Ambushes?

[Yaitz331]

How will ambushes be modeled in FoG:E? They were quite frequent in the time period.

[devoncop]

How will ambushes be modeled in FoG:E? They were quite frequent in the time period.

Hi Yaitz.

This question worries me ....what are you planning ?

One of the traits that your generals can have is the "Ambusher" trait.I

This gives +1 on the die roll on attacks in forested regions to attacking troops and -1 on defence of I remember correctly.

[Yaitz331]

How will ambushes be modeled in FoG:E? They were quite frequent in the time period.

Hi Yaitz.

This question worries me ....what are you planning ?

MWAH HAH HAH HAH!

One of the traits that your generals can have is the "Ambusher" trait.I

This gives +1on the did roll on attacks in forested regions to attacking troops and -1 on defence of I remember correctly.

Only forested? What about mountain ambushes? Shouldn't hills and mountains also be ambush territory?

[devoncop]

That question is one only the developers can answer.

I suppose if you think of Buchenwald Forest type ambushes of the Romans there are historically verified examples. Do you know of any army level ambushes in hills and mountains in this era ? I can't think of any off hand....

[Yaitz331]

That question is one only the developers can answer.

I suppose if you think of Buchenwald Forest type ambushes of the Romans there are historically verified examples. Do you know of any army level ambushes in hills and mountains in this era ? I can't think of any off hand....

Emmaus, Lake Trasimene (biggest ambush in history), Gadara, the Persian Gate (technically before start date), two during Hannibal's crossing of the Alps (don't know the names), sort of Cyzicus (all just off the top of my head). Honestly, I think there were more hill/mountain ambushes then forest ambushes.

There was also Ruspina (ambush in desert).

[devoncop]

That question is one only the developers can answer.

I suppose if you think of Buchenwald Forest type ambushes of the Romans there are historically verified examples. Do you know of any army level ambushes in hills and mountains in this era ? I can't think of any off hand....

Emmaus, Lake Trasimene (biggest ambush in history), Gadara, the Persian Gate (technically before start date), two during Hannibal's crossing of the Alps (don't know the names), sort of Cyzicus (all just off the top of my head). Honestly, I think there were more hill/mountain ambushes then forest ambushes.

There was also Ruspina (ambush in desert).

Of the ones you cite directly :

I would argue Ruspina was an error in deployment by Caesar (or rather excellent tactics by his opponent) rather than an ambush. Caesar had ample time to draw up his forces as he saw fit so not what I would term an ambush.

Emmaus saw the Judeans outmanouver the Seleucids strategically and then overrun their fortified army camp whilst the main Seleucid army was out fruitlessly searching for the Judeans........ so again I would not describe that as an ambush in a conventional sense.

As for Trasimene where it it took place was "a series of heavily forested hills where the Malpasso Road passed along the north side of Lake Trasimene" so the terrain could quite legitimately be described as forested as well as hilly. The account describes "The Roman advance guard saw little combat and, once the disaster to their rear became obvious, fought their way through the skirmishers and out of the forest".

As I should have guessed Gadara is one you are 100% correct on given it is your neck of the woods , apparently being conducted in the steep hills overlooking the Yarmouk River.

To be fair I don't disagree with your general point that maybe there is a justification for also applying the bonus to hills and mountains ....I was just being a pendant

[loki100]

How will ambushes be modeled in FoG:E? They were quite frequent in the time period.

Worth remembering the game scale. A battle takes place in a region, these vary but lets say they are 50km*50km. So a battle is probably best seen as a mini campaign leading up to a major clash. So is it really best modelled as anything more compicated than a straight up fight? There is a lot of influence from having the right units in the right terrain and having better leadership - or simply a better balanced army - which could reflect a range of tactical advantages to one side or the other?

[Yaitz331]

That question is one only the developers can answer.

I suppose if you think of Buchenwald Forest type ambushes of the Romans there are historically verified examples. Do you know of any army level ambushes in hills and mountains in this era ? I can't think of any off hand....

