Simultaneous moving

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

lgkm1
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 3:50 pm

Simultaneous moving

Post by lgkm1 » Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:33 pm

Please get both players moving in the same turn.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8696
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:13 am

And what happens when both players approach the same point?
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

jlopez
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 589
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlopez » Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:13 am

Basically, it's not very practical when you get within tactical range as you then have to start breaking it down into quarter moves and argue a lot over the exact meeting point in a charge. The current system of interception charges is IMHO all we need in terms of simultaneous moving.

It could be done for those troops starting and finishing their moves outside tactical range and prior to tactical moves. However, you then get into a situation where players move in a certain direction and then change their minds when they see what the opponent does. Overall, it doesn't make for faster or better games.

The only simulatenous move system I've seen work more or less is the Johnny Reb one where players place counters face down next to each unit to indicate the direction of a move or charge. Both players have a limited time period (3 mins I think) to place these after which any unit without a counter is assumed to be dithering and cannot move or charge. The counters are revealed simultaneously and players get on with the relevant moves. The only thing I would retain for FOG is the time limit (not necessaritly 3 mins) on movement, especially in competitions.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8696
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:18 am

jlopez wrote:. The only thing I would retain for FOG is the time limit (not necessaritly 3 mins) on movement, especially in competitions.
And this would have the effect of reducing the number of swarms as they would be more difficult to use. Not an effect you may need with your Persians Julian.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

jlopez
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 589
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlopez » Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:49 am

philqw78 wrote:
jlopez wrote:. The only thing I would retain for FOG is the time limit (not necessaritly 3 mins) on movement, especially in competitions.
And this would have the effect of reducing the number of swarms as they would be more difficult to use. Not an effect you may need with your Persians Julian.
That is definitely the intention! It also makes for a less technical chess-like game as the pressure of time will be the cause of many a mistake.

I have only used the (loaned) Later Ach. Persian horde (23 BGs) once in a competition. It was worth it just to see the hysterical reactions of my opponents when faced with 40 elements of cavalry plus the rest!

Unlike other sneakier versions like Dom Roms it is almost entirely made up of poor troops, IMHO is historical and it can't hide in terrain. I almost got beaten by Huns and was saved by luck and timely reinforcements of Persian mobs. I suspect more experienced players or your wall of lancers would make short work of it.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8696
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:29 am

jlopez wrote:I have only used the (loaned) Later Ach. Persian horde (23 BGs) once in a competition. It was worth it just to see the hysterical reactions of my opponents when faced with 40 elements of cavalry plus the rest!
....
. I almost got beaten by Huns and was saved by luck and timely reinforcements of Persian mobs.
Reinforcements. Persian Mob. I assumme the shaking of their chains scared the enemy off.
It is a scary list
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

jlopez
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 589
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlopez » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:54 am

philqw78 wrote:
jlopez wrote:I have only used the (loaned) Later Ach. Persian horde (23 BGs) once in a competition. It was worth it just to see the hysterical reactions of my opponents when faced with 40 elements of cavalry plus the rest!
....
. I almost got beaten by Huns and was saved by luck and timely reinforcements of Persian mobs.
Reinforcements. Persian Mob. I assumme the shaking of their chains scared the enemy off.
It is a scary list
Two mobs providing one overlap and another a flank charge turned the tide as the Huns and Ostrogoths chopped their way through the poor cavalry. No chains, all our volunteers are free to decline enrolment in the army...

At least most of the army can evade which does allow for some manoeuvering. The HYW mob of poor troops (48 MF, 22 HF, 4 Cv + assorted average troops) I took to Alcoy was truly scary as there was nowhere to run to. To my surprise most players were very hesitant about engaging it!

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Post by kevinj » Fri Sep 03, 2010 2:06 pm

To get back on the subject, I think a return to "simultaneous" movement could drastically slow down the game, and lead to the kind of arguments mentioned above. I agree that there are some issues with the freedom that some troops have to turn and move away, safe in the knowledge that they can never be caught, but I would rather consider solutions to those specific problems than this suggestion.

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:23 pm

kevinj wrote:To get back on the subject, I think a return to "simultaneous" movement could drastically slow down the game, and lead to the kind of arguments mentioned above. I agree that there are some issues with the freedom that some troops have to turn and move away, safe in the knowledge that they can never be caught, but I would rather consider solutions to those specific problems than this suggestion.
One thing that might be interesting would be a system where it was possible for side A to get to move twice in a row. Perhaps an 'initiative' roll at the start of each phase so you could get side A moving twice in a row. More than two moves on the trot would be too much but it might be interesting.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2963
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman » Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:21 pm

hammy wrote:
kevinj wrote:To get back on the subject, I think a return to "simultaneous" movement could drastically slow down the game, and lead to the kind of arguments mentioned above. I agree that there are some issues with the freedom that some troops have to turn and move away, safe in the knowledge that they can never be caught, but I would rather consider solutions to those specific problems than this suggestion.
One thing that might be interesting would be a system where it was possible for side A to get to move twice in a row. Perhaps an 'initiative' roll at the start of each phase so you could get side A moving twice in a row. More than two moves on the trot would be too much but it might be interesting.
that would create some valuable uncertainty - at the moment its sometimes too easy to predict how fast/far enemy troops and your troops can move
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

marioslaz
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: San Lazzaro (BO) Italy

