Better Cannae?

[Karvon]

Yeah, I wish FOG2 had the pip command system of DBM, but I suspect a lot of players would not like that at all.

[deeter]

Been awhile since I played DBM it's each pip enables one command or something?

Deeter

[Karvon]

You roll a die for each command. It costs a single pip, usually, to make single move. A move can be a block of elements in a group move, or a single element. Thus, you have work to keep elements together or your command can get scattered and paralyzed. Regular armies can freely allocate their rolled dice as desired between commands. Irregulars and allied commands have to take what they roll individually.

[kronenblatt]

You roll a die for each command. It costs a single pip, usually, to make single move. A move can be a block of elements in a group move, or a single element. Thus, you have work to keep elements together or your command can get scattered and paralyzed. Regular armies can freely allocate their rolled dice as desired between commands. Irregulars and allied commands have to take what they roll individually.

Sounds like an interesting feature adding another dimension to strategy, if not in FoG2 then in other games. Are there any computer games applying this?

(I guess this can't be modded into FoG2?)

[Karvon]

I'm not sure if this idea has been used in any other games. DBA online probably has it, if it's still around, but that's a relatively small scale game.

I think it would be very difficult to mod. There is a command structure based on the generals available. But...

1. You'd need to add a way to generate and monitor pips for each command each turn.
2. You would need to have a way to select properly adjacent elements of the same command to do a group move.
3. You would need a way to freeze all elements unselected for moves once a command's pips were expended for a turn.

I'm not a programmer, but these seem like some major challenges to me.

I would be very happy if someone figured out a way of incorporating these into a mod though

Karvon

[deeter]

The Great Battles of History series uses similar command rules. No die rolls though. Each commander has a set number of commands which can each be used to issue a command to a nearly contiguous line or to an individual unit.

Rome gets a bunch of leaders with two points while others have fewer leaders with higher ratings. Famous leaders have 7-9 pts and can move either first or last while others are move in order from low to high. So Romans tend to plod forward in lines while others can do a bunch of individual orders. A Roman leader has the choice of moving the line or sending one triarii off at a time to counter cavalry. Carthaginian cavalry can dance all around them.

It's a good game system but a bit dated visually.

Deeter

[CharlesdeBatz]

I think part of the difficulty may stem from the issue of constant unit frontages (which is in turn due to the grid system used in FoG). The fact that the Carthaginian army is given only two 'African spearmen' units on each flank (corresponding to a frontage of two grid lengths) makes it difficult to replicate the pincer maneuver performed by the Libyan troops in the actual battle.

Which brings me to a separate thought I've had - has there been any consideration given to multiple-square units?

[rbodleyscott]

I think part of the difficulty may stem from the issue of constant unit frontages (which is in turn due to the grid system used in FoG). The fact that the Carthaginian army is given only two 'African spearmen' units on each flank (corresponding to a frontage of two grid lengths) makes it difficult to replicate the pincer maneuver performed by the Libyan troops in the actual battle.

Which brings me to a separate thought I've had - has there been any consideration given to multiple-square units?

Yes, but it would greatly complicate the implementation.

[CharlesdeBatz]

Obviously having a multiple-square unit would bring its own set of complications, mostly involving units in the squares swept by a maneuver (whether simply moving or also turning/wheeling). However, in cases like Cannae (and numerous other battles in history) unit frontage or lack thereof played a key role in the eventual outcome. So something like this, IMO, would allow for maneuvers closer to what occurred historically.

Then again, this may well be too "bottom-up" for the game, and that's totally OK.

Regarding Cannae: was the issue I mentioned considered in the apportioning/sizing of units for that scenario?

[rbodleyscott]

Obviously having a multiple-square unit would bring its own set of complications, mostly involving units in the squares swept by a maneuver (whether simply moving or also turning/wheeling). However, in cases like Cannae (and numerous other battles in history) unit frontage or lack thereof played a key role in the eventual outcome. So something like this, IMO, would allow for maneuvers closer to what occurred historically.

Then again, this may well be too "bottom-up" for the game, and that's totally OK.

Regarding Cannae: was the issue I mentioned considered in the apportioning/sizing of units for that scenario?

The problem is that we used the actual numbers present at the battle, and there really weren't more African spearmen.

Historically, the Romans were (in this particular battle) hamstrung by an "advance straight forward" mentality. This could to some extent be enforced using scenario scripts, but then it might make the scenario too easy for the Carthaginians.

