Egypt Saved from Sea People Menace

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 Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Post Reply
neilhammond
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:51 pm
Location: Peterborough, UK

Egypt Saved from Sea People Menace

Post by neilhammond » Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:50 pm

Hi,

Clive Vaughan and I played a game list night, Sea People vs NKE, using a modest raiding force of 500 AP. The terrain, using the quick system, blocked out the extreme flanks but left the centre open, which suited my Sea People.

On my left I had 1x10 MI Warriors (impact, sword, protected, avge) and 1x6 skirmishers (jav, unprotected, avge). In the centre I had 1x10 HI Warriors and 1x8 MI Warriors and 4 LCh in reserve. The right mirrored the left, plus a mob nominally tasked with protecting the camp. My plan was, err, to run forward with all my infantry and see what happened.

Clive had LCh and 1x6 MI bow plus 1x4 chariot runners on each wing. His centre consisted of 1x8 Egyptian HI close fighters and 1x10 hairy Libyan MI warrior impact swordsmen. Clive planned to make use of his combined arms to defeat my ASBO warriors.

I used my skirmishers to mask off the NKE bowmen and generally charged in across the line. My HI warriors were facing Clive's Libyans, so to bolster them Clive fed his CinC into the front rank. I though this was a mistake but in the end it tipped the balance in the impact phase in Clive's favour (due to quality rerolls as a result of the raised status and better CT odds). As a result my HI warriors became disordered and then fregmented and eventually broke.

My warriors broke Clive's right wing, but my left wing collaped under the combined assult of chariots and bowmen. With my centre gone the game ended with a clear victory to the Egyptians.

General comments on the game: The game felt okay and we had a reasonable understanding of the rules for the first game (we'd both had read through them carefully several times before the game). It seemed a little dull at times, although perhaps no more so than a DBM NKE vs Sea People game. Its also possible that I'm just not yet aware of which are the buttock clenching combats as I'm not yet familar enough with the rules to recognise the critical combats.

Some specifics on the game:
1) Skirmishers seem to be able to outshoot MI bow. 1x6 MI bow (unprotected) in 2 ranks shoots with 4 dice at -ve POA. 1x6 jav Sk shoot with 3 dice at +ve POA.
2) If the turn sequence is in the pursuers favour then you get a sequence where a unit breaks in the melee, routers and pursuers pursue in the interbond, variable dice meant the pursuers fell behind by 1 MU. The ex-pursuers can seem to be able to immediately declare a fresh charge on the routers and catch them, despite being outpaced in the initial pursuit.
3) The mechanism for the retire move for a FRG unit is not explained (p55), apart from stating that a player can choose to retire a FRG unit.

Other comments;
1) You need to define Armour Class (or Armour Type) in the glossary. I can't see where you define what "better armour" means in the Melee table except by implication. Quality class, for example, is clearly defined in the glossary (p91)
2) Its not clear who can voluntarily break off from combats (p36 only talks about compulsory break offs but the CMT talks about voluntary breaks offs).
3) p39 Shooting ranges should really state "Slings, mounted bows or MOUNTED crossbows" - the implication is clear but someone will argue otherwise at some stage.
4) The restricted zone is 1 base width, but the ZOI is defined in MUs. Why not use the same definition of ZOI for restricted zone? It just simplifies things (or just go for the 2 MU infantry ZOI for the restricted zone).
5) Slides seem too generous. And you seem to be able to shift if in a ZOI (but possibly not if in the Restriced Zone).
6) Shock Troops and the CMT roll not to charge - I'd question the removal of the quality reroll in this instance. My view is that it's more likely that more inexperienced "average" troops are more likely to charge than hard bitten verterans. It also adds complexity. The crusaders put the experienced military orders at the head and tail of a marching column precicesly because they were less likely to charge. You can argue that the drilled allowance would cover this, but I'm not convinced this is sufficient.
7) Add foot Bw need to CMT to charge/intercept to charge to the CMT table. Also add foot trying not to pursue mounted to the CMT table.