Post by marioslaz » Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:55 pm

Just my opinion, but to have a decent game with simultaneous moving you must reintroduce orders. Without a good orders system simultaneous moving is just a mess.
Mario Vitale

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8696
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:24 pm

hammy wrote:One thing that might be interesting would be a system where it was possible for side A to get to move twice in a row. Perhaps an 'initiative' roll at the start of each phase so you could get side A moving twice in a row. More than two moves on the trot would be too much but it might be interesting.
But the whole game would then be utter bollocks.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:50 pm

philqw78 wrote:
hammy wrote:One thing that might be interesting would be a system where it was possible for side A to get to move twice in a row. Perhaps an 'initiative' roll at the start of each phase so you could get side A moving twice in a row. More than two moves on the trot would be too much but it might be interesting.
But the whole game would then be utter bollocks.
Nice to hear your opinion Phil ;)

I am not sure that it would wreck things as much as you think. Especially if there was a limit to two consecutive turns. What it would stop is the cheeky moves that just get something away from a threat in the full and certian knowledge that they threat can only move once before the cheeky chaps get to run again.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8696
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:56 pm

hammy wrote:I am not sure that it would wreck things as much as you think. Especially if there was a limit to two consecutive turns. t it would stop is the cheeky moves that just get something away from a threat in the full and certian knowledge that they threat can only move once before the cheeky chaps get to run again.
Why didn't you say that in the first place? It does add a degree of uncertainty. Which would add fun to the game. I would like it, so would Mr Ruddock, as in our time we have been jammy bastards
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:27 pm

I think if you do the flip flop of who moves first, you really need to study the impact of mounted speed.

it basically means foot have to prepare for a mounted attack at 2 moves much of the time.

Shooty cav at 19 mu will be within shooting range before you can act. They double move in 1st turn then 2nd turn scoot in to 4 MU.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2963
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:29 pm

hazelbark wrote:I think if you do the flip flop of who moves first, you really need to study the impact of mounted speed.

it basically means foot have to prepare for a mounted attack at 2 moves much of the time.

Shooty cav at 19 mu will be within shooting range before you can act. They double move in 1st turn then 2nd turn scoot in to 4 MU.
That why my take on it is to break each army down into commands and then do initiative by command - makes it a bit less binary
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:43 pm

But it would need more limitations. Like then units that double move without an opponent having an intervening turn can't get closer thatn 6 MU

In an old set of Nappy rules that board was split in 1/3rds you choose which flank you want to move first and the other you move second. Then you choose the middle. Forehand and backhand.

So if you picked backhand and then got to pick a forehand on one flank, you were effectively giving the opposite to your opponent on 1 flank. Would need something like it always applies to your further 1/3 BGs or such.

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:20 pm

philqw78 wrote:
hammy wrote:I am not sure that it would wreck things as much as you think. Especially if there was a limit to two consecutive turns. t it would stop is the cheeky moves that just get something away from a threat in the full and certian knowledge that they threat can only move once before the cheeky chaps get to run again.
Why didn't you say that in the first place? It does add a degree of uncertainty. Which would add fun to the game. I would like it, so would Mr Ruddock, as in our time we have been jammy bastards
Well in my initial suggestion I put "More than two moves on the trot would be too much but it might be interesting." Meaning that more than two moves would be too much but that it (the principle of one side getting to move twice in a row) might be interesting.

Tim has a very valid point though about troops moving too far without response.

Perhaps rather than a whole army getting to move again you could have a system where a small number of BGs got another move under certain circumstances.

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by DavidT » Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:40 pm

hammy wrote:One thing that might be interesting would be a system where it was possible for side A to get to move twice in a row. Perhaps an 'initiative' roll at the start of each phase so you could get side A moving twice in a row. More than two moves on the trot would be too much but it might be interesting.
This would be a very interesting concept.
Each player would roll each turn, adding the PBI modifier for their C-in-C (which gives more value to those ICs). The winner would then decide who moved first in a turn. It would be impossible to get more than two bounds in a row as each player would get to move every turn. Games could end up as a series of each player getting 2 bounds in a row, but it is more likely to play as a series of alternate bounds, with the occaissional reversal to let the winning player take two bounds in a row at a key point. The risk that a player could take two bounds in a row would make players think twice about a lot of risky moves.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22716
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:52 am

DavidT wrote:Each player would roll each turn, adding the PBI modifier for their C-in-C (which gives more value to those ICs).
They need more value? :shock:

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”