from: Hayung_is on January 14, 2025, 02:35:40 PM
Would it be as simple as only allowing wheels during a charge which increase the amount of files in contact?
In this way, if you've managed to line up a direct charge AND your opponent can't alter with a countercharge then you can be rewarded with the favourable #of files engaged.
BUT, if you're pulling some 70degree wheel to make sure only 1 file hits that would be a hard no from the rule.
This could be taken a step further and require if a wheel is used, that it shall be used to maximise files in contact within the limitations of movement and other TuGs.
This is a minefield for actual policing: if you wheel 1 or 2 degrees more or less you can follow up to get another base in, is prone to difficulties of measuring the 1 base width follow-up. It is fiddly and likely to generate lots of playing time friction and even umpire calls :( :(
To clarify further if it helps - in my suggestion wheeling is always at the discretion of the player. So they may choose to charge direct and the rules would not require a wheel. The player would also still have control over how much to wheel provided they met one simple proviso - the wheel increased the number of files in combat. Ie. from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2 etc.
The rule would then simply be: A wheel during a charge may only be used to increase (compared to a direct forward move) the number of files in combat.
Players might still be able to achieve charges which minimise contact, but in general it should be much more difficult and preventable by the opponent, rather than the current situation where you can be in front and aligned and simple wheeling oblique can cause only 1 file to contact.
I think you should be able to wheel if the bases in contact is the same. It's only reducing the contacts that is cheesy.
Also you should probably be able to wheel to charge a different UG, even if this results in fewer contacts than charging straight ahead.
the thing is, and i have done this, wheeling to avoid some shooter bases or to avoid a bad first contact example white on green, hoping to survive for a better melee phase. it is indeed cheezy example green on white.
a solution would be : no wheeling during charges or only a white move allowed (whitout playing a card).
so during the move phase, prepare for the charge, position well in view of the next charge phase.
it is not ideal, sometimes in rules a charge is seen as a continuation of the move.
but then, somehow preparing for a chrge directly ahead by wheelin during moves, and not during charges, could replace it.
Quote from: Jilu on January 16, 2025, 05:07:24 PM
the thing is, and i have done this, wheeling to avoid some shooter bases or to avoid a bad first contact example white on green, hoping to survive for a better melee phase. it is indeed cheezy example green on white.
a solution would be : no wheeling during charges or only a white move allowed (whitout playing a card).
so during the move phase, prepare for the charge, position well in view of the next charge phase.
it is not ideal, sometimes in rules a charge is seen as a continuation of the move.
but then, somehow preparing for a chrge directly ahead by wheelin during moves, and not during charges, could replace it.
Would make life very difficult for tribal troops that need a good card to wheel. They'd hardly ever get a decent charge in.
I still wonder where the problem is ? and if the solution would not cause other problems