Slitherine

Hi

One of my regular opponents is dropping this rule set due to the restrictions
on interpenetration
I wont because i basically like the rules and cant be arsed to learn another set
to this depth
FACT is ...
At arsuf crusader knights interpenetrated their own Heavy infantry no problem
Mediaeval horse certainly formed in lines one behind each other or behind
infantry which should only work if you penetrate.
Any thoughts .. i suggested a house rule but he is not happy and has rebased
for impetus !!! whatever that is

Steve

Switzer wrote:Hi

One of my regular opponents is dropping this rule set due to the restrictions
on interpenetration
I wont because i basically like the rules and cant be arsed to learn another set
to this depth
FACT is ...
At arsuf crusader knights interpenetrated their own Heavy infantry no problem
Mediaeval horse certainly formed in lines one behind each other or behind
infantry which should only work if you penetrate.
Any thoughts .. i suggested a house rule but he is not happy and has rebased
for impetus !!! whatever that is

Steve

The Hospitaller charge at least was without orders. This rule set allows for that - they burst through the foot who are moved back out of the way. You can also contract infantry to allow knights gaps to charge through and the knight can drop a file back to avoid interpenetrating friends. So some interpenetration of the lines is possible.

Of course the rules also need to account for battles like Crecy where the French lines really struggled to coordinate their attacks properly, plus of course the English MAA on foot can interpenetrate their longbowmen.

Also a routing first line will, to some extent, try to avoid crashing through the second line (and if the second line is drilled can interpenetrate them in the JAP)

Gosh if a person will abandon a rule set just because they don't like one of the rules areas, erm.......

zoltan wrote:Gosh if a person will abandon a rule set just because they don't like one of the rules areas, erm.......

It's not that uncommon. Dave Madigan didn't like it because of interception charges so doesn't play it. And lots of poeple disliked the DBM "buttocks of death"

grahambriggs wrote:It's not that uncommon. Dave Madigan didn't like it because of interception charges so doesn't play it. And lots of poeple disliked the DBM "buttocks of death"

And because New Kingdom Egyptians aren't very good

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:It's not that uncommon. Dave Madigan didn't like it because of interception charges so doesn't play it. And lots of poeple disliked the DBM "buttocks of death"

And because New Kingdom Egyptians aren't very good

It was not so much that they weren't very good (of course they're not out of period and not too great in period" It was more that using his DBM tactics with them didn't work. E.g. advancing MF unprotected average bow with bronze arrows to 4MU of knights in the open to get three dice at them worked in DBM but is a terrible idea in FOG. Whne my knights ran them over I was told that the rules were flawed

There is an important distinction between planned and drilled/practiced interpenetration of one body by another and improvised or forced /unplanned.

In FOG(AM) it is allowed for example between English longbowmen and men at arms and that seems a reasonable provision. I can't see there can be an absolute rule on this kind of thing in a rule set from 3000-1485 but drilled interpenetration needs to be case and army specific based on evidence - and more than" it happened at such and such a place on a single occasion." Can it be demonstrated that it was a trained " practice" ?

It is also a function of how we define a body or unit. It may be in some sub-eras we have separated types of troops into different units but who operated so closely together as to be virtually one unit . Examples that come to mind are chariot runners or "runners before" in the high chariot era up to 1200 BC( even the Hittite third crewman may have turned into a foot soldier, dismounting in battle- that is the latest thinking by one historian). Another is the way the Seleucids used light troops and elephants together. Pretty clearly those types of troops would have, as a practice, moved through and between each other with comparative ease.

Neither of these are presently allowed for in FOG(AM-=) nor sub units as such as in old WRG . There is case for either. You can, sort o,f do it in the way light foot operate but I am not totally convinced by it.

But for more densely arrayed troops to pass through each other with ease requires a drill movement that is learnt under pre battle training conditions and the number and types of armies in this era that would have done that must be a minority I suggest - so again case specific. The Roman three battle lines come to mind where Republican or Imperial. I suggest they were drilled by centurions and legates to know how to pass through and between each other. But in FOG(AM ) there is no distinction between Principes and Hastati and a battle group is not necessarily a cohort, so it kind of finesses that movement by subsuming it within the battle group. I think that is a pity as you lose the sense of Roman " Grand tactics " - as Napoleon called them - but I am not sure what you can do about it.

In FOG(N) it was much easier as regulations contained the " passage of lines" which set out precisely how one body of infantry could pass through another in either direction without throwing either into disorder - drilled movements that Officers and NCOs knew how to do. This dates from the earlier 18th century. Of course newly raised conscripts may have been less efficient at doing these manoeuvres as would newly raised legions ! So there is also a case for making some things only possible to fully trained troops.

grahambriggs wrote:

zoltan wrote:Gosh if a person will abandon a rule set just because they don't like one of the rules areas, erm.......

It's not that uncommon. Dave Madigan didn't like it because of interception charges so doesn't play it. And lots of poeple disliked the DBM "buttocks of death"

Some people wouldn't play DBMM because it had inert and brilliant generals. People take against rule sets for all sorts of odd reasons.
Often the real reason is 'it doesn't conform to my preconceptions', but that doesn't sound so good, and may not be easy to defend*, so instead just pick some minor thing and say you won't play because of that,

*Players preconceptions are often based on how things work in another rule set, rather than how things actually worked historically.

I think also some people dislike mechanisms that feel unhistorical. for example in fog a "not quite" flank charge conforms around to the front of the enemy unit. It's there for game reasons (to force you to get behind the flank properly to get advantage) but looks a bit odd. The DBM "blocking recoils" started life aiming for realism - enemy approaching from two directions is bad news - but the mechanism was weak and so it looked unhistorical (and was, the way that many players used it)

pyruse wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:

zoltan wrote:Gosh if a person will abandon a rule set just because they don't like one of the rules areas, erm.......

*Players preconceptions are often based on how things work in another rule set, rather than how things actually worked historically.

Yes that does happen. We get used to an idea over the years and don't always feel inclined to read or re-read about it, and also , quite reasonably place some reliance on established and respected rule writers and brands as sound and well researched . But as I have said elsewhere there are always compromises and sometimes the whole needs to be less than the sum of the parts and trying to simulate "accurately" all the various manoeuvers, formations , tactical ploys and processes fails to come up with either a playable game or indeed a historically convincing simulation either.

As to rejecting a set because of one aspect that must depend on what their expectations were in the first place and whether they are reasonable and rational. I have met people who just like games of all kinds and don't care two hoots about historical aspects. Its a" broad church".