Art De La Guerre

[Mark G Fry]

I was very pleased that the v.3 to v.4 changes saw the abolition of the old (DBM/A inspired) 'buttocks of death' maneuver that allowed evading troops to be blocked by the partial blocking of their evade path by an enemy unit behind them.

However, with the advent of LC ZoCs we are now starting to see the advent of another similar tacking, but in reverse.
If you can get a single unit of LC (ideally not impact armed) around the rear of a large body of enemy troops - this works especially well with HF impetuous (or Pike especially) or Knights impetuous, Heavy Chariots or Cataphracts, and place the LC in a way that it can apply its ZoC to two of the enemy units (ideally in the center of the enemy line), it creates absolute havoc with the bigger, heavier formation.

Under the new LC ZoC rules, it is my understanding that this larger body of troops cannot just walk out of the ZoC to their front (& I'd suggest that a large pike phalanx or body of roman legionaries or even more so Impetuous knights wouldn't give a 'fig' about a small body of LC to their rear and would just continue their advance). However, to break the hold of the enemy LC, the player that is ZoC'd has to turn one or both of the ZoC'd units around and attempt to charge-off the offending LC. This means the use of 2 PIPs for impetuous troops (that also lose 2UD movement - so can never catch the LC as it evaded), as well as breaking the main battle-line into at least 2 other blocks that each now require PIPs to command.

Personally, I think this is starting to hugely distort gameplay. Having had it done to me 3 times in 3 separate games in a recent competition (careless I know ) .
The inability of heavier troops to just ignore the LC - which they do at their own peril admittedly - seems far more realistic than to have elements of the bigger, heavier formation have to turn around and attempt to chase off the offending LC.

Now, it could be argued that all this is my own fault for 'allowing' the LC around my flank and into my rear (of my Medium Knights impetuous) - maybe that is true.
But it is (IMHO) starting to distort game play, favoring the mounted horse archer armies, especially in the later era periods.

I think it is a 'pants' rule ... and is historically unrealistic ... hence the 'pants of death' monica for the tactic! But others may have differing views?

[madaxeman]

[Mark G Fry]

You are of course right Tim. All are very good ways to overcome the problem.

Although it is now easier to flank march a Corps of LC & so get behind an armies flank or rear.

I suppose my 'challenge' is more about whether this is a good mechanism. Does it reflect what actually happened on ancient/medieval battlefields.

Is it really that realistic that a small group of LC can, in effect, paralyse a much larger more solid formation in this way?

Should heavier units be able to walk out of a ZoC, if moving away from the LC ZoC'ing them?

[madaxeman]

[Mark G Fry]

Maybe.

But there is also a danger that players start to corner sit or build defensive positions purely to avoid this one tactic.

When faced with an army contains 9 LC bow & having no LC yourself (& a limited option to take any) short of forming 'square' many armies are going to fall hostage to this single 'tricksy' tactic

But we'll see. If you cannot beat 'em , join 'em

[ethan]

If the enemy is simply circling your flank and then ZOCing your infantry from behind, they could do it with anything not just LC (and it will be worse if they do it with cavalry). Remember also that this is a multi-turn maneuver - taking at least three moves to get to this position. Given that ADLG games tend to last 7-9 turns or so (the more or less official minimum being 7) you are looking at a maneuver that took up perhaps 42% of the game. Consider that even a couple of sacrificial units could probably extend the timeline here for another 1-2 turns meaning it took the enemy more than half the game to effect this maneuver.

In other words speed is its own defense here. The trick with the cavalry armies is to get to grips with them and make sure the rest of the army can't get away while you are moving forward. If you adopt a very passive and risk averse approach indeed you will wind up corner sitting or simply waiting for the enemy to dictate the course of the battle - which will generally see you losing.

Deployment and battle planning is crucial when facing a high mobile army with a less mobile army. I often see people deploying so that _both_ of their flanks can get enveloped which is a huge mistake. It can equally be a mistake deploy highly defensibly and have no ability to put any pressure on the enemy - they will zero in on your weakest spot and destroy it.

[Ramses II]

To summarise the replies, in principle you need to "pick the strategy appropriate to your army, and your own character". By that I mean that some people are good at attacking, others better in defence.

Your need to ensure you have a strategy for the army and it's component parts, then pick the appropriate terrain for that strategy etc. You may leave a unit (or group of units) behind to protect a flank or to skirmish away etc. - there are numerous alternatives. However, if your opponent gets behind a flank he is likely to disrupt your strategy - with the effects you describe.

[Hazelbark]

To argue this is not a historical problem would be false.

At Cannae we have the danger of the Carthaginian, Numidian and Spanish cavalry do this exactly.

