Column bonus for battle line?

[nikgaukroger]

Files side by side are not a block of columns - that's called a phalanx or BL in FoGspeak! The FAQ should make clear that a column is a maximum of 1 base wide with no other bases touching it on either side.

No other bases moving with it I think is what you need - no issue if they are touching but stationary.

[marioslaz]

In the thread on kinky columns viewtopic.php?p=75130#75130, Richard stated that a "column" in a battle line does not count as a column. So hopefully this should be a closed issue.

Good point. To quote from the relevant post:

This is just getting silly now. Let's not invent difficulties just for the sake of it. Clearly a battle line is not a column of march, nor can a BG that is part of a battle line be a column of march.

Yes, of course the rules can be interpreted that way, but it would be silly, wouldn't it?

Marc

The real question is: what is it silly in this case? Is it silly that some BGs each in column make a second move (that needs they form a BL) and get also +1 UM? Or is it silly the concept of column itself, a DBx legacy, that doesn't exist on ancient battlefield (a march formation is a march formation and they never used it while so closed to enemy). Also the concept of second move is quite obscure, but personally I think that is perfectly right make nonsense rules, if they give to game the feeling of a real battle and for me FOG, from a general point of view, gives that feeling. So, I can think it is not silly that 2 or more BGs in difficult terrain can march (make a double move) with just one general because they are close each other (like a BL) and they don't slow down as in line formation due to the fact they are in a more manoeuvrable formation (+1 UM for column). Of course, this since they don't wheel, because in that case column must kink and this would break BL.
Bye
Mario.

[shall]

As with many non game-critical items I think one can make a decent case for either, it really us just a matter of us picking one for consistency in tournaments. I am personally pretty ambivalent on it.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

Troops gaining extra move distance (or, more accurately, not losing move distance) when moving in column in bad going is nothing to do with 18th/19th century columns. The logic is, as stated above, that they are following a path of least resistance, perhaps using pre-existing tracks. It would not be easy for one commander to co-ordinate several such columns.

We certainly did not envisage a BL of multiple columns getting the bonus. The fact that the rules can be interpreted to mean this is an unforeseen accident of wording.

If we must issue an FAQ, therefore, I would favour disallowing it.

[shall]

Well thats 2 of us richard. As said earlier I think that our definition in the glossary needs ammendung to say its a BG or BL moving in column.

I can't imagine Terry will disagree so I suggest players take it that way and we can add a 1 liner to the next FaQ.

Si

[MkV]

I can't imagine Terry will disagree so I suggest players take it that way and we can add a 1 liner to the next FaQ.
Si

Excellent!

[marioslaz]

Troops gaining extra move distance (or, more accurately, not losing move distance) when moving in column in bad going is nothing to do with 18th/19th century columns. The logic is, as stated above, that they are following a path of least resistance, perhaps using pre-existing tracks. It would not be easy for one commander to co-ordinate several such columns.

First, please keep in mind that I'm not a flamer and I make some observations just for academic discussions. I say so because world is full of stupid people with which I don't want to be mistaken. Anyway I'm Italian and my English could be misunderstand, so please be patient.

What I mean with my previous post is that a set of rules can include unrealistic rules to obtain a realistic result. I read many house made rules on specific war theatres, and I make someone too. All these include unrealistic rules to get an historical outcome, and mine has never been an exception. So, after I told I have nothing against unrealistic rules, let me say that FOG column are unrealistic, but they work fine. They are unrealistic because if you put in column 4 bases of Hastati, that can represent the Hastati of one legion, you have a column of 2,5 maniples width, that is near 300 men, with a tipical deep of 6 men this means a front of 50 and you cannot convince me a line of 50 men can fit on a trail.

Of course the scale of the game cannot let a better approximation, but you could introduce a fight disadvantage if you had retained you had needing of a march formation (something like a POA - if your unit use +1 UM bonus when charge or used it previous turn if charged).

As a conclusion, I think this is a good unrealistic rule, at least for games played by me since today, so you should not evaluate the situation of a BL of column from the point of view of real world, but you should think if this unbalances the game, for example if this can lead to too much fast march by certain troop types.

