Restricted Area

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

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

tgreene
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:46 am

Post by tgreene » Mon Jul 12, 2010 2:01 am

RobKhan wrote:I agree with you, I was just trying to focus on the issue for tgreene's benefit and to make quite sure of what "... in front of..." meant. I wasn't being critical of the rules.

Hey, I'm not a peasant anymore :D

RobKhan
Anyways, thank you all for responding to my question. You did answer it.

TG

IanB3406
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:06 am

Post by IanB3406 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:58 am

I've thought it's a little to easy to get out of this restricted zone, in partticular is actually easier to get out of the restricted zone of multiple battlegroups as the moving BG gets to pick who he reacts to. Probably a simple change is to allow the non-moving player to decide.

david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by david53 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:04 am

IanB3406 wrote:I've thought it's a little to easy to get out of this restricted zone, in partticular is actually easier to get out of the restricted zone of multiple battlegroups as the moving BG gets to pick who he reacts to. Probably a simple change is to allow the non-moving player to decide.

Why change it in truth the only ones that can get out of it are Light troops. In all the games I have played if you get within 2mu of the enemy with battle troops your not thinking of moving back and leaving your rear open for a charge. If you were to change every little thing the rule book would be double what it is now.

rogerg
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 855
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: Halifax, Yorkshire

Post by rogerg » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:29 am

Rather than change the rules, be aware when you play. I have made the mistake a couple of times of pinning a BG with two groups and giving my opponent the option of responding to either.

Polkovnik
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:16 pm

Post by Polkovnik » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:44 am

IanB3406 wrote:I've thought it's a little to easy to get out of this restricted zone, in partticular is actually easier to get out of the restricted zone of multiple battlegroups as the moving BG gets to pick who he reacts to. Probably a simple change is to allow the non-moving player to decide.
Whilst I think the normal rules for restricted zone are fine, I agree that it is a problem with what happens when two BGs pin the same enemy BG. What should become a more restrictive situation for the pinned BG becomes an easier one to get out of. Maybe the pinned BG should have to react to all enemy BGs.
Once you are aware of the rules you can avoid the problem, but it seems a bit silly that you have to deliberately keep your distance and avoid pinning an enemy BG because it is already pinned by another friendly BG and you don't want to give it more options.

Polkovnik
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:16 pm

Post by Polkovnik » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:53 am

tgreene wrote: If it is in fact "any part" I would say that the restricted area is not very restricted at all. If there is to be a restricted area it ought to require the restricted BG to remain mostly to the front of the unit restricting it. Otherwise, what is the point of having a restricted area rule at all?

TG
Even though partly does mean (as in the dictionary defintion) "any part of" it is still very restrictive. Remember that pinned BGs are still bound by the normal movement rules, so it is normally only skirmishers that can get far away if they are pinned. And because they have to stay partly in front they can't get around behind the pinning BG, and if the pinning BG has enough movement it can move directly forward and pin the same BG again. So once you are pinned it is difficult to get away from the enemy BG, you can only do so if you are faster, and even then it takes some time if you want to get away and then get on their flank or rear.

ShrubMiK
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:37 am

Post by ShrubMiK » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:59 am

tgreene: Define "gamesmanship".

It's hard to see this particular example as gamesmanship, since it is clearly the RAW and clearly as the authors intended, too.

"What is the point óf having a restricted zone at all?" is easily answered: because if it wasn't there, then LH really would be able to squirrel their way apst any unit and through any small gap, with zero chance of stopping them. Something which you (quite rightly) don't like the idea of. So there you go, that's the point of it.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem if the rules were more restrictive - i.e. as suggested, you must keep at least half a base width in front. But that's not what they say, and in fact the difference between that and having to keep a gnat's todger of the BG in front is not that much. Slightly less than 20mm. Doesn't seem like a gamebreaker to me.

I get far more irritated about what happens when you have two BGs doing the pinning, something you clearly haven't played enough to discover yet ;) As pointed out already, there will be things in any ruleset you don't like (unless, presumably, you wrote the rues yourself ;)). It's not uncommon to see wargamers play a set of rules for a long time, get used to all its little foibles, and stop worrying about them. But then try another ruleset and the new little foibles, along with all the other differences between the way the rules play, seem much more of a big deal.

I wasn't that impressed by FoG when I first played it, and I still think it is a little simplistic in some ways compared to the rulesets I had played previously...but strangely, here I am playing FoG almost exclusively now.

tgreene
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:46 am

Post by tgreene » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:35 am

ShrubMiK wrote:tgreene: Define "gamesmanship".