We are too busy with other development work to revisit the existing Epic Battles at present, but we would welcome alternative user-created versions.

[CharlesdeBatz]

I understand that the numbers of the African spearmen are correct; the sources I have seen mention about 8000 Libyan troops, and in-game the units are 4x1950 or so (so about 7800 total). My proposal was more along the lines of spreading the ~4000 spearmen on each flank out into four instead of two units to obtain a greater frontage (and possibly better enable the historical flanking maneuver by these troops).

[rbodleyscott]

I understand that the numbers of the African spearmen are correct; the sources I have seen mention about 8000 Libyan troops, and in-game the units are 4x1950 or so (so about 7800 total). My proposal was more along the lines of spreading the ~4000 spearmen on each flank out into four instead of two units to obtain a greater frontage (and possibly better enable the historical flanking maneuver by these troops).

The problem with that is that the units would become weaker on each square frontage.

[rbodleyscott]

I understand that the numbers of the African spearmen are correct; the sources I have seen mention about 8000 Libyan troops, and in-game the units are 4x1950 or so (so about 7800 total). My proposal was more along the lines of spreading the ~4000 spearmen on each flank out into four instead of two units to obtain a greater frontage (and possibly better enable the historical flanking maneuver by these troops).

The problem with that is that the units would become weaker on each square frontage.

[CharlesdeBatz]

I suppose my question then becomes: is the player (if playing as the Carthaginians) intended to be able to execute + replicate the historical flanking maneuver?

[rbodleyscott]

I suppose my question then becomes: is the player (if playing as the Carthaginians) intended to be able to execute + replicate the historical flanking maneuver?

Well yes, but it is admittedly difficult because the AI is more reponsive than the historical Romans were.

[CharlesdeBatz]

I will say that it seems like the Roman formation is significantly deeper relative to its width (in game) than it was in the actual battle. If one looks at the maps for the battle at the USMA (West Point), it is clear that the Roman formation was much more approaching a line, rather than the almost-column we see in game initially. That would affect considerations such as the ability of the Carthaginians to flank the formation; if its depth was decreased, a successful flanking maneuver would be easier with the same force used.

In my playthrough, I was able to utilize the maneuverability of the Hastatii/Principes units to increase the Roman frontage and engage the entire Carthaginian line simultaneously, rather than only the center. I also performed a refused flank maneuver on the right flank to prevent the Carthaginian cavalry from attacking my rear. Both of these would appear to be significantly different from the actual battle maneuvers.

[CharlesdeBatz]

Lol. That's because the game player plays like a God, who can coordinate all the action from the far left to the right with crispy clear order. It's sad that Roman generals don't have such advantage, especially with a very large army. This can only be improved if the command link and command latency is introduced into the game.

Having now played this scenario from the Carthaginian side, I believe this is one of the fundamental barriers to reproducing a scenario like Cannae (that was, to a large extent, caused by a lack of situational awareness on the part of the Roman commanders) in-game. The other issue is (as discussed already) the system of 1 square = 1 unit, which does not allow for the packed mass of men that most sources on the battle describe. Indeed, the Roman army in the later stages of the battle is described as being unable to maneuver in any coordinated manner due to the extreme close-packing of men which occurred. Perhaps the 'impact phalanx' proposed earlier would be the best representation of this with the tools we have; I would even go further and argue that it could be scripted to prevent *any* turning by the Roman forces after a certain point, but that might be veering into bottom-up design.

Despite routing the Roman cavalry early on, the triarii were deployed to the Roman rear in such a manner as to prevent a cavalry breakthrough. Note that this is explicitly *not* what occurred historically according to the sources I have read (Goldsworthy in particular); it is clearly stated that although isolated groups of spearmen could have formed, a cohesive front to prevent cavalry attacks was not formed. Additionally, the fact that both players are able to have a 'God's-eye view' of the battlefield means that the Roman AI is able to react promptly to the Libyan flankers ('African spearmen'), and peel off units to protect the Roman flanks before the flankers can exploit their positioning. The lack of pursuit by foot (while undoubtedly somewhat accurate to the period) is an additional handicap to the Libyans.

Perhaps battles like this, which (in the view of most historians) required several coinciding factors including a lack of overall awareness, are not best suited to be represented in a God's-eye view wargame. But ultimately the game is still great fun, and I'm certainly not claiming to have the ability to make a better system overall.