Bye,
Mario.

[hazelbark]

If we must issue an FAQ,

I appreciate being FAQ'd to death. However the alternative is some person collects the comments of the exhalted on this list and assembles them in to a "Guide for Umpire Decisions following the perceived intent of the authors" that gets used at tournaments.

Another approach is have a sticky that only the authors can add to that is "Things that we think are bleeding obvious and don't need to be in the FAQ."

Those you may hate more than being FAQ'd, but the sticky approach is certainly an option.

[Primarch]

Dan,


I think this is a wonderful idea. Just make a thread for all these types of things that can either stand in for a FAQ until one gets released, or like you mention above, just a basic list of things they think are obvious that people might question.

A place to go for the author's intent if you will.

Thanks,


Clay

[CrazyHarborc]

Um....just a thought. I have the impression that columns (in the game) represent a total of ONE base wide units strung out. Isn't part of the reasoning that open terrain only has so much useable (for columns) decent terrain? IF those 3 columns are formed into a battleline they are not ONE base wide, they are 3 bases wide as a battleline/formation.

I'll be quiet now.

[Primarch]

As with many non game-critical items I think one can make a decent case for either, it really us just a matter of us picking one for consistency in tournaments. I am personally pretty ambivalent on it.

Ok, this is basically just an absurd point. If you think playing against an 18 Battlegroup Dominate Roman list, whereby 3 BGs are marching in columns around your flanks per general is non game-critical, then we aren't playing the same game. That list is hard enough to defend against, but when you basically allow extra movement for this formation, it does change things.

I know you agree the FAQ should be fixed, but seriously, don't belittle the importance of the rule because you can't see how it's game changing. Instead, go play a competent player with that list, then tell me you don't need every inch you can get, just to be competitive.


Thanks,


Clay

[nikgaukroger]

I know you agree the FAQ should be fixed, but seriously, don't belittle the importance of the rule because you can't see how it's game changing. Instead, go play a competent player with that list, then tell me you don't need every inch you can get, just to be competitive.

Since Si is (i) a very good gamer and (ii) has indeed played Graham Evans using that sort of army I think he is fully aware of what is going on - more than you are I expect. Also as he said that it was a matter of them (the writers) picking an interpretation I think you're making an issue of something that isn't there.

[petedalby]

I am not a fan of FAQs - but this is one situation where I believe a FAQ is warranted please.

The rules currently do allow this. I've done it thinking it was allowed and with no objections from my opponent. I can see why it shouldn't be allowed so please add it to the FAQs.

Pete

[marioslaz]

I saw near all post are about game balance for tournament purpose. But, I ask, shouldn't be History our reference? I mean: Ok, the game is played a lot in tournament, but the rules are build from historical reasons and I think this game is very good to recreate the mechanic of an historical battle. If now the perspective will be shifted in favour of tournament balancing, the risk is to loose historic realism. Again, I think column is an unrealistic rule that takes to a realistic general outcome. I think that all rules, and their variants, should be evaluated looking to history, not tournament. Tournament balancing can be carried out with amendments to army list.
Bye,
Mario.

[shall]

Ok, this is basically just an absurd point. If you think playing against an 18 Battlegroup Dominate Roman list, whereby 3 BGs are marching in columns around your flanks per general is non game-critical, then we aren't playing the same game. That list is hard enough to defend against, but when you basically allow extra movement for this formation, it does change things.

I know you agree the FAQ should be fixed, but seriously, don't belittle the importance of the rule because you can't see how it's game changing. Instead, go play a competent player with that list, then tell me you don't need every inch you can get, just to be competitive.

With more than few torphies over the last 10 years, and an author as well, I would hope I could claim to be considered a "competent player". Oh well ... I must try harder.

Being serious I am not belittleing enaything - just giving a well founded view.

If someone uses that manouvre against you then go up and trap them in it and they struggle to get out of it. This leaves them suffering missile CMT on 1 casualty per BG. At best it tends to cost them a great deal of time which a large BG drilled army relies on to get results in the last hour.

If you let them run riot around your flanks in 3s then I can't expect you will have much success. Effectively an 18 BG army using 2 of these is a 14BG army in manouvre terms and has limited its options considerably.