The idea that 1000 infantry would ignore 250 Cavalry. Or even 2000 infantry is really not the historical record. They would in fact be highly disturbed to have enemy troops flinging javelins at them. Now to what degree, we can debate. At a minimum some troops would turn. This causes problems to the strength of the forward attack.

We have mongols, turks, irish horse a whole panoply of stories that people do not like the enemy getting to their rear.

Now historically this was also the role of the light troops in the Graeco-Roman world. These would attempt to prevent these interventions. Your LI Javelin could surely stand and halt the single LH for a turn or more. Yes it may die, but it may triumph. Similarly, a LI that was in front of the line could return and come back and block the ZOC allow the phalanx to advance and also likely ZOC the LH further limiting the LH intervention.

There is ample evidence throughout the period of heavy foot armies wanting some mounted component to shield their own flank and rear from precisely the sort of intervention you find troublesome.

I have seen many players minimize the lesser mounted and light troops to invest in more heavy forward projecting power. The pure offense if you will. But the military written works we have talk about needing support troops.

In short pretty historical.

In game terms the V3 to V4 decision was to upgrade the value of Light horse to some degree. They are not proving battle winners in v4 so the upgrade does nto appear to be excessive.

[Mark G Fry]

I hear & acknowledge all the points made.
But I still feel it is changing the way the game is played significantly (in my opinion).

It is easy to offer solutions that mitigate the tactical problem - assuming that your army has the troop types available to deal with that single LC.
Also to state that any troop type can also cause the same outcome (other than LC) is also not true, as no other troop type moves as fast or as flexibly as LC and many do not have the capability to evade.

The example of Cannae is not really moot, as the Carthaginian horse did not paralyze the Roman infantry - they had been enveloped by enemy infantry & the Carthaginian horse just cut off their escape, it did not stop them advancing.

We also see historical examples where units of LC are ignored completely by heavier formations - such as the Crusader/Hospitaller Knights at Arsuf.
But is exactly that situation - Ayyubid bow & javelin armed LC in the Hospitallers rear - that in ADLG would stop the Hospitallers from advancing - even if they were subject to an obligatory charge to their front.

I accept that this is the way the rules have been written, and will play the game accordingly - but I hope that I am proven wrong and that over time, we dont start to see this table-top tactic proliferate and become as widely misused as the old DBM ' buttocks of death' mechanism.

Many thanks
Mark

[Hazelbark]

Cannae in fact it was the cavalry that enveloped according to the albeit it limited sources.

Arsuf my recollection is the moslems were not behind the crusaders but to the front.

Nicopolis the Akinzi came up and harassed the Fernch/Burgundian knights and they charged and drove off the LH. Then charged further into the janissary position.

It is very, very hard to say this was the historical position of this kind of unit. So there is a limit of arguing history and game as the assumptions become massive,

[KevinD]

Mark, I think the problem is actually that initial forward attacks are too effective in ADLG (and other ancients rules). Historically, more sophisticated armies often where possible deployed in multiple lines such that successive lines could cover that flanks and rear if the forward lines, as well as fill in gaps opened up during combat. An ADLG army with a rear line would not really fear a few LH behind them as the rear line could deal with them.

(Shield wall armies, whether Hoplites or Dark Age AngloSaxons tended not to deploy in multiple lines, but well articulated armies like Roman’s or Byzantines did.)

The problem is that wide thin formations rather than those deployed in shorter multiple lines have an immense advantage in ADLG (and indeed most other ancients rules too). They are easy enough to maneuver, easier than multiple lines with proper spacing between lines in fact whereas historically larger armies deployed in long lines would prove problematic to control. Sure you are limited to groups 6 wide, but with 3 generals this is 18 fighting units wide, more than most ADLG armies on the table possess. Further you can maneuver a line twice as wide just as easily as a shorter double line (again, with proper gaps between lines). In addition a shorter front line will be very vulnerable given the melee support it will give up on either end (and the risk it will be enveloped and flanked - though hopefully the 2nd line could react to this in time). Finally since armies are defeated when the half their units rout, engaging only half your units initially against the full weight of the enemy is a recipe for defeat in detail as the deeper army will already be on the verge of defeat when its first line is beaten and the second moves forward to assist.

(There are good game reasons for this, a battle like Zama with multiple lines engaging successively would take ages to play out on the table and the range of civilizations capable (both with the necessary manpower and military sophistication) of fielding highly articulated armies that can take advantage of a multi-line formation would drastically reduce the number of viable armies.)

[Mark G Fry]

[Ballista]

What's to stop you from initially advancing and taking the cohesion hit for non skirmishers exiting a ZOC ? and then dealing with the problem, such as it may be?

[Mark G Fry]

[Hazelbark]