Oh, and as Clive pointed out, the rules make no allowance for the Pharoh needing to be represented by a 54mm figure, as is clearly depicted in the historical evidence.

Regards
Neil

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22346
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Egypt Saved from Sea People Menace

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:39 pm

neilhammond wrote:1) Skirmishers seem to be able to outshoot MI bow. 1x6 MI bow (unprotected) in 2 ranks shoots with 4 dice at -ve POA. 1x6 jav Sk shoot with 3 dice at +ve POA.
The MI bow are not on - POA. Shooting POAs don't net out, they are done per target. Thus the bowmen are on 0 POA. The exchange is dead even however if the MF are unprotected.
2) If the turn sequence is in the pursuers favour then you get a sequence where a unit breaks in the melee, routers and pursuers pursue in the interbond, variable dice meant the pursuers fell behind by 1 MU. The ex-pursuers can seem to be able to immediately declare a fresh charge on the routers and catch them, despite being outpaced in the initial pursuit.
We are open to discussion on this one, but up to now we feel that it is acceptable. The pursuers can either charge in again and finish the job, or stop pursuing and manouvre to fight elsewhere. We could make the routers flee an extra rout move so that they can outdistance the pursuers again, but the real issue is that troops should not be able to rally if being pursued even if they are notionally outdistancing the pursuers a little. The pursuing BG, if committed to pursuing cannot be doing anything else.
3) The mechanism for the retire move for a FRG unit is not explained (p55), apart from stating that a player can choose to retire a FRG unit.
There is no special mechanism. A glossary definition of retire may be required, however.
1) You need to define Armour Class (or Armour Type) in the glossary. I can't see where you define what "better armour" means in the Melee table except by implication. Quality class, for example, is clearly defined in the glossary (p91)
Fair enough.
2) Its not clear who can voluntarily break off from combats (p36 only talks about compulsory break offs but the CMT talks about voluntary breaks offs).
There are no voluntary break-offs. The reference is a fossil and has been removed from the current working version.
3) p39 Shooting ranges should really state "Slings, mounted bows or MOUNTED crossbows" - the implication is clear but someone will argue otherwise at some stage.
Fair enough.
4) The restricted zone is 1 base width, but the ZOI is defined in MUs. Why not use the same definition of ZOI for restricted zone? It just simplifies things (or just go for the 2 MU infantry ZOI for the restricted zone).
Worth considering.
5) Slides seem too generous. And you seem to be able to shift if in a ZOI (but possibly not if in the Restriced Zone).
This is a common comment. We need to revisit this.
6) Shock Troops and the CMT roll not to charge - I'd question the removal of the quality reroll in this instance. My view is that it's more likely that more inexperienced "average" troops are more likely to charge than hard bitten verterans. It also adds complexity. The crusaders put the experienced military orders at the head and tail of a marching column precicesly because they were less likely to charge. You can argue that the drilled allowance would cover this, but I'm not convinced this is sufficient.
Opinions vary on this.
7) Add foot Bw need to CMT to charge/intercept to charge to the CMT table. Also add foot trying not to pursue mounted to the CMT table.
Already done in the working version thanks to your previous post.