It's hard to see this particular example as gamesmanship, since it is clearly the RAW and clearly as the authors intended, too.

"What is the point óf having a restricted zone at all?" is easily answered: because if it wasn't there, then LH really would be able to squirrel their way apst any unit and through any small gap, with zero chance of stopping them. Something which you (quite rightly) don't like the idea of. So there you go, that's the point of it.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem if the rules were more restrictive - i.e. as suggested, you must keep at least half a base width in front. But that's not what they say, and in fact the difference between that and having to keep a gnat's todger of the BG in front is not that much. Slightly less than 20mm. Doesn't seem like a gamebreaker to me.

I get far more irritated about what happens when you have two BGs doing the pinning, something you clearly haven't played enough to discover yet ;) As pointed out already, there will be things in any ruleset you don't like (unless, presumably, you wrote the rues yourself ;)). It's not uncommon to see wargamers play a set of rules for a long time, get used to all its little foibles, and stop worrying about them. But then try another ruleset and the new little foibles, along with all the other differences between the way the rules play, seem much more of a big deal.

I wasn't that impressed by FoG when I first played it, and I still think it is a little simplistic in some ways compared to the rulesets I had played previously...but strangely, here I am playing FoG almost exclusively now.




Gamesmanship is where a player does something that is basically cheesy (shouldn't be allowed but is). Such as, in my earlier example, moving into contact with enemy in bad going in such a way as to avoid being bad going themselves so the enemy unit will suffer the penalty for bad going and the moving unit won't. A solution for that is for the rules to penalize all units involved in the combat if any are in bad going. Rules can be written so as to anticipate and prevent cheesy moves by players more interested in winning than in good sportsmanship.

TG

tgreene
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:46 am

Post by tgreene » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:40 am

ShrubMiK wrote: I get far more irritated about what happens when you have two BGs doing the pinning, something you clearly haven't played enough to discover yet ;) As pointed out already, there will be things in any ruleset you don't like (unless, presumably, you wrote the rues yourself ;)). It's not uncommon to see wargamers play a set of rules for a long time, get used to all its little foibles, and stop worrying about them. But then try another ruleset and the new little foibles, along with all the other differences between the way the rules play, seem much more of a big deal.

I wasn't that impressed by FoG when I first played it, and I still think it is a little simplistic in some ways compared to the rulesets I had played previously...but strangely, here I am playing FoG almost exclusively now.
Actually that has happened to me as well and I find it a problem as some others here do as well. I don't think the solution is to just be more careful not to move more than one of your BG's into a pinning position. Yes that will work but it also restricts the movement of your BG's. Skirmishers (LF and LH) should be harder to pin down. One of the ways to legitimately pin them is to bracket them between two BG's. The rules as read make that a less effective tactic than simply driving them before your line as you advance and force them to move away. That makes no sense.

TG

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8692
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:44 am

tgreene wrote:The rules as read make that a less effective tactic than simply driving them before your line as you advance and force them to move away. That makes no sense.

TG
But surely driving them before you is more realistic. Oh no, I'm expecting realism now. Best I sit down.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

tgreene
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:46 am

Post by tgreene » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:48 am

david53 wrote:
IanB3406 wrote:I've thought it's a little to easy to get out of this restricted zone, in partticular is actually easier to get out of the restricted zone of multiple battlegroups as the moving BG gets to pick who he reacts to. Probably a simple change is to allow the non-moving player to decide.

Why change it in truth the only ones that can get out of it are Light troops. In all the games I have played if you get within 2mu of the enemy with battle troops your not thinking of moving back and leaving your rear open for a charge. If you were to change every little thing the rule book would be double what it is now.
I played a tournament game (of course what other kind would it be) where my opponent's Principate Romans did just that. They turned away from my front 90 degrees and moved away. I was on their flank (the whole line of BG's of my opponent had their sides to my BL's front). We are talking MF battlegroups here. I agree that skirmishers, and especially LH should have the ability to do that to some extent but not battle troops. That is just wrong. In my view if the 2 MU in front of a BG are truly restricted non skirmisher BG's should not be able to turn and move away from the restricted area freely and skirmishers should have to stay mostly directly to the front of the BG's restricting them and not be able to go off on odd angles just because there is more than one BG restricting them.

