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