vincent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: Paris, France

Re: Egypt Saved from Sea People Menace

Post by vincent » Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:12 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
4) The restricted zone is 1 base width, but the ZOI is defined in MUs. Why not use the same definition of ZOI for restricted zone? It just simplifies things (or just go for the 2 MU infantry ZOI for the restricted zone).
Worth considering.
It would give another advantage to cavalry armies which benefit already a lot on the deployement. A 4 MUs ZOI is big. This is more than HF move distance. I'd rather keep with the 1 base width restricted area. Just my 2 cents.
rbodleyscott wrote:
5) Slides seem too generous. And you seem to be able to shift if in a ZOI (but possibly not if in the Restriced Zone).
This is a common comment. We need to revisit this.
We just finished a game with Olivier. Medieval French (St Louis) crushed the Mameluks (12 out of 12 to 6 out of 10).
We had several examples of what both of us felt were abuses of slides:
1) An infantry BG was threatened on the flank: it just kept advancing forward, sliding away from the cavalry to get out of charge reach.
2) The Ghazi made several slides to avoid fighting alone against 2 brigans units.
3) A BG of knights was lucky enough to catch an evading ghulam BG, broke them on impact (double drop CT) pursued and caught a LC behind, broke it on melee (double drop again on CT + a failed CT for friends routing), pursued again and caught another LC in difficult terrain (terrible combination of dices on my part, but had my LC started their change of flank move one turn earlier, they would not have been in that position). Bases alignement meant that 3 KN bases were in the difficult terrain after the melee concluded. The KN then passed a CMT to contrat 2 bases, and slided to get all 3 bases out of the terrain in a single move (about 5MUs while their movement allowance in difficult terrain is only 1MU).

Since sliding is permissible once engaged in melee to get more bases in contact, I would suggest to get completely rid of the mechanism altogether or to allow it only to avoid an obstacle (friends or terrain).

BTW, this is the first time that our game is over in less than 3 hours. I guess we are getting used to it. CT are the most time consuming part with the time needed to check all applicable malus. Please do not take this as a negative remark. I like all the malus and I would not mind a few more negatives in case of badly lost melees (e.g. another -1 if 1 hit per base and/or a melee lost by 5 hits or more)
Best regards


Vincent

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:29 pm

Interesting on the shfits Vincent could you expand on the examples. It is an area we are looking at. It does help a lot getting troops engaged but I can see it helps with the reverse too.

Indeed it sounds as if you are passing the point of having the rules sussed.

Would dropoing to half base through out solve the 3 examples?

Si

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:05 pm

With shifts I have been playing that you can only do a shift if you move a full move (or nearly full move) straight forwards. Some of the recent reports read like people have been shifting combined with wheels and contractions which is I think something that was removed in a more recent rule change after Alan and I noticed some odd effects in an earlier test game.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:44 pm

In the latest version:
SHIFTING
Any move purely from the Advances section of the Simple/Complex move chart (See P.21) can include shifting:
??? up to one base width sideways if all bases move full move distance straight forward.
??? up to half a base width sideways if moving less than full move distance and at least one front corner of the battle group moves at least 1 MU.
??? No shifts are permitted when charging nor with double wheels, expansions, contractions, turns or 2nd moves.

So you can only shift if you move all bases directly forward full.

Si

vincent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: Paris, France

Post by vincent » Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:53 pm

shall wrote:you can only shift if you move all bases directly forward full.
Ooops, we missed that one. It would have applied in case 3 above.
I'll try to recreate the situation and take a photo of situation 1 and 2. Going to the club right now.
Best regards


Vincent

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:02 pm

Makes a big difference in my experience the limit on shifting.

Si

neilhammond
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:51 pm
Location: Peterborough, UK

Re: Egypt Saved from Sea People Menace

Post by neilhammond » Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:58 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
neilhammond wrote:1) Skirmishers seem to be able to outshoot MI bow. 1x6 MI bow (unprotected) in 2 ranks shoots with 4 dice at -ve POA. 1x6 jav Sk shoot with 3 dice at +ve POA.
The MI bow are not on - POA. Shooting POAs don't net out, they are done per target. Thus the bowmen are on 0 POA. The exchange is dead even however if the MF are unprotected.
Okay, but surely you don't expect Sea People to be able to add and subtract?

vincent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: Paris, France

Post by vincent » Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:50 am

Here is a photo of the initial position where a slide after a full move allowed to evade a charge
Image
Please note the small bar next to the unit which is the normal move distance of the unit.

