Give me your thoughts on this rules mechanic....

[Charlie_]

I'm musing over a rules mechanic for my homebrew rules.

They are for late medieval battles (small or large, with formed bodies of troops), but the period could just as easily be anything from ancients up to the the modern period for the purpose of this topic.

What I'm musing over is the rate of movement of infantry.

Infantry move 12", cavalry move 24". The typical game will see them start about 36" apart. So infantry could reach a non-moving target in three turns, whilst cavalry can reach the enemy very quickly (in turn one even if two opposing cavalry units move towards each other straight away). I like this.

The situation which I haven't liked in playtesting though, is when infantry are attacking a non-moving enemy who have taken up a defensive position, and for some reason don't start moving at full pace straight away. This could be for many reasons, including:
- wanting to see how actions like cavalry showdowns on the flanks or archery exchanges pan out first before committing to move.
- turning up to the battle as reserves or late arrivals.
- being slowed by terrain etc.
- general indecisiveness of the player.
And it's very likely and reasonable that all of these things happen together! Which means by the time the infantry begin their advance towards the enemy, it is late in the game and we've got to go through AT LEAST three turns before they finally make contact. Very tedious.

I don't like this. I want there to be a way that once the player has decided to make his infantry attack, we can just get on with it straight away! If it's late in the game, it should happen quickly with no delay.


The solution seems to be to give infantry the option for an increased move, with the risk of disorder for doing so (a simple 2D6 test, passed on 7+. Failure means they move but become disordered)
Restrictions being - only on open ground, if they haven't pivoted more than 45 degrees, and they cannot shoot in the same turn. A straight ahead advance.
It's only needed for infantry - cavalry simply don't need it with their 24" move.

Here are the two options I'm considering:

1  - Infantry moving forward can add an extra 6" to their move (18" total). Take a test, if failed they become disordered as they move (which simply makes them less effective in combat).

2 - Infantry can increase their move - take a test for disorder. The number rolled is also the number of extra inches they move.

The first option is simpler, cleaner and predictable. The second option is more random and has the potential for them to move a full 24" in one turn! If that happens they can be seen to have really taken the enemy by surprise with their sudden advance, and will probably suffer from less rounds of shooting before they make contact as a bonus.




My questions to you are:
- How do either of these mechanics sound to you, for an ancients/medieval battle game?
- Does infantry moving 18" in one move seem a lot? Does the potential for them to move up to 24" in one turn sound crazy??
- Should I also give cavalry the option to do this, just to keep the ruleset neat and tidy? They probably won't need to risk disorder to do so, but the option could be there for them to move up to 36" in a turn....
- Do you have any other ideas about getting infantry moving quickly in the late-game situation I described?

Any thoughts are welcome!

[fred]

Sounds fine - either option would work, option 2 sounds a bit more fun and chaotic - it really depends on the risk / reward for the players.

Midgard does something similar with allowing a second move on a command test.
Hail Caesar / Black Powder allow up to triple moves on a low roll on a command test.
Warmaster variants allow multiple moves on passing successive command tests

So possible big moves are a thing in plenty of games.

If you don't offer this to cavalry need, to have a fairly good justification - you may want to drop base cavalry move to 18" just to keep them on the table!

[has.been]

There are several sets of rules that allow 'extra' movement as long as it is more than a certain distance from the enemy.
This lets you move reserve up, swap cavalry from one wing to the other, & similar things.

[Elbows]

18-24" movement for infantry seems exceptionally fast...unless maneuvering is not really part of the game (which I think is...a key component of most games).  What use do missile troops have if combat is possible turn one?  How can they escape or impact the game in any meaningful fashion if everything on the table can reach them on turn one or two?

I'd probably look at why your turns take so long.  Three turns can be an entire 3-hours game (in a Warhammer style game), or could be 10-12 minutes in other games.  Why are your turns taking ages if everyone moves so fast?  How long does it take you to get to turn three?

[Moriarty]

Or you could give cavalry an 18? movement (a more reasonable pace for mounted troops imo) and set up the armies closer together?

[Charlie_]

Thank you for your thoughts.

Midgard does something similar with allowing a second move on a command test.
Hail Caesar / Black Powder allow up to triple moves on a low roll on a command test.
Warmaster variants allow multiple moves on passing successive command tests

So in Midgard, what is the base move distance? And how far apart do the armies start from eachother?
If the move is 6" for example, which can be doubled to 12" with a command test, and the armies start 24" apart... then if they both move towards eachother full pace on turn one (and pass those tests), they can make contact straight away?

I'm familiar with Hail Caesar, and how infantry can move 18" on a good command roll. Again, surely that means if both sides move towards eachother and roll high, they can make contact on turn one. I don't know what the recommended starting distance is for Hail Caesar though?

18-24" movement for infantry seems exceptionally fast...unless maneuvering is not really part of the game (which I think is...a key component of most games).  What use do missile troops have if combat is possible turn one?  How can they escape or impact the game in any meaningful fashion if everything on the table can reach them on turn one or two?

I'd probably look at why your turns take so long.  Three turns can be an entire 3-hours game (in a Warhammer style game), or could be 10-12 minutes in other games.  Why are your turns taking ages if everyone moves so fast?  How long does it take you to get to turn three?

The turns don't take an hour each, no!
The turns don't take ages, and getting to turn three isn't so much the issue... it's more that if the infantry advance doesn't start til turn 6 for some reason, you might find you the have to wait til turn 9 before the decisive clash happens.