TG

TG

tgreene
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:46 am

Post by tgreene » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:51 am

philqw78 wrote:
tgreene wrote:The rules as read make that a less effective tactic than simply driving them before your line as you advance and force them to move away. That makes no sense.

TG
But surely driving them before you is more realistic. Oh no, I'm expecting realism now. Best I sit down.
Of course driving them before you is realistic. But so is catching them between two of your BG's, just like what happened to the Seljuq Turks at Dorylaeum. The way the restricted area currently works makes that less likely to be able to happen than it would "realistically" be since we are talking about realism again. I stopped playing DBM in part because the rules were more interested in catering to tournament players than trying to approximate (given that tabletop wargaming is a game and thus distorts reality) ancient warfare as faithfully as one possibly can with miniatures and dice. I returned to ancients gaming after a hiatus of about ten years because FoG really looked like a promising rules set. But I am starting to see the same problem with competition play becoming more important than a good, playable, fun game that avoids arguments by making things clear so people can't interpret things to their advantage. I should probably stop playing in tournaments, I don't like the mentality competition gaming leads to. I only do it to be able to play different people from my usual opponents and experience different armies. Not worth the grief though. FoG is a fine game if you are playing a reasonable opponent who abides by the standards of good sportsmanship. You even find some such playing tournaments though rarely. But FoG would be a superior game if it were written so as not to reward cheesy moves that violate the spirit of the rules.


TG
Last edited by tgreene on Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8692
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

tgreene wrote:Of course driving them before you is realistic. But so is catching them between two of your BG's, just like what happened to the Seljuq Turks at Dorylaeum. The way the restricted area currently works makes that less likely to be able to happen than it would "realistically" be since we are talking about realism again. I stopped playing DBM in part because the rules were more interested in catering to tournament players than trying to approximate(given that tabletop wargaming is a game and thus distorts reality) ancient warfare as faithfully as one can with minaitures and dice.

TG
A wonderful dream, it seems, unfortunately. I turned to the darkside myself. It seemed easier than complaining. But one day, maybe.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

tgreene
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:46 am

Post by tgreene » Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:23 pm

philqw78 wrote:
tgreene wrote:Of course driving them before you is realistic. But so is catching them between two of your BG's, just like what happened to the Seljuq Turks at Dorylaeum. The way the restricted area currently works makes that less likely to be able to happen than it would "realistically" be since we are talking about realism again. I stopped playing DBM in part because the rules were more interested in catering to tournament players than trying to approximate(given that tabletop wargaming is a game and thus distorts reality) ancient warfare as faithfully as one can with minaitures and dice.

TG
A wonderful dream, it seems, unfortunately. I turned to the darkside myself. It seemed easier than complaining. But one day, maybe.
Maybe not a dream. This forum exists, the authors one assumes occasionally read it, and may even be willing to change something in the rules that really needs changing. This I think does need changing. If catching skirmishers between two formed BG's was a historically effective tactic then a restricted unit shouldn't have more options to get out of being restricted (as it currently does) because several BG's are restricting it than if only one BG was restricting it, it should have less options, if anything. And non skirmisher BG's in a restricted zone probably should not be able to easily turn and move away from it. Will the rules authors fix this in the fullness of time? I can hope so.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3789
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:29 pm

tgreene wrote:
philqw78 wrote:
tgreene wrote:Of course driving them before you is realistic. But so is catching them between two of your BG's, just like what happened to the Seljuq Turks at Dorylaeum. The way the restricted area currently works makes that less likely to be able to happen than it would "realistically" be since we are talking about realism again. I stopped playing DBM in part because the rules were more interested in catering to tournament players than trying to approximate(given that tabletop wargaming is a game and thus distorts reality) ancient warfare as faithfully as one can with minaitures and dice.

TG
A wonderful dream, it seems, unfortunately. I turned to the darkside myself. It seemed easier than complaining. But one day, maybe.
Maybe not a dream. This forum exists, the authors one assumes occasionally read it, and may even be willing to change something in the rules that really needs changing. This I think does need changing. If catching skirmishers between two formed BG's was a historically effective tactic then a restricted unit shouldn't have more options to get out of being restricted (as it currently does) because several BG's are restricting it than if only one BG was restricting it, it should have less options, if anything. And non skirmisher BG's in a restricted zone probably should not be able to easily turn and move away from it. Will the rules authors fix this in the fullness of time? I can hope so.
It is definitely possible to catch LH battle groups between two formed units. You just need to be careful on how you do it.

The big problem has always been that if you don't get the option of who you are restricted by it can get very silly and impossible for the skirmishing Light Horse to get away (remember historically they were almost impossible to catch).