This is why I am pretty ambivalent about it. Its as much a + as a - IM (reasonably well qualified) O. Personally from a tactical point of view I would be very happy for someone to try such a high risk manouvre against me.

Just because you have had a bad experience with it doesn't mean in cannot be dealt with an turned to your advantage.

Si

[Primarch]

Since Si is (i) a very good gamer and (ii) has indeed played Graham Evans using that sort of army I think he is fully aware of what is going on - more than you are I expect. Also as he said that it was a matter of them (the writers) picking an interpretation I think you're making an issue of something that isn't there.

2 back at you, (i) I have no doubt, and I never questioned his ablitity. I stated he should play against a competent player with said list. If he has already done so, then he should see the advantage of marching a battle line, while counting it as in column. (ii) Glad to hear it, something I did not know, and would not assume based on his response above, but you can't possibly know if he is more fully aware of this than I am, as no one seems to have brought it up before I did.

If someone uses that manouvre against you then go up and trap them in it and they struggle to get out of it. This leaves them suffering missile CMT on 1 casualty per BG. At best it tends to cost them a great deal of time which a large BG drilled army relies on to get results in the last hour.

If you let them run riot around your flanks in 3s then I can't expect you will have much success. Effectively an 18 BG army using 2 of these is a 14BG army in manouvre terms and has limited its options considerably.

I'm confused. You guys expect me to assume Shall is competent(something I already do), but when I question a rule, it's assumed that I just don't know how to play?


Yes, there is always the fight fire with fire argument, go get a bigger army, but that doesn't address the point.


Back on topic, what I have seen other than this makes sense. I agree with all of you that the rules can be used this way, but shouldn't be. I am glad to know that you guys are open to fixing holes that pop up from time to time, with just a little patronizing thrown in for fun There are other rulesets, quite a few in fact, that wouldn't even consider such a thing.


Again, I was not questioning your ability Shall, but it struck me that you had not played against one of these types of lists, based on your response. Apparently that is untrue, so I apologize for making that assumption. On a side note, maybe don't assume that I don't know how to play either? A competent player isn't going to use this tactic when you are able to "trap" him or make him pay for the formation.



Clay

[shall]

Again, I was not questioning your ability Shall, but it struck me that you had not played against one of these types of lists, based on your response. Apparently that is untrue, so I apologize for making that assumption. On a side note, maybe don't assume that I don't know how to play either? A competent player isn't going to use this tactic when you are able to "trap" him or make him pay for the formation.

Assumptions are dangerous things ... don't worry about it. Just amused that's all. Glad are enjoying FOG. We do try to adapt the rules where anything sensible needs adapting.

BTW I was not assuming anything about how you play by the way ... merely stating how to deal with it and what not to do IMHO. I am sure you have got the hang of the game pretty well.

Have fun.

Si

[Primarch]

According to quite a few guys here, RBS, yourself and others, the rule wasn't intended to work this way, and I am happy with that.





Clay


p.s. There is a lesson to be learned here. I had already started typing my response and entered it before I saw your edit. Good thing I re-read your post after the edit, as it changed my post considerably.


Thanks again Shall.



Clay

[madcam2us]

BTW I was not assuming anything about how you play by the way ... merely stating how to deal with it and what not to do IMHO.

Si

Quite right! Don't get us colonist up in a tizzy like your King George did with the IWF so close by! We'll be showing up to D.C. in our war-feathers and tomahawks!

Madcam.

[shall]

I say you "assume" there are all kinds of ways to deal with it, because none of you prescribed tactics above would have worked in that particular game, and most likely would never work against a competent opponent. The reason is, they wouldn't use that move unless it was safe enough to do so, or so I "assume".

Bold statements ... Surely if they wouldn't use it, then aren't you saying in your own argument that in game between 2 "competent"players (whatever that may be) the move will almost certainly have no effect on the game.

Tell me about the particular game and I will glady comment on the specifics ,but as you give no specifics its hard to be more than general. What was the situation? Who were the players and what experience do they have?

Feel free to post it and happy to comment. Happy to help if I can.

Si