Table edge

[david53]

only allow Cavalry Light horse or Light foot deploy within 12 inchs of the table edge, no minus for Cavalry within 12mu but a minus for foot entering the 12mu distance too the table edge.

[nikgaukroger]

only allow Cavalry Light horse or Light foot deploy within 12 inchs of the table edge, no minus for Cavalry within 12mu but a minus for foot entering the 12mu distance too the table edge.

As per FoG:R - however, I don't think it is desirable for FoG:AM as the reasons it went into FoG:R are not present in FoG:AM.

[philqw78]

No chesion test minus for being within 6 MU of enemy table edge, nor if within 6 MU of own baggage. This way battle troops are not punished for chasing skirmishers off table and levy can guard the baggage

[olivier]

No cohesion test minus for being within 6 MU of enemy table edge,

I agree

within 6 MU of own baggage.

Put your bagage at 6 MU and your levy can guard them or put your levy in 8 bases BG and LH can't annoy them

[hazelbark]

only allow Cavalry Light horse or Light foot deploy within 12 inchs of the table edge, no minus for Cavalry within 12mu but a minus for foot entering the 12mu distance too the table edge.

So cavalry flank moves become more easy to accomplish with this. The Cav deploys on the flank the enmey infranty now have to deal with a collapsing flank.

Better to say no more than 1 BG can be deployed in the flanking 12 MU. Then the force has to deloy and move off to do the on table flank march.

[hammy]

only allow Cavalry Light horse or Light foot deploy within 12 inchs of the table edge, no minus for Cavalry within 12mu but a minus for foot entering the 12mu distance too the table edge.

So cavalry flank moves become more easy to accomplish with this. The Cav deploys on the flank the enmey infranty now have to deal with a collapsing flank.

It becomes a bit of a downer if your army has no cavalry :O

[rogerg]

There are too many similarities to DBM here. I remember a lot of games where the first move was just about filling up the flanks. I like the suggestion that light troops should also suffer the -1 threatened flank penalty. This would simplify the rules and also deal with some of the skirmishing issues. (A triple whammy)

[azrael86]

only allow Cavalry Light horse or Light foot deploy within 12 inchs of the table edge, no minus for Cavalry within 12mu but a minus for foot entering the 12mu distance too the table edge.

Because clearly cavalry and LH are seriously underpowered at the moment?


A better idea is that LF or MF wholly in rough or difficult terrain shouldn't count the table edge.

[Jilu]

only allow Cavalry Light horse or Light foot deploy within 12 inchs of the table edge, no minus for Cavalry within 12mu but a minus for foot entering the 12mu distance too the table edge.

Because clearly cavalry and LH are seriously underpowered at the moment?


A better idea is that LF or MF wholly in rough or difficult terrain shouldn't count the table edge.

i agree as they must feel more secure

[madaxeman]

Make routing troops - including those irritating sods LH and LF - count the minus for being near their table edge.

Just found out tonight that they are easier to rally than anyone else (by not counting that -1 for table edge when being rallied from routing) despite being defined as troops who would in reality exit the field more readily than anyone else

[mbsparta]

Don't change this rule at all.

Mike B

[Polkovnik]

How about requiring all troops to deploy within command range of a general ?

[jlopez]

How about requiring all troops to deploy within command range of a general ?

Good idea but what has it got to do with the table edge?

[sergiomonteleone]

only allow Cavalry Light horse or Light foot deploy within 12 inchs of the table edge, no minus for Cavalry within 12mu but a minus for foot entering the 12mu distance too the table edge.

good idea, similar to DBMM

Not deploying for example HF, MF, Kn close to table edge

Sergio

[sphallen]

How about requiring all troops to deploy within command range of a general ?

I think you'll end up slowing down the game, the first moves would then be to fill up the table edges and gaps.

[hammy]

only allow Cavalry Light horse or Light foot deploy within 12 inchs of the table edge, no minus for Cavalry within 12mu but a minus for foot entering the 12mu distance too the table edge.

good idea, similar to DBMM

Not deploying for example HF, MF, Kn close to table edge

Not sure why this is a good thing. It means that armies with limited mounted and lights are always going to be in big trouble and there seem to already be a lot of people who think that the game is biased in favour of such troops.

As for it being in DBMM in my book that makes it a very suspect principle

[philqw78]

Such little changes have a huge effect. Think them through. No HF, (MF) or Kn (Cat, El) within 12 MU of table edge at game start. Cav armies then do not want an IC/FC, they want first move. Flood the flanks whilst the slow stuff tries to cover its flanks. get round their rear. Easy game for them. They already have the manouver advantage this increases it 2 fold at least.

The only problem with table edge is when the CT minus is counted and who counts it.

[kevinj]

The only problem with table edge is when the CT minus is counted and who counts it.

Agreed. My vote is that everyone (including Light Troops and routers) gets a negative on CTs for the sides and their own base edge, with no negative for the enemy base edge.

I would also be happy with LF/MF not counting a negative if in non-open terrain, but i think that's of secondary importance.

I really do not want to see any deployment restrictions.

[Jilu]

Now the Table edge... it could be a a coast mountain or river or forest like in many battles so no need to be insecure...

The rear edge...why insecure if the camp is not looted? especialy if it is fortified, there is no real known danger.