In any set of wargames rules there are going to be bits which are gamey to get a historical result - after playing a few games you work out which parts of the rules these are and play them accordingly.

Polkovnik
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:16 pm

Post by Polkovnik » Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:43 pm

tgreene wrote:
david53 wrote: In all the games I have played if you get within 2mu of the enemy with battle troops your not thinking of moving back and leaving your rear open for a charge.
I played a tournament game (of course what other kind would it be) where my opponent's Principate Romans did just that. They turned away from my front 90 degrees and moved away. I was on their flank (the whole line of BG's of my opponent had their sides to my BL's front). We are talking MF battlegroups here. TG
Well they can't have been pinned by you and then turned 90 and moved away. They would have had to had stayed partly in front of you and then you could have charged them in the flank.
tgreene wrote:In my view if the 2 MU in front of a BG are truly restricted non skirmisher BG's should not be able to turn and move away from the restricted area freely
But they can't move away from the restricted area freely, as they have to stay partly in front of the pinning BG.

tgreene
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:46 am

Post by tgreene » Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:44 pm

dave_r wrote:
tgreene wrote:
philqw78 wrote:A wonderful dream, it seems, unfortunately. I turned to the darkside myself. It seemed easier than complaining. But one day, maybe.
Maybe not a dream. This forum exists, the authors one assumes occasionally read it, and may even be willing to change something in the rules that really needs changing. This I think does need changing. If catching skirmishers between two formed BG's was a historically effective tactic then a restricted unit shouldn't have more options to get out of being restricted (as it currently does) because several BG's are restricting it than if only one BG was restricting it, it should have less options, if anything. And non skirmisher BG's in a restricted zone probably should not be able to easily turn and move away from it. Will the rules authors fix this in the fullness of time? I can hope so.
It is definitely possible to catch LH battle groups between two formed units. You just need to be careful on how you do it.

The big problem has always been that if you don't get the option of who you are restricted by it can get very silly and impossible for the skirmishing Light Horse to get away (remember historically they were almost impossible to catch).

In any set of wargames rules there are going to be bits which are gamey to get a historical result - after playing a few games you work out which parts of the rules these are and play them accordingly.
If this rule were to be changed as several of us have suggested it will still be very hard to catch LH or indeed any skirmishers. The fact that the rules currently make it easier for LH pinned by more than one BG to get away seems to me to indicate they should be changed to fix that. It is just silly to penalize people for using good tactics such as trying to trap a BG between several of their BG's. That should be rewarded not punished. And a player who allows one of their BG's to become restricted or pinned by several enemy BG's should not be rewarded by getting more options how to react and get out of the situation. If anything the reverse should be the case.

TG

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8692
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:49 pm

tgreene wrote: a player who allows one of their BG's to become restricted or pinned by several enemy BG's should not be rewarded by getting more options how to react and get out of the situation. If anything the reverse should be the case.

TG
Completely agree. Pinning a skirmish BG is F hard. Perhaps too hard.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

tgreene
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:46 am

Post by tgreene » Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:51 pm

Polkovnik wrote:
tgreene wrote:
david53 wrote: In all the games I have played if you get within 2mu of the enemy with battle troops your not thinking of moving back and leaving your rear open for a charge.
I played a tournament game (of course what other kind would it be) where my opponent's Principate Romans did just that. They turned away from my front 90 degrees and moved away. I was on their flank (the whole line of BG's of my opponent had their sides to my BL's front). We are talking MF battlegroups here. TG
Well they can't have been pinned by you and then turned 90 and moved away. They would have had to had stayed partly in front of you and then you could have charged them in the flank.
tgreene wrote:In my view if the 2 MU in front of a BG are truly restricted non skirmisher BG's should not be able to turn and move away from the restricted area freely
But they can't move away from the restricted area freely, as they have to stay partly in front of the pinning BG.
They were pinned by me, they were in the 2 MU restricted area. They turned 90 degrees and moved far enough to be out of charge reach. That is possible for MF or even HF if there is more than 1 MU distance between them and their opponents as both can move 3 MU.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:53 pm

philqw78 wrote:
tgreene wrote: a player who allows one of their BG's to become restricted or pinned by several enemy BG's should not be rewarded by getting more options how to react and get out of the situation. If anything the reverse should be the case.

TG
Completely agree. Pinning a skirmish BG is F hard. Perhaps too hard.
I would also tend to agree.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”