Emmaus, Lake Trasimene (biggest ambush in history), Gadara, the Persian Gate (technically before start date), two during Hannibal's crossing of the Alps (don't know the names), sort of Cyzicus (all just off the top of my head). Honestly, I think there were more hill/mountain ambushes then forest ambushes.

There was also Ruspina (ambush in desert).

Of the ones you cite directly :

I would argue Ruspina was an error in deployment by Caesar (or rather excellent tactics by his opponent) rather than an ambush. Caesar had ample time to draw up his forces as he saw fit so not what I would term an ambush.

OK, fair enough. Difference of opinion, really.

Emmaus saw the Judeans outmanouver the Seleucids strategically and then overrun their fortified army camp whilst the main Seleucid army was out fruitlessly searching for the Judeans........ so again I would not describe that as an ambush in a conventional sense.

Well, given that the attack on the main camp was descending from hilly heights, catching the Seleucid army completely off guard, I'd say that the main encounter was indeed an ambush.

As for Trasimene where it it took place was "a series of heavily forested hills where the Malpasso Road passed along the north side of Lake Trasimene" so the terrain could quite legitimately be described as forested as well as hilly. The account describes "The Roman advance guard saw little combat and, once the disaster to their rear became obvious, fought their way through the skirmishers and out of the forest".

Eh, I guess.

As I should have guessed Gadara is one you are 100% correct on given it is your neck of the woods , apparently being conducted in the steep hills overlooking the Yarmouk River.

To be fair I don't disagree with your general point that maybe there is a justification for also applying the bonus to hills and mountains ....I was just being a pendant

You were being a small necklace?

The Persian Gate still works as a perfect example of a mountain ambush.

How will ambushes be modeled in FoG:E? They were quite frequent in the time period.

Worth remembering the game scale. A battle takes place in a region, these vary but lets say they are 50km*50km. So a battle is probably best seen as a mini campaign leading up to a major clash. So is it really best modelled as anything more complicated than a straight up fight? There is a lot of influence from having the right units in the right terrain and having better leadership - or simply a better balanced army - which could reflect a range of tactical advantages to one side or the other?

Yes, I know. I asked "How will ambushes be MODELED?" That is, how will they be abstractly represented. I'm not expecting ambushes in the game being a different kind of battle, I'm expecting some kind of abstract modeling of ambushes.

[devoncop]

To be fair I don't disagree with your general point that maybe there is a justification for also applying the bonus to hills and mountains ....I was just being a pendant

You were being a small necklace?

Pedant !!

[loki100]

...
Yes, I know. I asked "How will ambushes be MODELED?" That is, how will they be abstractly represented. I'm not expecting ambushes in the game being a different kind of battle, I'm expecting some kind of abstract modeling of ambushes.

best answer is not directly, but that sort of advantage flows from being the side with the right troops or the best commanders, so that sort of gaining the local initiative is captured in those mechanics. At this scale, I wouldn't expect to see specialised forms of battle tactics, such as feigned withdrawals, hidden reserves and all the other tricks used by the better generals in the era?

[Yaitz331]

OK, the manual explains it.
"Ambusher" is for forests, "Guerilla Warrior" is for hills and mountains.

[devoncop]

OK, the manual explains it.
"Ambusher" is for forests, "Guerilla Warrior" is for hills and mountains.

Let's hope the zealots end up led by a series of cowards and spendthrifts then

[Yaitz331]

OK, the manual explains it.
"Ambusher" is for forests, "Guerilla Warrior" is for hills and mountains.

Let's hope the zealots end up led by a series of cowards and spendthrifts then

You realize that it'll be better for you to have a semi-strong Judea as a buffer state between you and Antigonus, right?

[devoncop]

OK, the manual explains it.
"Ambusher" is for forests, "Guerilla Warrior" is for hills and mountains.

Let's hope the zealots end up led by a series of cowards and spendthrifts then

You realize that it'll be better for you to have a semi-strong Judea as a buffer state between you and Antigonus, right?

I jest Yaitz !

I was just pre-empting Murphy's Law that states the opposite of a desired outcome in any random event is that most likely to occur

You are correct that Egypt is indeed a big believer in self determination for subjugated nations