In regard to the possibility of contact / melee on turn 1.... I don't think this has to be an issue. If both sides consist of just heavy infantry facing eachother on an open plain, and both of them want to get into melee straight away, and there's no skirmishers, cavalry or missile troops... then yes this could mean contact on turn 1. It would be a rather boring game, but that would be because of the army composition, empty battlefield and scenario. In that sort of scenario, what can you really expect to do except move your battlelines into contact and roll some dice to see who wins? I don't plan to be playing any games like that.

If one side is stationary and the other advancing to contact, the defenders will always get at least two turns of shooting before contact (if charged and they haven't acted yet that turn, they get to 'stand and shoot').

The attackers also might not want to risk disorder and prefer to go at a more steady pace, and might want to get a bit of shooting in themselves first.

One side might want to risk the disorder to get somewhere quickly - rush to the ford and form up to defend it before the enemy  reaches and tries to cross it, for example.

Or you could give cavalry an 18? movement (a more reasonable pace for mounted troops imo) and set up the armies closer together?

I don't want to set the armies up any closer as I feel it looks a bit off. I find 36" is the best compromise (this is with 28mm figures on a 4ft deep table).

[Battle Brush Sigur]

Wouldn't something like the Impetus system or the system from the Twilight of [XY] rules family work?

First move is free, subsequent moves have you test (easier for more nimble formations like say unformed archers, harder for unwieldier units, such as large, formed pike blocks). As long as you pass the test, you may keep on moving, if you fail, your unit stops. You can either tie that to a "turn over, other player gets to move something" or not and just tie it to a "this command/battle/wing/etc. can't activate any more this turn". Allow for group moves that way to keep armies somewhat coherent.

You can choose if you want to increase the difficulty on these tests for moves after the second or not. This gives players a choice of going all-in right away, have their flanking cavalry/skirmishers advance first, etc. and you don't have to implement very fast movement rates, since units will have multiple moves each turn (if the player elects to do so). The Twilight of XY rules have the additional elegant ruling that units may only use their first move of each turn to get into a fight. This way you don't even really need disorder and such.

[bluewillow]

Both Impetus and Midgaurd have multiple moves per turn as long as you pass a disorder test (impetus up to three turns) all based on command and control quality  and drill.

You move distances are huge though IMHO

[Easy E]

If you want a maneuver phase to your game, you will need tables the size of the Naval War College prior to WWII.

[Freddy]

To be honest, I like Black Powder system better (note that you do not "win them an extra move" with a successful command order. You give them a target objective to reach and with a command roll you see whether they are able to reach it or are caught halfways by the enemy turn. Small, but important difference.). In general, badly led/overly pushed troops are not "fast but disoriented", they are simply slow. See Union march to First Bull Run for example.

Your concept would work in either an army group level battle: where it represents troops thrown into battle hastily without support and being able to scout the enemy (common in ww2 Soviet offensives), or at a very small scale where it represents an individual, or small group of individuals where limitations of body functions (not being able to look around while running) weigh more than group mechanics of larger groups.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

A lot depends on how many decision points do you want the static defending player to have, regarding starting withdrawals, standing to receive, initiating counter charges, or the committing of reserves from else where.  Most games give players far, far too much control over the timing of such events with multiple opportunities and pinpoint positioning, with instant response without delay.  Historical commanders rarely have such command and control.  Usually they only have just one effective opportunity to order one of the options above before units are committed and no longer under positive control.  The opposing sides OODA loops are something you strive to get inside of.

[Codsticker]

I think I agree with Freddy on this.

What about a simple D6 test for a second move:
1= 1" move, Unit is Disordered
2= 2" move
3= 3" move
etc

For Veteran or Trained troops you could either add 1 to the die result or eliminate the Disordered effect on a roll of 1. For Raw troops subtract 1 from the die roll and/or they are disordered on a result of a 2. Double the result for Cavalry.

[Bolingar]

One thing to consider is the fact that armies historically could deploy far closer together relative to their width than armies usually do on a wargaming table. When deploying, armies generally did not need to be much further away from each other than bowshot range (about 200 yards) and deployment distances ranged between a few hundred yards and a kilometer, sometimes more. Armies could be several kilometres wide, so quite a significant depth to width ratio.

If one army was approaching another already deployed for battle then one could say the battle commences when the advancing army has completed its deployment and is now just heading for the enemy. If two armies deploy from nearby camps then difficult to say when the battle actually commences (and how far apart the troops should be placed on the gaming table). If infantry take too long to advance to combat, perhaps just deploy the armies closer together.

My impression is that a typical game with, say 30 stands per side, should not take longer than about 10 turns to complete, and mounted engagements should be resolved far more quickly than infantry ones.

[Hoagie]

Just to add another variant of double movement rules for consideration, G? P?(early 18th century rules) has units can be given repeated march orders(restricted by the amount of orders the commander can give and successful unit quality test) as long as the unit is a certain distance away from an enemy unit.

[Atheling]

Or you could give cavalry an 18? movement (a more reasonable pace for mounted troops imo) and set up the armies closer together?

I agree, 18" potential cavalry move is much more in keeping with convention. Actually 12" for cavalry is more conventional.

Several things come into play here IMHO, but for me the main question would be:

How big a table/surface are you playing on? Would you wish to downscale the rules to play on a smaller table? If so 18" even for Cavalry is a heck of a distance and will definitely limit tactical options; yep, we are talking about the Late Middle Ages where tactical options were to some degree limited but you do want [players to feel like they're in the game.