Here is the photo after the move, the bar has been kept in place to mark the initial position
Image

The figures are Romans and Greeks, but the position is the same as the one which occured during the game with Olivier.

The infantry would still have been in charge reach without the slide but, measured from the outer arc, the cavalry is now out of charge.
Note that if the cavalry was allowed to slide, it would still be in charge reach, but I feel that this would be a solution worse than the problem.
Best regards


Vincent

plewis66
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by plewis66 » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:06 pm

shall wrote:In the latest version:
SHIFTING
Any move purely from the Advances section of the Simple/Complex move chart (See P.21) can include shifting:
??? up to one base width sideways if all bases move full move distance straight forward.
??? up to half a base width sideways if moving less than full move distance and at least one front corner of the battle group moves at least 1 MU.
??? No shifts are permitted when charging nor with double wheels, expansions, contractions, turns or 2nd moves.

So you can only shift if you move all bases directly forward full.

Si
Does that follow?

It seems to me that if you are moving less than full distance (eg 3.9MU for 4MU full move), then you can do an Advance with a wheel and shift half a base width.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:57 pm

Shifting is the cheese we spotted last game - it will need to be controlled - and the revised rule is a good bash at it I suspect. You could however still wheel a relatively small (maybe even 1 element in column) unit by 1MU, and shift by half a base, which is relatively significant.

The issues seem to be with shifting to (cheesily) avoid or engineer combat situations - is this worth trying to shoehorn into the rule somehow...?

Shifting does have adisproportionate effect on small, narrow units (who can wheel quite steeply anyway) - does this need including?

And will the new rule have more impact on the 25mm game (with wider elements?)..?
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

neilhammond
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:51 pm
Location: Peterborough, UK

Post by neilhammond » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:03 pm

madaxeman wrote:Shifting is the cheese we spotted last game - it will need to be controlled - and the revised rule is a good bash at it I suspect. You could however still wheel a relatively small (maybe even 1 element in column) unit by 1MU, and shift by half a base, which is relatively significant.
Hi,

What is the thinking behind shifting? Is it to speed up opposite units aligning without having to do a complex set of wheels? If so I suggest you allow shifting to align units - perhaps when within ZOI or to manouver around a friendly unit - but not otherwise.

Neil

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:11 am

The idea is to make is easier to get troops into combat nd to avoid to many fidlly manounvers early in the game - often and full move and shift done over two moves is a very very quick way to resolve micro deployment issues. Otherwise peple have to fiddle around with wheel a lot more for little purpose and using up lots of time. It then needs containing to make sure it cannot be exploited defensively too much. There are a few ways we can do this and we are kicking them around.

In terms of the rule above I was meaning a full slide- You sshift 1/2 base with a short move.

Interesting example from Vincent. They must be very nearly in the restricted area.

More anon - probably after Usk. Agood spot we can fix.

Si

plewis66
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by plewis66 » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:52 pm

I'd have thought that in AoW there'd be less reason to have any shifting at all. The rules allow for unaligned impact phase combat, and for charges contacting at angles, so surely making fine adjustments to get things lined up is much less necessary than in DBM anyway?

Maybe we're just playing wrong, but because of our WHFB background, which makes no restrictions at all on this type of move, we really don't worry at all about being lined up for a charge.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:19 pm

AOW is about half way. So I would certainly find myself wheeling a lot more in early moves without it. It has the same effect but takes much more time and is fiddly by comparison. But you are right it is in the main immune to micro misalignments - its more a touch me and i'll fight you mentality of the game.

We are kicking around some ideas that might get the best of both at present.

Si

vincent
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: Paris, France

Post by vincent » Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:59 am

shall wrote:Interesting example from Vincent. They must be very nearly in the restricted area.
Not really, straight ahead from the cavalry, the distance to the infantry is about 3". It is around 4cm/2" at the nearest gap, but that's not where you measure the restricted area distance.
Best regards


Vincent

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”